PRESIDENT'S LETTER

by Paul Raeburn

Paul Raeburn

For those of you who follow the nasw-talk listserv, it was an interesting summer. During the usually quiet month of August, a vigorous online discussion on journalism ethics arose. The discussion was prompted by an ad seeking a writer who would be paid to write several articles and "place" them in prominent magazines. Here is the note that I posted on Aug. 28 in response to the discussion:

Folks:

The board, the officers, and the members who participate in the listservs have had plenty to say about the NASW ad that sought to pay writers to place articles in media outlets. The discussion has centered around two points: Is that kind of work ethical? And should we run ads looking for writers to do it?

I've read the discussions, and it's been difficult to find a clear consensus. I've considered the many points of view, however, and here's what I think:

Our obligation, whether we're in journalism or public relations, is to be honest with our readers. I'm not making an ethical or moral argument here, but a practical one: Readers who don't trust what we write won't be inclined to read it. That goes for stories in the mainstream media and in trade journals, and it applies to press releases, too.

NASW is in the business of encouraging good journalism, not because anybody says we should, but because we take pride in doing good work and because we want our work to be read and believed. Financial arrangements that conceal a writer's incentives from readers raise questions about whether the stories are trustworthy, and we should not encourage that.

When Bob Finn, our Webmaster, sees an ad that he thinks is dubious, he generally asks the people placing the ad for clarification, and in most cases the ads are withdrawn. The ad that spawned the current discussions slipped through while Bob was away on vacation. I'm asking Bob to continue to use his judgment about whether or not to accept ads.

Paul

That note, in turn, sparked two new threads. Some questioned whether this was official NASW policy, or simply my opinion. And others expressed concern about what might have been said on the NASW board's online discussion list.

So here are my further responses: The NASW board is not a legislative body. We usually reach consensus on issues, and when we fail to reach consensus, we usually will take a vote and go with the majority. (I say "usually" because I'm sure there are exceptions to everything I'm saying here.) The board's opinions about the ad ranged as widely as the members' opinions expressed on nasw-talk. But there was a lot of concern among board members, so I felt comfortable expressing that concern. The rationale for opposing such practices was my own-but the conclusion was shared.

And, yes, although I did not make it clear in my posting, I did intend to say that Bob Finn has the backing of the board, and we do want him, officially, to use his judgment in deciding which ads to accept. NASW has an obligation to uphold high standards in journalism because it is our interest to do so. As I said in my posting, if we do good work, people will listen. If we don't, people will dismiss us, and it will be our fault.

During the unusually quiet month of August, a vigorous online discussion on journalism ethics arose.

A closing note: We have lived through a tragedy unlike anything we had experienced before. As far as I know, our members in New York and Washington are all safe. I know that many of you, no matter how far you are from the World Trade Center or the Pentagon, were as disturbed and frightened by the attacks of September 11 as those of us who live nearby. I think I'm speaking for most of the New York and Washington members when I say: Thanks for checking on us; we're grateful for your notes of encouragement and support. I hope that those of you who were called to cover the tragedy felt, as I did, that it was work worth doing.

#

Paul Raeburn is a senior writer at Business Week. He can be reached at praeburn@nasw.org.