|
|
| Volume 49, Number 1, Spring 2000 |
by Bob Finn
Recent discussions in nasw-talk and nasw-freelance demonstrate that ethical dilemmas in journalism can certainly have real-life consequences.
An all-out flame war erupted in nasw-talk last month, and while the topic was juicy and the discussion illuminating, I'm unsure whether we ended up with an excess of light over heat.
It started on March 20 when Joel Shurkin reported a breaking story from Baltimore, the town where he lives. It seems that a gunman named Joseph Palczynski was holed up in an apartment with three hostages. The authorities surrounded the house, but for several days Palczynski refused to surrender. Moreover, he was watching television, and he objected to some of the coverage. The police negotiators transmitted this information to Baltimore television stations, who apparently acceded to police suggestions to alter their coverage. Joel posted the question, "OK, you are the news director of WBULL. What do you do?"
At first the discussion was impassioned but civil, with Joel (among others) arguing that journalists have the responsibility to report what happens and let the chips fall where they may. They certainly shouldn't let murderers or the police have any say about their coverage. On the other side, Doug Levy (among others) argued that, "Journalists have to 1) use common sense and 2) consider civic duty and public good when making decisions."
And then with one statement Joel fanned the spark into a flame. He wrote, "[We science writers] spend most of our time covering a very small--if surely important--aspect of life. We can do it mostly without getting our hands dirty, and do not often have to take principled stands that risk our careers or our bodies. Maybe that is why so many on the list were ready to abandon professional standards to feel good."
Many people objected to the suggestion that they were unprincipled and had abandoned professional standards and were particularly offended by Joel's implication that they had intellectual limitations that rendered them incapable of understanding his argument. Others excoriated Joel for not mentioning a crucial piece of information: that the television stations not only altered their coverage at the request of the police but failed to inform their viewers of that fact. And Randi Rossman objected to Joel's style of argument, writing, "Joel, you sound to me like a fundamentalist preacher. Anything said will be twisted around to fit your perspective, anything that falls outside of your perspective will be judged heresy. I don't know how to have a conversation like this."
At that point the discussion deteriorated into unproductive
accusations and offensive name calling. To avoid flame wars in
the future (without precluding impassioned discussion and even
argument), I'd like to suggest that participants follow a few
simple guidelines: Attack (if you must) a person's ideas and not
the person himself. Don't suggest that your opponent is stupid
or venal. And don't take the bait if someone suggests that you
are stupid or venal.
To follow this discussion in the nasw-talk archives at nasw.org/lists/,
look for the subject headers "When murderers run news coverage,"
"When murderers . . .," "Last of . . .," and
"Another dullard responds."
Nasw-freelance is frequently the site of highly practical dollars-and-cents discussions. On March 17, Jeff Hecht initiated a discussion that showed how ethical conflicts can have direct financial and legal consequences. He wrote, "I get insider information every week (the Nature and Science press releases). Aren't the roles of reporter and stock analyst fundamentally in conflict, especially when it comes to insider information? And, aren't there also issues of possible bias and manipulation raised when reporters invest in companies they cover?"
Lara Pullen asked whether there were any actual rules or laws regarding the ethics of trading in companies that one covers.
Several people suggested that investing only in mutual funds and not in individual companies is one way around the ethical dilemma. Karla Harby goes even further-she doesn't even invest in mutual funds when they have substantial holdings in industries that she covers.
Then there was the question of whether one can legally and ethically trade in a company's stock immediately after attending a press conference about their products. Some discussants opined that a press conference is by definition public, so no insider information is involved. Others pointed out that simply knowing that other news organizations are planning stories about the press conference could itself be considered inside knowledge, since those stories are likely to affect stock prices the next day. This suggestion was scoffed at, but the fact is (to my knowledge) no nasw-talk subscribers are securities lawyers who can provide definitive legal advice.
This talk of insider trading reminds me of the cold-fusion flap, which happened while I was working in the PR office at Caltech. Nate Lewis, an electrochemist on the faculty, was fascinated (and skeptical) and I helped him gather experimental details in the early days when the best source of information on cold fusion was the AP news wire. He later was among the scientists who conducted careful studies showing that they could detect no excess heat in those electrochemical cells.
A critical component (supposedly) of those cells was an electrode made of the metal palladium, a substance that is traded on the commodity exchange. During the initial excitement over cold fusion the price of palladium soared, but after cold fusion had been debunked the price took a dive. While I was having lunch with Nate at Caltech's Atheneum several months later he demonstrated on the back of a napkin that someone willing to engage in insider trading could easily have turned $10,000 into $10 million. First you'd have bought palladium futures just before the original news hit, cashing out just before the debunking started, and then you'd have used the profits to sell palladium short, betting that the price would go down. While I don't have any information that anyone actually engaged in this practice--at least no one was convicted--this shows that the type of information to which we science writers are occasionally privy can indeed involve real money.
To follow the nasw-freelance discussion, look for the headers "Re: genes" and "Business/science (was genes)."
Bob Finn moderates the Web site and e-mail lists of the
National Association of Science Writers http://www.nasw.org.
His e-mail address is cybrarian@nasw.org.