ethics


editor agreed to run the story “because voters had a right to know if a candidate had a criminal record, even if it was for a misdemeanour”. However, executive editor David Hall overruled Salisbury


and ordered him to name Cohen. The real news story, in the editor’s eyes, was a “sleazy” attempt to discredit the Democratic ticket. The promise of anonymity should not have been given without the editor’s consent. A similar process was happening at the rival newspaper, the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Its reporter Lori Sturdevant had given a similar promise, which was also revoked. She removed her byline from the finished article in protest. Both editors later stated that they had acted independently, although the Star Tribune did know the Pioneer Press had decided to name Cohen before the Minneapolis paper followed suit. It’s important to note that neither paper had to name


Cohen. At the Pioneer Press, David Hall claimed this was necessary to clear the air. The Democrats were condemning a last-minute Republican smear campaign that had not appeared yet and which the Republicans were still denying. Naming Cohen would, in Hall’s eyes, put the matter beyond doubt. However, the local branch of the reporters’ union disagreed. The Twin Cities Newspaper Guild advised journalists not to disclose the name of a source to editors unless the source gave prior approval. They also advised that, rather than naming a source, the story should have been killed. When he was named, Cohen was fired by the Republican campaign and he sued the Pioneer Press for breach of contract law. He eventually won his case on a technicality and was awarded $200,000.


However, courts rule only on the law, which itself allows


only two pigeonholes: guilty or innocent. Ethics often pose problems that cannot be slotted into either of these. The staff at each of these newspapers could have dealt with the Cohen case in a myriad of ways while remaining consistent with codes like the NUJ’s. Also, while Cohen’s actions may not have been honourable, he did not lie. The issues raised by Judge Charleton are more serious and may be even more complex. They may involve naked or unwitting deceit. We can probably all agree that dishonest sources who want to use journalists to spread lies do not deserve protection. Unmasking them may be a breach of promise by the reporter. However, if that reporter has been lied to, an even more serious promise has already been broken. A reporter who considers exposing a dishonest source also needs to bear in mind the question: will unmasking a liar deter or demoralise genuine informants of the future? If that judgment is difficult, how much more so would it be if a thoroughly well-meaning source is thought to have told a reporter something that proves to be entirely untrue? Any blame game here might well sound hypocritical. Balancing so many variables as these is a task that defies


the crude categories of the law. It needs to be left in the only appropriate place: the conscience of the individual reporter. The law will inevitably run its course and journalists will bear the consequences as they always have done. But there are cavities no law will ever reach, however raging its torrent.


Ronan Brady is a lecturer in journalism at Griffith College, Dublin


Garda media inquiry


A judicial tribunal in Dublin is inquiring into whether Ireland’s police chiefs maligned a police whistleblower. They are accused of briefing against him to prevent embarrassing revelations. Many Irish reporters fear


this search may impinge upon journalistic confidentiality, but that will depend on the truthfulness of senior officers. The Disclosures Tribunal under Judge Peter Charleton


was established on February 17 this year, but has yet to hear evidence in public. Its first task will be to


ascertain whether Garda top brass circulated malicious smears against Sgt Maurice McCabe, who exposed serious wrongdoing by senior officers. The police service, An


Garda Síochána (Guardian of the Peace in Irish) has been dogged by scandal. Another tribunal concluded in 2008


that the fabrication of evidence was widespread. In March, Garda chiefs admitted that, of the two million alcohol breath tests reported between 2012 and 2016, one million never happened. Drivers were prosecuted on bogus evidence. An Garda Síochána was


exempted from the 1997 Irish Freedom of Information Act, despite intensive lobbying by the NUJ. This


has recently been


repaired, but the lack of scrutiny for 20


years probably contributed


to a sense of impunity within the force. The allegations before


Judge Charleton are truly shocking. Sgt McCabe was falsely accused of child sexual abuse. The inquiry will attempt to


find out what top Gardaí told the media about him. If it’s proven that they connived at this lie, a clearout of the entire senior command will


theJournalist | 15


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28