Daily Times Ethic Principles Report Card

The Guiding Principles of the Daily Times, or What's Wrong with this Picture?

Folks, here are the Principles of Ethical Conduct as published by the Gannett Corporation, to be guidelines for each of its newspapers. They are taken from the Daily Times website (www.delmarvanow.com), listed under Reader Services.

Let's have a look at each of the Priciples listed, and compare what we might think as an acceptable level of compliance of each of them against what we see and have seen in the Daily Times. To give an idea of the Times' compliance, we'll assign a letter grade to each:

A = completely or usually compliant with intent of principle;

B = often compliant with intent of principle;

C = sometimes compliant with intent of principle;

D = rarely compliant with intent of principle;

F = never compliant with intent of principle.

Principles of ethical conduct
As a Gannett newspaper, The Daily Times is a leader in the company's bold initiative to build credibility with readers. At a time when the news media are under greater scrutiny than ever, the Gannett Newspaper Division has adopted Principles of Ethical Conduct for Newsrooms that commit each Gannett journalist to the industry's highest professional standards. That commitment also is being shared with the public. Here are details about the principles and how they should be practiced.

A fine opening statement. The comment of the news media being under greater scrutiny is probably true, but to what end? The processes involved with calling the media to the carpet, save through the courts, is very often controlled by the media. That the Gannet Newspaper Division has adopted and publishes this code of conduct is laudable, but evidences that it enforces the behavior in its publications is lacking. The final sentence of the preamble speaks of the principles and how they "should" be practiced, not how Gannett will ensure that they will be practiced.

WE ARE COMMITTED TO:
• Seeking and reporting the truth in a truthful way

What does this mean, exactly? The wording is confusing. Would someone seek or report the truth in an untruthful way? If it means what we think it does, we have to say that the Daily Times, in stories that require some depth of investigation (which are few and far between), reports the truth sometimes, but not all of the time. We've seen some important Times stories that actually rival cheap fiction.

Grade: C-

• Serving the public interest

Is it in the public interest to consistently publish news which is wholly truthful and completely unbiased? Are these the benchmarks of a newspaper's serving the public interest? We think so. The Daily Times seems to confuse serving the public interest in a manner befitting an unchallenged area newspaper with manipulating the news.to fit its agenda, an agenda that most of us haven't yet figured out. This, in our opinion, does not serve the public interest; in fact, it is counter to it.

Grade: D-

• Exercising fair play

In our estimation, exercising fair play is something we learned in grade school: everyone deserves to be heard; deserves not to be chastised for an idea or opinion, and that everyone deserves an equal chance. The Daily Times falls short in creating and maintaining an environment where fair play is a part of the game. One side too often gets a seven hundred word opportunity to speak on some topic, while those with other (not necessarily opposing) views are restricted to two hundred words. In many cases, those with other views don't get the opportunity at all; their letters and comments are never published, or published so late as to render them moot.

Grade, based on gross examples: F

• Maintaining independence

We assume that maintaining independence refers to the paper's keeping itself as an independent entity, not as a mouthpiece for any group or individual, save the editors of the paper. We feel that the Daily Times falls short in this principle, as it has again and again given special privilege to at least one public figure, to the degree that it often appears as though the Times has become an organ of local government.

Grade: D-

• Acting with integrity

If by integrity Gannett means "firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values" (Merriam Webster definition), we feel that far too many times the Times has not held with the tenets of responsible journalism. We expect that a publication with the local importance that the Times has would always take the high road. We are very disappointed that it doesn't.

Grade: F

Seeking and reporting the truth in a truthful way
• We will dedicate ourselves to reporting the news accurately, thoroughly and in context.

We take this to mean that, as in a court proceeding, the Times will "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." If so, the Daily Times has a very, very long way to go.

Grade: F


• We will be honest in the way we gather, report and present news.

Merriam Webster defines honest as "free from fraud or deception", and "marked by integrity, and marked by free, forthright, and sincere expression." We have no real qualms about the way the Times gathers its news; for the most part its young reporters follow the standard format, which is neither aggressive nor offensive, but does go for all the salient facts. Reporting, it seems, is not always completely factual after it leaves the reporters' hands, however. It has often been the case that editors will change content to something that leaves forthrightness and honesty in the dust. We have to give two separate grades here, the first to the kids who are little more than temps, and then to the paper itself, which is really saying the editors and publisher.

Grade 1: B+

Grade 2: F (based on several episodes of actually changing an ethics code-compliant piece of work into one that isn't)


• We will be persistent in the pursuit of the whole story.

Pursuing and printing are evidently two different things. Whether the Times actually is persistent in its pursuit of the whole story is an unknown to its readers. Too often do stories appear in the Times without full details and without follow up. This is particularly the case with political stories, where one side is told and another side completely left out or minimized to the point that it becomes a footnote.

Grade: C-

• We will keep our word.

As you've never actually given the readership your word, the point is moot. The more paranoid of our group state that it has the same effect as if you did give your word, but with your fingers crossed behind your back. We're going to extend the benefit of the doubt and give a nominal grade here.

Grade: C

• We will hold factual information in opinion columns and editorials to the same standards of accuracy as news stories.

One of our reviewing staff actually had milk coming from his nose after reading this one.

To actually say that the Times holds its editorials and opinion columns to the same standards would be somewhat of a compliment. The Times editorials, whether homegrown or guest, often go right off the charts into the realm of the Three Big Lies. It is evident that little, if any fact checking is done before these hit the streets and the Internet. Some have been of sufficiently low character as to cause damage to reputations and characters. A couple of weeks ago an editorial was so poorly researched and sensationally written that the Times removed the comments section a few hours after on-line readers' corrections called the Times out on how dishonest and manipulative it was. No retraction or correction was offered in subsequent issues.

Grade: F

• We will seek to gain sufficient understanding of the communities, individuals and stories we cover to provide an informed account of activities.

We're not sure what this actually means. We'll hold a grade in abeyance.

Grade: none

Serving the public interest
• We will uphold First Amendment principles to serve the democratic process.

Our reviewers were at odds on this one. While the First Amendment deals with the concept of Free Speech and the Freedom of the Press, we're not sure to which Gannnett refers, or what they see themselves as doing that serves the democratic process. We have noted that in the instance of Salisbury City Council and Mayoral elections, one of the primary exercises of the local democratic process, the Daily Times exhibits gross bias in its presentation of candidates' qualifications, amount of column space it devotes, and has even printed comments by seated government officials it knew to be libelous. Based on this, and considering the magnitude of the Constitutional transgression, the consensus reached is:

Grade: F

• We will be vigilant watchdogs of government and institutions that affect the public.

Okay. We had some fun with this one, but it doesn't mean that we weren't serious in the end. A watchdog barks when it sees/hears/smells trouble. We think that the Daily Times, as a watchdog, is a) Deaf; B) Blind; C) Suffering from an olfactory sensation disorder; D) All of the above. One of our reviewers said that it was none of the above, but that the Daily Times was a dog that either wouldn't (conflict of interest) or couldn't (it's a Basenji.) Whatever the case, the Times rates a failing grade.

Grade: F

• We will provide the news and information that people need to function as effective citizens.

Limiting the that news and information to suit the Times editors' and publisher's notion of how it is that people should function as effective citizens is certainly not in keeping with the thrust of this principle. The Times is guilty of manipulating the news, promoting the biased opinions of its favorite sons and daughters, and foreshortening the ability of the readership to make its own decisions, based on accurate, forthright and truthful reporting.

Grade: F

• We will seek solutions as well as expose problems and wrongdoing.

The Daily Times failed this one from the starting gate. The review group members recounted dozens of times that the paper hasn't reported wrongdoings, suppressed truth, and, worst of all, condemned those who did.

Grade: F

• We will provide a public forum for diverse people and views.

Well, finally one in which the Times sometimes shows some compliance, albeit very selectively and not always in a timely manner.

Grade: C-

• We will reflect and encourage understanding of the diverse segments of our community.

What little has been done in this arena is minimal. The Daily Times has done more to promote ignorance of those diverse segments than it has to promote and encourage understanding of them.

Grade: D

• We will provide editorial and community leadership.

What was missing here was the word "responsible."

Grade: D-

• We will seek to promote understanding of complex issues.

This has been a gross failure of the Daily Times. We couldn't come up with even one example of the Times ever presenting a complex issue, let alone promoting the understanding of it. We feel that the Times thinks, to be blunt, of its readers, as one of our group said, "A bunch of Gomers", not smart enough to understand a complex issue, and therefore not important enough to whom to devote column space. It is more the case that the Times strongly presents one side of an issue, weakly presents another, then lets the cards fall where they may.

Grade: D

Exercising fair play
• We will treat people with dignity, respect and compassion.

There is only one place in the Daily Times where this consistently occurs: the Obituaries. While the Times often speaks ill of the living (obliquely, of course), it never speaks ill of the dead.

Grade: D

• We will correct errors promptly.

Our idea of prompt may not be the Times'. Our idea of never is obviously not the Times'. Corrections to frank errors and misstatements and outright falsehoods rarely grace the Times' pages. And when they do, they're buried in a tiny paragraph on a lesser page.

Grade: F

• We will strive to include all sides relevant to a story and not take sides in news coverage.

Our consensus: Define "strive" for us. And "take sides", too.

Grade: F

• We will explain to readers our journalistic processes.

Is this an on-demand process? When and where will this occur?

Grade: F

• We will give particular attention to fairness in relations with people unaccustomed to dealing with the press.

We don't know how fair the Times is with those who haven't ever been interviewed. We do know that fairness in reporting is a primary problem. We have to give the benefit of the doubt here.

Grade: B-

• We will use unnamed sources as the sole basis for published information only as a last resort and under specific procedures that best serve the public's right to know.

It is rare that the Daily Times publishes a story with an unnamed source (none of us could remember one). It is more often the case that the Times doesn't attribute the comments to an anonymous source, but vaguely notes that "someone" or "some people" said this or that. This is a very serious shortcoming in the journalistic integrity of any newspaper, as it leads the readers, given the Times' history of "making stuff up", to believe that there was no one to whom to attribute the statements. Again, though we must give benefit of doubt.

Grade: B-

• We will be accessible to readers.

This is not promising to be responsive, just accessible. The Daily Times accepts letters, email, phone calls and personal visits. It has a Feedback feature on its website. Response varies.

Grade: C

Maintaining independence
• We will remain free of outside interests, investments or business relationships that may compromise the credibility of our news report.

More milk in the nose. It is far too often the case that the Daily Times has provided a private springboard for Salisbury's Mayor and select City Council members. It has supported the political campaigns of some and condemned those of others, often seemingly at the bidding of Mayor Tilghman. It has long been suspected that the Daily Times responds to certain groups based on their connection with the Times' sources of advertising revenue. We feel that the Times' failure to disavow these relationships represents a continuation of biased and preferential reporting.

Grade: F

• We will maintain an impartial, arm's length relationship with anyone seeking to influence the news.

One of our reviewers commented that the Times must have those little Thalidomide baby arms, as for the past twelve years, Barrie Tilghman has been right in the Times' face. It was the unanimous vote of the review committee that the Times' relationship with some who would influence the news has been a serious problem; that the paper has lost much of its credibility due to the influence of Mayor Tilghman and her followers.

Grade: F

• We will avoid potential conflicts of interest and eliminate inappropriate influence on content.

Grade: F

• We will be free of improper obligations to news sources, newsmakers and advertisers.

Grade: F

• We will differentiate advertising from news.

We have seen many, many instances of the Times running a news piece that is advertising for a political candidate, and a seated politician with an agenda. We do, in all fairness, acknowledge that the Times does not sell soap or acne cream in an editorial.

Grade: C-

Acting with integrity
• We will act honorably and ethically in dealing with news sources, the public and our colleagues.

And when will that begin?

Grade: F

• We will obey the law.

Which law is that? One reviewer replied, "The Law of the Jungle." We all had to agree.

Grade: D-

• We will observe common standards of decency.

The Times does not use foul language, even in quotes. It does not depict bloody wreckage. It does not display cheesecake photographs. However, decency also regards honesty, fair play and the telling of the unvarnished truth.

Grade: D

• We will take responsibility for our decisions and consider the possible consequences of our actions.

And so far, it's been an even hand, aside from the fact that readership is falling, partly due to the decline in journalistic integrity.

Grade: B

• We will be conscientious in observing these Principles.

The Times has been anything but conscientious in observing the bulk of these. Some of us were very surprised that we had access to the list at all via the paper's website, given that most of the principles are evidently considered worthlessby the Times' editors and publisher.

Grade: F

• We will always try to do the right thing.

This remains to be seen. The proof of the pudding is that the Times do the right thing, not try to do it.

Grade: D

Note:
No statement of principles and procedures can envision every circumstance that may be faced in the course of covering the news. As in the United States Constitution, fundamental principles sometimes conflict. Careful judgment and common sense must be applied to make the decisions that best serve the public interest and result in the greatest good.

To help protect these Principles, practices have been drafted to address such subjects as unnamed sources, correcting errors and other issues. These guidelines have been distributed within the newsroom and are available upon request.

This newspaper and its news professionals are committed to observing the highest standards of journalism, as expressed by these Principles.

We invite public comment and questions. Use our Feedback Form or send comments and questions to:

The Daily Times
115 East Carroll Street
Salisbury, MD 21801

The 2009 Daily Times Ethics Statement Review Committee leaves the remainder of the review to you, the readers of the Daily Times. When next reading the Times, you are invited to read it with a watchful eye and close interest. This is the newspaper that is supposed to bring you unbiased news coverage of Salisbury and the surrounding area, news that is timely, accurate, and informational. The Daily Times states that it will respond to your comments and questions. Avail yourselves of that opportunity if you feel that the Times isn't what you think it ought to be.

Thanks for reading.

We now return you to SBYNews.'

Oh, the final grade?
A generously given D minus.