Online Journalism Credibility Projects

Hey all, this was in today's NY Times. It is very relevant to our last paper and I think its a good idea and could provide even more enlightening results in the future.

Newspapers want readers help with online credibility.

Does anyone think that this is the right thing to do, and if so, will it help in the long run to re-establish the credibility of journalism? If not, why?

I think we are on the right track and I like the projects being conducted.

Bloggers should disclose “material connections” – yay or nay?

When you get a chance please read the link at the end of this post. It is an article detailing the Federal Trade Commission’s set of guidelines to bloggers that they show any “material connection” or financial benefit they are receiving for brands or products that they write about. Just like the society of professional journalist’s code of ethics these are simply GUIDELINES, the First Amendment prevents this from being law. I hope people will follow these guidelines as the public have a right to know in what way bloggers, they are following, are benefiting. Do you think bloggers, in great numbers, will follow these guidelines? Does anyone think it the subject of making such guidelines into laws should be debated?

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2009/tc2009106_866275.htm

Objectivity- based on class 10/28

I was so interested last night when we touched on Objectivity that I went home in search of more answers. From the proseminar class last year I remembered the chapter on objectivity and have this to offer you all...

“Originally, it was not the journalist who was imagined to be objective. It was his or her method. Today, however, in part because journalists have failed to articulate what they are doing, our contemporary understanding of objectivity is mostly confusion.”

This offered A LOT of insight for me and also made me think..is the system the problem or our understanding of the system? I would have to say the latter.

If everyone had the "correct" understanding of the relationship between objectivity/journalism, maybe (as we joked in class) we would be able to march in a protest!

White House: "Fox NOT a Real News Organization."

The battle between the White House and FoxNews rages on. Here are two links to blog posts that address the latest--- one from the Swamp and one from the NY Times. Also, click on the embedded video links within them.

I know past presidents such as Bush and Clinton have refused to give interviews to organizations that they deemed the "opponent", however, I think this is the first time that an administration has actually decided to wage war with one and call them out for the Infotainment that they are.

I also love the way the powers that be of Fox and even Murdoch himself try to justify their behavior. Personally, I think it is blatantly obvious to all Americans, even the conservative that watch Fox (or at least most of them), that it is nothing more than a mouthpiece of the right wing, pushing their agenda, regardless of supporting facts. They are no longer watchdogs, they are liars. Come on the tea partiers, the birthers......why push those stories? I don't mind if they dispute adminstration stances but base it on fact. The public deserves to be well informed, with CORRECT information.

My question is how can Fox still be insistent that they are journalists? I think they are PUNDITS! And that's fine but why masquerade as a journalist? It is giving the public a misconception about what a journalist ( a real one) actually is supposed to do. So the bottom line is now we can't tell between a pundit and journalist, the line is being blurred.

Youth and Ethics

I found the 10/21 lecture very interesting, specifically the details surrounding the young reporter who was presented with the crack cocaine story assignment and followed an illegal path in pursuit of the coverage. I agree with the final decision to terminate his employment because he was not forthcoming and didn't know right from wrong until his friend pretty much left him no choice but to be honest with the paper's management team. I was in the midst of a financial ethical situation in my early twenties. The Controller was fired, then the Director of Accounting quit and lastly the CFO was fired. I was at the time the lead accountant and the only reason I wasn't fired is because I was honest and wasn't trying to cover up what financial mis-management had taken place. I think this is a common occurence as young people enter into fields where there is new ground and rules they are unfamiliar with. But through these early trials, your character will always come through.

href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>

Sources On the Flip Side

This is about sources and confidentiality. What if you read a news article in the paper and you knew that the reporter didn't have the whole story, that the interviews produced half truths. And you knew the inside scope, as a lay person, with no journalistic relationship to the paper. And it would make a great story. Knowing what you now know about the laws protecting a journalist's right to keep their anonymous sources anonymous, would you call the paper and trust becoming an anonymous source?

href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>

More Low Power FM Freedom?

Democracy Now!, an independent, not for profit news broadcast that's syndicated on college radio stations and online, held a debate today over legislation being discussed about LPFM (low power FM) stations being granted greater freedom to broadcast on local levels.

Democracy Now! October 28: LPFM Debate

The main opposition to this is higher powered signals; NPR being named a few times. They claim that by allowing more low power signals to be broadcast, you'll add static and signal congestion to the airwaves.

I thought this was interesting, because it definitely falls within the realm of journalism. I can't see anymore technical way to more intimately connect people to the media. If you have local newspapers and national newspapers - why not local radio stations as well as the already existing national ones? How much easier would it be to move journalists closer to the public forum if that forum was condensed even more to be added in with local conglomerates of news sources?

Is this really a technical issue, or a decision to not centralize journalistic views to a more local level?

Unethical Celebrity Gossip!

Noah Cyrus, Miley's 9-year-old sister, looked like a budding dominatrix at the AIDS Foundation's 16th Annual Dream Halloween in Santa Monica.


I thought it would be fun to throw some celebrity gossip into the mix of our debates on ethics. I was reading the Toronto Star this morning- and I came across this article "Zerbisias: Girls' costumes reflect virgin/whore dichotomy."

I love celeb gossip and mingling on the red carpet at the parties in NYC and LA. Pertaining this article, I think it is the perfect example of unethical celeb gossip.

I wonder, how a writer could associate Mini Hannah Montana (9 year old Noah Cyrus) with Halloween whores?

I think this article is an ideal example of unethical practices of journalism- associate 9 year-old Noah Cyrus, dressed-up in a skanky Halloween costume with how teens and adolescence take integrity in dressing-up as sluts for Halloween. This article is the perfect treat for pedophiles. It is just repulsive.

I feel bad for the child. It is tragic because I doubt Cyrus has the knowledge to make her own final decisions, you got to blame the parents. In this case both Cyrus's publicist and the journalist are contributing to her reputation as the next play boy bunny prostitute.

I would never run an article like this, it is disgusting and perverted. Would anyone else gossip about a 9 year-old girl dressed-up as a Halloween whore? Or photographed on strip polls?

Though this photo is not drastically edited. I think this picture deserves the disclaimer above all because it would probably get banned as an ad campaign. I am 22 years old and I don't have children, but I could never imagine my 9 year old daughter dressed-up as a Halloween whore, in spite of her claim to fame as the next Disney Diva... Maybe a cheerleader! Or model!

Would Cyrus's parents be proud or petrified? I could never associate myself with developing this story. I could never link a little girl to halloween whores. What are your thoughts? Would you publish a story write about a child whore based on the photo above?

Hacks hooked on Facebook

I am sure this is going to be the hot topic of the day, so I figured I would get the ball rolling. I would like to start off by saying that it is 9:04 am and I am at work. I do not feel however that my name, photo and salary information should be released to the public because I am using work hours or my work computer to do something other than work. Do I feel that she was right to post that she was napping during meetings, no, but if there is some downtime in the office, and her manager is ok with her updating her facebook status, I do not see any harm in this.

I find it hard to believe that no one has at work; made a personal phone call, typed a personal e-mail, paid a bill, shopped on the interned or read and forwarded a joke e-mail. I will admit I'm guilty, but does that mean I am not good at my job, or I am not completing my work in a timely manner. No, it doesn't, and if you are reading this during work hours, you are just as guilty.

I do believe that there is a story here. If taxpayer money is being abused to pay for employees who are not doing their job, and have so much downtime that they are constantly playing on the internet, than something needs to be done. However, I also believe that by taking a 5 minute break here and there to relax, vent, distress and get back to work, makes for a much healthier work environment. I believe that this story still could have been released with out the names and photo's. If their management does not feel it is necessary to seek disciplinary action against these employees, why should they be publicly humiliated, and opened up for public retaliation. What is now preventing me from going on facebook and writing this girl a nasty e-mail?

Media access to Mont Vernon murder records denied

I saw this on the news today and was wondering what other people think. I have to agree with the decision to deny the public release of the police affidavits at this time. I understand that the media is in a constant rush to print the latest news, but I would much rather read that the 4 boys accused of the crime have been convicted, as apposed to their being any interference in the investigation due to the desire to know, rather than the need to know.

A question of ethics in the UK

There was recently a major discussion around the ethics violations of the Irish columnist, Jan Moir.

On the day before the funeral of the boy band singer, Stephen Gately, Moir wrote a scathing column titled A strange, lonely and troubling death.... in the Irish Mail, the newspaper in his hometown. She called into question the nature of his death and his supposedly monogamous gay relationship. Here’s one line to give you a taste of how insensitive the article was:

“The sugar coating on this fatality is so saccharine-thick that it obscures whatever bitter truth lies beneath. Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again”.

As a result the family and 22,000 other people complained to the Press Complaints Commission. This is more complaints than they have received in total for the last 5 years.

The complaint process has been closely followed by The Guardian, but has received scant coverage in her own paper. Although she apologized, it was mostly for the timing of the article rather than the content. The article has not been retracted nor is there any indication on the online version of the apology, except the paper has kept the 1, 606 comments that highlight the publics’ objections.

I think the story is interesting for a number of reasons. The complaints program was driven by his friends and family using Twitter and this may set a precedent for future consumer advocacy. Also I was surprised to see how hard it was for Jan Moir to apologize - insincere apologies don't just happen in the New York Times.

href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>

Smaller Newspaper Circulation

How much can we attribute a decrease in newspaper circulation to a fall in journalism credibility?

I think the proliferation of online media has contributed to less desire for print editions, but I also believe that lower media confidence plays a part. Readers know they can't believe everything they read. And a stunt like the Yes Men press conference does not help.

href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>

The credibility of Journalism= all time low

Ok, guys I came across this article Fake Reporters Part of Climate Pranksters' 'Theater', and frankly I'm horrified by it and what it says of journalism. Reporters do not help their case of regaining public confidence by doing something like this i.e not doing their homework. I don't want to give it away, read the article first and make a decision. Besides, I couldn't give this type of behavior justice for anyone involved.

I also have to say, sadly, I'm not surprised this happened at all, I'm just sad.

Online Corrections

One of the goals of journalists should entail acurate reporting. When an error is found, a system for immediate correction should be in place. Many readers don't hesitate to contact a media outlet about a mistake, but there are many readers who believe it's a waste of time. Also, because online information is immediately spread, corrections often don't get the same attention as the original posting. These are, unfortunately, some of the challenges.

Nicole's blog topic leads to an article I came across as I was researching the case study. (The title is the link and I apologize in advance for the length, though Jeanne did say we need to read a lot!)

In the Online Journalism Review, the question asked whether corrections should be made as an addendum to the original article or whether the article itself should be corrected, thereby erasing the mistake.

A case can be made for each point of view, however I think in most situations, readers may not see the corrected material. Or, as one librarian (Michael Jesse) says, to keep reprinting an error, even when it is corrected, does not seem to be right.

Because we are dealing with eletronic databases, I think that corrections should be made and labeled clearly. Any thoughts?


href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>

Errors in a Digital Age

While doing some mini research for this latest paper, I came across lots of people that are suggesting various strategies for reversing the trend of inaccuracies in reporting. This is one of them and it speaks about how we can correct errors in a digital age, in fact, that's the title. Ironically, it's written by the Nieman Foundation, here at Harvard.

I think publications should start implementing these strategies in one way or another.

H1N1 and the CDC

I am interested to learn what people think about this story and the coverage of H1N1 in the media lately. Seems to be a very hot topic, this story makes you wonder if the media blitz is warranted.

James

href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>

What was up with all the coverage on Balloon Boy, anyway?

We talked briefly before class about Balloon Boy, so I thought I'd pass this along from Poynter. (You gotta feel bad for the kid...imagine having that nickname following you around!!!!)

Journalism Students are Twittering in Class

This has nothing to do with ethics, but with journalism studies, so I thought I'd pass it along.

href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>

Washington Post tightens Ethics Policies.

I found this article on the Post and I wanted to share because I think it goes to the heart of what this class is all about. It's called Print-Era Shackles for a Twitter World and is written by the Post's ombudsman, Andrew Alexander. He certainly poses some interesting questions and brings up both sides of the argument.

The basic jist is: the Post doesn't want their reporters on social network sites because they feel it compromises their journalistic credibility and neutrality.

Once again, I think this is a gray area and should be decided on a situational basis. Any thoughts??

Re: Should Photo's Come With Warning Label?

Thanks so much for sharing this. I don't think "we can" draw a line on deceit. I believe the media has distorted the publics perception of "beautiful" and "realistic" to the point that there would be no place in the North American fashion and beauty market to ban altering or posting information label's on such unrealistic photo's. I also don't think the media or corporations should market "fake" or "ugly" images to promote their "idea's" of fashion and beauty.

Two or three years ago, Dove launched its Campaign For Real Beauty, in an endeavor to boost girls and young women's self-esteem, and influence them to accept a broader definition of beauty. The campaign was a real success. This video Dove Evolution is one example of where the line should be drawn because it showcases fake at its best.

I think as journalists that we need to influences companies to create a market for leveraging healthy people, not necessarily skinny or fat people. I believe the line of deceit should be drawn where unhealthy habits and related issues are considered the definition of beauty. People can be bigger than a size 2 and still be beautiful... I also know people can be a size zero and healthy... Any thoughts?

Should Photos come With Warning Labels?

I came across this article in the Times yesterday and I thought it might be interesting to post or discuss. It's called Should Photos come with warning labels? and its by a writer for the Times who writes a column daily on ethical issues that have erupted in and around journalism.

Yesterday's article was about the recent controversy around photoshopping images such as the model for Ralph Lauren was. Personally, I think the picture is gross and clearly not real.

Cohen presents both sides of this debate. I have chosen to take the side of people that wish to be informed when a photo has been drastically altered, such as the picture in the inset. He also asks the question where do we draw the line on deceit? My question is : DO WE? I really don't know anymore. Does anyone think that there is a clear line and if not, then should there be and where? Right now, it seems our intelligence is either being insulted by not telling us or they think we won't notice enough to be bothered by it.

Responsible Journalism & Pandemics

I am 90% back from the flu! This means no more aching, no more fever, no more fatigue and the ability to use my brain is back; however, there is 10% of me that is still stuck with a lingering cough. My little cough is not only physically annoying but something that seems to get noticed by everyone and earns me looks of disdain, horror and fear. I'd like to wear a sign that says, "No, It's not H1N1."

As the cold and flu season is kicking off, H1N1 pandemic fears (irrational or sane as they may be) are as viral as the common cold. So how can journalists report on a pandemic ethically?

Dean Wright, the Global Editor of Ethics, Innovation and News Standards with Reuters, blogged about responsible reporting of infectious disease in light of what he saw happening in journalism when H1N1 first broke. The blog can be found here: http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2009/04/27/swine-flu-walking-the-line-between-hyping-and-helping/

Wright, postulated that the responsibility of reporting on public health emergencies was one that emphasizes information not sensationalism.

I particularly like what Wright had started with -

There’s nothing like a disease outbreak to highlight the value of the media in alerting and informing the public in the face of an emergency.

There’s also nothing like it to bring out some of our more
excessive behavior, essentially shouting “Run for your lives! (but, whatever you do, stay tuned, keep reading the website and don’t forget to buy the paper!).'

The threat of the H1N1 pandemic caused a state of panic and sensationalist reporting. This was especially evident when H1N1 was called the "Swine Flu." Organizations like PETA were using "Swine Flu" as fuel for their agenda, misleading people to believe that you could get H1N1 from eating pork. Governments all over the world ordered the culling of hundreds of thousands of pigs, adversely affecting the livelihood of their farm industries and farmers. Many European countries placed travel restrictions on destinations which had confirmed cases, like Mexico where the economy has a strong base in tourism. The panic had induced economic trouble. In his blog, Wright pointed out that, "One story noted, not surprisingly, that travel and tourism stocks were in turmoil."

In his blog, Wright called for calm, stressing the importance to "... provide the information and insight our audience and customers need to make intelligent decisions ..."

This sensationalism also happened during the HIV/AIDS crisis, when AIDS was labeled as a gay disease and people were afraid to be in the same room with someone who had AIDS. Even today we feel the effects of that media storm as people still need to be reminded that's it's not just a gay disease.

The Neiman Foundation here at Harvard has recently released a "guide" for reporting on pandemics, you can find it here: http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=101880


And ... again, just in case you didn't get it the first time. I don't have the H1N1, so it's ok to sit next to me in class!

When the state comes knocking, how much info should you divulge?

This is an interesting article from the Chicago Tribune on not just the power of student journalism, but also as a case study on the importance of shield laws and protecting all journalists.

Thoughts?

Interesting Insight re: War Coverage

The class lecture on the relationship between the press and the government as it evolved from war to war history was interesting and left me with some very illuminating insight into my own family and how the press coverage of World War II impacted my mother. When World War II erupted my mother was a young girl and her father my grandfather was sent to war. My grandmother would take the family to the movies each week to see the war news reels and they would site every night and read newspaper accounts of war events. As I was growing up, if a discussion of the war developed, my mother recounted tales in a very racist way towards the Japenese. I have never been able to understand how my mother could talk this way when she has friends with many varying backgrounds. It struck me as Angelia spoke that my mother was a young girl who had the coverage, which had a significant racist tone, read to her night after night. It was imprinted on her.

The White House Pushes Back

If you read the Time article, it becomes apparent that the American people are not the only ones that have issues with the press (and little faith, too). The White House is sick of the lack of fact checking and intentional distortion of facts as well.

However, I'm not sure that fighting back will help much, especially where Fox News is concerned. It may just give them even more ammunition. I wouldn't be surprised if they started saying that Obama wanted to get rid of the First Amendment and control the press.

Although, I have to say I agree with what the WHite House is doing to an extent. Fox News is a disgrace to news organizations everywhere. You would be hard pressed getting me to believe that they do not intentionally lie to mislead the American people. They push the Republican agenda no matter what. And that usually means creating a deeply divided country simply because Republicans would rather do battle than try to concentrate on things that they have in common.

Its no secret that they want Obama to fail (at least the vast majority of them) but is it right to lie in order to make that happen? Americans rely on news organizations to be the watchdogs of the government, or at least we did. What can we do when the news is no longer watching but participating in and creating news for their own agenda?

Fact or Fiction

The topic of objectivity is an interesting one, especially considering the heated nature of some of the debates surrounding President Obama. There are current debates calling for his impeachment(the title of this blog is the link) and little, if any of it, seems based on facts. What I find most disturbing is the propaganda of hate that is being dressed up as fact. When did disagreeing with someone's opinion become grounds for removing them from a job that they earned by virtue of democratic elections?

http://www.obamaimpeachment.org/
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112098

The "collapsing of the United States" started long before Obama took office and instead of working in a collective effort to restore this economy, we continue to see partisan politics as usual. Similar to the Hatfill case, opinion is being allowed to rule over fact and fairness and with much more dire consequences.

I see no justification for calling for the impeachment of one president because of a question of documents that was addressed before the elections, yet not addressing a trumped up war, loss of tens of thousands of lives, a declaration of victory where there was none, and an economy in shambles. This is what I consider a crime.

Is the Responsibility Bar Different?

I had a reaction to the dialogue surrounding Hatfill coverage by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times that took place in class when I watched the September 30th video. Specifically, that because Kristof somehow had less obligation to be responsible in his representation of facts because he was a columnist not a reporter. This was disturbing to me. Should there be a different bar for the level of integrity in communciating facts to the public based upon your unique role within a news organization? Or should the paper's code of ethics be applicable to everyone within the organization?

href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>

A Case for Objectivism

Objectivity is a concept which I'm all over the map on. I don't find objectivity to be an absolutist concept; that it's either all or nothing. I believe the level of objectivity should pertain directly to the gravity and nature of the matter being reported.

If a given issue poses no real threat to American people, or does not inhibit the democratic process, I believe objectivity is key. A perfect example of this is an issue which for a period in the beginning of President Obama's term was the most publicly discussed subject on the White House Blog: marijuana law reform. In the case of marijuana reform, which is more a civil rights issue, and one which poses no threat to American lives or violation of human rights, objectivity is essential. I believe that this is a case where no stance should be taken; only facts should be presented for the public to form opinions upon. Sensationalist propaganda is the reason for marijuana prohibition, which is unfair to the democratic process as it's a non-threatening issue which should be portrayed to the public objectively.

Something such as reporting on genocide, on the other hand, should allow more lateral movement on a stance being taken. If a journalist is reporting on genocide in Darfur, do you take no stance on the nature of the issue, giving an presentation of both genocide victims and the violent nomadic Janjaweed warriors committing the atrocities? I'm not sure about you, but while I would certainly want to hear the word of the Janjaweed, I'd take a clear and defined stance against them. In this case, I see no need total objectivity.

How is this decided? While the two examples I provided were very clear and defined, what about issues where the lines are less defined and in shades of grey? Who decides the level of objectivity when it is such a subjective concept?

One area I've found a lack of objectivity to be detrimental has been within the current healthcare bedlam unfolding in the United States. Since Obama's inauguration, reformation of the failed American healthcare system has been repeatedly promised to the public. The problem in this case? No progress has been made. The American people are entirely divided, taking no real informed stances beyond being against the "evil socialist" or the "right wing nutjobs." The portrayal of each party by various media sources has produced only a very simplistic image by which people may identify - the wholesome conservative or the progressive liberal. People are more concerned with beating the other team than observing the contents of the bills and coming to a solution.

In this FOX news session on the townhall meetings being called all over the nation to discuss health care, a very clear alignment is shown:

FOX News: Health Care Coverage

Only right-leaning arguments are showed, and when a left-leaning opposer of the Republicans is shown, she is portrayed in a very negative way. Adversely, liberal stations like CNN or MSNBC have taken clear, biased stances against the conservative approach.

This method of reporting on this important issue has left the country divided over a notion that they need to factionize within their parties more than discuss healthcare, and the actual bills being proposed have been deadlocked in Congress.

So you've got to ask yourself, if the major politically-aligned news stations such as FOX (Republican) and CNN (Democrat) were eliminated, and objective reports concerning the nature of the propsed healthcare bills were presented to the public, would we be in the mess we're in now?

Hypothetical situations

After reading carefully the three different hypos on our homepage, I have decided I would likely publish all three stories to some extent.

For instance, in the first hypo, as long as names are not mentioned specifically, I don't see how listening to that attorney would do any good. What purpose would it serve? The community needs to know something like a poisoned reservoir. They can be on the lookout or they may have more information to provide.

As for the second hypo, I would report that the police are questioning a new suspect. I would not use a name, unless the police publicly released it. I see no reason to hide this information from the public, especially if no identifying information is used. Note: I would not publish anything learned through his file. That is sneaky and unethical.

Lastly, the third hypo is a bit more tricky because no police have been involved. However, I think since this involves a school and sexual misconduct something needs to be published about it. If the man has a record or history of abuse he has no business in a school and parents have a right to know in order to protect their kids. Nevertheless, I would be careful about the exact information I publish, sticking to facts and official, named sources.

At the end of the day, I think as long as we can look ourselves in the mirror as journalists. And it is also important not to knowingly break laws just to get a story. But overall, the code of ethics we each hold should let us sleep at when dealing with these kinds of close calls.

Media's Balancing Act

I thought Nicholas Kristoff's apology for his columns fingering Dr. Steven Hatfill as the criminal was somewhat weak. He apologizes in one breath, but then justifies it in the next: "...I owe an apology to Dr. Hatfill. In retrospect, I was right to to prod the F.B.I. and to urge tighter scrutiny of Fort Detrick..." Then, Kristoff goes on to show us how difficult the job of the media is and challeges us with three hypothetical examples. While I think the examples were another justification for him falsely convicting Dr. Hatfill in his columns, the examples are interesting ones to consider:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/opinion/28kristof.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

I agree with Kristoff's decisions to write about the first and the third stories with one major difference: In the first case, I would not name the suspects unless they were being officially charged. The risk to the public, which was Kristoff's concern, would be minimized just by covering the story and giving the facts of the plan. To state that the crime was planned by a certain group in particular would, again, be using the press as a jury and would do nothing to increase the safety of the public.

In the third case, I would choose to cover the story because of the multiple accusations of sexual misconduct. This is also direct testimony as opposed to hearsay or opinion. With that being said, I would still be cautious of condemming the person in the coverage. I would want to state only what is fact and call for further investigation of the direct accusations instead of sweeping it under the rug.

The job of a journalist is sometimes a difficult one and with the interest of the public at stake, it is even more imperative that we give out correct information instead of passing judgement.