The Rules

     "Rule 23" was the title of one of the blogs I wrote about the new revisions to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.

     The Rules are a reference to a set of rules often quoted by the character of Leroy Jethro Gibbs, the crusty federal agent played by that heartthrob of my youth, Mark Harmon, on the TV show NCIS. Rule 23 is "never get between a Marine and his coffee." 

     I promised in that earlier blog to explain two other rules and their relevance to journalism.

     Rule 9 is "always carry a knife."

     This could have relevance to journalists for several reasons.

     For one, we find ourselves in sketchy territory -- think New Brunswick after dark. Also, assuming the knife is of the Swiss Army variety, it can come in handy in other ways. 

     After all, we underpaid ink-stained wretches tend to drive our cars (which were not new when we bought them) into the ground and often need quick repairs. I have used the screwdriver feature to replace a door handle.

     And, face it, even in this allegedly enlightened era, men think more highly of women who can use tools.

     Rule 10 is even more relevant. 

     Rule 10 admonishes us not to become personally involved.

     That's a tough one.

     Sometimes we just get sucked in to people's lives and we have to push it aside. And have a drink. 

      It's not always though when you might think it is. The stories of pathos -- illness, injury and death -- may just role off. If that makes reporters sound callous and cynical, well, we develop a hard shell because we have to. 

     But, sometimes what seems like a little thing really hits home. I'm thinking of a fatal fire in New York City some years ago. It was on the TV news. A little boy rs standing to the side of the reporter, just in camera range. He is crying, as are his parents, who know the grandmother has died in the fire. suddenly, the little boy, who is facing the stoop, starts to smile and the cameraman moves his shot toward a fireman coming down the brick steps carrying a big ginger tabby cat. The boy takes the cat and all of a sudden the fireman and the reporter are both getting choked up. It's not that they believe the cat is more important than the grandmother, it's the shift in the atmosphere and the look on the kid's face. 

     That's generally how it happens. It's not the whole story, it's a moment that catches you off guard.

     So, Rule 10. A tough rule to follow.

Schadenfreude is a Lovely Word

     Don't you love the German language? The way there is a single word for things that require a sentence or two in other languages.

     One of my favorites of these is Schadenfreude -- literally, joy at misfortune. In practice, joy at the misfortune of others. 

     Oh, come on, we all feel it occasionally. 

     The Society of Professional Journalists newly revised Code of Ethics calls on us to "expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organization." 

     That part can be tough. We relish (oh, admit it) exposing unethical conduct in someone not within our organization. But one of our own?

     We gotta do it.

     I stumbled across a breech of ethics once. Totally by accident. My grandfather was ill, so I was driving back and forth from Hackettstown to Staten Island whenever I could. I would stay over at my Aunt's house. One night I couldn't sleep so I went hunting for some reading material. I found a Redbook magazine. On Monday morning, I picked up a copy of our paper and saw a story by one of reporters that had some very familiar statistics in it. Worded exactly the same way. I told my editor and called my aunt from his office, since I didn't remember the date of the issue. I did remember the cover and she found it. The editor went up to the town library to check it out. He fired the reporter as soon as he got back. She smirked at told him she was quitting anyway because she'd been offered a better job. Naturally, the editor called her new employer.

     Karma can be a bitch.

     It's not always that easy, but it's always that necessary.

     Even when there are consequences. 

 

Practically Perfect in Every Way

     When I wrote this headline, I realized not everyone reading this column may not raised little girls who danced and watched the movie Mary Poppins until the VCR tape disintigrated. Mary Poppins, at least as portrayed by Julie Andrews in the movie always said she was "practically perfect in every way."

     And, of course, journalists tend to feel that way too. If we didn't have egos, we'd have become farriers or middle school history teachers. 

     But, we all make mistakes and one thing we know is the importance of "acknowledging mistakes and correcting them promptly and prominently." Those are words from the newly revised Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics which remind us of what we must do. And, maybe some people need that reminder. 

     Most of the mistakes are small-ish. I always ask "are you a C Cathy or a K Kathy?" And, since my younger daughter has one of the most commonly misspelled names (because of the number of possibilities), I really think about it. But, at a planning board meeting, when a new member was sworn in, I asked a council woman who was sitting next to me if he was a c Marc or a k Mark. She answered, "he's Jewish," to I wrote Marc. It's Mark. 

     Of course, it was easy to correct. 

     More complicated mistakes present challenges. We are urged to "explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly." One way we do that is to write "due to an editing error" or "due to a research error." We don't write "due to brain fade" or "due to a hangover," although that wouldn't surprise anyone. I once really wanted to write "because the angelic-looking little Girl Scout gave an alias," but I just corrected the name. 

     Sometimes the issue to where to run the correction. I'm personally in favor of a correction box in the same place every issue. Of course, that primarily applies to traditional newspapers (I promised my friend Mark Porter of the Montclair Times I wouldn't use the term "dead tree" any longer.)  Like a lot of things, it gets more complicated with digital publications.

     One of the common problems we've always had is when someone is arrested. We put it on the front page. Then, it turns out the perp isn't a perp at all and we bury it. There has to be a solution. Maybe as simple as a refer from the front page. Certainly a topic for further discussion. 

     Some corrections appear to place the blame, such as the "editing error" above. Others don't. That's tough to explain to people, but a lot has to do with how much time there is to prepare a correction. If we find out about the error right on deadline, it might be more important to get it in for the next day. Sometimes it's less than clear who's error it was. We work hard and fast.

     Regardless, we have to correct any and all mistakes as soon as possible.
      

       

Going Native

     "Native advertising" is just another term for advertising.

     Companies hire people and pay them a lot more than we get paid to write about how wonderful the company is. Then they pay the publication a lot of money to publish it. 

     Advertising. Just with words rather than pictures of puppies. 

     The Society of Professional Journalists revised Code of Ethics cautions: "Distinguish news from advertising." Well, that was easier when ads looked like ads. I remember our production manager once dressing up as Ebeneezer Scrooge and sitting at an old desk with a pile of coins as a Christmas ad for a local bank. That was unmistakeably advertising. An extensive write-up on the anniversary of the birth control pill could be an ad in disguise. And, it may be labeled an ad, but the label may well be in 6-point type.

     "Shun hybrids that blur the line between the two." Sounds good. We can only hope our publishers do just that.

     "Prominently label sponsored content." See the reference to 6-point type above. And it doesn't say the reader actually reads the label. 

     Labeled or not, it's scary to think these people have so much money to put into their sponsored content. Barrels more than legitimate news organizations. They always have had the money, but they used to spend it on ads that looked like ads. Maybe even with puppies. 

Learn to Duck

     The new revision of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics calls upon us to "be accountable and transparent." 

      Ethical journalism means taking responsiblity for one's work and explaining one's decisions to the public. We are exhorted to "explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practice, coverage and news content." 

       Well, we can try. We can also learn to duck when the "audience" starts every conversation with media bashing. It's getting so you can't walk into a room without somebody jumping on the anti-media bandwagon. Not long ago, I had to walk out of a church fellowship hour because a woman from my church started ranting about how the local media was in the pocket of the county freeholders. I mean, I could have stayed, but I would have been rude, an my mama taught me never to be rude in church. 

             That particular rant made me wonder if these media bashers actually read. Or maybe if they can read. Ok, enough kvetching. I'm sure we don't always communicate as well as we should. Especially considering we are communicators. It's basically because we don't take the time. We should, every year, on or about March 16, present a public forum to explain what we are doing to any of the public who wants to listen. 

     Of course, there's the rub. Does anybody want to hear? Will they listen? I guess that part of it is not our problem. 

     It would be great if media literacy was a required course in high school. Maybe a semester course like financial literacy. It's more complicated today. A generation ago, kids saw their parents picking up the paper off the driveway every morning. They trusted whoever their parents trusted. At first.

     Some media was known to be liberal. Some was known to be conservative. But the newspapers, for the most part, were trusted. 

     Today, the media is bifurcated. Maybe shredded. 

     Creating a media literacy course would not be impossible. It would start at the level of the high school journalism class. Presumably, the students are learning about news already. A group of professionals and teachers can create a syllabus. (This may be going a little far afield for these columns, but, not too far.) We could use the ethics code as a starting point and include journalism history. Creating a pre-informed public can only help.   

Like Caesar's Wife

     We live in the real world and yet, journalists are expected to be pure as Caesar's Wife. The revisions to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics caution us about the pitfalls.

     "Act independently," the code says. That's sort of ingrained in the DNA of the average journalist, actually.

     "Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts." 

     As with many other items in the revised code, this calls for a little common sense. You don't cover the town you live in. If something happens there and you are the only one there, or the first, just do your job.

     It's inevitable. You walk into a rally and an old friend from high school is carrying a placard and a megaphone. So, look for another spokesperson, even though he's following you around. With the megaphone. 

      We are also admonished to "refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or may damage credibility. 

     The idea of gifts or favors in this day and age is pretty outrageous. Nobody offers anything of value. But, if they should, you say no.

     Now, if Oma Trautheimer brings in a basket of plum Danish, I wouldn't suggested turning her down. You never know about those German grandmothers. 

     With the hours most of us work, getting involved in anything doesn't seem even possible. Even sleep doesn't often seem possible. Or regular meals. Nonetheless, remember, we have to stay away from politics, which, trust me, includes the PTA. I had a deal with my friend Kathleen. She went to PTA meetings and let me know if there was anything I needed to know. 

     I taught Sunday School. That was pretty safe. 

     Still, people bug you. No, I can't put a campaign sign on my lawn. I can't speak out at a town meeting. Yes, I'll provide refreshments for the cub scout pack meeting. Unfortunately, it's not always that simple. 
  
     The code also cautions us to be wary of sources offering information for favors or money. I was never asked, but if somebody asks, you say no.

     Special interests and/or advertisers are always asking for quid pro quo. But that's a problem for the publisher. Sometimes it's nice not to be an executive.
 

Why Do I Even Have to Write This One?

     Yet another column in my series on the newly revised Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.

     A column I don't think I should have to write.

     A statement I don't think I, or anyone else, should ever have to make: Never plagiarize.

     It still amazes me every time I hear of an instance of plagiarism. Maybe I'm naive, but I keep believing each case I hear of will be the last.

     Not so much how can people continue to plagiarize when it's so easy to catch them. People still rob liquor stores when they have to know there are security cameras.

     But how can people continue to plagiarize. Period. How can you do it? How can you steal like that?

    Do these people routinely slip Chap-stiks in their pockets at the Wawa? Do they cheat on their taxes? Do they cheat on their spouses?

     Is it generational? Are young people today more careless? Do they have a less developed sense of morality? Do they not understand the importance of facts? Of honesty? And, how can that be? Not just because they went into journalism, because they went to kindergarten.

     Maybe we were more idealistic back in the Last Ice Age. We believed in peace, love and rock and roll. We were the children brought up on President Kennedy's exhortation: "ask not what your country can do for you, as what you can do for your country."  We saw men walking on the moon and we knew we could do anything. We came of age as a few good journalists brought down a criminal presidency.

     Have young people grown so cynical they not only don't search for truth, they don't care?

     Even more confusing, if possible, is the motive to plagiarize.

     Why would someone steal another's words? Where does a person's pride go? I guess it's simply they don't have any pride to begin with -- but how does that happen?

     What does a person think he or she can gain from plagiarizing? It's not like stealing a car where at least you can drive around a little until you're caught?

     Janet Cooke got a Pulitzer for her made-up stories, but she had it stripped from her. She had to have known she wouldn't get away with her egregious infractions forever.

     Don't even get me started on Jayson Blair. Crazy? Yes, dangerously so, in my opinion.

     So, perhaps it is necessary for the ethics code to say "never plagiarize."

Labels are for Pickel Jars. . .

. . .and for opinion pieces, commentary, editorials, advocacy.

     Everybody dreams of being a columnist they say (whoever "they" are). Actually, I got my first column because an editor wanted to throw somebody else off the editorial page. Can you say cutthroat?

     That column was pretty loose. sort of like this blog, which I prefer to call a column because it gives it more gravitas.

     Still, of course, it was labeled. It had a standing head, a byline and a mug shot. Because that's what you do.

     Some years ago we started doing analysis pieces. These aren't the same as opinion pieces or columns. No standing heads. No mug shots. No commentary. Just a deeper look at the story. Reporters can do this because we are very often the only ones who attend the meetings, ask the questions, dig into the archives, read the reports. We are often the ones who have seen it before, met the people, memorized the laws, deciphered the jargon. So, we can write an analysis to let the reader know how the system works. Or doesn't.

       Editorials -- unsigned -- and signed op-ed pieces are also labeled as what they are.

     Pros know all this. But there are so many things posted on the internet these days that are obviously opinion but not labeled as such. They don't deal with facts, but are posted to look like news. Which is harmful to the reader.

Rule 23

     In the television show NCIS the lead character, Gibbs, played by that heartthrob of my youth, Mark Harmon, has "rules." Rule 23 is "never get between a Marine ans his coffee." Or, in the case of my niece, "her coffee."

     That can pretty much be applied to journalists as well (as can Rule 9, always carry a knife and Rule 10, don't get personally involved, but those are fodder for another column).

     However, not all journalists are addicted to caffeine (although some of us have a problem with those who aren't). These days most don't chain smoke and many don't swig their Maker's Mark or George Dickel straight. We, are, of course, all workaholics.

     The point is, we know from stereotyping. And we understand why the SPJ Code of Ethics urges us to avoid stereotyping. We also know why we must, even when we are feeling a little childish on the subject. 

     The code goes on to say: "Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting."

     Well now, isn't this the key? Or one of them?

     We all have our own experiences that no one else has. Here I am with NYC Italian relatives who are basically the cast of "Moonstruck" on one side of the family and a group of North Carolina Quakers who are somewhere in betweeen "Steel Magnolias" and "Driving Miss Daisy" on the other. I know from loud, loving and a bit self-destructive. I know from hugs, laughs, "gimme some sugah" and getting up in the middle of the night to watch a calf being born. It's a great combination, maybe an amazing one. But, it gives me certain prejudices based on what I have seen. 

      I've see Southerners are more honest about race than Yankees. They are more direct. I've learned you can get almost anything with a smile and that wearing a string of pearls makes you feel particularly beautiful. I've learned to feel comfortable surrounded by family, no matter how crazy and that the best way to handle crazy in the family is to celebrate it. 

     I've seen that love can manifest itself as yelling or laughing or cooking. I've learned that clothes are an important statement. Colors are vital. They let you fake it. I've learned that family is more important than anything. And, you can learn more from kids -- your own and others -- than you may want to admit. 

     But all these things also put me in a certain box.

     We all live in these boxes.

     In spite of what we learn in these boxes and what we believe and what we feel, we have to put those things aside and avoid inserting our values into the people we cover. That is not an easy task.

 My elegant Southern mother, right, at a crazy Italian graduation party. It's all about the lovin'

To Boldly Go. . .

     The updated Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics tells us to "boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience."

      My first thought upon reading that was: it's a pretty tall order for mere mortals. then, I thought, no, that's exactly what we do. without thinking of it in such lofty terms.

     What I mean is, we see the diversity of the human experience daily. We don't necessarily represent it (although the New Jersey Pro Chapter of SPJ isn't entirely made up of late-middle-aged Jewish men). But we do see it. We write about it. What we need to do is think about it and seek out the subtleties. 

     When we see people, it is often at their worst. It is often intimately. 

     People so often rise to the occasion, but sometimes they don't. We see them in moments of triumph. Moments of tragedy. Moments when they do exactly the right thing. Moments when they plunge headlong into disaster and when they emerge, smiling. 

     It is part of our mission to ferret out the real story. To tell the reader/listener/viewer about the dignity of people they might not otherwise know. 

     And, not to let the great, diverse, messy, crazy public have their lives drowned out by the powerful. 

Meaner Than a Junkyard Dog

Jefferson Garson-Loughran guards his house in Barre, Vermont. Jeffers is a real watchdog. The press are metaphorical watchdogs. But, we like the comparison.










     We are the watchdogs.

      Journalists have a special obligation to ensure the public's business is conducted in the open and that public records are open to all.

     Not an easy task. Many elected officials, even if they are too young to remember them, yearn for the days of smoke-filled rooms. They are nostalgic for the when decisions were actually made in a back room at the local tavern. The days when the parish priest was consulted before every council meeting. When correspondence could vanish without a trace.

     Jefferson said he would rather have newspapers without government than a government without newspapers. He said that because he knew no one else would keep an eye on the government.

     I hope the young people going into journalism today take that obligation seriously.

     Because it is part of our job to know the law better than the average citizen and to keep up with any updates in the law, we have to maintain a close eye on the changes that inevitably take place. We have to keep a close eye on the people who want to subvert the law. These responsibilities are reinforced by the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics which was updated by the members' delegates at the Excellence in Journalism '14 conference.

     We are also called upon by the Code to provide access to the source material we use in writing our stories when it is relevant and appropriate.

     Sometimes only tiny portions of source material we use are relevant. Often much of it is routine, even boring. Our readers would be amazed at how boring. Very often it is a tedious process to sift through the material as we do research.

      People act as if it's a privilege to have information, but what it really is is our responsibility.

 

Accuracy, Accuracy, Accuracy

The 2014 Spugies -- the NJPro Chapter of SPJ's annual awards reception.We try to recognize the best and we always want to hear "how they did it."

 

     The newly updated Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics contains a section "Seek Truth and Report It," as did the original code and all its subsequent permutations.

     That's the bottom line of journalism.

     Kinda funny to see it in writing.

     That's what we do.

     The section goes on "Take responsibility for the accuracy of the work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible."

     Again. That's what we do.

     But, who, exactly, are "we?"

     We used to know who "we" were. We were reporters. Maybe we no longer wore fedoras and Lenny Briscoe raincoats. Maybe we no longer carried SpeedGraphix and spit on the lenses to clean them with neckties. But, we still had the same mentality.

     Today? Not so much.

     Some reporters call themselves "journalists." That's a pretty high-falutin' term for some of us. I refer to myself as an "old newspaper lady."
 
     But, although we are not professionals in the sense of being licensed by the state (icky thought), we are professionals in the sense we adhere to standards of conduct. At least we need to.

     And, the first standard is accuracy. Seek Truth and Report It.

     What many of us worry about today is all the people writing stuff and pretending to be professionals who wouldn't know professional journalism if it spun around three times and kicked them in the tush.  They don't write like professionals and they don't behave like professionals.

     In the days when news had to be printed, it was harder to pose as a reporter. Now, when anybody can post on the web, anyone can write pretty-much anything and post it for who-knows-how-many people to see.

     Those actions are dangerous to those of us who are responsible because it damages our credibility. And that's all we have.

     If we lose our credibility, we have nothing. And the public loses because they don't know what they can believe.

     This is why we hope our ethics will be shared by everyone who reports the news.

      We hope, but we aren't always optimistic.

"Will No One Rid Me of This Troublesome Priest?"

Shawn Boberg talks about Bridgegate

 

      In the movie "Becket," which is probably the best of all "buddy movies," Peter O'Toole as King Henry II, fed up with the fact his old buddy, Thomas Becket, is taking being Archbishop of Canterbury really seriously, says, while surrounded by his lords, "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"
      That's sort of how I visualize Bridgegate. I'm sure Gov. Chris Christie didn't ORDER his staff to close lanes on the George Washington Bridge, but he probably made it known he wasn't happy with the mayor of Fort Lee. He isn't exactly a shrinking violet.
       And, as for the name, I still prefer Christastrophe.
       There are no fewer than four investigations going on right now, although one is by the governor's office, so I imagine a grain of salt is needed for that, so we may actually find out what happened.
       Whether it is Bridgegate or Christastrophe, Shawn Boberg of The Record gave an overview to the NJPro Chapter of SPJ and guests last Sunday at the Montclair Public Library. This is becoming an NJPro tradition, the big November panel. The veteran journalists on this panel included Matt Katz of the famous Christie comment about wearing orange and putting out cones. The panel was augmented by Jennifer Borg, counsel to The Record.
      The overall topic of the forum was "why do some stories stick?" It does seems as though there are stories that will never die, no matter how hard the people involved are trying to kill them. And some stories that appear really strong at first just vaporize.
     I don't think we solved all the problems this brings out, but we sure did open up a discussion which is sometimes the most important thing.
     Jennifer Borg reminded us we are accountable for presenting the truth, for digging to the bottom.
     The public relies on reporters. We have a great responsilbity.
     And that's why we have these forums.

The First Amendment and High School Students

Every few years some high school administrator decides freedom of the press applies only to those who hold the money.

Sort of a variation on “freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one.”

But the truth is, it is the students who produce the school newspaper. And while no one would argue they need guidance from a qualified adviser, they hold ultimate responsibility for the content.

Students also deserve protection from the same laws that protect their adult counterparts. Freedom of the press does not halt at the schoolhouse gate.

Too often, students don’t understand their rights and their advisers are too intimidated by the administration to help them. This isn’t an indictment of advisers. Often they are young teachers without tenure. Sometimes they didn’t volunteer to advise the school paper, but were just in the right (or wrong) place at the right time. In the past few years, three high school advisers were removed or forced out in New Jersey.

Nobody ever got rich on an adviser’s stipend, but it doesn’t look good for a teacher to lose a gig like that. And these were dedicated people.

Two of the student press freedom problems were the subject of the keynote panels at the Garden State Scholastic Press Association Fall Conference at the Rutgers Busch Campus in Piscataway on Monday, Oct. 27.

In Pemberton, the ancient problem of smoking in the girls’ room was the subject of a story censored by the administration. The school principal insisted the story was not appropriate. Seriously. What is more appropriate? Kids have been violating smoking bans since there have been smoking bans. Other kids, have objected to second hand smoke for just as long. If the student paper can’t tackle that, what’s the point of having a paper?

After some changes were made, and, not coincidentally, after Phil Gianficaro took the school to task in his column in the Glochester County Times, the story was published.

The other issue involved Northern Highlands High School in Allendale. An editor used an anonymous source in a story about an administrator accused of harassment. The GSSPA took the attitude she had the same rights as a professional to use an anonymous source. Not surprisingly, the school held a different opinion.

In the third case, not directly addressed by the Fall Conference, the Hunterdon Central High School adviser was replaced by the school public relations professional. Sure. There’s no difference at all between someone who is paid to make the school look good and a teacher interested in instructing budding journalists.

The two student editors spoke about their fights for freedom to a packed room of students and advisors as well as some of the professionals who participated in Student Press Day.  Both Kylie  Sposato of Pemberton and Adelina Colaku of Northern Highlands spoke eloquently about their conflicts. Gianficaro was also on the panel, as was Frank LoMonte of the Student Press Law Center.

LoMonte worked with GSSPA in the past assisting the group with attempts to codify student press rights in the state statutes. Previous bills, one of which based on a Student Press Law Center model, failed to become law and were not supported by either the NJ Education Association or the NJ Press Association.

What kind of lesson are we teaching our young people?

Freedom of the press doesn’t apply to them? So, what about the other freedoms mentioned in the 45 words of the First Amendment? The only thing these teens can discern is that they don’t apply either.

Kids will screw up. They will make mistakes. That’s why an adviser who understands journalism and understands teenagers is so essential. An adviser who really wants the job and who isn’t given a reason to be scared of the administration.

While working for legislation, the GSSPA is forming an S-GSSPA for students under the direction of long-time GSSPA official John Tagliarimi of Bergenfield. Bringing the students into the mix should help them understand the rights they do have,

Professionals from around the state assist GSSPA at their fall conference which is partially sponsored by The Record. For years the now-defunct New Jersey Press Women provided assistance to the GSSPA and high school journalism advisers, including a program called “Adopt-an-Adviser” which assigned professionals to high school advisers.  In an effort to take up the slack, the New Jersey Professional Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists now has a representative on the GSSPA board.

Pros having students’ backs. As it should be.

John Tagliarimi introduces two former student editors at the keynote panel during the Garden State Scholastic Press Association Fall Conference at Rutgers University, Busch Campus.

The room was packed for the keynote panel. It was the first time the GSSPA had students involved in the keynote.

Fear and Loathing on the Auld Sod

  

              In keeping with its commitment to bringing free speech and press freedom issues to the public, the New Jersey Pro chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists presented a talk by Irish journalist Ed Moloney on Monday, Oct. 20, at the Guarini Institute at St. Peter’s College in Jersey City.

                Moloney covered The Troubles in Northern Ireland for many years for various Irish publications and was later part of an oral history project at Boston College.

                The Troubles and how they were covered by the Irish and British press aren’t a history lesson, Moloney said. They are an object lesson. The Irish press mostly parroted the party line. The British press was a little more objective, he said. Still, the full story didn’t come out.

                Moloney discussed the parallels between the Irish press becoming complicit with the government and the American press being cowed by the government. He cited the case of New York Times reporter James Risen, who first uncovered the use of warrantless wiretaps by the US government. At the request of the government, The Times refused to print the story until Risen wrote a book that was soon to be published.

                One of the most fascinating aspects of The Troubles was Gerry Adams insistence he was not a member of the IRA, Moloney said.  He looked into the allegations Adams was a member of the revolutionary group.

                He was approached by Boston College about archiving an oral history project featuring the stories of the rank and file. The Jesuit college was a natural repository for these archives since it had a history of inviting both sides in The Troubles to campus many times. At first, BC wanted to be able to make the oral histories public within 10 years. No participant in The Troubles on either side would go along with that. The college finally agreed to an embargo on names until each individual interviewee had died.

                However, BC didn’t put up a fight when subpoenas were presented by both the British and American governments.

                Moloney considers it ironic that the US government backed the British in these subpoenas considering there were the same people who considered George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson terrorists. But then, he pointed out, the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is strictly one of perspective.

                A lively Q&A followed Moloney’s talk. The audience consisted of a few journalists, students, members of the Irish-American community in Hudson County and BC alumni from the area.

                The Guarini Institute has invited SPJ back to  co-sponsor more programs and I hope we do so.