Wendell Cochran on Issues in Journalism

The media shield bill, which once looked like a sure thing, now is comatose. Even the Democratic-controlled Congress failed to pass it and now, with Republican ascendancy in the new one, the bill doesn't even have a sponsor. What caused the turnaround, and how do you feel about it?

WC: Republicans in the Senate blocked in earlier, even though it had bipartisan sponsorship. I think all the uproar over leaks, especially WikiLeaks, has dampened some enthusiasm. In general, I think too many reporters are too eager to grant anonymity. But it is clear that we need the ability, in many circumstances, to protect sources.

Now that Huffington Post is becoming part of the AOL empire, is it still justified in refusing to pay its many contributors of content?

WC: That's assuming it was ever justified in not paying contributors, which I don't believe it was. Professionals are paid, and should be paid, for their work.

"What I have learned in 11 years in the sports business is that the dumbest guys in the room are always the media guys,'' Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban wrote on his blog recently. Cuban probably would be considered a smart guy, as he is a multimillionaire after starting two technology companies. What do you think of what he said?

WC: He's probably right. It's not that we are fundamentally dumb, which we aren't, but that we usually are profoundly ignorant of the forces at work shaping the information we get. Of course, much of that is because the "smart guys" only feed us what they want us to know. To me, this is a reason why journalists should rely more on documents and data, and less on just what we are told by sources.

A hot topic in the journalism world these days is whether reporters should be allowed to call someone a liar in a news story if they wish. This sprung from CNN's Anderson Cooper calling former Egyptian president Mubarak a liar for contending that the massive protests against him were foreign influenced. Should reporters get to do namecalling or should they just stick to the facts and let the readers make up their own minds?

WC: Not sure that I have much to say here. Lying is fundamentally about intent and I've never yet seen a journalist (or anyone else) who can truly read someone else's mind.

Prominent media blogger Alan Mutter recently declared that the "threadbare notion" of objectivity is dead and that in its place, reporters should "forthrightly declare their personal predilections, financial entanglements and political allegiances so the public can evaluate the quality of the information it is getting." Your thoughts? Would this lead to the press being more trusted or less?

WC: OK, let's be straight up here. No human is "objective," about anything. But I hate the idea that is OK for me as a journalist to simply and lazily report the facts that are convenient to what I believe. In that model, there are no honest brokers, only dishonest advocates. It also seems to me that it doesn't give us any room to learn and to grow as we discover more information, and to change our minds. Instead, we are the prisoners of our own limitations. What a sad state of affairs that would be.

It is practically impossible, unless you have a lot of money and can afford a top lawyer, to successfully sue a paper for libel if you think you've been wronged. Is that good or bad?

WC: Practically speaking, libel hasn't been much of an issue for most journalists since Times v. Sullivan and subsequent decisions. In many ways, that has been good because it removes many threats. In one sense, libel laws are a form of accountability (actually, many of your questions are about accountability).

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces rape charges in Sweden, has had almost all of his staffers quit, and is depicted in an unflattering new biography as being paranoid and obsessive about his own secrecy while deploring it in others. Has he come and gone as a journalistic influence/media partner in America?

WC: Probably not.

Though grand jury proceedings against Barry Bonds took place eight years ago, they continue to be in the news as he's slated to go on trial in March on charges that he lied when he said he never knowingly took performance-enhancing drugs. Looking back at it now, do you think it was justified for the two San Francisco reporters to violate the secrecy of those proceedings with leaked stories about his testimony? Are there any limits?

WC: I really don't know enough about the circumstances to comment. Yes, I think there should be limits on confidentiality: If the source lies to you or otherwise acts in bad faith. I don't know and am not saying that either of those things occurred in the Bonds case.

Considering all the above questions, do you think there's a sense in America that the press has too much power as it is and it should not be trusted with any more?

WC: We certainly wouldn't win very many popularity contests. But I'm not sure that is much of a change. In times of great change, as this one is for the news business, it's not unusual for questions to be raised about institutions. And there certainly are examples of incidents in which the press has not covered itself with glory. What we need to do, in my opinion, is to figure out ways and means for the public to have some confidence that we are accountable to ourselves and to our audiences. More transparency and openness are part of that. But so are better, more consistent practices. You earn trust, day by day, by what you do and how you do it. And we need to be more ready to identify and weed out those who don't meet our standards. Oh, and of course, we need to do all that while upholding the First Amendment.

The New York Times soon will install a paywall on its website news. Do you think it will work financially for them?

WC: At some level, probably the Times will be able to make this work. Generally, I think we will have to find ways for the audience to pay more of the cost of newsgathering and delivery as we go forward. But it would be wrong for publishers to simply pattern themselves after the Times, which has a unique franchise.

(Prof. Cochran has been a faculty member in AU's School of Communication since 1992 and is senior editor of its Investigative Reporting Workshop. He has spent more than 40 years practicing and teaching journalism. He says he has "covered everything from local police to mining disasters to presidential campaigns, collecting bylines from nearly 40 of the 50 states." He worked for leading news organizations including the Kansas City Star, Des Moines Register and Gannett News Service, ande is a pioneer in the field of computer-assisted reporting.)