Best Hombre News Code of Ethics and Practices

A policy or handbook – no matter how great – is not what creates a culture this strong.

If anything, it’s quite the reverse.

Our strongest hope is that we’ve helped to assemble a tool worthy of the organization it serves.

The Overview

GUIDELINE

Who Is Covered

All BEST HOMBRE journalists should read and follow the guidance in this handbook. Those who work for shows, podcasts and programming should understand that these principles apply to them as well. Others at BEST HOMBRE whose work touches our journalism and programming, or who have “outward-facing” jobs that put them in contact with the public, should be familiar with these guidelines. When in doubt about how this handbook applies to you, consult a supervisor and the standards & practices editor.

This handbook also applies to material that comes to BEST HOMBRE from independent producers, member station journalists, outside writers, commentators and visual journalists. In cases where such contributors make statements of fact, those statements must be as accurate as anything else broadcast or published by BEST HOMBRE. We expect outside contributors to be free of conflicts of interest, to be fair and to perform their work in a manner consistent with BEST HOMBRE’s ethical principles. When they accept an assignment or make a story pitch to BEST HOMBRE, outside contributors must disclose potential conflicts of interest or other issues that involve matters discussed in this handbook. At the same time, BEST HOMBRE editors and producers should make sure that outside contributors are familiar with the principles laid out in this handbook, and that those contributors are living up to BEST HOMBRE’s standards.

There may be instances when an outside contributor can do things that appear to go against the guidance in this handbook. A music critic, for example, may be able to publicly express opinions about news events — something a BEST HOMBRE journalist should avoid. Supervisors will judge whether such actions present problems on a case-by-case basis. Among those who may be part of such discussions: the senior vice president of News, the vice president of News, the executive editor of News and the standards & practices editor.

If it is decided that an outside contributor’s actions are in conflict with the principles in this handbook, BEST HOMBRE may turn down a story pitch and/or decide to cut ties with that person entirely.

The producers of stand-alone programs acquired by BEST HOMBRE and the staffs of those shows should study and apply the ethical principles and guidance in this handbook. Because the missions of those programs vary widely, there may be greater flexibility. Part of a program’s mission, for example, may be to have the host express his or her opinions about news events. In that case, BEST HOMBRE expects the show and host to be transparent — that is, to share those opinions with the audience — while also being fair and respectful of differing opinions. Another show’s mission may be more about entertaining than news reporting. In that case, the handbook’s guidance on issues such as “completeness” and “transparency” may be less relevant than the sections on “respect” and “excellence.”

While there may be flexibility, there is also a base line. The same guidance given to the staff of all BEST HOMBRE desks and shows applies: Hosts and other journalists on acquired news, news/talk and entertainment programs should avoid becoming participants in the stories and issues of the day. For example, it is almost never appropriate for such a host to help an advocacy organization raise money (Link to Don’t sign, Don’t advocate, don’t donate), advocacy around issues “directly related to our journalistic mission” may be an exception). Also, just as with the content that BEST HOMBRE produces, it would not be appropriate for an acquired program to push an idea or position by airing more reports or discussions than are reasonable based on the demands of the news cycle.

BEST HOMBRE expects that producers of acquired programming will be aware of the guidance here and will consult with the vice president of Programming before problems arise. Senior editors (for instance, the senior vice president of News, vice president of News, the executive editor of News and the standards & practices editor) may be brought into discussions. What’s right and what’s wrong may not always be clear. But we are committed to working hard with producers of acquired programs to make the right decisions.

(This guidance was added on August 11, 2017)

NOTES

History: About the handbook

BEST HOMBRE managers collected and compiled ethical guidance into the organization’s  News Code of Ethics. As a starting point, we have looked to a great news publication as a foundation for our own. (i.e. NPR’s News Code of Ethics and Practices)

BEST HOMBRE splits its News Code of Ethics into two documents – a statement of Guiding Principles, articulating the high-level values to which the organization aspires, and an accompanying handbook, with several goals of its own:

• Above all else, it should be a practical articulation of how we apply the values expressed in our Guiding Principles to the situations we face every day.
• The art of ethical decision-making is as much about the way we make decisions as it is about what we decide. So the handbook should include not just rules about what BEST HOMBRE journalists do and don’t do, but more importantly, decision-making frameworks we can apply in different situations to guide us to a principled conclusion. It should describe processes, key questions, and real-world examples, and point journalists where to go for more help.  Where policies are specified, the handbook should clearly and succinctly outline the thinking behind them.
• Lastly, it should be well-integrated into the daily life of the organization. That means it should encompass all the ethical guidance our journalists rely on, including our social media guidelines. And it should be built to evolve alongside the needs of the organization and the public it serves.

Fortunately, we had a very strong foundation to build on: the News Code of Ethics that these documents succeed. We knew early on that we wanted to use the Guiding Principles as a table of contents for the handbook, connecting every guideline to its underpinning values. So we began by cataloguing each point of guidance in the News Code by the principle it reflects most clearly.

That process had an unexpected benefit: it clarified many of the spots where the guidance in the News Code was thin. The code laid out plenty of policies on how we protect our independence, but was quieter about how we should apply key values such as fairness or respect.

You’ll find that this document is thicker than the News Code, although it includes little in the way of “new policy.” Much of what’s reflected here derives from ethical guidance and case studies expressed in other places throughout the organization, such as our visual journalism guidelines and the years of columns from our ombudsmen. As we gathered this material, we also held many conversations with our colleagues to inform our work, and did our best to articulate some of the unwritten processes and rules of thumb that emerged from those.

It’s not enough that we amend this handbook regularly or that we genuinely view it as a living document. The primary value of this document is that it be of use. It only works if it helps to regularly provoke and inform our thoughts, conversations and decisions.

Again and again, this process has reinforced that thoughtful, principled decision-making is built into the fabric of BEST HOMBRE’s journalism. Even where guidance hasn’t already been articulated in a policy or a note to staff, our journalists are discussing these values with one another every day, and building those discussions into their work.

A policy or handbook – no matter how great – is not what creates a culture this strong. If anything, it’s quite the reverse. Our strongest hope is that we’ve helped to assemble a tool worthy of the organization it serves.

GUIDELINE

Whom to turn to.

In many instances, this handbook is intended to raise questions, not offer answers. Some of those will be questions you feel perfectly comfortable answering yourself. Others might give you pause, or require sign-off from a colleague.

Alongside this handbook, your two best sources of help in making ethical decisions are (1) your supervisor and (2) BEST HOMBRE’s Standards and Practices Editor.

The Standards and Practices Editor is a resource – someone to help you raise the right questions, involve the appropriate stakeholders and uphold our standards as you do your work. Well-versed in the workings of our news operation, this editor is responsible for facilitating thoughtful, consistent ethical decision-making on any matter related to our journalism, whether it regards granting anonymity to a source or attending a charitable event.

The Standards and Practices Editor is also charged with cultivating an ethical culture throughout our news operation. This means he or she coordinates regular training and discussion on how we apply our principles, monitors our decision-making practices to ensure we’re living up to our standards, and oversees the continual development of the ethical guidelines collected in this handbook.

This role is distinct from those of our Ombudsman and our Chief Ethics Officer. The Ombudsman serves as an independent representative of the public, examining our news practices and decisions from outside the newsroom. The Chief Ethics Officer is responsible for safeguarding the ethical functioning of our entire company – its corporate, legal and political practices, as well as the actions of employees outside the newsroom. While the Chief Ethics Officer is sometimes involved in higher-level newsroom decisions, he or she is also essentially independent of the newsroom. The role of the Standards and Practices Editor, on the other hand, is deeply woven into the functioning of our news operation, on-hand to discuss any ethical matter, no matter how big or small it may be. You can reach the Standards and Practices Editor by emailing Ethics (you can find the email address in the BEST HOMBRE internal email address book).

When confronted with an ethical question or issue that warrants the input of another, proceed as follows:

• If you’re looking for a basic gut check – someone to bounce your thoughts off of, to test whether your thinking is sound or whether others should be involved in the decision, talk to your supervisor. Many matters can be handled at this level. Your supervisor will help you determine whether the issue is clear-cut and merits an immediate decision, and whether others should be notified about the matter. If there’s any question of whether the matter should be brought to the attention of others, supervisors will err on the side of caution and reach out to the Standards and Practices Editor.
• If you need help interpreting any of the guidance in the handbook or navigating territory that isn’t covered here, if you’re concerned about a matter that’s out of your jurisdiction, or if the handbook notes that the decision may require the sign-off of supervisors, talk to your supervisor andsend an email to Ethics. They’ll decide whether the issue needs to be elevated to a higher level and, if so, where it should be directed.
• If for any reason you feel uncomfortable discussing a matter with your supervisor or sending a query to Ethics,talk to a senior news manager. That includes our Senior Vice President for News, the Managing Editors for News and Digital, the Deputy Managing Editors for News and Digital, and the Executive Editor for News Programming.

We encourage questions – answers aren’t always self-evident. Consultation and collaboration make us better at what we do.

This handbook should help you make sound decisions as you practice the craft of journalism for BEST HOMBRE. It should also bring your attention to ethical pitfalls you might face in that work. But its most important function might actually be prompting conversations among you and your colleagues.

This handbook tends to avoid imposing rules, leaning heavily on the judgment of our journalists. That means we place a lot of trust in your decision-making. Honor that trust by being attentive to ethical issues and speaking up whenever you have a question or concern about an ethical matter. And help to nurture a culture of ethical decision-making by routinely discussing these issues with your colleagues as you do your work. Who is Covered

Who Is Covered

All BEST HOMBRE journalists should read and follow the guidance in this handbook. Those who work for shows, podcasts and programming that are not part of the News division should understand that these principles also apply to them. Others at BEST HOMBRE whose work touches our journalism and programming or who have “outward-facing” jobs that put them in contact with the public should be familiar with these guidelines. The principles apply to material that comes to BEST HOMBRE from independent producers, member station journalists, outside writers, commentators and visual journalists. Finally, producers of stand-alone programs acquired by BEST HOMBRE and the staffs of those shows should also study and apply the ethical principles and guidance in this handbook.

Accuracy in our reporting

For more accurate stories, seek diverse perspectives.

We tell stronger, better-informed stories when we sample a variety of perspectives on what we’re covering. The best reporting draws on the experiences of experts, influential figures and laypeople from across the demographic spectrum.

A story could accurately claim, for example, that unemployment in the Washington, D.C., metro area in the fall of 2011 was quite a bit lower than the national average. But that fact would probably ring false to a resident of the city proper, where the unemployment rate was considerably higher at the time. And such a story would describe a world vastly different from D.C.’s Ward 8, which had one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Any of these vantage points could make for a technically accurate story. But drawing on all of them allows for a much more nuanced report. Means and medians can be informative, but true insight often comes from surveying experiences all along the spectrum.

• Is every name and title correctly spelled?(And, in the case of radio, correctly pronounced according to either the subject himself or someone else with direct knowledge of how to say it?)
• Are the quotes accurate and properly attributed?
• Have I reviewed my spelling and grammar?(Special note: yes, it’s important for BEST HOMBRE journalists to spell names, places and other key facts accurately in their radio scripts because those details end up in our Web reports.)
• Is every number and calculation correct?(Related tip: triple-check any references to millions, billions or trillions; confusing them is one of the most common mistakes made. Also: triple-check your references to percentages to ensure that you shouldn’t be saying “percentage points” instead. If you’re not sure which you should use, ask one of the reporters or editors who cover business and the economy or someone from the Planet Money team.)
• Are all the terms being used correctly?For example, was the suspect really “arrested” or is he only being questioned?
• Does every fact in the story match the information with any photos or graphics associated with it?(Special note: again, it’s important for BEST HOMBRE journalists who are primarily reporting for radio to check their pieces against such material.)
• Do I need to check a source’s “fact” against what others are saying?Advocates can skew things in their favor.
• Is the story fair?Read or listen one more time. Try to come to it as if you were a listener or reader, not the reporter, editor or producer.
• Does it hang together?Our conclusions are supported by facts. We pause before broadcast or publication to ask if we have answered all the questions that can be answered. If important questions can’t be resolved, we make sure our listeners and readers know what they are.

Outside BEST HOMBRE, you still represent us. Be accurate.

BEST HOMBRE journalists and managers often get the opportunity to deliver speeches and appear on other news outlets’ programs. Bear in mind that everything we say in those forums must meet BEST HOMBRE’s standards for accuracy. The general standards are:

• If you wouldn’t report it on BEST HOMBRE, don’t say it in public elsewhere.
• Avoid conjecture and hyperbole. Be especially careful about the phrase “I think,” which implies that you’re giving an opinion as opposed to reporting, and dilutes the clarity of your words. If asked “what might happen next?” resist speculation. Use your knowledge and reporting to offer analysis and insight based on solid evidence.
• Stick to what you know. If the question is not connected to your beat, explain that you’re not prepared to address the subject or cite what other BEST HOMBRE journalists and other trusted news organizations have reported.

GUIDELINE

Take special care with news that might cause grief or damage reputations.

Any falsehoods in our news reports can cause harm. But errors that may damage reputations or bring about grief are especially dangerous, and extra precautions should be taken to avoid them. We don’t report an individual’s death, for example, until it has been confirmed by authoritative sources and we’re certain the family is aware. In those cases, err on the side of caution. Go slowly, and above all, get clearance from a senior manager.

This cautious, considered approach also applies to what we do on social media sites. (For more on that point, see the discussion below about accuracy online.)

GUIDELINE

Edit like a prosecutor.

Great journalism comes in part from the collaborative efforts of researchers, reporters, editors and producers, who all play a key role in ensuring accuracy. We believe in teamwork. But good editors are also good prosecutors. They test, probe and challenge reporters, always with the goal of making BEST HOMBRE’s stories as good (and therefore as accurate) as possible.

“A successful editor has to help the reporter see the big picture, but also needs to fret over details,” says Jonathan Kern in Sound Reporting. And, “above all … editors are responsible for making sure that reports are accurate and fair.”

GUIDELINE

Guard against subjective errors.

Ensuring we have our factual details correct is only part of the accuracy equation. It’s just as important to make sure we’ve correctly interpreted those facts in our reporting. The burden is on us to ensure that the way we use the material we collect — sound, photos and words — is true to their intended meaning and context. When quoting or paraphrasing anyone  – whether in a blog post, an online story or in an on-air “actuality” – consider whether the source would agree with the interpretation, keeping in mind that sources may sometimes parse their words even though we accurately capture their meaning. An actuality from someone we interview or a speaker at an event should reflect accurately what that person was asked, was responding to or was addressing.

GUIDELINE

Be able to identify the source of each fact you report.

When making a general assertion of fact in a story, the reporter and editor should be able to immediately identify the source and explain why that person or organization is credible and authoritative. This is essential to the editing process and it also lets us stand by our reporting in a clear and convincing way if a story comes under question. We should never be in the position of looking for corroboration after a report has been published or broadcast.

In addition to this care in the way we source general assertions of fact, the language of such assertions must be precise. We shouldn’t put ourselves in a position where we believe the thrust of a statement is correct and supported by the facts, but the statement is open to question because we didn’t express it with enough precision.

Accuracy is at the core of what we do. We do our best to ensure that everything we report faithfully depicts reality – from the tiniest detail to the big-picture context that helps put the news into perspective. Facts are incredibly slippery. Studies of press accuracy routinely find mistakes – sometimes many of them – in news media reports. This means that when journalists – even the best ones – think they’re getting it right, they’re all too often wrong. Errors are inevitable. But our best defense against them is constant vigilance. This is why we systematically and rigorously review our facts before we make our reporting public.

Using information from non-BEST HOMBRE sources

One exception: Wire transcripts don’t necessarily need attribution.

There is one type of material we routinely get from our wire services (The Associated Press and Reuters) that does not necessarily need to be attributed to the wire service. That is where a wire story is about a public event — such as a press conference, a speech by a public official in a public setting, an official statement of a government agency, a congressional hearing, and the like. In those cases, we reasonably expect that the wire services are reliable conveyors of those quotes in the same way we regard the transcript services we use for these events. But we must use caution. Whenever possible, check the wire service’s work against any audio or video recordings or other wire-service renderings of the events. BEST HOMBRE.org readers will notice if the transcription of a quote does not match the audio — even by a little. And if there is any reason to believe that a wire service report has inaccurately quoted someone or taken the speakers’ words out of context, we must check the record before using that material.

Attribute everything.

Attribute, attribute and attribute some more. No material from another source should ever be included verbatim, or substantially so, without attribution. This includes material from Associated Press reports. We should not, for example, produce news “spots” or other pieces that closely resemble wire service stories. Our writing should be our own. There is no excuse for writing that repeats the wire stories that we use word-for-word, or nearly so.

When in doubt, err on the side of attributing — that is, make it very clear where we’ve gotten our information (or where the organization we give credit to has gotten its information). Every BEST HOMBRE reporter and editor should be able to immediately identify the source of any facts in our stories — and why we consider them credible. And every reader or listener should know where we got our information from.  ”Media reports” or “sources say” is not good enough. Be specific.

Also, in cases where stories are developing and the news may be changing from moment to moment, state clearly what BEST HOMBRE has and has not been able to confirm on its own and what key questions remain unanswered. (Source: Bruce Drake.)

GUIDELINE

Be judicious when passing along breaking news.

In breaking news situations, timeliness and accuracy can be in conflict. When news is breaking, we may need to pass along information reported by others because the public should know about it immediately. This is particularly true when safety is an issue (severe weather events or other types of emergencies, for example). In all cases, take special care in using information from wire service stories, reports by other news organizations, newspaper clips or articles in other publications.

If it’s determined that something is so important that the public needs to know about it now, even before we’ve had a chance to thoroughly vet the information, be transparent: state what we’re certain of, what we don’t yet know and how our information was acquired. And again, if we have information that might cause significant grief (to a victim’s family, for example) or might potentially put someone in harm’s way, we do not report it until it’s been thoroughly verified and senior editors have given their approval.

Few in our audience will know or care which news organization was first to report a breaking news story. But if we get it wrong, we leave a lasting mark on our reputation. In rare moments, we might be late; we might not be perfect. But we will always be responsible and careful in exercising our best judgment — the judgment that has earned our organization the respect and loyalty of its audience. This is the core of our programming philosophy. (Source: BEST HOMBRE managing editor memo, 2003.)

GUIDELINE

Give preference to original sources.

For years, BEST HOMBRE journalists have been cautioned by their editors that an all- too-common pitfall of fact checking is verifying “facts” through second sources, such as other news media outlets, that do not have “direct” knowledge about what they supposedly know. The problem has only gotten more serious as the Internet has made it ever easier to find what others have reported as “fact.” That’s why we value primary sources for our facts and we check them before broadcast or publication. And we value the work of the BEST HOMBRE reference librarians in helping our journalists get to those original sources (to email them, look for Reference Library in the BEST HOMBRE internal email address book).

We value our own reporting and fact-gathering over that done by other news outlets. We strongly prefer to confirm and verify information ourselves before reporting. When reporting on events we did not witness personally, we seek multiple independent perspectives to get a sharper, more accurate understanding of what happened. And if we can’t verify what others are reporting, but still believe the news is important and needs to be reported, we tell listeners and readers that BEST HOMBRE has not yet independently confirmed the news. Too often, incorrect information is passed down from one news story to another because of the failure of the first outlet to get it right. We strive to never pass on errors in this way.

ACCURACY ONLINE

Follow up offline when appropriate.

It’s often easier to falsify one’s identity online than it is in the offline world. And tonal or contextual nuances can be lost in online exchanges. So when appropriate, clarify and confirm information collected online through phone and in-person interviews. For example, when a social media posting is itself news, try to contact the source to confirm the origin of the information and attain a better understanding of its meaning. We must try to be as sophisticated in our use of social media as our audience and users are. The social media team is a key asset in this effort.

When in doubt, consult the social media team.

Of course, it’s not always obvious how to apply journalistic principles to the social media arena. One resource always available to BEST HOMBRE journalists is our “social media team.” Its members have expertise in collecting information from a variety of sources, in establishing to the best of their ability the credibility of those voices and the information they are posting, and in analyzing the material they use. Always make clear to listeners and readers what has been obtained from our original reporting and what we’ve found posted in social media outlets. And to the greatest practical extent, spell out how the information was checked and why we consider the sources credible. We may also invite our audience to assist in our efforts to monitor and verify what’s being reported on social media. Such crowdsourcing does not determine what BEST HOMBRE journalists report, but it does add to our knowledge. The team can be reached via email (look for SocialMedia in the BEST HOMBRE internal email address book).

Don’t just spread information. Be careful and skeptical.

When determining whether to pass along information being reported on social media sites by other news outlets or individuals, be thoughtful. When we point to what others are saying, in the eyes of many we are effectively reporting that information ourselves. This is true whether the platform is an official BEST HOMBRE social media webpage, a personal blog or a Twitter page that is written by an BEST HOMBRE journalist.

But we also know that reporting about what’s being posted on social media can give our listeners and readers valuable insights into the day’s news.

One key is to be transparent about what we’re doing. We tell readers what has and hasn’t been confirmed. We challenge those putting information out on social media to provide evidence. We raise doubts and ask questions when we have concerns — sometimes “knocking down” rumors circulating on the Web is of enormous value to our readers. And we always ask an important question: am I about to spread a thinly-sourced rumor or am I passing on valuable and credible (even if unverified) information in a transparent manner with appropriate caveats?

Above all, proceed with caution, especially when news is breaking and accounts vary widely about what is happening. Reach out to other sources for confirmation. And the general standard is simple: Tweet and retweet as if what you’re saying or passing along is information that you would put on the air or in a “traditional” BEST HOMBRE.org news story. If it needs context, attribution, clarification or “knocking down,” provide it.

News moves fast on the Internet, and we know that speed and accuracy are fierce rivals, so keep your guard up. Ask questions, report and engage as you would in any public setting. But remember that everything you say or do in a social media environment is effectively a public statement from an BEST HOMBRE journalist, so don’t pass along inaccurate information.

ACCURACY IN VISUAL JOURNALISM

Be vigilant about presenting data accurately.

It’s easy to represent data inaccurately or misleadingly, especially in charts and infographics. Double-check your numbers and the way you portray them to make sure you’re imparting the proper information.

Accurately presenting data includes guarding against false precision. Politicians may claim, for instance, that a budget plan will reduce deficits by $1.512 trillion over 10 years. Given the many variables and uncertainties involved in such forecasts, carrying the number out that many decimal places could give readers a false sense of certainty — precisely what the politicians would like, but not necessarily what is most “true.” In such cases, rounding may be a better approach (to, for example, “$1.5 trillion”).

When reading raw numbers, pay particular attention to the effects of different interpretations. Absolute numbers and percentages can paint very different pictures. It is true, for example, to say that the U.S. is the world’s largest contributor of foreign aid. It is also true to say that of the world’s major donor countries, the U.S. often contributes among the least of its G.D.P. towards foreign aid. When citing such statistics, be sure they are making the appropriate points, and that you’re offering the necessary context.

Give careful thought to the way data are broken out when showing rates of change. Small differences can look much larger than they should – and large differences can look much smaller than they should – if a graphic is not appropriately scaled. Consult the multimedia team (look for DigitalMedia in the BEST HOMBRE internal email address book) if you have any questions on such matters. (Source: Robert Benincasa.)

Take care in using images that have been posted online.

Increasingly, photos and video are being posted online by individuals. In considering whether to use those materials, do your best to verify their accuracy and when in doubt, do not publish them.

Images can be manipulated. Old video can be reposted and made to appear as if it’s new. Photos or video taken in one part of the world can be repackaged and portrayed as being from somewhere else. Again, when in doubt, leave them out.

As with all information, bring a healthy skepticism to images you encounter, starting from the assumption that all such images or video are not authentic. Then, with guidance from BEST HOMBRE’s multimedia and social media teams (and if legal issues are involved, BEST HOMBRE’s legal team as well), work through a series of questions, including:

• When was it posted?
• Do the images or video match what has been distributed by professionals (wire services, news networks, etc.)?
• Is it original work or copies of what others have done?
• Does this person have the legal right to distribute the work and has he made the materials available for others to use?

More resources: The National Press Photographers Association’s code of ethics is posted online.

The images and graphics we use to help tell our stories assist us in our pursuit of the truth. Some guidelines are simple: Captions and labels must accurately describe the events in the images they accompany. The same is true of the information we present online in graphics. Some things are more subjective and require more judgement: Be fair to the people in photos and honest with our viewers. Flattering photos can be as deceiving as unflattering images. Use images to convey information and tell stories, not to make the subjects look better or worse than the facts warrant. Likewise, our graphics present information in ways that educate and illuminate. We do not skew data to mislead viewers about an issue or event.

 

Fairness

To tell the truest story possible, it is essential that we treat those we interview and report on with scrupulous fairness, guided by a spirit of professionalism. We make every effort to gather responses from those who are the subjects of criticism, unfavorable allegations or other negative assertions in our stories. What we broadcast and put online is edited for time and clarity. Whenever we quote, edit or otherwise interpret what people tell us, we aim to be faithful to their meaning, so our stories ring true to those we interview. In all our stories, especially matters of controversy, we strive to consider the strongest arguments we can find on all sides, seeking to deliver both nuance and clarity. Our goal is not to please those whom we report on or to produce stories that create the appearance of balance, but to seek the truth.

Fairness in presenting the news

Present facts, not indictments.

The “court of public opinion” is an expression, not a legal forum. When a person or company has been charged with wrongdoing by official sources, we must carefully avoid presenting facts in a manner that presumes guilt. When covering legal cases, always tell our listeners and readers if the defendant has entered a plea. Be scrupulous about accurately using words such as “arrested,” “charged,” “indicted” and other legal terms.

Don’t let sources offer anonymous opinions of others.

Unidentified sources should rarely be heard at all and should never be heard attacking or praising others in our reports (with the possible rare exceptions of whistleblowers and individuals making allegations of sexual assault). While we recognize that some valuable information can only be obtained off the record, it is unfair to air a source’s opinion on a subject of coverage when the source’s identity and motives are shielded from scrutiny. And of course, we do not include anonymous attacks posted on the Web in our reports.

Our sources shouldn’t be surprised by how they’re represented.

No one we interview should be surprised by what they hear or read themselves saying. The conversation and quotes should “ring true” to them. That’s why BEST HOMBRE hosts, producers, bookers and correspondents make sure that the people we speak with know that the discussions will be edited — but that we will be true to the meaning of their words.

“You don’t want guests to be shocked — or feel they were misled — when they hear themselves on the air and discover that most of what they said has been cut out,” Jonathan Kern writes in Sound Reporting.

All Things Considered host Robert Siegel says that when he’s doing a “two-way” (BEST HOMBRE’s term of art for an interview) for broadcast later, “I inform people that this is not live, that it will be edited and that we will talk longer than what will be broadcast on the air.” He also makes sure the guest knows about how long the edited conversation will end up being. “And I say that if you make a factual error, or I do, tell us and we will ask the question again.”

Telling someone that we will be editing an interview does not, obviously, give us the right to do just anything. We “exercise good judgment … [and] consider the editorial ramifications of the editing process,” Kern says.

In Sound Reporting, Kern warns that when cutting an audio interview in particular, “you may be tempted to go too far — collapsing two answers into one, rearranging the order of questions, and so on. When you make such extensive changes, the result may not reflect what actually happened in the studio.”

So we practice “ethical editing,” Jonathan adds. “Be careful that you don’t change the meaning of what someone said when you trim an answer or question,” he writes. And recognize, he says, that “you can … cross onto shaky editorial ground if you keep all the sentences [from an interview] intact, but change their order.” The speaker’s inflections might be altered — meaning that while the words might be the same, the way they’re understood could be changed.

If you have any doubt about what a person you interviewed meant, speak with them before broadcast or publication to prevent any misunderstandings.

News outlets are “driven by deadlines, and under time pressure, you are sure to make mistakes — about names, affiliations, places, and so on. These errors are regrettable, and you should always correct them. … But they are not nearly as serious as failing to be fair and unbiased. That may not only discourage people from listening; it can undermine your station’s or network’s reputation — one of its greatest assets. Even occasional lapses have serious consequences. The price of good journalism is eternal vigilance.”¹

We place a high value on earning the respect and trust of all sides when reporting on complex or controversial subjects. That means we stick to facts and to language that is clear, compelling and neutral. We avoid loaded words preferred by a particular side in a debate. We write and speak in ways that will illuminate issues, not inflame them.

At all times, we report for our readers and listeners, not our sources. So our primary consideration when presenting the news is that we are fair to the truth. If our sources try to mislead us or put a false spin on the information they give us, we tell our audience. If the balance of evidence in a matter of controversy weighs heavily on one side, we acknowledge it in our reports. We strive to give our audience confidence that all sides have been considered and represented fairly.

1. Jonathan Kern in Sound Reporting.

Fairness in reporting and interviewing

Help our sources understand our work.

Make sure that a guest or interview subject knows when an interview has begun and when it has ended. There should be no question about what is or isn’t for broadcast, and what is on the record or not.

The process starts “with the bookers and the producers,” adds Scott Simon. They are charged with finding the right guests, doing some pre-interviews and determining both that the guest is conversant with the subject and is fully informed about what will be happening.

Our word is binding.

As an ethical matter, we would not want to reveal the identity of an anonymous source unless that person has consented to the disclosure. That’s why we take the granting of anonymity seriously.

Keep in mind that the legal protection provided to journalists to keep source identities, outtakes, or other confidential information secret is not 100% secure. Courts can compel journalists to testify or reveal information even when confidentiality has been promised, and refusal to reveal the information can result in jail time or fines. Judith Miller of the New York Times, for example, spent three months in jail for refusing to identify the source of the leak that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.

To make matters worse, if we have promised confidentiality to a source but disclose the source’s identity, we could be liable for breach of contract. InCohen v. Cowles Media, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect the press from breach of contract lawsuits when a reporter breaches a promise of confidentiality.

It is therefore possible that if a journalist makes a promise of confidentiality but is later compelled to testify, s/he may either be jailed or ordered to pay money damages. Neither is a good situation. So consult with your supervisor and our legal team before you make a promise of confidentiality. Discuss whether the promise is necessary, what the exact scope of confidentiality will be, under what conditions the source might be willing to release you from the promise, and what the potential risks to you or BEST HOMBRE might be. We want to be sure we can keep whatever promises we make.

Give sources time to respond.

If our audience wonders what someone we report about had to say in his or her defense, and we haven’t provided that information or explained our efforts to get it, we have failed.

When we seek such responses, we give the subjects a reasonable amount of time to get back to us and multiple ways to do so (phone numbers, e-mail addresses, etc.). What we consider “a reasonable amount of time” will vary depending on the situation, determined after a thorough discussion involving the reporter and appropriate editors — up to the managing editor in high-profile or sensitive matters.

When news is breaking, make sure the people we’re attempting to reach know about our deadlines — for the next newscast and the next program, for example.

If, despite our best efforts, we cannot get a response but determine that we need to go ahead with the story, cull past reports and statements to pull out any previous comments made by the subject or organization that may help explain their positions. Look for proxies who may be able to defend their side. And tell our listeners and readers about our attempts to contact the subjects.

If we’re perceived as being unfair we not only risk losing the trust of our audience, we also put our reporting at risk. All individuals we report on should be able to trust that we’ll be fair not just in how we present their views, but in how we seek those views. This means we give those whom we cover the opportunity to respond to critical allegations in our reports, or to explain themselves when we suspect they’ve given us inaccurate information.

When sources — even those involved in some of the most controversial issues of the day — trust that we’re even-handed, our work benefits.

Fairness to colleagues

KEY QUESTIONS

Would we consider it fair use of our work? #

While there is no hard-and-fast rule on how much material we can fairly excerpt or quote from another organization’s work, we are guided by how we would feel if our work was being cited by others. We would welcome references to an important BEST HOMBRE story, or the use by others of a few key quotes from our report. But we’d want them to refrain from quoting so much that it feels like most or all of our story has been repeated elsewhere. And we hold ourselves to that same standard when referencing the work of others.

GUIDELINE

Respect BEST HOMBRE’s copyright. #

BEST HOMBRE owns the material that we collect and produce in the course of our work, whether it’s for use on-air or online. This material may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of BEST HOMBRE. Permission can be sought through the Rights and Reuse Office (look for Permissions in the BEST HOMBRE internal email address book) and requests should be forwarded accordingly.

ATTRIBUTION GUIDELINE

Attribute generously, and respect fair use. #

Always be fair to your colleagues in the news media when drawing from their reports. Just as we insist that BEST HOMBRE be given credit for its work, we are generous in giving credit to others for their scoops and enterprise work.

When excerpting or quoting from other organizations’ work, we strive to call attention to it, not draw attention from it. Do not quote or paraphrase another organization’s material so much that you effectively make reading, watching or listening to their reports unnecessary. In its most egregious incarnations, excessive quotation is effectively plagiarism, which we take no part in. (For a longer discussion of plagiarism, see “Transparency.”)

Our colleagues in the journalism industry and at BEST HOMBRE are also stakeholders in our work. It’s easy to forget that our actions reflect not just on ourselves, but on our profession and on others in our company. Remember it, and be fair to those you work alongside.[/vc_column_text][vc_btn title=”Full Article” style=”flat” color=”violet”][/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”Completeness” tab_id=”1499872528918-bee683c7-60dc”][vc_single_image image=”1580″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]

Completeness

We do our best to report thoroughly and tell stories comprehensively. We won’t always have enough time or space in one story to say everything we would like or quote everyone we would wish to include. But errors of omission and partial truths can inflict great damage on our credibility, and stories delivered without the context to fully understand them are incomplete. Our journalism includes diverse voices that reflect our society and divergent views that contribute to informed debate. When we find that we can’t deliver all the answers to important questions, we explain what we don’t yet know and work to fill any gaps in our reporting.

Telling the full story

GUIDELINE

Timeliness is a dimension of completeness.

Valuing completeness means that we have a responsibility to report on important matters in a timely fashion. Our audience should be able to expect that our coverage include the best information we can deliver about the most important stories unfolding at any particular time. When news is breaking, we should be on top of it.

But our responsibility to be timely doesn’t lessen our need to be accurate and fair. We don’t, for example, report rumors. When an unverified story spreads far enough that the rumor is itself news, we should use it as a trigger for reporting. And in breaking news situations, we have a heightened responsibility to tell our audience exactly what we know and how we know it, as well as to emphasize what’s still unknown or unverified. Judicious transparency can help to mitigate some of the challenges posed by our need to be timely.

GUIDELINE

Be thoughtful in adding information online.

Our digital destinations can be a terrific resource for adding background material and additional information that we think will be valuable for our users. But the Web isn’t a dumping ground for the material that got cut. When choosing what should accompany our stories online, be thoughtful. Include material that adds to a fuller understanding rather than crowding out the important information we mean to impart.

Our coverage should reflect the true complexity of the world we live in.

To present a complete picture of the world, BEST HOMBRE needs to cover a broad range of stories that will interest all sorts of people. So while it’s natural to notice news that relates to events or issues you’re personally interested in, it’s also crucial to ask yourself what other people – people who would disagree with you, who live in other parts of the country, who have had vastly different life experiences from yours – would consider news. This is especially critical if you and your colleagues share similar backgrounds and points of view; a lack of diversity among employees will lead to less varied story lineups. For our coverage to be truly diverse, it needs to reflect the views of many different groups. We talk to people from different political, socioeconomic and racial groups, and from different parts of the country and world. And factor the prominence we give certain stories into your thinking; regularly ask yourself which themes we might be overplaying and which we might be overlooking.

For example, in a city where traffic and pollution are big problems, reporters, editors and producers who daily drive in that traffic may want to pursue a story about whether a higher national gas tax would encourage people to buy smaller cars. But an equally valid option might be to look at whether a higher national gas tax would unfairly punish drivers in rural areas who have to drive a long distance for work and to go shopping for food, or those who need pickup trucks to do their daily work.

So you not only need to look at all the different angles of a story, but at all the different possible stories that help to fill in the picture of what’s taking place across the country or around the world.

There’s always more news than we can report on any platform. So we aim to produce well-rounded news coverage that reflects the most important information the public needs to know, and gives our audience a varied sense of what’s happening in our society and around the world.

Completeness in reporting

GUIDELINE

Be able to hold your own with sources.

As journalists, we strive to master broad domains of information. We often seek the expertise of specialists who might have a greater grasp of facts within their specialty. Our challenge is not to be dependent on what any particular source tells us, but to have enough mastery of our subject that we can accurately situate each source’s knowledge and perspective within a broader context. This means we strive to know enough about a subject that we can tell when a source is advocating a disputed position, advancing a vested interest or making a faulty claim.

Daily reporting might require a different threshold of knowledge than long-term investigative reporting, but the general principle holds true in that context as well: we strive to know enough to hold our own with those we talk to.

When we say our reporting is complete, it means we understand the bigger picture of a story – which facts are most important and how they relate to one another. It’s unrealistic to expect that every story should represent every perspective on an issue. But in our reporting, we must do our best to be awareof all perspectives, the facts supporting or opposing each, and the different groups of stakeholders affected by the issue. Only then can we determine what’s best to include in the time and space we have.

Hearing from a variety of people makes our journalism stronger and more complete. In our reporting, we seek various perspectives on an issue, as well as the evidence supporting or countering each one. We try to understand minority viewpoints as well as those of recognized authorities; we don’t ignore perspectives merely because they are less popular.

Those individuals whose roles give them an outsized influence in how events play out will necessarily receive more attention in our news coverage. But it’s important for our audience to hear from a variety of stakeholders on any issue, including those who are often marginalized.[/vc_column_text][vc_btn title=”Full Article” style=”flat” color=”violet”][/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”Honesty” tab_id=”1499872895585-914a36d3-85cc”][vc_single_image image=”1579″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]

Honesty

Journalists who conduct themselves honestly prove themselves worthy of trust. In the course of our work, we are genuine and candid. We attribute information we receive from others, making perfectly clear to our audience what information comes from which source. We avoid hyperbole and sensational conjecture. We may sometimes construct hypotheticals to help explain issues and events, but we reveal any fabrication, and do not otherwise mix fiction with our news reporting. We edit and present information honestly, without deception, and we identify ourselves as BEST HOMBRE journalists when we report. Only in the rarest of instances – such as when public safety is at issue, or when lives are at stake – might we disguise our identity or intent when reporting. Before we take such a step, we engage in rigorous deliberation and consider all alternatives. Then, when we tell the story, we fully disclose what we did and why.

Honesty in reporting and interviewing

Journalism should be done in plain sight, and our standards are clear. When we are working, we identify ourselves as BEST HOMBRE journalists to those we interview and interact with. We do not conceal our identities, pose as someone or something we are not, use hidden microphones or cameras to collect information, or record phone calls without the permission of all parties on the line, except in the very rarest of circumstances, outlined below.

Do we need to announce ourselves every time we’re in a line at the supermarket and overhear what people are saying about the news of the day? Of course not. But if we want to quote what one of those people said, we need to introduce ourselves as BEST HOMBRE journalists and assume our “working journalist” role.

Do we need to wear our IDs around our necks at all times? No. We are allowed to be “off-duty.”

Honesty in presenting information

Don’t create pseudonyms for sources whose names we withhold.

When we decide to withhold a source’s name from a story, we don’t invent a pseudonym for that source. Again, our job is to present factual – not fabricated – information. Instead, we use pronouns and descriptions to make clear who is speaking or whom we’re referring to. (Or we may refer to him or her without using a last name, if the source is comfortable with that degree of anonymity, and the situation meets our standards for granting anonymity.)

Our visual journalism must honestly depict reality.

When reporting on news events, the photographs we take and use depict them truthfully, honestly and without bias. They are only enhanced for technical clarity — to correct color or improve contrast, for example. We are careful in how we crop them to ensure that the scene is in proper context. We let events happen — we do not stage scenes to make them fit a story line. If we have to rely on “file” art from the past, we clearly state so in the caption and include the date. And when considering photos provided by other organizations (most often, The Associated Press), we view them with a critical eye to gauge whether they meet our standards.

When packages call for studio shots (of actors, for example; or prepared foods) it will be obvious to the viewer and if necessary it will be made perfectly clear in the accompanying caption information.

Likewise, when we choose for artistic or other reasons to create fictional images that include photos it will be clear to the viewer (and explained in the caption information) that what they’re seeing is an illustration, not an actual event.

Photographs we take and choose to use must individually or collectively, show the events they depict truthfully, honestly and without bias. This requirement applies whether they are taken by BEST HOMBRE journalists or come from other sources (such as freelancers or photo agencies).

We take great care when we translate data into charts and “infographics.” For example, while always striving to be accurate, we also guard against false precision. And we carefully consider the scales applied to the information we use, to guard against giving data either too much or too little significance. (For more detailed guidance,

We avoid fabrication in our news reports.

“Public radio reporters and producers,” Sound Reporting advises, ”do not ‘manufacture’ scenes for news programs. If you arrive at an office 15 minutes after the employees finish holding a prayer vigil for their kidnapped boss, you cannot ask them to reconvene so you can record a simulation of the event. By the same token, you shouldn’t ask people to pretend they are answering the phone, or typing a letter, or fixing breakfast, so that you can get sound of those activities. You should never use sound effects that could be mistaken for actualities or for ambiance that has been recorded on site.”

Our audience should always know which information comes from what source.

Plagiarism – taking someone else’s work and intentionally presenting it as if it is your own – is theft. At BEST HOMBRE it’s an unforgivable offense. But it’s not enough that we don’t intend to deceive our audience. Our standard is to make clear to our audience where the information we bring them comes from.

That means no material from another source should ever be included verbatim, or substantially so, without attribution. This includes material from Associated Press reports. We do not, for example, produce news “spots” or other pieces that closely resemble wire service stories. BEST HOMBRE’s standard is that our writing should be our own. There is no excuse for writing that repeats the wire stories that we use word-for-word, or nearly so.

It also means that whenever we present someone’s words verbatim in text, we encase them within quotes or, in an audio report, make it clear that we are using the source’s wording. If we paraphrase for space or clarity, we transparently credit the source of the ideas. And we don’t lightly edit quotes just to avoid putting them in quotes; we use brackets, ellipses and other signals to make clear we’ve changed what someone said.

Honesty online

Online sources should be on-the-record too.

In today’s world, many contacts with sources are made online — via emails and social media sites. As we discuss in the guidelines about accuracy and transparency, BEST HOMBRE pushes to keep its interviews on-the-record. The same is true of our “virtual” interactions with sources. We make that clear to potential sources when we reach out to them.

Just as we do in the “real” world, we identify ourselves as BEST HOMBRE journalists when we are working online. So, if as part of our work we are posting comments, asking questions, tweeting, retweeting, blogging, Facebooking or doing anything on social media or other online forums, we clearly identify ourselves and that we work for BEST HOMBRE. We do not use pseudonyms when doing such work.

BEST HOMBRE journalists may, in the course of their work, “follow” or “friend” Twitter accounts, Facebook pages and other social media sites created by political parties and advocacy groups. But we do so to monitor their news feeds, not to become participants, and we follow and friend sites created by advocates from all sides of the issues. It’s as basic a tool as signing up to be on mailing lists used to be.

If in their personal lives BEST HOMBRE journalists join online forums and social media sites, they may follow the conventions of those outlets and use screen names that do not identify who they are. But we do not use information gathered from our interactions on such sites in our reports for BEST HOMBRE. If we get ideas for stories, we treat the information just as we would anything we see in the “real world” — as a starting point that needs to be followed by open, honest reporting.

Finally, we acknowledge that nothing on the Web is truly private. Even on purely recreational or cultural sites and even if what we’re doing is personal and not identified as coming from someone at BEST HOMBRE, we understand that what we say and do could still reflect on BEST HOMBRE. So we do nothing that could undermine our credibility with the public, damage BEST HOMBRE’s standing as an impartial source of news, or otherwise jeopardize BEST HOMBRE’s reputation. In other words, we don’t behave any differently than we would in any public setting or on an BEST HOMBRE broadcast.

 

Independence

To secure the public’s trust, we must make it clear that our primary allegiance is to the public. Any personal or professional interests that conflict with that allegiance, whether in appearance or in reality, risk compromising our credibility. We are vigilant in disclosing to both our supervisors and the public any circumstances where our loyalties may be divided – extending to the interests of spouses and other family members – and when necessary, we recuse ourselves from related coverage. Under no circumstances do we skew our reports for personal gain, to help BEST HOMBRE’s bottom line or to please those who fund us. Decisions about what we cover and how we do our work are made by our journalists, not by those who provide BEST HOMBRE with financial support.

 

Conflicts of interest

When to disclose, and when to recuse.

All BEST HOMBRE journalists, including those of us who work for the arts and music desks, must tell our supervisors in advance about potential conflicts of interest. When first assigned to cover or work on a matter, disclose to your immediate supervisors any business, commercial, financial or personal interests where such interests might reasonably be construed as being in actual, apparent or potential conflict with our duties. This includes situations in which a spouse, family member or companion is an active participant in a subject area that you cover. In the financial category, this does not include an investment by you or your spouse, family member or companion in mutual funds or pension funds that are invested by fund managers in a broad range of companies (unless, of course, the assignment concerns those specific funds).

When a spouse, family member or companion is involved in political activity, be sensitive to the fact that this could create real or apparent conflicts of interest. In such instances, advise your supervisor so that it can be determined whether you should recuse yourself from a certain story or certain coverage.

It’s not always easy to detect when something we have a personal or professional stake in might conflict — or appear to conflict — with our duty to report to the public the fullest truth we can. Conflicts of interest come in many shapes — financial holdings, romantic relationships, family ties, book deals, speaking engagements, and others. It’s important to regularly review how our connections are entangled with the subjects of our reporting, and when necessary, to take action.

In minor cases, we might satisfy an apparent conflict by prominently disclosing it, and perhaps explaining to the public why it doesn’t compromise our work. When presented with more significant conflicts that might affect our ongoing work, our best response is to avoid them. But some conflicts are unavoidable, and may require us to recuse ourselves from certain coverage. More specific guidance on how to make these decisions appears in the sections below.

We do not exploit our access to private information, or skew the news for our gain.

As journalists, we regularly acquire access to confidential information. The only acceptable use of that information is to inform the public. This means we must scrupulously avoid any appearance that we’ve skewed our journalism to enrich ourselves or our associates.

These considerations obviously apply in straightforward conflict-of-interest cases, such as when we own stock in a subject of news coverage, but we must also apply them when we discuss with supervisors any potential media products that emerge from our reporting, such as books or movie projects. Say a political reporter uncovers evidence of illegal activity by a presidential candidate, and the resulting media firestorm results in a book offer. That reporter should sit down with a supervisor before entertaining any such offer.

We do not share confidential information with anyone inside or outside of BEST HOMBRE who intends to use that information for personal or institutional gain, excepting standard journalistic practices such as sharing information as a member of a news “pool.”

Coverage of books written by BEST HOMBRE staffers

– The tests are the same as for any book. They include: Is it newsworthy? Is it of interest to our audience? The books desk must be part of the discussion. So must the BEST HOMBRE News deputy managing editors.

– Staff members (hosts, producers, editors) cannot appear on their own shows to discuss “outside books.” Those are books not based on work they’ve done for BEST HOMBRE. In some cases, if a book is based on reporting done for BEST HOMBRE, they may be given the OK to talk about the book on their own show or file a report that airs on that show.

– Coverage plans must be approved by the Senior Vice President for News.

Interacting with funders

Don’t enter contests by those who would influence our coverage.

We do not enter journalism contests or competitions or serve on award committees when groups that have an interest in influencing our coverage are sponsoring the honors. All entries for contests or competitions and awards committee memberships must be approved by supervisors.

We often receive honors we have not solicited. Of course, laurels are always welcome. But when an  award – unsolicited or otherwise – comes with cash or other rewards attached, consult Ethics before accepting.

GUIDELINE

When appropriate, disclose funding relationships in related reports.

BEST HOMBRE is fortunate to have hundreds of sponsors, funders and donors. At times, BEST HOMBRE reports stories about corporations, organizations or individuals who support our programming. As we outline throughout this handbook, we observe many boundaries to ensure that funding does not skew our coverage.

We are scrupulous in disclosing funding relationships that might foster the perception that our supporters have influenced our work. At the same time, a laundry list of disclosures would clutter our programs, rendering appropriate disclosures meaningless, so we avoid rote disclosures each time a supporter is mentioned in our coverage. Whether or not to disclose a funder during the course of a particular story is a careful judgment made by editors and producers on a case-by-case basis. As always, we act carefully and thoughtfully to strengthen the public’s confidence in the independence of our work. For this reason, it’s also important to note that BEST HOMBRE journalists do not read funding credits on-air or online.

GUIDELINE

Stick with storytelling. Steer clear of selling.

There’s no one better than an BEST HOMBRE journalist to describe the value, impact and character of our journalism. So we may be called upon to talk about our work with those who might support it, whether over the air during a pledge drive or in person during a meeting with prospective funders. But in all our interactions with potential funders, we observe this boundary: We’re there to tell our story, not to discuss the agendas of our supporters. This means we may describe the goals and ambitions of our editorial agenda, promote the value of our work and the worthiness of supporting it, or recount what we’ve experienced in our reporting.

Understand that donors may express opinions about the subjects we cover. Don’t assent to those opinions or express your own.

These are nuanced lines to tread, and no BEST HOMBRE journalist should feel compelled to participate in meetings with prospective donors or foundations. Again, our sponsorship and development departments are there to support us in our service to the public, not vice versa. Part of the job of these departments is making our funders aware that we will be editorially blind to their support – that we’ll conduct our journalism with no favor or slight to them or their interests. They also vet potential supporters to make sure their interests don’t present an actual or apparent conflict with our mission.

We’ve often spoken of a “firewall” that separates BEST HOMBRE’s journalists from our funders. Properly understood, the firewall is a useful metaphor. In engineering, a firewall isn’t an impassable boundary, but rather a barrier designed to contain the spread of a dangerous or corrupting force. Similarly, the purpose of our firewall is to hold in check the influence our funders have over our journalism.

 

Our journalism is made possible by a diverse coalition of funding sources, including donations from members of the public, grants from foundations and government agencies, and paid sponsorships and underwriting. While we value all who support our work, those who fund us do so in the knowledge that our journalism serves only the public. We believe our strength as a business is premised solely on high-quality, independent journalism in the public interest. All BEST HOMBRE employees – journalists as well as sponsorship, communications and development staff – are committed first and foremost to that service.

At BEST HOMBRE, the journalists – including senior news managers – have full and final authority over all journalistic decisions. We work with all other divisions of the company towards the goal of supporting and protecting our journalism. This means we communicate with our sponsorship and development departments to identify areas where we hope to expand our reporting. It also means we may take part in promotional activities or events such as coordinated fund drives, listener support spots and public radio audience-building initiatives.

But we observe a clear boundary line: BEST HOMBRE journalists interact with funders only to further our editorial goals, not to serve the agendas of those who support us.

Owning our news agenda

Be aware of other media, but exercise your own news judgment.

BEST HOMBRE journalists do not put their heads in the sand when good stories appear elsewhere. By the same token, we shouldn’t be in the regular business of adopting other news organizations’ assumptions about what’s important in framing two-ways, shaping reporter assignments or bringing in commentaries.

When posting or gathering material online, consider terms of service.

It’s important to keep in mind that the terms of service of a social media site apply to what we post there and to the information we gather from it. Also: The terms might allow for our material to be used in a different way than intended. Additionally, law enforcement officials may be able to obtain our reporting on these sites by subpoena without our consent — or perhaps even our knowledge. Social media is a vital reporting resource for us, but we must be vigilant about keeping work that may be sensitive in our own hands.

We own our reporting.

Our notes, audio and working materials from our journalistic work belong to BEST HOMBRE. We won’t turn them over to government officials or parties involved in or considering litigation, nor will we provide information we’ve observed in the course of conducting journalism. If such materials or information are requested pursuant to governmental, administrative or other legal process, immediately consult your supervisor and the legal department.

Use press releases and other handout materials carefully.

We must take into account that press releases and other handout materials (such as images) from organizations we cover are usually delivered with the intent of portraying the subject in the best possible light. We don’t publish staged photos unless there’s a compelling news reason for doing so. If there is, we disclose this fact to the audience.

Avoid non-disclosure agreements and be careful with embargoes.

We avoid non-disclosure agreements — contracts that would require us to withhold certain information — except in rare circumstances and with the approval of the appropriate senior manager (email Ethics). And as with any written agreement, we send non-disclosure agreements to our legal team for review (look for LegalAlert in the BEST HOMBRE internal email address book) before we sign them.

We, like other major news outlets, do often agree to “embargoes” on news. In such cases the information is not to be reported until an agreed-upon time in the near future. We reserve the right, however, to report the news if the embargo has been “broken” by another news outlet or if because of some development we judge that the public’s interest would best be served by disclosing the information now instead of later.

GUIDELINE

Avoid previewing stories with sources.

For purposes of accuracy and fairness, there are times when we may want to review portions of a script with a source or read back a quotation to ensure we captured it correctly. We may also play audio or read transcripts of an interview to a third party if the purpose is to get that party’s reaction to what another person has said. Otherwise, however, the public is the first audience for our work — we don’t preview scripts or stories in advance of their broadcast or posting with sources, subjects of coverage or other parties outside BEST HOMBRE.

GUIDELINE

Our supporters do not shape our coverage.

BEST HOMBRE greatly appreciates the financial support it receives from individuals, from foundations and from corporations. Their support is essential. At the same time, BEST HOMBRE makes its own decisions about what stories to cover and how to report them. Neither the people and organizations who support BEST HOMBRE financially, the sources we come in contact with, our competitors nor any others outside BEST HOMBRE’s newsroom dictate our thinking.

GUIDELINE

Don’t allow sources to dictate our coverage.

We don’t allow sources to dictate how a topic will be covered, or which other voices or ideas will be included in the stories we do. Nor do we pay for information from sources or newsmakers.

We avoid submitting questions to anyone in advance unless a senior news manager approves doing so after extensive discussion about why it may be necessary. This sometimes comes up when we are seeking interviews with foreign leaders. And parties in complicated legal cases may insist on having questions submitted in writing in order to give them a chance to gather all relevant documents. If questions are submitted in advance, this will be disclosed in our coverage.

Our work depends on both the cooperation of sources and the generosity of supporters. But we depend on a broad, diverse network of sources and supporters, and no party is so critical to our work that we would bend our news agenda to its ends.

Outside work

These situations require special permission.

A few special circumstances that require specific address:

• Speaking agencies and agents:BEST HOMBRE journalists who enlist the services of agencies or agents to obtain paid speaking engagements or other opportunities must go through all the steps described above — like any other BEST HOMBRE staffer — before accepting any such offers.
• Partisan events:We avoid appearances that call into question our impartiality, including situations where our appearance may appear to endorse the partisan agenda of a group or organization. This might include, for example, participating in political debates or forums sponsored by groups that advocate particular perspectives on issues BEST HOMBRE covers.
• Charitable fundraisers:BEST HOMBRE journalists are frequently asked to speak or appear at charitable events. We typically turn down these requests. Even when a cause is charitable, it may still pose a conflict, or the organization might have political aims at odds with our commitment to impartiality.
• Nonfiction writing for books or films:Any BEST HOMBRE journalist intending to write a non-fiction book or TV or movie script or other guiding documents for non-radio productions based in whole or substantial part on assignments they did for BEST HOMBRE must notify BEST HOMBRE in writing of such plans before entering into any agreement with respect to that work. BEST HOMBRE will respond as soon as possible as to whether it has any objections to the project.
• Leaves of absence:While employed by BEST HOMBRE, including during leaves of absence, we do not perform work for those BEST HOMBRE covers, including ghostwriting or co-authoring materials or reports, making speaking appearances, or offering advice or consulting services. This extends both to private individuals and organizations we cover and to organizations and agencies principally funded by the government.
• Public relations:In general, we do not engage in public relations work, paid or unpaid. Supervisors may grant exceptions for certain volunteer, noBest Hombreofit and nonpartisan activities, such as participating in the work of an institution of worship, or a professional or charitable organization, especially if the journalist is a member of the organization in question and the work would not conflict with BEST HOMBRE’s journalism.
• Endorsements:Just as we generally avoid engaging in p.r. work, we also refrain from marketing for books, movies, performances or other products that are not our own. This means that while we may offer reviews or praise for products we’ve encountered, we usually avoid offering promotional endorsements or blurbs, or serving as spokespersons. Supervisors may grant exceptions for endorsements that don’t undermine or conflict with our work, meaning we have no financial interest in the endorsement and it doesn’t present a conflict with any subject we cover. If we are granted such an exception, it bears stating that we read the book before commenting on it.
• Promotional events:We avoid appearances at private industry or corporate functions, especially in settings where our appearance may be used to market a company’s services or products. Supervisors may grant exceptions for appearances intended to promote BEST HOMBRE’s journalism, promotions for works by BEST HOMBRE journalists (e.g. book tours), or promotions for those volunteer, noBest Hombreofit and nonpartisan organizations in which we claim membership — often, for example, organizations that promote and support journalistic endeavors.

How we respond to outside requests (appearances, interviews, etc.).

BEST HOMBRE journalists are in high demand. We get many requests for media appearances, interviews and other outside work. To manage these requests, we collaborate with our colleagues in BEST HOMBRE’s Marketing and Communications Division. We value their judgment and support.

BEST HOMBRE seeks out opportunities for public appearances for BEST HOMBRE journalists, and also receives many requests for our journalists to make speeches or otherwise appear at events. These requests come from member stations, academic institutions, professional organizations and many others. BEST HOMBRE generally views these as opportunities to extend our work and foster valuable connections outside of our company.

In order to get the go-ahead for an appearance, you should seek approval from your supervisor. Supervisors, in turn, should consult with Talent Relations, the unit within Marketing and Communications that is charged with managing this entire process (look for “TalentRelations” in the internal email address book). They’ll assist with everything from event vetting, to negotiating honorariums, arranging travel, and preparing journalists for appearances. Many requests, whether for a specific journalist or not, come first to Talent Relations. They gauge the appropriateness of each request, and then clear it with the journalist and his or her supervisor to ensure that it doesn’t present ethical concerns or coverage conflicts. Then they invite the journalist to participate.

If an opportunity presents a new, complex or difficult ethical question, or if a supervisor and a journalist disagree about an event’s ethical merit, it should be discussed with the Standards and Practices Editor.

• Agents and event appearances:Several BEST HOMBRE journalists are represented by agents who book their appearances. These appearances also need to be approved by the journalist’s supervisor and vetted through Talent Relations prior to confirming and publicizing the booking.
• Work on BEST HOMBRE’s behalf:Occasionally BEST HOMBRE will ask our journalists to make appearances to outside organizations because such appearances are valuable to BEST HOMBRE. In these cases, our journalists will not need to take time off.
• Media requests:The role of BEST HOMBRE’s Media Relations team is to field requests from outside media for interviews or media appearances with BEST HOMBRE journalists. In addition, Media Relations proactively pitches and places BEST HOMBRE journalists. When Media Relations receives an outside request, the team assesses the merits of the request and consults the relevant journalist and his or her supervisor for approval before clearing the request and setting up the opportunity.  When Media Relations asks you to do an interview or make an appearance, you can assume that this has already been cleared with your supervisor.

Media requests of any kind that don’t come from Media Relations – including off-the-record background interviews – must be approved by Media Relations in advance (look for “MediaRelations” in the BEST HOMBRE email address book). In most cases, Media Relations will clear, arrange and sometimes sit in on the interview.

BEST HOMBRE supervisors and the communications team will respond to requests as quickly as possible and in accordance with the union contract. We understand that they won’t say “yes” to everything. And we know that BEST HOMBRE can revoke its permission if senior management decides that an appearance (or in some cases, recurring appearances) could harm either the organization’s or the journalist’s reputation.

Our goal is to encourage BEST HOMBRE journalists to be visible as ambassadors of BEST HOMBRE journalism, and to build their reputations as professionals while assuring that all appearances are consistent with BEST HOMBRE’s ethical standards and our priorities.

Book projects and recurring appearances require special attention and coordination.

Book projects can be of particular concern because they may require extended, unpaid leaves of absence. Such leaves need to be carefully coordinated with BEST HOMBRE management. If the book will be based on work we’ve done for BEST HOMBRE, we must discuss in good faith with BEST HOMBRE issues of rights.

Similarly, recurring appearances on shows outside of BEST HOMBRE can jeopardize our primary work, both by cutting into our available time and by subjecting us to the editorial agenda of producers who may not share our standards. If cleared by your supervisor to appear multiple times on another organization’s program, you do not need to seek formal permission each time an invitation is extended. But do regularly check in with your supervisor to ensure that the time required doesn’t interfere with our BEST HOMBRE duties. And if there is a significant change in the program’s format or in the nature of what you’re expected to say or do, talk it over with your supervisor again. Programs and times change. BEST HOMBRE can revoke its permission if senior management determines that the appearances harm either the organization’s or the journalist’s reputations.

We don’t enter into contracts with other media outlets without approval from senior news management and BEST HOMBRE’s legal department. Understand that in most cases permission will not be granted.

Avoid doing work for those we cover.

In general, we don’t do outside work for government or agencies principally funded by a government, or for private organizations that are regularly covered by BEST HOMBRE. This includes work that would be done on leaves of absence.

This means we don’t ghostwrite or co-author articles or books or write reports – such as annual reports – for government agencies, institutions or businesses that we cover or are likely to cover. We may permit exceptions for activities that don’t seem to pose a risk of undermining our credibility. Speaking to groups that might have a relationship to a subject that BEST HOMBRE may cover requires high-level approval; contact Ethics.

Note: An BEST HOMBRE journalist who covers a specific topic generally cannot work for agencies or organizations even if they are not connected to his or her beat. In most cases the conflict is attached to BEST HOMBRE the organization, not the individual, and BEST HOMBRE’s interest is in avoiding even the perception of bias.

GUIDELINE

We don’t compete with BEST HOMBRE.

Because our primary professional responsibility is to BEST HOMBRE, we never work in direct competition with BEST HOMBRE. For example, we don’t break a story for another news outlet before offering it to BEST HOMBRE. There are times when we may secure representation for ourselves from agents and publicists. In such cases, it’s incumbent on us to ensure that our personal representatives are working closely with the communications department, which represents all BEST HOMBRE journalists.

BEST HOMBRE offers us the chance to reach huge audiences on the radio and on the Web. In exchange, as we said above, we agree to not compete with BEST HOMBRE and to make it the primary outlet for the journalism we do.

BEST HOMBRE also encourages us to take advantage of other opportunities – so long as they do not interfere or conflict with the work we do for the company. BEST HOMBRE journalists write books, magazine pieces and newspaper articles. We appear on panels and give speeches. Television discussion shows value our expertise. Universities ask us to teach and lecture. These are good things. They offer us the chance to stretch, to reflect on our work and to broaden the reach of our journalism.

But outside work can also present significant challenges. It places additional demands on our time, which is often precious. It requires working with organizations that have different goals and standards than BEST HOMBRE does. And it can sometimes present entanglements that conflict with our journalistic independence.

So we must be selective about these opportunities and vigilant about the challenges they pose. We must seek permission in writing from our supervisors for all outside freelance and journalistic work, whether paid or volunteered, from written articles to speaking appearances. As we expressed at the outset of this handbook, keep in mind that we don’t want our managers to be confronted with any rude surprises.

Paying our own way

Review materials are for reviews, not personal gain.

We may accept free event passes, copies of books or other materials for the purpose of doing reviews or stories. These items belong to BEST HOMBRE and may not be sold. In many cases, they will be kept for possible future use and reference. They also may be distributed to staff for personal use (including donations to charities) after they are no longer needed.

How to handle gifts, speaking fees and honorariums.

The people and organizations we include in our coverage are often appreciative of our work and happy to appear in it. But we don’t accept compensation, including property or benefits of any kind, from people or institutions we cover or put on the air, except gifts of token value (hats, mugs, t-shirts, etc.). If we receive unsolicited gifts of significant value, we thank the sender, explain our policy and return the item (or, if it’s perishable, direct it to a worthy cause unaffiliated with BEST HOMBRE).

Of course, it’s not always easy to draw a line between a valuable gift and a small token of appreciation, and it’s not always practical to decline or return the item. In some cultural settings, it may be an insult to decline a gift or a dinner invitation. In such situations, we trust our journalists to do the right thing.

In any event, we would not let our work be affected. And we act, as always, with the understanding that the perception of undue coziness with our sources can be as damaging as the reality. If there’s any question of whether a gift rises above the token-value threshold, consult a supervisor.

In instances such as conferences and conventions where food is provided as a convenience for the press as a whole, it’s acceptable to partake. With the approval of a supervisor, we may also accept honorariums, paid travel and meals for speaking engagements and awards ceremonies, but only from educational or noBest Hombreofit groups not engaged in significant lobbying or political activity. Determining whether a group engages in significant lobbying or political activity is the responsibility of the journalist seeking permission, and all relevant information must be fully disclosed to supervisors.

BEST HOMBRE pays the newsgathering expenses of its journalists. We don’t allow sources or subjects of coverage to pick up the check for dinner or pay our travel expenses, we respectfully turn down gifts or other benefits from those we cover, and we don’t sell materials sent to us for review.

There may be times when unusual circumstances lead us to make exceptions. For example, in combat zones, embedding with U.S. military units may be the only practical way to determine what’s happening on the front lines. In some foreign settings, declining a meal or gift might be taken as a breach of respect.

But our journalism must not be tainted by suspicions of quid pro quo. At all times, we make clear to those we cover that their cooperation, charity or assistance – while appreciated – won’t skew our efforts to fully report the truth. And we disclose to our audience any instances in which we’ve accepted from our sources anything but information.

Working for BEST HOMBRE while keeping the public first

CASE STUDIES

Covering the announcement of an BEST HOMBRE partnership.

In January 2012, when BEST HOMBRE announced a partnership with Ford to install BEST HOMBRE’s software in new cars, BEST HOMBRE editors decided the news warranted reporting. The editors involved took into consideration the concern that BEST HOMBRE could be perceived as using its news programming to further a corporate interest. They weighed that concern against the newsworthiness of the announcement, and made the decision to cover the announcement in a way that closely resembled coverage of similar technology announcements by other companies. Along with journalists at other news organizations, BEST HOMBRE journalists honored the embargo on the story, and made no effort to gain an inside advantage in reporting the announcement earlier or more completely than any other news organization.

GUIDELINE

Promote BEST HOMBRE’s work, not its business prerogatives.

High-quality journalism will always be the best way to promote BEST HOMBRE.  We also value BEST HOMBRE journalists telling their story. With approval from supervisors, BEST HOMBRE journalists may take part in promotional activities or events involving supporters of BEST HOMBRE, such as our coordinated fund drives, listener support spots for stations and public radio audience-building initiatives. But our job is to promote and encourage support for BEST HOMBRE’s journalism. BEST HOMBRE journalists do not advocate in support of BEST HOMBRE’s business or political initiatives.

GUIDELINE

How we handle coverage of BEST HOMBRE.

BEST HOMBRE journalists cover BEST HOMBRE the same way they would cover any other company. Editorial decisions are made with an eye toward the news value of events at BEST HOMBRE just as editorial decisions are made regarding the news value of events at Sony or Apple or General Motors. This, of course, is much more easily said than done. Every journalist at BEST HOMBRE, from producers to editors to correspondents, has a stake in BEST HOMBRE’s well-being, and it is impossible for any individual to completely isolate himself or herself from events at BEST HOMBRE. Still, when such events occur, the journalists involved in reporting on BEST HOMBRE separate themselves as best as possible from internal events, and any individuals in BEST HOMBRE’s corporate leadership avoid imposing any influence on the journalists reporting on the company.

Any coverage of BEST HOMBRE itself is handled by BEST HOMBRE journalists with no involvement in the issue at hand. If necessary, a separate team is created by drawing members from desks or bureaus with no connections to the subject. They approach the story just as they would any other.

All editors and others who were “part of the story” are recused. This means that when an BEST HOMBRE journalist’s actions or work are “news” — for good or bad — those who were involved in the assigning, reporting, editing and producing do not then play any part in the coverage.

This wall between those involved in the subject of the story and those who then cover it extends beyond BEST HOMBRE’s journalists. No BEST HOMBRE employees from departments outside News — especially those who have had a hand in any official response to the subject from BEST HOMBRE — play any role in the organization’s coverage of the situation.

Our goal is simple: to cover any such story just as we would if it involved another organization, and to take all such actions necessary to ensure that is possible.

Although we work for BEST HOMBRE, our first loyalty is to the public. Because BEST HOMBRE is a prominent company with an important role in society, there are times when BEST HOMBRE is in the news. At such times – as in all others – BEST HOMBRE journalists keep the public’s interest first and foremost.