Excerpts from a speech by Edward Seaton, editor of the The Manhattan (Kan.) Mercury -1999

Newspapers today, both large and small, are better than ever. They are more intelligent, more diversified, more responsive and more needed. On the big story, the impeachment and what led to it, we got it right - not perfect, but we served the public, despite all the spinmeisters marshaled against us.

In a landmark ASNE study, however, we learned that the public views us as disconnected from our readers and communities. Americans perceive the press as overly sensational, often inaccurate, disrespectful, biased and unable to explain ourselves. They believe powerful people can kill or steer our stories. Our readers see us as not even willing to acknowledge commercial motives where we have them, which they plainly see. In a nutshell, the public is telling us to rein in the racy stories and try harder to be fair.

Yes, our problems stem in part from being lumped in the public mind with other news and entertainment sources, especially tabloid TV and online rumormongers. And yes, we should covet not love, but respect, credibility and confidence.

There isn't a lot we can do about the distorting journalistic environment in which we live. But we can put our own house in order. That's what ASNE's research tells us to do. This should not be surprising; it's common sense. The public wants us to get back to the fundamentals. Give us the facts, they say, in a neutral, unbiased way. As former ASNE president Creed Black put it recently, "Editors should start editing again."

My aim this morning is to suggest that a big piece of the solution is simply explaining ourselves. There is no doubt the debate centers on our professional standards, and my point is that each of us should be explaining to readers why we act the way we do. Explaining reasons for our practices will soften a lot of the negative perceptions. We need clear statements, in writing, about what constitutes acceptable journalistic practice. And we can't bend them at every whim, although they should be permanently under review as circumstances change. And they should be published so readers can understand and evaluate our decisions. In touchy cases editors should write a note adjacent to a story.

The subject of ethics is an old sore for ASNE. Only five years into the Society's existence, the president put the Sage of Emporia, the same William Allen White, in charge of a committee to come up with ethical standards. White reported to the 1927 convention:

After a year's study, the committee has no report because it has no idea of what the ethics of this business is. Old Pontius Pilate had a good idea when he asked, "What is the truth?" Then he washed his hands of the whole thing. We don't promise to wash our hands, we simply want further instructions. It is a large order.

Nothing much has changed. ASNE has had periodic flings with ideas like ethics codes, grievance procedures and news councils, but ultimately it's washed its hands. Yet the most powerful message coming from the public today, not only in ASNE's Journalism Credibility Project but from virtually everyone worrying about journalism and the public trust, is our failure to explain ourselves - to explain what we do and why we do it, what we believe and why we believe it, why we appear to like stories readers don't like. A reason we don't explain ourselves, of course, is to keep our options open. No news situation is the same, we say. But the damage to our credibility is clearly heavy.

Don't daily newspaper editors face circumstances in which we believe fundamental standards and practices will lead to the best decision? What we've learned from ASNE's research makes me answer "Yes."

Take anonymous quotes, which invariably come from someone with an ax to grind. ASNE's research shows eight out of 10 readers are concerned about anonymous sources; half think we should not use them at all. I'll grant there may be a place for them at whistle-blowing time, but we need standards for using them, and we should explain to readers why we use them.

For a lot of us, of course, the problem is primarily with wire copy. Perhaps we should consider the policies of the Salt Lake Tribune and USA Today: If the anonymous material isn't essential to the story, get rid of it. If it's crucial, don't quote the source, put the onus on the wire service: "The Associated Press reported, The New York Times reported." On local stories the Salt Lake Tribune attributes such material to its reporter or even to itself: "The Tribune learned."

Anonymity should be limited to fact, not opinion - especially not pejorative opinion - that is newsworthy and not available from any other source on the record. Period. And the policy should be publicly stated so readers understand it and the newspaper feels compelled to live by it.

The same public disclosure of standards is needed for stories that intrude into private lives, whether of politicians or private citizens. And for conflicts to interest. And for advertiser influence. And for public appearances by staffers. And for separation of news and opinion. And for corrections. And for any other practice that troubles the public.

Editors will differ on the best approach to publishing standards. Mine is to publish regularly a statement of core principles - "We won't lie, We won't use anonymous sources except at whistle-blowing time, and so forth" - and to relate the nitty-gritty of professional practice through editor's notes in touchy cases. If you need a place to prime your thinking on your approach, ASNE has put 34 newspaper codes of ethics on the Society's Web site.

On the matter of corrections, the research reveals that 78 percent of the readers who see corrections of errors they've noticed feel better about the quality of the news coverage they are getting. Another 11 percent have neutral feelings. To me, this clearly means we should run corrections when they are called for - big and small - and run them prominently.

There are many other things the research makes clear we need to do. We have to cut down the errors. Newsrooms need to better understand their readers. We have to learn some manners. The TV pundits - the "Sabbath gas bags" as Calvin Trillin calls them - need to rein themselves in or be reined in by their news media bosses. Journalists who go on television should not be saying what they do not know or giving opinion without restraint. We also have to provide adequate salaries to attract talented staff members, and we must ensure they have the training to do their jobs. We have to renew our dedication to truth-telling.

…

I believe the key to rebuilding trust between the public and the press lies in the hands of us, the editors. The world's democracies have a mixed history of approaches to perceived media excesses. In many countries it's been done with legislation, even by some of our best democratic allies like Great Britain. A second approach has been self-regulation - collective action among news organizations. A third - the one ASNE has always sided with - is for individual news organizations through their own efforts to build faith and trust with their audiences.

We, as editors, dismiss dictated ethics - ethics enforced by government or by associations or by commissions - because we believe there are genuine differences about what constitutes a newsworthy matter, a matter of public interest - or ethical behavior, for that matter. What one editor believes important to the commonweal can be viewed by another in a different community as off limits altogether. But given our reluctance for regulation through associations - and certainly for the legislative alternative - we must in today's environment redouble our individual efforts. As daily newspapers, we must set ourselves apart from less ethical media. Only a press perceived as a fair press can remain a free press.

I know I've crossed a line in the sand drawn by some of our lawyers. They tell us not to write down guidelines because they know written standards can be used against us if there is a lawsuit. But readers have to know and understand our standards, and that means publishing them. I even have an answer, albeit problematic, for the lawyers (and state legislatures): Change the libel laws.

Half a century ago, the Hutchins Commission called on the states to develop alternatives to libel litigation, which it said was undermining the free flow of information. More recent examinations have reached the same conclusion: The current system neither adequately protects First Amendment values nor provides plaintiffs an effective way to vindicate their damaged reputations. It does not work well for anyone.

This lies behind ASNE's push for the Uniform Correction or Clarification of Defamation Act, under which a timely correction will limit damages to a plaintiff's out-of-pocket costs. It would permit us to correct mistakes without the risk of monstrous libel awards. And, as we have learned, correcting our errors helps our credibility. The uniform act also would bring uniformity of law for our Web sites, which the federal courts have ruled can be sued from any jurisdiction in the country.

If the UCCDA were in place around the country today, we wouldn't have to worry about published guidelines or reader explanations being used against us in court to run up big judgments. It would be a moot point.

As editors, we have to lead. We have to state our values. If we do all the things the credibility research says we should - strive for accuracy, run corrections, learn our manners, and so forth - we'd have standards. And if we write them up, we'd have a "Code of Ethics," if you want to call it that.

When we have standards - a code of ethics - we have something that we can explain to the public and our staffs, something that everyone can hear and understand.

So there you have it: The Seaton Suggestion - Explain Yourself.

We must do so much more and better than we have. We must earn and hold the public trust. Our emphasis has to be on serving citizens, not our bottom line or technology. We have to find approaches that will continue the economic success needed to support our role in the democracy - yet not abandon our values.

Let me offer the newspaper values of one of our philosopher kings, Lee Hills. Lee, now 92, listed the following for a gathering honoring him last fall:

• Don't confuse entertainment with news, fact with fiction, reporting with advocacy or media with journalism.
  
  
• Be sensitive. Do not go out of your way to hurt or embarrass people unnecessarily.
  
  
• Get it right, especially direct quotes.
  
  
• Get all sides.

None of us could put journalism's core values any better.