ABC’s Coverage of Condoleezza Rice’s Testimony Violated Journalistic Ethics

Chron Watch ^ | 09 Friday 2004

[Lando Lincoln]

While flipping through TV coverage of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice’s testimony before the 911 commission, I stopped at ABC. More clearly, I was floored by ABC.

Upon conclusion of Dr. Rice’s testimony, Peter Jennings, introduced ABC’s consultant on national security issues to review, confirm or rebut her testimony.

In a episode of naked bias, ABC’s consultant was Richard Clarke. The same Richard Clarke whose prior testimony in front of the same commission and whose currently on-sale book places him squarely as part of the story. By way of an introduction, Mr. Jennings stated that ABC had retained Richard Clarke months prior to his testimony.

There was this odd moment when Peter Jennings introduced Mr. Clarke. He seemed to look slightly down with a queasy expression like last night’s Mexican wasn’t sitting well. Richard Clarke’s expression was stranger still. It was somewhere between smug self-satisfaction and the veiled triumph of a teacher’s pet who successfully fingered a rival to the principal.

Regardless of the exchange’s twilight zone nature, ABC crossed the line by putting a person involved in the story on as a commentator on the story. The Society of Professional Journalist’s Code of Ethics gives multiple reasons why this violates journalistic ethics:

Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. – Mr. Clarke is conflicted by his prior testimony before the 911 commission alleging that Dr. Rice and the Bush administration was disinterested in if not incompetent concerning terrorism.

Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility. – Mr. Clarke was a democratic appointee of the Clinton administration who was held over but later demoted by the Bush administration. Richard Clarke is clearly associated with one view on the story. By using him as ABC’s consultant, that network is associating itself with that one view.

Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context. While Richard Clarke was clearly labeled as a commentator, his immediate appearance after Dr. Rice’s testimony blurred the line between reporting and advocacy.

Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible. All the facts are not in, nor have those facts available been verified or validated. As part of an unfolding story, information supplied by Mr. Clarke cannot be tested for accuracy. His use as a network commentator, verifying or rebutting information supplied by others, deliberately creates a situation where his opinion is rendered as fact.

The bottom line is ABC’s coverage of Condoleezza Rice’s testimony was set-up to arrive at a foregone conclusion before she uttered a single word. No wonder people are switching to cable.

[Lando Lincoln]

Lando

[Lando Lincoln]

My apologies - the author is David Katz.

Lando

[Support Free Republic]

---

	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[RightOnline]

Gee golly wowsers. You mean.............you mean ...........ABC is actually.............biased?????!!!!!!

Knock me over with a feather.

[SMARTY]

Jennings is poster boy for 'clueless'. He would not know 'ethical' if it bit him where it hurts.

[Spyder]

I noticed on their radio news reports yesterday (same station as Rush) Petah Jennings gave more time to clips from liberal widows than he gave to clips from Rice's testimony.

[adam_az]

ABC’s Coverage of Condoleezza Rice’s TestimonyJust About Anything They've Ever Covered Violated Journalistic Ethics

I'm a stickler for accuracy. ;)

[exDem from Miami]

Hey! Don't be so hard on Jennings!! Ted Koppel had Clarke on NightLie last night to do the whole dog and pony show all over again.

/sarcasm alert/

[The Old Hoosier]

Wait a minute--Clarke is exactly the guy who should be asked about Rice's testimony. Although he's made himself so much a part of the news that it might not be ethical for them to pay him.

[Doctor Raoul]

Called my local station and spoke to the news director about this BS. Initially, I got the "that's the national, we don't control" crap. I pointed out the conflicts and said, "I won't watch the national broadcast, I switched to cable. Once there, I don't tune back, so you're affected. Look around the newsroom at all the young people who won't have jobs because Jenning's antics are loosing you viewers."

There was a big change in the attitude after having said that.

[ClearCase_guy]

Good for you. I am continually amazed at the bias. Based on the 2000 election, and the current polling results, it seems pretty obvious that 50% of America:

Likes Pres. Bush
Is prepared to believe Dr. Rice
Supports our current efforts in the war against Terrorism
Supports our current effort in Iraq

And yet the Major News outlets take the attitude that 50% of their customer base can go take a flying leap. Seems ot me that's a lot like a retail store having a bouncer who tells every other approaching customer: "Get away! We won't serve your kind here!" I guess the News honchos care more about pushing their tired old ideology than they do about staying in business.

[vrwinger]

Lando, this from the network who presents former Clinton dog-robber George Stephenopolis as an unbaised talking head every Sunday morning...

[CyberAnt]

I hope you're sitting down .. but ABC has been doing this EVER SINCE PETER JENNINGS HAS BEEN IN CHARGE OF THE NEWS.

Really .. I'm not kidding .. isn't that astounding?

And .. there's more .. if you can take it .. CBS and NBC and CNN and NPR and PBS ALL DO THE SAME THING! I know, I know .. it's so hard to believe {{sigh}}

[expatpat]

I suggest sending this to Howard Kurtz. Although a lib, he's one of the minority of fair-minded indiviuals, and deals with journalistic issues on TV.

[CyberAnt]

That is such a good point.

Just because you're a "network affiliate" - doesn't necessarily force you to take ALL their programming. At least that's the way it used to be.

[Chuckster]

It would be a lot more than 50% if the media weren't contantly hammering them with their leftist propaganda.

[Doctor Raoul]

Good for you.

People think it's something they can't do, but the truth is, they put their pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us. If you stay calm and rationale, they do listen.

I encourage everyone to do it too.

[Doctor Raoul]

Just because you're a "network affiliate" - doesn't necessarily force you to take ALL their programming. At least that's the way it used to be.

In Philly, they're all "O&O", that is network owned and operated. However, they do talk to the network folks at meetings and I've had at least one Assistant General Manager promise me that he'd bring up my point to network management. They're (local management) are not looking to go out of business.

[ladyinred]

The Society of Professional Journalist’s Code of Ethics gives multiple reasons why this violates journalistic ethics:

Well there is your problem right there! This Society must be obsolete now, because there are no journalists, or ethics in the media anymore.

The media, where former democrat policy makers go to be "objective consultants" on the way up to having their own shows.

[Saundra Duffy]

Tim Russert is just as bad.