Society of Professional Journalists
Improving and protecting journalism since 1909


— ADVERTISEMENT —
Advertise with SPJ
1

News and More
Click to Expand Instantly

SPJ News
Events and Deadlines
SPJ Blogs
Quill Online
SPJ on Tumblr
Journalist's Toolbox

Stay in Touch
Twitter Tumblr Facebook Google Plus
RSS Pinterest Pinterest Storify


More Articles
Main listing | Archive

News: SPJ updates Code of Ethics
Quill: Code of Ethics Revision: What's Up and What Has Changed
Quill: Codifying A New Code of Ethics
Quill: New Code of Ethics Not Ready for Prime Time
Quill: Ten with Kara Swisher
Quill: Ethics Toolbox


Ethics
Ethics Home
SPJ Code of Ethics
News/Articles
Case Studies
Committee Position Papers
Ethics Answers
Ethics Hotline
Resources
Ethics Committee

Code Words: SPJ’s Ethics Committee Blog
– The Road Ahead
– Ethics Code Revision: Final Draft
– Ethics of covering suicides

Ethics Committee
This committee's purpose is to encourage the use of the Society's Code of Ethics, which promotes the highest professional standards for journalists of all disciplines. Public concerns are often answered by this committee. It also acts as a spotter for reporting trends in the nation, accumulating case studies of jobs well done under trying circumstances.

Ethics Committee chair

Andrew Seaman
Email
@andrewmseaman
Bio (click to expand) Andrew is a medical journalist for Reuters Health in New York. Before coming to Reuters Health, he was a Kaiser Media Fellow at Reuters’s Washington, D.C. bureau, where he covered the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

In 2011, Andrew graduated from Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, where he studied investigative journalism as a Stabile Fellow and was named “Student of the Year.” Andrew also graduated with his B.A. from Wilkes University in 2011.

He’s won numerous awards throughout his short career, including being named a 2010 Tom Bigler Scholar for ethical standards in journalism, the 2009 Robert D.G. Lewis First Amendment Award, the 2009 and the Arthur H. Barlow National Student Journalist of the Year Award.


Monica Guzman, vice chair
Email
@moniguzman
Bio (click to expand) Monica is a Sunday columnist for The Seattle Times and a weekly columnist for GeekWire, covering issues in digital life. She was a juror for the 2014 Pulitzer Prizes, serves on the National Advisory Board for the Poynter Institute and contributed the closing chapter, “Community As an End,” to the 2013 Poynter book “The New Ethics of Journalism: Principles for the 21st Century.” From 2007 to 2010, Monica launched and ran the innovative Big Blog at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and seattlepi.com, complementing news and culture coverage with weekly reader meetups. From 2010 to 2012 she developed user communities for Seattle startups like Intersect, Trover and Glympse before kicking off her Times column.

A member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Shapers community, Monica emcees the popular quarterly community speaker series Ignite Seattle and is assisting the American Press Institute with a newsroom innovation project. Monica served on the ethics code revision task force and is an active member of the Western Washington Pro chapter of SPJ. She is currently serving as chapter president.



Reading Room
Freedom of Information
Ethics
Diversity
First Amendment/
Public & the Press


Articles for...
Freelancers
Students
Young Journalists
International Journalists
Educators

Home > Ethics > Reading Room > Did sexual abuse story cross the line of fairness?

SPJ Reading Room

Did sexual abuse story cross the line of fairness?

By Fred Brown

When it comes to training, ethics is different from other newsroom workshops. It is a more esoteric subject than, say, using numbers in reporting, or writing without bias.

In ethics, there are no pat answers. The trick is to ask the right questions, to hash it out so you’re able to justify your decision to yourself and the public.

But most of an ethics workshop consists of looking at case studies. The best sessions focus on ethical issues that have surfaced locally. The case studies eventually go on the SPJ Web site for use in ethics discussions by teachers, students and professionals.

Here’s a case study from a session in Portland, Ore., last year. In addition to this brief summary, participants had copies of stories to guide their discussion.

Three weeks before the 2004 election, The (Portland) Oregonian published a sensational story. David Wu, a Democratic congressman seeking a fourth term, had been accused by an ex-girlfriend of a sexual assault some 28 years previously. But criminal charges never were filed, and neither Wu nor the woman involved wanted to discuss the case now.

The Oregonian spent months trying to discover the truth about this persistent rumor. On Oct. 12, 2004, it published an article of more than 3,000 words explaining what it found out.

On that same day, Congressman Wu held a news conference to say he did something regrettable in his youth, but he didn’t think it was relevant now. Other media picked up the story, of course, and his Republican opponent used it in her campaign.

Here’s a quick summary:

Wu and his ex-girlfriend were science majors at Stanford University. She broke up with him in spring of 1976. That summer, Wu was questioned by Stanford campus police after his ex-girlfriend said he tried to force her to have sex with him.

Wu told police it was consensual. He was not arrested. The woman declined to pursue criminal prosecution and didn’t file a formal disciplinary complaint.

Wu refused to be interviewed or to answer written questions about the incident when The Oregonian asked him about it 28 years later. Wu’s ex-girlfriend also declined to comment, either in person or through a representative. Stanford officials wouldn’t discuss it either, citing university policy and student confidentiality laws.

So how did The Oregonian get its story? Here’s the newspaper’s explanation, included as part of the first story:

“Reporters contacted scores of former Stanford students, current and retired university officials and professors, law associates, and former campaign staffers and friends of Wu to determine what occurred.

“The account that follows is based on recollections of the Stanford patrol commander, the woman’s counselor, two professors who supervised dormitories at the time and several classmates who were on campus that year.”

Despite the story, Wu won re-election by a decisive 3-to-2 margin.

Workshop participants were asked to consider what questions the newspaper should have asked — and answered — before it decided to publish.

One question participants raised was whether The Oregonian was looking for its own sex scandal because an alternative newspaper had finally run down a similar long-ago sex story involving a former governor.

There were other, perhaps more obvious questions. Was the story relevant to voters today? Certainly it’s interesting — sex always is — but was it useful? Fair? And if you were a competing news outlet in Portland, what would you have done after The Oregonian broke the story?

Fred Brown, an SPJ past president, is co-chairman of the SPJ Ethics Committee and a newspaper columnist and television analyst in Denver.

Copyright © 1996-2014 Society of Professional Journalists. All Rights Reserved. Legal

Society of Professional Journalists
Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center
3909 N. Meridian St.
Indianapolis, IN 46208
317/927-8000 | Fax: 317/920-4789

Contact SPJ Headquarters
Employment Opportunities
Advertise with SPJ