UPDATE, June 27, 2009: Murphy, McBride, and Bice
________________
I've said all that I need to say about the affair between Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn and journalist Jessica McBride.
This is about ethics in journalism.
This is about Dan Bice and the hit piece he was determined to do on Jessica McBride.
This is about the stunning lack of professionalism of Dan Bice.
Bice was out pimping his EXCLUSIVE on TMJ4 and 620 WTMJ. He was pontificating about McBride's lack of journalistic ethics. In his Milwaukee Journal Sentinel column, he cited national experts and built a case to condemn McBride as a journalist.
Bruce Murphy, editor of Milwaukee Magazine, lays out what Bice ignored, what Bice left out of his story, what Bice failed to tell readers and listeners as he hawked his EXCLUSIVE.
Ethics?
ETHICS?
Murphy writes:
At this point, no one disputes that Jessica McBride had an affair with Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn. The question is when. We can all agree it’s a conflict of interest to have this affair while writing about him, but if the relationship began well after the story ran, there’s no conflict and no news story.
Murphy illustrates that there was no conflict of interest.
There's a documented time line that proves Bice is either incapable of following a story chronologically or he intentionally set out to trash Jessica McBride and damage her career.
I'll give Bice the benefit of the doubt and assume he can grasp a time line.
Actually, I don't think Bice has some sort of personal vendetta with McBride.
I think he just wanted to make a big story and break it in a big way. I think he concocted a strategy, lost sight of his ethics, and screwed up as he went along.
It was a couple of weeks ago that Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Dan Bice called me about this story. "Can you tell me when this affair was supposed to have started," I asked. "I don't know," he replied.
Yet Bice went ahead and wrote an innuendo-laden story that simply asserted – but never proved – that McBride had this affair while working on a profile of Flynn for Milwaukee Magazine. Bice ignored information proving the contrary, and failed to do due diligence to establish the facts. All the evidence suggests the affair began in early May, months after McBride completed the story.
Now, as a result of Bice's hatchet job, McBride has been branded and ridiculed across the country, on countless Web sites and blogs, as a corrupt journalist. It's a tragedy for journalism, all right, but the real shame falls on Bice and his editors.
Am I overstating this? Let me present the background behind the story and the facts left out of Bice's account, and you be the judge.
Murphy then provides the details and offers a sound analysis.
He destroys Bice's charges against McBride's professionalism.
He reveals how remarkably unprofessionally Bice handled the story of the affair.
He documents how Bice strained to find journalistic ethical lapses in McBride's profile on Flynn for Milwaukee Magazine.
He points out how Bice manipulated quotes to persuade the reader to question McBride's journalistic integrity.
He displays how Bice desperately clung to his angle on "McBride as the unethical journalist" even after she made public an e-mail from Flynn that clearly refuted Bice's stance.
This passage from Bice's follow-up piece has come back to bite him:
"The romantic relationship with Chief Flynn began in May at Brocach's Irish Pub - four months after I completed and turned in the Milwaukee Magazine article," [McBride] wrote.
That's, in short, what she put out there.
Even more interesting is what she left out.
What SHE left out?
Murphy concludes:
I’m happy to disclose the details on how our story was done. I wonder if the JS can say the same about Bice’s exposé. It often seems like the newspaper never got the memo that in an online world, you no longer control the interpretation of stories. Online readers and bloggers do. And I welcome their examination of the issue.
I have a lot of respect for Journal Sentinel Editor Marty Kaiser, and I very much doubt he would have approved the Bice story had he known some of the things Bice chose to leave out – or not pursue – in this story. Bice is a very aggressive reporter, and that has resulted in some important stories. And if editors say no often enough, any reporter will start to become less aggressive. But this particular story seemed to scream out for more caution.
Ah, but sex sells. It’s always tempting to publish something like this – if there is a public policy issue at stake. Bice, however, offered no evidence the affair has in any way detracted from Flynn's performance as police chief. But a juicy conflict of interest for reporter McBride would certainly justify running the story. Perhaps that's why Bice stretched the truth to manufacture something that wasn't there.
For the record, we stand behind our story on Ed Flynn. Should any defects be pointed out, we will do the usual due diligence to determine if a correction or clarification is required.
Typically, once Milwaukee Magazine does an in-depth story on someone like Flynn, we’re unlikely to ever feature him again. McBride, of course, would have been honor-bound to disclose her relationship with Flynn had we ever asked her to cover him again. That’s when the issue of a conflict of interest would have arisen.
Back when I started running McBride’s stories, I heard from liberals who were upset, as McBride is a conservative commentator. My only concern, I told them, is how good a reporter she is. I still feel the same way, and still remain happy with the four features she's done for us. But I have heard from folks who believe the magazine should cross McBride off its list of freelance reporters. Should we? I’d be curious to hear from you, the reader, about this. I always learn from these exchanges, and welcome your thoughts about this entire issue.
This is black and white.
McBride should not be crossed off the list of Milwaukee Magazine's freelance reporters.
I've said this before and it bears repeating:
It looks like holier-than-thou, ethical journalism expert Dan Bice has some retracting to do.
All those who jumped to conclusions about McBride's lack of journalistic ethics need to reassess their criticism.
It will be interesting to see how Bice responds to Murphy's piece.
Will Bice admit that his coverage of this story has been seriously flawed?
Will Bice acknowledge his lapses in judgment?
Will Bice give up on the goofy "love at first sight" supposed evidence?
Will Bice exhibit that he cares about ethical standards in journalism?
Will Bice hold himself accountable?
This is about ethics.
No comments:
Post a Comment