This is a long one. It's in four parts: the initial problem, the
debate, DMN's online response, and my response. It involves
controversy over a photo that the Dallas Morning News ran that I think
was bad journalism. Here goes.
I saw the photo and wrote three people at the Dallas Morning News (our
only daily paper here in Dallas): CEO, J. Moroney, Editor B Mong, and
Managing Editor,G. Rodrigue.
Letter extract:
(Note to save space I've reprinted only excerpts from all
the e-mails below. If anyone would like to see them in full, let me
know.)
Page two photo of Feb.19, issue under title "Teachers
flock to faster degree" shows a couple under a
Starbucks logo, talking with two Starbucks cups placed
on the table such that both logos show, with a caption
that adds '... meet at Stabucks every Wednesday'.
This photo suggests a product placement ad to promote
Starbucks for some type of hidden compensation. And
even if there was no compensation for this Starbucks
ad, there is every indication that there was.
This is a new low for the Dallas Morning News. And if
your history is correct, your refusal to talk about
it, takes it a notch lower.
George Rodrigue, Managing Editor response included:
I think our photo staff has won about four Pulitzer Prizes in the last
dozen years. As you can probably imagine, they never stage photos, and
wouldn't stand for it if we asked them to do so. What we printed was
what was there. We could, I suppose, have asked the teachers to
obscure the Starbucks logos on their cups, but that would have
violated our own guidelines against posing news photos. This wasn't
product placement, it was real life.
I'm not sure what you mean by our failure to discuss such things. We
do regularly respond to reader questions and complaints, in a very
public way. Check out the Ask the Editor column on our Web site, for
instance.
My response included:
The photo clearly says differently...
And adding it on the heading too? You purposely
cropped the picture to make sure the logo showed
3 times with one more in the heading.
If you for a minute believe what you say, then reprint the photo with
my thoughts on your editorial page. You won't. It's a major mistake
on many levels. It destroys any integrity your paper claims it has. It
is clearly a staged photo.
Then I heard from Publisher/CEO Jim Moroney
I can assure you that our news department would never cross this line
and the only "business" person who would have the authority to "order"
this to happen is me. And I can promise you in all my years in
journalism based media, I never have crossed this line, nor even been
tempted to do so. Our credibility as a journalistic organization is
the bedrock of our value and it would be business suicide to even
contemplate such a thing; moreover, I have two much respect for the
journalistic process to even consider doing something like you
suggest.
My response.
If you can't apologize in print for this error, then it was
intentional. Period. It is obviously a product placement. The evidence
is crystal clear and in print for all to see and reference. If it was
not product placement it was worse, a major slip up overlooked by many
in your management.
Either way, apologize for the product placement or apologize for the
appearance, of product placement and the failure to catch it by your
staff , which is just as bad. And do so in print.
Your paper has crossed that line. Time for an apology for doing so.
After a quick e-mail from Moroney saying he respectfully disagrees,
all correspondence stopped. DMN seemed to refuse to apologize in or
out of print. I then sent a letter to Starbucks, main office, with
copies to DMN management, that included the following:
This photo suggests a product placement ad to promote
Starbucks for some type of hidden compensation. And even if there was
no compensation for this Starbucks ad, there is every indication that
there was. The photo clearly is an ad for Starbucks.
Do you in any way condone or practice or participate in product
placement schemes? The photo clearly suggests you do.
The Dallas Morning News refuses to acknowledge or apologize for the
product placement. By refusing to take the responsibility for this
product placement it suggest strongly that you were part of it. What
do you have to say?
Do you in any way compensate the Dallas Morning News for product
placement photos like this? Even if not it gives the indication that
you do. And no one seems to be willing to say otherwise. If they are
doing this on their own they are making you look like you are a party
to it.
I have yet to hear from Starbucks.
Then I sent a letter to DMN telling them that I was doing this story
and after quoting George Rodriquez' line "We do regularly respond to
reader questions and complaints, in a very public way" I asked 7 hard
questions about the photo. A brief version is this:
1. Was the picture integral to the story and the caption? If not why
was it run? 2. Was it product placement for any undisclosed
compensation?
3. Were other photos taken that did not show 3 Starbucks logos? If so
why weren't they used? 4. Was the Starbucks caption mention necessary?
5 Do you think the APPEARANCE of product placement is acceptable. 6.
How many staff approved the photo and caption? 7. If no product
placement doesn't this suggest one and hurt the integrity of
Starbucks? 8. Why refuse to discuss this isssue within the pages of
the DMN? If you did nothing wrong why hide?
George Roderiguez replied that he would respond in the obsure, Ask the
Editor section for registered readers online only. He did so at
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/askeditor/stories/022808dnediasktheeditor.3c8a289.html
(Though to read it you have to login)
Here is the jist of it. First he gives my complaint, then says, "I'm
happy to talk about it, partly because it's a chance to discuss how
our staff takes such good photos." No it took your whole paper
kicking and screaming to do anything about this. And only after
constant follow ups by me.
He goes on to state that they never pose photos - and what you see was
reality. But the photo is not relevant, and could easily have been
taken to avoid the logos, or not used at all. And there was no reason
for the extra mention in the caption of the story. Then he says,
....I have to confess that I liked the interplay between the bright
green Starbucks sign and the reflection fo that sign in the window."
Here's what I would do as an editor or CEO.
Somewhere - and I can't find it now, is a quote from some papers on
journalism ethics that states that in journalism the impression of
unfairness is just as bad as the unfairness
For me as an editor of 15 years, albeit on a much much much much
smaller scale, I would never have run the photo period. If it had got
printed without my knowledge I would have lectured the photographer,
the caption writer, and all editors involved. And made it clear that
if any hard news photo ever showed a company product or service as
much as this one did,anyone involved would be fired - period.
Let me make it clear, running this photo was wrong. It gave the
appearance of shady doings. That alone is enough. To make matters
worse the management at first refused to respond publicly. Then after
much pressure, they finally did but refused to admit error.
Sum up. Wrong photo, wrong response.
I welcome comment on this.
|
