The New York Times recently introduced a questionnaire that all freelancers will have to fill out before being allowed to work for the paper. The announcement of the questionnaire was leaked a while back, but now the questions themselves have made it into the daylight. Jeff Jarvis lists the questions and offers an excellent suggestion for the Times: make staff fill it out as well. He also calls for journalists to maintain an online disclosure page similar to the one on his site. We concur.
To get the ball rolling, the editor of this site has filled out the questionnaire and made disclosures here; Jarvis posted his completed questionnaire on his disclosures page here.
The questionnaire itself is a good idea. The Times has kept the form to eight questions, and they all seem fair and logical. The positive thing about this initiative is that the Times is acknowledging that — heavens, no! — journalists are people just like anyone else. They get involved in their community, they have their own opinions, they invest in the market. These things don’t automatically influence how a reporter operates professionally. But they can sometimes influence judgment and, just as importantly, create a perception that the journalist has been influenced, or is not able to treat certain topics, companies or people fairly.
You’ll notice we haven’t dropped the "o" bomb (objectivity), and that’s because nobody is objective. As a journalist, you can be fair and accurate and ethical and professional, but objectivity is a load of horse puckey. While many still think it’s preached at journalism schools, we think the reality is that most professors have sacrificed this old and decrepit sacred cow in favor of more realistic, practical values. Media experts and press critics have been hammering away at objectivity as a professional virtue for a good decade or more, and it appears to be slowly fading from the lexicon. To which we say: huzzah.
That the Times is seeking to define the areas of personal involvement and investment for its freelancers is logical. It’s also a smart bit of butt covering, provided the paper actually puts these questionnaires to use in assigning or accepting stories. But here’s the problem. Rather, here are three:
- By not requiring its staff members to fill out the questionnaire, the Times is creating a two-tier system of disclosure within the paper. Just because someone is a freelancer, it doesn’t mean that they are more likely to plagiarize, get facts wrong, accept junkets, or allow their personal convictions or interests to cloud their work. A bit of disclosure is required here. The editor of this site, Craig Silverman, works as a freelance writer for magazines, newspapers, websites, and companies. He is a member of the Canadian Freelance Union and the president of the Quebec chapter of the Professional Writers Association of Canada, a national organization of freelance writers. So, obviously, he is heavily involved in the Canadian freelance community, and his personal opinion is that there are good and bad freelancers just as there are good and bad staff members. Singling out one group won’t solve the problem. Position does not dictate professionalism. Yet the Times seems to be sending the message that the investments, community activities and personal beliefs of staff members have no effect on their work, and that things are different for freelancers. It’s doubtful that senior editors there would be willing to argue this, yet the questionnaire remains for freelancers only. Staff members come under much more scrutiny from outside interests because of their position, yet they get a free pass? It doesn’t make sense. The Times does have its detailed Ethical Journalism policy for staff members, but having a written policy is not the same as asking for specific information from each person.
- The second concern with the questionnaire is that we don’t really know how it will be used by the Times. Many publications and news operations have written guidelines about accuracy and ethics and all manner of other professional codes, but these policies aren’t worth anything if the organization doesn’t implement practices, training, and other concrete initiatives to make policy reality. The questionnaire is a good idea, but how will it be used? If an editor takes a freelancer off a story or declines a pitch based on something in their questionnaire, does it get marked in their file? What are the rules governing an editor’s call? The questions could go on and on, and the initial Times memo notes that, "The questionnaire…will be reviewed by senior editors in the department
for which the freelancer works. On the basis of the information
submitted, the editors will determine what future assignments are
appropriate for the stringer or freelancer." The problem here is that the questionnaire ispubicpublic (yes…we wrote "pubic" instead of "public"), and the rules governing its application aren’t. The result is a lot of questions. Hopefully, the Times can answer them for its freelancers, staff and readership. - You knew this was coming, didn’t you? Question number 8 reads:
Has anything you’ve written later resulted in a published editor’s note
or retraction for deliberate falsehood or plagiarism or become the
subject of a lawsuit involving allegations of deliberate falsehood? (If
yes, please include details about the publication and your role in the
article or story. If a lawsuit, please describe the disposition of the
case.)Why not expand the scope of this question? As it reads, someone would only have to disclose editor’s notes relating to plagiarism or deliberate falsehoods. What if a freelancer’s work resulted in an editor’s note based on inaccurate reporting? Shouldn’t this be disclosed? The Times should also ask if their work is no longer accepted at certain publications due to factual errors. For example, wouldn’t the Times want to know about the litany of mistakes in this Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Salon/Rolling Stone article? There was no plagiarism, but there were a lot of mistakes. This wouldn’t necessarily lead them to deny a piece from him, but it would definitely help when it comes to editing and fact checking the piece. A reporter shouldn’t have to list every correction they’ve been responsible for, but all editor’s note-level errors should be noted.
