Glenn:

There are no one formal set of rules of journalistic ethics and no professional body regulating those ethical rules -- the way there is for, say, lawyers or doctors.

The Society of Professional Journalists has its code of ethics online here:

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

The main categories are:

Seek Truth and Report It

Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Minimize Harm

Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Act Independently

Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Be Accountable

Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

A few specifics:

Journalists should:

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.

— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.

— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises....

— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.

....

—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.

— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.

— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity....

— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.

— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.

....

— Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.

— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.

— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.

— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.

— Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

Ooops!

Much to Elephantman's dismay, Bill O'Reilly is a flaming gasbag, while Bill Moyers is a genuine top-flight journalist. They share almost nothing in common, aside from being featherless bipeds.

The difference can easily be seen by impartial observers, who may have seen Moyers resepctfully interview people all across the political spectrum over the years. Since Frank Luntz has been bandied about a bit of late--appearing on the Frontline last night for example--I thought of this interview, not conducted by Moyers, but under his aegis when Now was his baby. (There's a bit of intro stuff at the top.) Go ahead and read:

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript327_full.html

nabalzbbfr:

Petty and small-minded

How petty and small-minded! Embellishment of heroic war stories in order to inspire people is an ancient literary tradition going back to Homer's day, if not earlier. One is not supposed to take them literarilly. Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman represent photogenic archetypes of our brave fighting men and women. While the stories told about them may not be literally true, they portray a larger "big picture" truth, which is entirely valid. Reasonable people understand this. If Waxman and company think they can make hay out of this to advance their nefarious schemes, they will be sorely disappointed.

Shorter nabalzbbfr:

Truth is lies! Get with the program!

Elephantman:

No, I never, ever tire of the argument about public broadcasting's left-wing bias, because it is so rich with examples, and the hard evidence is so clear.

Program on International Policy Alternatives (10/03/2003):

Variation in Misperception by Support for President and News Source

Frequency of misperception that evidence of links to al Qaeda have been found among:

Bush supporters who watch: Fox 78% / PBS-NPR 50%

Democratic nominee supporters who watch: Fox 48% / PBS-NPR 0%

http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf (pg. 21)

One can easily see why BushCo Republicans hate public broadcasting. For all its faults, it does a lousy job of brainwashing Democrats.

I wish he'd included a few precious tidbits he left out.

Like the part of Colin Powell's speech where showed a satellite photo of a truck parked outside a shed and said it was a "signature" for some sort of WMD activity. I forget precisely what he said it was, because that was the point at which I burst out laughing.

My take? It was a signature that the driver was inside playing pinochle.

Yes, pinochle. Not chess--though they play a lot of chess in Iraq. Not poker. Not darts. But pinochle.

You could tell by the way the truck was parked.

I also wished that he'd given a little credit to Gannet. They weren't as good as Knight-Ridder. But they have USA Today, and they did report on how Bush decided to go to war with Iraq within weeks of 9/11. They had an excellent article picking apart the drive to war published on 9/11/02.

Finally, I wished he'd given credit to Dr Glen Rangwala, the researcher who not only discovered the source for the British white paper discussed in the Moyers documentary, but who also web-published a detailed point-by-point refutation of Powell's speech within hours of it being given. Obviously, if one lone researcher could debunk it that fast...