[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 63 (Thursday, May 19, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                         MEDIA'S ETHICAL MUDDLE

                                 ______


                         HON. MICHAEL G. OXLEY

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 19, 1994

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of Members 
the following column by James K. Glassman from the business section of 
yesterday's Washington Post. It would appear that the ``ethnic police'' 
in the media have some credibility problems on this issue. Mr. Glassman 
has done everyone a service by pointing out the media's hypocrisy in 
its fixation on perceived ethical lapses by others in the private and 
public sectors.
  Again, I recommend Mr. Glassman's column to all my Colleagues.

                [From the Washington Post, May 18, 1994]

       Talk Isn't Cheap--And Neither Is Journalistic Credibility

                         (By James K. Glassman)

       One of the biggest Big Money games in Washington is played 
     by journalists who give speeches to trade associations and 
     corporations and get paid $2,000 or $5,000 or even $30,000 a 
     pop.
       At a time when many of these same journalists are holding 
     business and government figures to increasingly strict 
     ethical standards, they're earning far more money from news 
     sources in an hour than they earn from their own employers in 
     a week.
       Dennis Thompson, director of the Program in Ethics and the 
     Professions at Harvard, says that news organizations should 
     follow the lead of other large corporations in adopting 
     tougher conflict-of-interest rules. On speeches, he says, ``I 
     would start with a straight ban and then proceed with 
     exceptions.''
       According to a cover story in the May issue of American 
     Journalism Review, Sam Donaldson of ABC News is said to get 
     $30,000 for a speech; Anna Quindlen of the New York Times, 
     $15,000; Tim Russert of NBC, $10,000; and Howard Fineman of 
     Newsweek, $5,000.
       In his book ``Media Circus,'' Washington Post media critic 
     Howard Kurtz reports that The Post's David S. Broder makes as 
     much as $7,500 and William Safire of the New York Times makes 
     $20,000.
       It's not unusual for journalists to take money from groups 
     they cover. With health care reform a hot topic for almost 
     everyone in the press, Cokie Roberts of ABC News gave a 
     speech to the Group Health Association of America for a 
     reported $20,000, and CBS's Lesley Stahl received $10,000 to 
     $20,000 from the insurance giant Cigna Corp., according to 
     Jim Warren, media critic and Washington bureau chief of the 
     Chicago Tribune.
       The problem, of course, is that some of these groups may 
     expect more for their money than a speech. They may be 
     looking for better treatment in an upcoming news story or 
     special access.
       Journalists get indignant at this notion. Warren wrote in 
     March: ``One line usually is, `Oh, there's nobody who thinks 
     that my opinions can be bought.' . . . Baloney. When money 
     changes hands, the relationship between reporter and subject 
     changes.''
       One consultant, who frequently represents business 
     interests in dealings with the press, told me that giving 
     speech money to journalists is like giving PAC money to 
     members of Congress: ``It does buy a relationship. It 
     determines whose calls will be returned.'' The difference is 
     that PAC money is divulged in public filings.
       What makes Alicia Shepard's American Journalism Review 
     article so disturbing is that many moonlighting journalists 
     don't seem to give the ethical issues raised by their 
     lucrative speaking engagements a second thought.
       They even claim their own right of privacy when asked to 
     disclose who pays them and how much.
       Donaldson refused to confirm his fee for a speech to a 
     consortium of insurance organizations last year. Asked what 
     he earned for a talk, Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal told 
     Shepard: ``I'm not going to disclose it.'' PBS's Robert 
     MacNeil called his fees ``a private matter.'' And ABC`s 
     Catherine Crier said, ``I don't need to discuss that.''
       A few years ago, squawks of protest greeted a proposal that 
     would have required reporters in the Periodical Press Galley 
     of Congress to list the sources and amounts of their outside 
     income.
       Contrast these attitudes with what's happening in business, 
     where more and more corporations are setting up ethics 
     offices and enforcing strict conflict-of-interest codes.
       ``Most companies,'' says W. Michael Hoffman, executive 
     director of the fast-growing Ethics Officer Association, 
     ``have ethics policies that prevent anyone from accepting 
     gifts from suppliers or potential suppliers over a certain 
     amount of money--some say $25, some say no gifts at all.''
       Hoffman says, ``This is probably one of the most sensitive 
     times for conflicts of interest in history.'' One timely 
     issue for corporations is whether they should do business 
     with firms headed by members of their boards.
       And Congress, which banned speaking fees entirely a few 
     years ago, recently voted to prohibit even small gifts and 
     lunches.
       But journalism, which has no strong professional 
     organization to set standards, seems to be moving in the 
     opposite direction. Even the simple disclosure of speaking 
     fees is evidently more than most reporters and columnists can 
     bear.
       At the very least, newspapers and magazines should print 
     periodic lists of employees and their sources of outside 
     income. Let readers decide if a $5,000 fee from a oil 
     industry is clouding a reporter's judgment. Disclosure on TV 
     is a little tougher but far from impossible.
       Some news organizations are tightening their internal 
     rules. The Washington Post won't allow employees to accept 
     money from organizations they cover or from groups that try 
     to influence legislation.
       What about me? As editor of Roll Call, A Capitol Hill 
     newspaper, I occasionally made speeches in the $4,000 range. 
     Feeling uneasy, I changed my policy: I took the money, then 
     donated it to charity. After a year, I just stopped giving 
     speeches for money.
       Getting off the dole might improve journalism's 
     credibility. A recent Gallup Poll found only 22 percent of 
     Americans rate the honesty and ethical standards of newspaper 
     reporters ``very high'' or ``high''--down from 30 percent in 
     1981.
       Pharmacists have a 65 percent rating, and funeral directors 
     34 percent. But insurance salesmen score just 10 percent. No 
     wonder they paid Sam Donaldson that $30,000.

                          ____________________