Compiled by the Steering Committee of
Citizens for Press Responsibility at The Daily Review (CPR@DR)
P.O. Box 131
Burlington, PA 18814

First printing: July 2000
Second printing: August 2000

Steering Committee Members: Marilyn Bok, Barbara Coyle, Jeff Dann, John Ferri, Jeff Gonzalez, Tom Henson, Clark Moeller, Ruth Tonachel, Leslie Wizelman, Esq., and Margaret Wood

About this Report: In summary, the Steering Committee of CPR@DR used The Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists as a criteria for evaluating the editorial practices of The Daily Review. The Steering Committee found and has documented in this report nine ethical standards that The Daily Review has regularly violated.

	  
TABLE OF CONTENTS: 
Letter to owners of The Daily Review July 12, 2000
Cover page to The Ethics of The Daily Review 
INTRODUCTION
DOCUMENTATION
(Each subsection has an introduction which summarizes 
          the ethical issue being evaluated)
I.  Editing and Reporting
   A.  Change the Meaning
   B.  Editorializing the News
   C.  Plagiarizing
   D.  Creating the News
      1.  Self-selected Polls
      2.  Anonymous Personal Attacks

II.  Police Blotter Journalism
  A. Victimizing Children
  B.  Naming Victims of Domestic Violence

APPENDIX
I.   Case History
II.  Indexes to violations of editorial ethics The Daily Reviews
  A.  Findings of the Steering Committee
  B.  Society of Professional Journalism Code of Ethics
  C.  Opinion poll survey practices condemned by the American Association
      for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR)

Back to the top
Back to the Table of Contents

Letter to owners of The Daily Review :

July 12, 2000
Mr. George Lynett, President
Times-Shamrock Group
149 Penn Ave
Scranton, PA 18505-3311

RE: The editorial practices of The Daily Review

Dear Mr. Lynett,
   The Citizens for Press Responsibility at The Daily Review (CPR@DR) is composed of citizens in Bradford County who have joined together for the common purpose of promoting editorial integrity at The Daily/Sunday Review. CPR@DR’s Steering Committee believe that both our community and The Daily Review would benefit from such a change. Members of the Steering Committee are all volunteers. We have nothing to gain materially from any changes at The Daily Review. We see our service for CPR@DR as a civic responsibility.
   We are requesting your help. If you are willing to meet to discuss our concerns, please call Clark Moeller (570-265-6523) on or before July 24, 2000, to select a mutually convenient date.
   We believe that the First Amendment’s protection of a free press is a powerful protection for a free society. We also believe that this privileged position which newspapers enjoy under the First Amendment is coupled with a parallel responsibility for editorial and reporting integrity.
   During the last several years, in our opinion, the accuracy of reporting and the adherence to accepted standards of editorial ethics by the Towanda Daily Review have deteriorated. A great many people have written, e-mailed, or phoned Publisher James Towner and Editor Ian Fennell about these issues. Citizens have met with them to request changes to the editing practices which the citizens perceived to be dishonest, unfair, and unethical. The changes requested have not been made in our opinion.
   As far as we can determine, individuals who have written to you about these issues from time to time have not received responses. We remain hopeful, however, that you might consider our concerns seriously and help restore The Daily Review to a community newspaper that we can all admire rather than, as one Superintendent of Schools remarked, a paper that seems to be “trying to rip the community down.”
   Over the last several months, a great many citizens have helped compile specific examples of items printed in The Daily Review which they believe represent the unethical practices of The Daily Review. These are presented in the attached document, The Ethics of The Daily Review : An Evaluation of its Editorial Practices.
   This document does not contain examples of many other complaints about The Daily Review that are too cumbersome to include, such as the practice of generating discord where there is none, or pitting one group against another rather than reporting the facts in an unbiased manner. It also is difficult to document the chilling effect The Daily Review has had on the motivation of our community volunteers and local elected officials, our community’s life blood. Many people have told members of the Steering Committee that they believe it is very difficult to get a straight, factual story into The Daily Review. The Editor regularly puts his spin on stories submitted to the paper, they believe, and the resulting news items are seen as factually incorrect and a controversial tone had been added. Thus, civic programs and volunteer community efforts are misrepresented. Furthermore, the volunteers’ work and good faith efforts are cast in a negative light.
   In addition, The Ethics of The Daily Review does not address issues that some would claim are a matter of editorial judgement such as overdramatizing relatively inconsequential issues, An example is making “Principal accused of being too strict” the lead news story of June 11th, rather than providing in-depth, balanced reporting on important concerns facing our communities, such as taxes and zoning. Nor has the Steering Committee attempted to make a case about The Daily Review’s apparent practice of selectively withholding letters-to-the-editor that differ with the perspective of Towner or Fennell. Finally, we have not tried to document the overall sloppiness of The Daily Review which, for example, recently printed an obituary for a person who had not died (6/7/00, page 6), periodically runs the same story or commentary twice, or reprints a cartoon from 25 days earlier.
   Because of the difficulty we have experienced in getting substantive cooperation from the management of The Daily Review , we are considering asking citizens to sign petitions requesting help from you, the owners of The Daily/Sunday Review. The results of the petitioning effort will demonstrate the depth of dissatisfaction with The Daily Review that currently exists in Bradford County.
   We realize that if you do not intervene, such a petition by itself will not change The Daily Review. However, we believe this petition will generate other benefits. It is important that citizens be aware that what they read in The Daily Review has often misrepresented the actions and discussions of civic leaders. Second, it is helpful to people to know they are not alone in their opinion about The Daily Review and, furthermore, that there is concrete documentation supporting their concerns. And third, the damage we believe is caused by The Daily Review may be mitigated by an open public discussion about The Daily Review’s editorial practices. The process of petitioning will help stimulate that discussion.
   If, however, you make changes at The Daily Review that are creditable enough for us to believe that an ethical turn-around is occurring, we will be more than happy to do something else with our time. We are all busy people.
   Members of our Steering Committee would like to meet with you in Towanda about these issues as mentioned above. Thank you for considering our concerns.

Respectfully,

Steering Committee: Marilyn Bok, Barabara Coyle, Jeff Dann, John Ferri, Jeff Gonzalez, Tom Henson, Clark Moeller, Ruth Tonachel, Leslie Wizelman, Esq., Margaret Wood

cc: Edward J. Lynett, Jr., William Lynett, Harold F. Marion Jr.

Steering Committee, CPR@DR, P.O. Box 131, Burlington, PA 18814

Back to the top
Back to the Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION
The Ethics of The Daily Review: An Evaluation of its Editorial Practices documents the unethical editorial practices of The Daily/Sunday Review , published in Towanda, Pennsylvania.

Background: In recent years, there has been a growing awareness in our communities that the editorial quality of The Daily Review has sharply declined.
  The first to be aware of the changes were the individuals who had first-hand experience with alterations made to their letters-to-the-editor or changes made to their news releases by Editor Ian Fennell and Publisher James Towner. These changes often altered the meaning and tone of the author's submission. Concerned citizens met with Towner and Fennell and asked for changes in their editorial practices. A detailed case history of one of these efforts to work constructively behind the scenes with the Publisher and the Editor appears in the Appendix. Despite these efforts, little changed. From a practical standpoint, there seemed little recourse for frustrated community leaders trying to provide information to the public about community issues, events, and challenges. "After all," they'd say in resignation, "you can't argue with guys who buy ink by the barrel."
   Nevertheless, people began to talk with one another. A buzz about the editorial ethics at The Daily Review began to grow. What has emerged during the last year is an opinion among many people that much of the information in The Daily Review cannot be trusted. This perception is shared by conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, and by religious fundamentalists and secular thinkers-- people who otherwise do not agree on much.
  In January 2000, a number of subscribers to The Daily Review coordinated the timing for cancelling their subscriptions in order to "send a message of dissatisfaction."
  In February 2000, the M-BRS consulting firm conducted a scientific survey of Bradford County residents on many issues of public concern. The survey results showed that 53.0% of Bradford County residents subscribed to a local daily paper. Of these subscribers, 57.7% subscribe to The Daily Review. Of the total who read a local daily paper, 45.2% rated The Daily Review as "poor" or only "fair," in "providing you with unbiased information about local issues." The survey's rating scale was (poor), (fair), (good), (very good), (excellent) and its margin of error is plus or minus 4.0%. Only 13.8% rated The Daily Review "very good" and a mere 2% rated The Daily Review "excellent" in providing, "unbiased information about local issues." The Ethics of The Daily Review: An Evaluation of its Editorial Practices provides ample documentation that suggests why readers may have given The Daily Review such low ratings.
  In March 2000, the Citizens for Press Responsibility at The Daily Review , CPR@DR, began to organize. Organizing such a group had been a matter of discussion for over a year. The CPR@DR is an informal, ad hoc group of citizens who share a common belief that a fair, responsible, and ethical press is an important part of a community's social and economic health.
  Evaluation standards: The Steering Committee of CPR@DR used the following standards and guides for evaluating The Daily Review :

• The Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists,
• The Code of Ethics of the American Association for Public Opinion Research,
• Norm Goldstein, ed. The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual, Reading, MA: Perseus Books, 1998,
• The Chicago Manual of Style, 14^th Edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993
• (particularly its section on copyright infringement of printed material [plagiarism])
• Janice R. Walker & Todd Taylor, The Columbia Guide to Online Style, NY: Columbia University Press, 1998. (particularly its section on copyright infringement on internet material [plagiarism])

1. The Daily Review has rewritten and printed letters-to-the-editor or news releases, changing the meaning and accuracy of the material submitted without obtaining permission from the author.
2. The Daily Review aggressively editorializes its news reporting about candidates for public office. (It is our understanding that the Editor's political opinions belong on the editorial page, not in the paper's news coverage.)
3. The Daily Review has printed letters-to-the-editor after deleting criticism of The Daily Review , without permission from the author.
4. The Daily Review has edited articles to make it seem as if its news staff has interviewed a person when, in fact, this has not happened.
5. The Daily Review has printed material that is plagiarized.
6. The Daily Review has run "self-selected polls," publishing the results as if their polls represented the attitude of the general public.
7. The Daily Review has printed anonymous attacks on citizens.
8. The Daily Review has used "police blotter journalism" quoting the police and court reports in front page stories, including lurid details about victims of sexual assaults and domestic abuse that violate the victims' privacy and serve no public interest.
9. The Daily Review has printed the names of domestic violence victims, thus putting these victims potentially at further risk of harm at the hands of their attackers.

Back to the top
Back to the Table of Contents

DOCUMENTATION
Note: hard copies of all documentation are contained in the printed copies of the report, The Ethics of The Daily Review: An Evaluation of its Editorial Practices. In this web edition of the report only the sources are cited but copies of actual documentation are not included.

Documentation: I. Editing and Reporting: A. Changing the Meaning

• "Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility."
• "Deliberate distortion is never permissible."
• "Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media."

Documentation for "Changing the Meaning."

• David Smith Run, Press Release concerning the lawsuit filed by the American Cancer Society.
• Kevin Olmstead, "Dave Smith Run Committee counter-sue Cancer Society,"The Daily Review , 4 April 2000
• By the Review, Dave Smith Run clarifies stance on legal battle, The Daily Review , 4 July 2000
• Dave Turissine, Letter to editor, 17 March 2000
• "EMTA offical disagrees with transportation comment," The Daily Review , 23 March 2000
• Dave Turissini, letter to the Editor, The Rocket Courier, 6 April 2000

Documentation: I. Editing and Reporting: B. Editorializing the News

• "Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
• "The members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues."

Documentation for "Editorializing the News:"

• Wes Skillings, "Campaign Diary: My Year as a Political Machine, Part 1 " Rocket-Courier, 31 March 2000
• Wes Skillings, "Campaign Diary: Chapter 2: The Primary." Rocket-Courier, 4 April 2000
• Wes Skillings, "Campaign Diary: Chapter 3: The Fall Campaign," Rocket-Courier, 14 April 2000

Documentation: I. Editing and Reporting: C. Plagiarism

• "Never Plagiarize."

Definition of Plagiarism: "Using someone else's ideas, words and phrases, or form of presentation without giving proper credit is plagiarism and can carry serious academic as well as legal penalties." Janice R. Walker & Todd Taylor, The Columbia Guide to Online Style, NY: Columbia University Press, 1998, p 12.

Copyright and Fair Use:
   "Whenever a book or article, poem or lecture, database or drama comes into the world in tangible form, it is automatically covered by copyright. This is true regardless of whether the work is ever published." ... "What counts [for copyright] is not quality or novelty, but only that the work be original with the author and not copied from some other source..." (p. 126).
   "Traditional copyright doctrine treats extensive paraphrase as merely disguised copying. Thus, fair use analysis will be the same for both"(p. 147).
   "Fair use is use that is fair-- simply that. Uses that are tangential in purpose to the original, such as quotation for purposes of criticism, will always be judged more leniently than those that are parallel, such as relying on quotations to prove one's point rather than putting the argument in one's own words. Use of any literary work in its entirety -- a poem, an essay, a chapter of a book -- is hardly ever acceptable. Use of less than the whole will be judged by whether the second author appears to be taking a free ride on the first author's labor" (p. 146). Source: The Chicago Manual of Style, 14^th Edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
  Copyright infringement: "The First Amendment provides no greater right to use copyright material than those provided by copyright law." Source: Norm Goldstein, ed., The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual, Reading, MA: Perseus Books, 1998 (p. 303).

Documentation for "Plagiarism:"

• "Battle Evokes Painful Memories," by Denis D. Gray, AP, 28 April 2000 was reprinted by The Daily Review as "By The Daily Review." Seventy-five percent of this article was plagiarized from AP.
• The June 21, 2000 news release, "Dirt & Gravel Roads Program Allocates $289,000 to Bradford County Conservation District" from Michael Lovegreen, District Manager of the Bradford County Conservation District, was liberally copied into The Daily Review 's article, "County gets nearly $300K to improve dirt roads," which was printed with the byline, "By The Review,"
• "Crime Stoppers Offering Reward," June 1, 2000 cites the byline "C.J. Marshall, The Daily Review ," but is actually a slightly rewritten news release from the Pennsylvania Crime Stoppers. Much of the wording is taken directly from the news release.
• "Clinton Administration Under Fire for Taking Elian Gonzalez by Force," April 23, 2000 cites "By The Review" as the source but 50% of the article is an AP story that is given no credit by The Daily Review.
• "Pennsylvania Legislators in Trouble with the Law," April 12, 2000, appears with the byline, "By The Review ," but 66% of the story was written by AP, which gets no credit.

Documentation: I. Editing and Reporting: D. Creating the News: 1. Self-selected Polls

• "AAPOR joins the Research Coalition and the National Council of Public Polls in condemning certain misleading practices sometimes performed in the name of research. In no case are the following practices deemed legitimate or acceptable elements of professionally conducted research:
• "4. Representing the results of a 900-number or other type of self-selected "poll" as if they were the outcome of legitimate research. 900-number and other types of write-in, call-in, and interactive polls have become increasingly common. These "polls" report the opinions of only those people who called in, and not those of the general public. AAPOR believes that any publicizing or promotion of such activities not only damages legitimate market and survey research, but can be very misleading when used to influence public policy or simply to disseminate information about the general public."

Documentation for "Self-selected Polls:"

• By The Review, "Poll bashes incumbents commissioners," The Daily Review, 14 May 1999
• M. Bok, "Whose Condemning Whom for Bogus Polling, unpublished letter to The Daily Review, June 10, 1999
• Ian H. Fennell, Juvenile violence is out of control," The Daily Review , 29 May 1998
• Ruth Donnocker, "Does not think phone-polls are good," The Daily Review , 9 September 1998
• Ruth Tonachel, "Dear Editor," sent to The Daily Review , Dec. 7, 1999 but never published.
• Ruth Tonachel, "To Whom it May Concern," sent to The Daily Review , May 3, 2000 but never published.

Documentation: I. Editing and Reporting: D. Creating the News: 2. Anonymous Personal Attacks

• "Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on source's reliability."
• "Always question sources' motives before promising anonymity."

Libel: "There is only one complete and unconditional defense to a civil action for libel: that the facts stated are PROVABLY TRUE. (Note well that word, PROVABLY.) Quoting someone correctly is not enough."(p. 283). "The fact that news comes from official sources does not eliminate the concern. To say that a high police official said means that you are making the accusation." (note: the "you" in this sentence is referring to the newspaper reporter)... "The source must be trustworthy and certain to stand behind the information given." (p. 285) Source: Norm Goldstein, ed., The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual, Reading, MA: Perseus Books, 1998

Documentation for "Anonymous Personal Attacks:"

• "Editorial feedback," The Daily Review, 11 Sept. 1998
• Anonymous personnel attacks printed in The Daily Review's column "On What's On Your mind:
• "On Rome Boro. and What's On Your Mind," 6 March 2000
• "Rome Twp., where handshake is as good as contract," 6 March 2000
• "What rank did McGuire Hold?," 6 March 2000
• no title, 10 March 2000
• "Wants Cotter to move to Sheshequin," 16 April, 2000
• "On Margaret Wood, sensible mothers,"16 April, 2000
• "A plea to Cotter about Ulster," 3 May 2000
• "Brown responsible for union vote,"7 May 2000
• "Takes issues with Athens Township officals," 7 May 2000
• "Are Windham supervisors boycotting paper," The Daily Review, 7 May 2000
• "Conrats to Bowen for getting a life,"10 May 2000
• "Wrong message sent in Canton,"10 May 2000
• "Builder beware applies to Carling situation,"10 May 2000
• "Abandoned ceneteries need to be cleaned up,"10 May 2000
• "Can't understand Rome Borough's actions," 10 May 2000
• "Praises Kerric for cleaning up cemetary, 17 May 2000
• "Valley crakdown is hitlerism," 21 June 2000
• "What was problem with Bevacqua, staff?," 21 June 2000
• "Responding to comments about old cemetaries,"21 June 2000
• "Rome police not doing their job," 21 June 2000
• "Zero-tolerance pushed kins to vandalism," 21 June 2000
• "Republican says he is supporting Gore,"21 June 2000

Documentation: II. Police Blotter Journalism: A. Victimizing Children

• "Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity."
• "Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children...."
• "Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy."

Documentation for "Victimizing Children:"

• C.J Marshall, "Man guilty of incent with his daugher," The Daily Review, 26 May 2000 in contrast to "Towanda man convicted of endangering the welfare of child," The Evening Times, 26 May 2000
• Jeff Langford, "Student allegedly assaulted at Towanda School," The Daily Review, 26 Oct. 1999
• By The Review, "Towanda officials acted appropriately in school assault case, district says," The Daily Review, 1 Nov.1999
• C.J Marshall, "Man gets 13 years in jail for oral sex from girl," The Daily Review, 7 April 2000
• C.J. Marshall, "Man arrested, charged with sexual assault,"The Daily Review, 9 April 2000
• C.J Marshall, Accused sex offender waives hearing, The Daily Review, 2 March 2000

Documentation: II. Police Blotter Journalism: B. Naming Victims of Domestic Violence

• "Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance."
• "Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage.
• "Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy."

• Attachment:1. Examples of articles with victims' names. After repeated requests asking them to stop printing victims' names, Jane Moeller e-mailed a letter to the journalists who are listed by the Society of Professional Journalists as experts in journalistic ethics.
• Attachment 2. Her e-mail letter and the responses of the those who answered are attached.
• Attachment 3. Based on these responses she and a co-worker wrote the attached letter-to-the-Editor.
• Attachment 4. Ian Fennell counterattacked with the attached column.
• Attachment 5. James Towner responded to an e-mail criticizing The Daily Review for printing victims' names. Towner's response justifying this practice was, "The majority of newspapers have the same policy." Even if this is true, and the Steering Committee believes it is not, the same practice by other papers does not make it ethical to unnecessarily harm innocent victims of abuse. Nowhere in James Towner's e-mail, or anywhere else, does he argue that printing victims' names serves an "overriding public need" that outweighs the harm to the victim or to public safety.

• "Man charged with threatening sister, her family," The Daily Review, 22 April 2000
• "Man arrested for assault," The Daily Review, 25 April 2000
• "Canton Man pleads guilty to disorderly conduct,"The Daily Review, 9 April 2000
• C.J. Marshall, "Man Charged with assault,"The Daily Review, 7 April 2000
• C.J. Marshall, "Man Charged with biting wife,"The Daily Review, 7 April 2000
• "Man charged with Assault,"The Daily Review, 29 April 2000
• C.J. Marshall, "Sayre man accused of threat with gun,"The Daily Review, 7 May 2000
• Bob Igoe, "man charged with threats, drunk driving,"The Daily Review, 8 May 2000
• "Man charged with assault,"The Daily Review, 30 May 2000
• Jane Moeller, Director, Abuse and Rape Crisis Center, "Domestic Abuse Victims shouldn't be named, The Daily Review, 20 Jan. 2000
• Ian fennell, Editor, The Daily Review, "Questions about ARCC's ethics," The Daily Review, 28 January 2000
• James Towner, Publisher of The Daily Review, letter to Andrew Duvall, March 10, 2000

• Joann Byrd, 12/20/99
• Louis Hodges, Ph.D., Knight Professor of Ethics in Journalism, Washington and Lee University, 12/20/99
• Dr. Tom Cooper,12/19/99
• John Flanagan, Editor & Publisher, Honolulu Star Bulletin.
• Deni Elliot,
• Ralph Barney, Editor, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 12/20/99

APPENDICES: I. Case History: Following is a case history of several efforts to change the editorial practices of The Daily Review in a quiet, non-confrontational way.
  In the Fall of 1997, Ian Fennell became the Editor of The Daily Review. He reports to Publisher James Towner. On August 9, 1998, Clark Moeller wrote a letter, not for publication, to Ian offering him suggestions about his editorial practices. Moeller did not send this letter to Ian's boss, James Towner, so that Ian would have an opportunity to correct the problems on his own. Ian's only response to the letter was in a phone conversation when he said he "agreed with some of the points but not others."
  By 1999, it had become evident that there were ethical editorial problems at The Daily Review. They had become a focus of discussion among the members of the Bradford County Alliance for Democracy and many other people in the county.
   A meeting was set up and a group of five people, including Moeller, met with James Towner and Ian Fennell to review the problems. As a followup to the meeting, Moeller summarized the issues discussed in the meeting of 6/1/99 in a letter dated June 4,1999. Attached to this letter was the letter to Ian of 8/29/98 and related documentation.
  In subsequent communication after the June 1999 meeting, Ian wrote a note to Moeller saying he wanted to "patch things up." This communication, subsequent memos, and a summary of the meeting are attached.
  After several months, it became evident that the group's meeting with Towner and Fennell and Moeller's letters had not resulted in any significant change in the editorial practices by Publisher James Towner and Editor Ian Fennell. After extensive conversations and a growing awareness that many people were having the same perception about The Daily Review , the Citizens for a Responsible Press at The Daily Review (CPR@DR) was formed.
  The various letters and related documentation that was submitted to Publisher James Towner in June and July of 1999 are found in the hard copy of The Ethics of The Daily Review: An Evaluation of its Editorial Practices.  

APPENDICES: II. INDEXES: A. Findings of the Steering Committee indexed to Documentation
Page numbers listed below refer to the pages in the 142 page printed report, The Ethics of The Daily Review: An Evaluation of its Editorial Practices on file at the County Library.
  1. Editor Fennell rewrites people's letters-to-the-editor or news releases, changing the meaning and accuracy of the material submitted without getting permission from the author. pgs. 3 - 24
  2. The Daily Review aggressively editorializes its news reporting about candidates. The Editor's political opinions belong on the editorial page, not in the paper's news coverage. pgs. 25 - 41
  3. Editor Fennell prints peoples letters-to-the-editor after deleting criticism of The Daily Review , without getting permission from the author. pgs. 8, 11, 24
  4. Editor Fennell edits articles to make it seem as if his news staff had interviewed a person when, in fact, this had not happened. pgs. 49, 53, 55, 132
  5. The Daily Review prints plagiarized material. pgs. 43 - 57
  6. The Publisher and Editor have run phony telephone "surveys" in order to generate "news." pgs. 59, 60
  7. The Daily Review prints anonymous attacks on citizens. pgs. 69 - 75
  8. The Editor uses police blotter journalism quoting the police and court reports in front page stories which include lurid details about victims of sexual assaults and domestic abuse that violate the victims privacy and serves no public interest. pgs. 77 - 83
  9. The Editor prints the names of domestic violence victims, thus putting these victims further at risk. pgs. 85 - 89  

APPENDICES: II. INDEXES: B. Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics
Society of Professional Journalists (http://spj.org/ethics/code.htm)

Preamble:
   Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.

Seek Truth and Report It: Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. pgs. 102 - 103, 115

Journalists should:

• Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible. pgs. 3 - 24, 102
• Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing. pgs. 69 - 75
• Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability. pgs. 69 - 75
• Always question sources' motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises. pgs. 69 - 75
• Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context. pgs. 3, 5, 102
• Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
• Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
• Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story.
• Never plagiarize. pgs. 43 - 57, 109, 121 - 122
• Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
• Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
• Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
• 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.
• Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context. pgs. 25 - 41
• Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
• Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

Journalists should:

• Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects. pgs. 77 - 83
• Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief. Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance. pgs. 77 - 83, 85 - 89
• Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy. pgs. 77 - 83, 85 - 89
• Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity. pgs. 77 - 83, 85 - 89
• Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
• Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
• Balance a criminal suspect's fair trial rights with the public's right to be informed.

Journalists should:

• Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
• Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility. pgs. 25 - 41
• 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.
• Disclose unavoidable conflicts. 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.
• Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.

• Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct. pgs. 1 - 136
• Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media. pgs. 1 - 136
• Admit mistakes and correct them promptly. pgs. 1 - 136
• Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media. pgs. 1 - 136
• Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others. pgs. 1 - 136

APPENDICES: II. INDEXES: C. American Association for Public Opinion Research
(http://www.aapor.org/ethics/condemn.html)

Survey practices that AAPOR condemns:
  AAPOR joins the Research Industry Coalition and the National Council on Public Polls in condemning certain misleading practices sometimes performed in the name of research. In no case are the following practices deemed legitimate or acceptable elements of professionally conducted research:

1. Requiring a monetary payment or soliciting monetary contributions from members of the public as part of a research process.
   This set of practices amounts to fund raising under the guise of research. It takes unfair advantage of the cooperative attitude that a majority of the public manifests when asked to take part in a legitimate information gathering process. In some cases, unwary members of the public are enticed to contribute money as a condition of gaining some future "benefit" from their participation.

2. Offering products or services for sale, or using participant contacts as a means of generating sales leads.
   A common practice is to gain entry or acceptance in order to make a sales pitch by initially defining the contact as being made for "research" purposes. This trades on the prestige of science, and it exploits the willingness of the public to reveal information about themselves in the public interest. In some cases, questions establish respondents' susceptibility to sales pressure or their interest in some product or service. Follow-up contacts are then made to those so identified, all under the guise of "research."

3. Revealing the identity of individual respondents to a survey or participants in a research process without their permission.
  It is normal research practice to pledge anonymity or confidentiality to the public in order to secure their cooperation and frankness in responding to questions. Revealing the identity of individuals, for whatever purpose, is a violation of that pledge unless a respondent's prior informed consent has been obtained.

4. Representing the results of a 900-number or other type of self-selected "poll" as if they were the outcome of legitimate research.
   900-number and other types of write-in, call-in, and interactive polls have become increasingly common. These "polls" report the opinions of only those people who called in, and not those of the general public. AAPOR believes that any publicizing or promotion of such activities not only damages legitimate market and survey research, but can be very misleading when used to influence public policy or simply to disseminate information about the general public.

5.Conducting a so-called "push poll," a telemarketing technique in which telephone calls are used to canvass potential voters, feeding them false or misleading "information" about a candidate under the pretense of taking a poll to see how this "information" affects voter preferences.
  So-called "Push polls" are not polls at all. They are a form of political telemarketing whose intent is not to measure public opinion but to manipulate into "push" voters away from one candidate and toward the opposing candidate. Such polls defame selected candidates by spreading false or misleading information about them. The intent is to disseminate campaign propaganda under the guise of conducting a legitimate public opinion poll.
   As members of AAPOR, a professional organization which relies on public cooperation to gather information that is useful in formulating public policy as well as in understanding the public's preferences for products and services, we condemn these practices in the strongest terms.

© Copyright 1999 American Association for Public Opinion Research. All Rights Reserved.

This is the end of THE ETHICS OF THE DAILY REVIEW: An Evaluation of its Editorial Practices.

Back to the top
Back to the Table of Contents

July 1, 1999

Ian Fennel
Editor, Daily Review
Main Street
Towanda, PA 18848

RE: your memo to Jim Towner that you faxed to me on 6/28/99

Dear Ian,
   On the copy of your memo to Jim Towner that you faxed me you hand wrote, "give me a call and we'll set a meeting." You also wrote to Jim in that memo, "I want to patch it up and I want to work with him." (i.e., Clark). That is encouraging. However, after reading your memo to Jim, I wonder if you are ready to meet and "patch this up." Let's look at how you explained yourself to Jim.
   You wrote Jim regarding the ARCC story of 3/11/99, "From my recollection..." What do you mean, "from your recollection"? On 3/11/99, Jane gave you her concerns about the article in writing as an annotated copy of the article and this was included as part of the documentation in my 6/4/99 letter. That annotated copy is right in front of you in black and white because Jim gave it to you. It was part of the documentation.
   You continued to Jim, "I did not believe her concerns to be significant enough to warrant a correction in the paper." With 8 of the 12 paragraphs, 75%, factually incorrect, how bad does the quality of a Review article have to become before you consider it "significant"? With this in mind, just how serious are you about your note today in the Review which states, "The Review strives to make sure that its reporting and news coverage is accurate as well as fair. If a reader or source in a story has an issue with any Review news item, they should immediately contact Review Managing Editor, Ian H. Fennel at (570) 265-1635."
   You incorrectly report to Jim, "her problem with the story was that we used quotes from a previous story in the updated version."(p.1, ¶ 5) Hold on! It was you, in our joint meeting on 6/2/99), who offered that the quote was lifted from another story. So let's keep straight who said what and when here. In my letter of 6/4/99, I wrote, "Ian justified this appearance of an interview by saying language had been lifted from another earlier published story - - as if that made it OK. In any case, let's see the earlier published story just for the record. I don't think it exists." So, where is that article?
   In your memo to Jim you accuse me of saying your editorials were "full of fallacies." You wrote, "I can't recall one editorial we have printed that wasn't factual" (p.2, ¶ 6) Perhaps you will be so kind as show me where I wrote those accusations. Those, my friend, are straw arguments. I never accused you of being unfactual or using fallacious reasoning. I said you did not do the checking necessary with the key people before you wrote editorials. (8/29/98, p1). And you did not in a number of cases which I checked. And a few phone calls do not take "several hours to research."
   You wrote, " he (Clark) hasn't walked in my shoes, doesn't even know me, yet he has the audacity to sum me up as being unethical." What are you complaining about? You have been criticizing people for two years without a clue about what their jobs are about. In 8/29/99 I wrote you, "Perhaps you should walk in the shoes of a school board member, township supervisor, or county commissioner for a few years. You might find out what it is like to deal with difficult issues for which your life experience or training has not prepared you. It is sort of like writing editorials about issues you don't understand, except they have someone writing attack editorials about them or 'setting them up' with childish opinion polls, and you don't."
   Putting aside the discovery that you don't like your own medicine, lets define what it means to act ethically and then determine if I am being unfair to you. Three conditions need to be met before someone's behavior can be labeled ethical or unethical. These conditions are 1) a principle of right or wrong must be involved in the situation such as honesty, accuracy or fairness, 2) the actor involved understands the ethical implications of the situation to a reasonable degree, and 3) the person must have a free choice to act or not act as he or she sees fit. For example, "dog bites man" is not usually considered an ethical issue because we do not believe that dogs have the rational capacity to make ethical decisions. But "man bites dog" is an ethical issue assuming the man understands that abusing animals is wrong and man wasn't biting to save his life from an attack.
   Libel is an issue of fairness and, as such, an ethical issue. It is generally agreed that person A is not libeling person B if person A tells the truth about person B. I documented in eight pages of letters (8/29/99 and 6/4/99 plus attachments) specific behaviors of yours that are reasonable to question on ethical grounds. The question that has occurred to me more than once, is whether you realize that these behaviors do not meet ethical standards (criteria 2 above)? You may not, and if that is the case, you could claim ignorance as a defense. However, you are in a job where ethical issues arise many times a day over questions of accuracy, balance, taking responsibility, doing things in a timely way, to say nothing of just the on-going issues of managing staff in a fair and even handed way.
   It is obvious that you did not do your homework for the note you wrote to Jim. You did not respond to most of the issues I raised in my letters, nor did you offer a plan of corrective action, you ignored the documentation of the ARCC article, you haven't produced the source of the quote yet, you addressed one instance of your editing of my material but not the others such as reducing one of my articles to plagerism, you have not addressed the issue we raised at the meeting an in my letters of not publishing articles you solicited, you ignored the issue of not publishing letters-to-the-editor in a timely way, and you cried victim about the integrity issues I raised. And for these you plead "what I remember" because the concerns were documented in 8 part harmony in my letters and documentation..
   The only issue for which I have no independent documentation is what you and I said over the phone concerning my series on nepotism. You wrote to Jim, "I remember telling him we weren't going to run it consecutively." That is a true. You said that in November. You also told me before that, at the start of the series, you were going to run it on consecutive days. There is the truth, and then there is the whole truth.
   While all this (content of this letter) is water over the dam now, you have provided no hint that you accept any responsibility for any of these behaviors, nor do you provide a suggestion that things in the future are going to be any different. So the question I have is what aspect of "patch it up" did you have in mind?
   Any meeting we plan should be based on a specific agenda. Perhaps you have a suggestion for such an agenda?

Yours,

Clark

cc: Jim Towner

Back to the top
Back to the Table of Contents

June 4, 1999

Jim Towner
Managing Editor
Daily Review
Main Street
Towanda, PA 18848

RE: follow up to our meeting Tuesday afternoon, June 1, 1999

Dear Jim,
   Thanks for meeting with us . I should have alerted you to the number of folks showing up for our meeting. We did not mean to gang up on you. However, each person there wanted to be included in our discussion.
   I felt our meeting yesterday was productive. Thanks for being open to our thoughts about The Review and also for suggesting we meet again in September. You seem to feel that our volunteered columns are both useful to the community and to the quality and vitality of the Review. I am glad you feel this way. Over the years I have written 56 columns and letters-to-the-editor on a wide variety of subjects that have been published in the Review. I have appreciated the opportunity your paper has given me to present my perspective. As a result, I do have a certain citizen's proprietary interest, so to speak, in the welfare and quality of 'our' local paper, The Review.
   I have made efforts in the past to be constructive in offering suggestions off-the-record on what I felt needed improvement and I have also written letters-to-the-editor for publication complimenting improvements. The 9/5/96, 4 page (plus attachments) letter I wrote to you and about which you and I met several years ago is a case in point. I felt our work together was a success.
   Our request for a meeting with you on Tuesday was the result of my, Jeff's and John's failed efforts with Ian to correct what we perceived to be negative changes derailing the quality of the paper that have evolved since he arrived as Editor.
   There was one issue you took exception to Tuesday, one you rightfully felt strongly about. This was the question of integrity which I raised. I will address this issue in detail in this letter. As before, this letter and its attachments not for publication.
   What follows are my observations and opinions. These are not intended to represent the opinions of anyone else in our group. My goal here is for you and me to continue a mutually respectful relationship based on what has worked for us in the past; discussion based on fact and frankness.
   I hope you will have some forbearance for what I have to say in the following.
  Although this may be new information for you, I have been communicating with Ian about many of these issues since August of 1998. I have not turned to you until last Tuesday because, as I said in the meeting, if you have a complaint with someone go to that person, not his boss, and try to work it out. In short, treat him with the respect you'd like to be shown. My experience with Ian is that this seems to be a one way street. The foundation for this claim should be clear by the end of this letter.
   The focus of this letter is about integrity. If you still have a copy of the 9/5/96 letter I wrote you three years ago, you will find the word integrity does not appear in that letter nor is there a hint implied that I felt you or your staff lacked integrity. It never even occurred to me to raise it because there was no issue then as far as I was concerned. Unfortunately, integrity is an issue now.
   I said I would send you the letters/emails I had sent to Ian. The first (attachment A) was sent to Ian last August 29, 1998. This was written in the spirit of the letter I had written to you three years before and about which you and I met.
   I mentioned in my 8/29/98 letter to Ian, "Your image for accuracy, fairness, balance will be an important key to your success as an editor over the long pull." If you look over the 8/29/98 letter to Ian you will see a good deal of that letter deals with various aspects of integrity, as do the rest of the attachments to this letter. I am not splitting hairs here over subtle issues nor am I relying on hearsay. All that follows is documented in the attachments.
   I am flagging integrity as an issue because the foundation of our Constitutional protection of a free press rests on an assumption of editorial integrity. Second, integrity is central to the credibility of a newspaper. The credibility of the media is at issue today due to serious questions of the editorial integrity of some media and the business strategy of owners. But more to the point, the Review is our paper - - right here in river city. We all want to trust it.
   I made three main criticisms to Ian in the 8/19/98 letter.
   1. Writing negative, unresearched Editorials (not even one phone call efforts - I checked) about people is bad news. For a newspaper editor or reporter, striving for accuracy is a matter of integrity - pure and simple. I have noted over the last two years a number of letters-to-the-editor complaining about the accuracy of the Review's reporting, so I am not alone in this concern.
   2. I questioned the lack of guest columnist balance - which is not an integrity issue. As a result our discussion Tuesday, with you involved, I am confident more balance will be forthcoming.
   3. Not publishing material in a timely way was documented in detail in the 8/29/98 letter. Whether a letter gets published in a timely way, per se, is not an issue of integrity. However, Ian's continuing excuses about why something isn't published in a timely way or at all has now risen to the level where it is legitimate to start questioning his veracity.
   This timeliness problem started as soon as Ian arrived. Given that I have been writing for the Review in one form or another since 1985, that ought to be an adequate perspective to make this evaluation. I documented in my 8/29/98 letter the issue starting with the delay in publishing one of my columns in March of 1998. Despite my letter to Ian, this timeliness problem has continued without improvement up to now, 9 months later. So if I appeared less than impressed Tuesday with the explanations about why material is not published in a timely way, as you so pointedly took note, it was because I had heard these plans before.
   For Ian to sit there in our Tuesday meeting and act as if this was just a recent problem and not an going-on, non-stop problem since he arrived was just so much bluffing. Nothing Jeff, John or I have said to Ian about it seems to have any effect. My 8/29/99 letter, nine months ago had no effect. For John Ferri to call everyday to get one of his letters in the paper is just ridiculous. For John, I think it's just a game. However, I have neither the time nor temperament for that nonsense. In fact, I find Ian's behavior offensive.
   It might be one thing if we were being paid to write for The Review, but we are doing this as volunteers and most of us put a good deal of time, research, and effort into a column or letter. For this, we are being regularly blown off by Ian; he doesn't print the material in a timely way, sometimes he doesn't print it at all - - with no explanation - - even when he has solicited the column. He seldom returns phone calls -- even repeated calls. And when you do get him on the phone he is charming - - - and has a ready, plausible excuse for why a letter has not been printed. At what point do you start taking notes on someone's flip little evasions? When do they start to matter? For me they mattered enough 9 months ago that I wrote him a letter about it. He has been using the lost email excuse for well over a year. I heard it again Tuesday. I use email daily and work with about 30 people state-wide who use email all the time and depend on all sorts of internet servers. I have a lot of experience with how reliable email is and what its problems are. Frankly, I no longer believe Ian's excuses - due to the integrity issue. Integrity is in the eye of the beholder; integrity has no practical meaning without the context of others. If Ian wants respect, he would do well to start treating his columnists and letter writers with respect. Respect gets respect.
   In December 1998, I offered to write a nine part series on Nepotism in business, a change of pace for me, away from the usual political stuff. The attached email of 12/19/98 (Attachment B) discusses what happened. You will note that I raise the credibility/integrity issue right up front in this email. At the end of that email I offered an approach to resolving the problems I had raised. I have never gotten a call or returned email from Ian on this. Tuesday, you said you put a stop to that series. Well, no one spoke to me about it. As far as I am concerned, I made an offer, Ian made a commitment, based on that I put the effort into those articles, and he didn't follow through. That is an integrity issue.
   This same 12/19/98 email also addresses the editing he did to my column "The New Moral Majority." Attachment C shows what I submitted (and what other papers printed) and what Ian printed. The changes are marked in red. The integrity issue here is that he turned my column into a piece of plagiarism. As to his other editing on that piece, I'd be interested in his professional editorial defense of what he did. I've worked with some pretty good editors over the years and the pros have clear rationales for what they do.
   Also in this 12/19/98 email, I discuss having the key statistics dropped from my Column on corporal punishment (Attachment D). At that time, 12/8/98, Ian said he didn't know how or why the statistics were dropped except he offered that perhaps it had been lost in the transmission of the email. On Tuesday you offered that the article was too long - - suggesting Ian had cut it --?. The original was 1200 words, well short of many columns, including a couple of mine, which have run well over 1800 words.
   As a result of my complaint, Ian suggested I write another column using the missing statistics. What I wrote and what was printed is attached as D. Ian dropped out the criticism of the Review (marked in red). He did ask me about doing that saying, "it makes us look bad," and I said OK. However, I can tell you that I made a mental note that this was just another example of Ian not wanting to taking responsibility, to look bad. He did the same thing with John Ferri's letter just recently published, but this time he didn't ask John's permission. In my book, taking responsibility for what you do is a matter of integrity and sometimes it means taking our lumps when we make mistakes.
   On March 11, 1999, the Review printed a story by Jennifer Scarles (see Jane Moeller's notes in Attachment E). Aside from the detail that eight of the article's 12 paragraphs are factually incorrect, Jane Moeller was quoted in this article as if she had been interviewed for the story. She was not. This information was fabricated to look like an interview. When Jane called Jennifer about the article's inaccuracies, she said Ian had rewritten the story. Ian denied this to Jane on March 11, 1999, and said he was out of town and had nothing to do with the story. However, others on the Review staff confirmed Jennifer's assertion. Interesting. In our Tuesday meeting, Ian justified this appearance of an interview by saying language had been lifted from another earlier published story - - as if that made it OK. In any case, let's see the earlier published story just for the record. I don't think it exists.
   As is often the case, patterns are made up of incidents that by themselves are often insignificant, or can be dismissed as isolated incidents of lapsed judgment, but when taken as a whole paint a picture. We have a picture here of a lack of integrity.
   I realize that this isn't a fun letter for you. Just let me say that being on the receiving end of Ian's editorial/management style hasn't been much fun either.
   With all of this said, my experience with you, Jim, has never included any of the issues I have raised in this letter. It is with this confidence that I have written, and I believe you will find a way to close the 'integrity gap' that I have addressed. Given the limitations of the written word, even my deathless prose, I think we should discuss this issue in person. Perhaps there are aspects of the above that I have misunderstood.

Yours truly,

Clark Moeller

Back to the top
Back to the Table of Contents