The Death Penalty: A Repudiation of Journalism, by Journalists?:
The Society of Professional Journalists & The Sigma Delta Chi Award
Professional Standards and Ethics Committee & Board, Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ)
Lou Harry, SPJ Manager of Publications & Awards
Kimberly Tsuyuki, SPJ Communications Coordinator
bcc: The New Yorker, Conde Nast
Polk Award people at Long Island University
all student groups/organizations, Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, ASU
All professors with ethics involvement, all disciplines, Arizona State U (ASU)
many others
and
FRONTLINE/PBS, all editors and staff: Producers of "Death by Fire",
many more
Subject: SPJ's Sigma Delta Chi Award Winner: David Grann:
Is this the complete repudiation of journalism, by journalists?
From: Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom
Can you fail to research, fail to fact check and fail to vet, accidentally? Of course not.
Did SPJ fact check and vet David Grann's article, "Trial by Fire", prior to awarding him a Sigma Delta Chi Award? Sadly, it would be better if SPJ did not, which would only mean that SPJ was grossly irresponsible, but not liars, just as with the Polk Award folks, who have been receiving my fact checked and vetted research of that story, for years (2017, 2019, 2021), with no reply and I suspect no review.
Which is it?
SPJ, give it a try, here:
Media Disaster - Rebuttal: Trial By Fire: Did Texas Execute an Innocent Man?
======
Media Disaster: C-Span & The Death Penalty Information Center
originally sent 3/5/2024, edits sent 3/23/2024, 7/22/2024
======
Grann was not accurate, nor fair nor thorough, yet won two major journalism awards. How? Quite easily.
It has been my vast experience (1), for nearly 30 years, with media, in the death penalty debate, that media bias against the death penalty is so great that journalism standards do not apply (1), at all. It is intentional advocacy bias, not journalism, as detailed.
My proof? That single example, which should have the highest standards in journalism, per those two awards for David Grann . . . awards which had no foundation nor concern for accuracy, fairness or thoroughness, as detailed, with sources.
. . . and here are so many more.
See (1), to determine if you know anything about the pro-death penalty side of the issue or the experts, of which, very likely, you have no clue, because you care not, proving my assertion. Or, as I say, you care, very, much, to not know.
To review more death penalty media disasters, place Media Disaster, within the search box, here (1a), then click.
I expect nothing but silence. Surprise me. A thorough, extended discussion, with any of you, would be great. The norm? Crickets.
as of June 4, 2024 crickets.
======
Media Disaster: Death Penalty & Journalists Murdering Journalism
======
A review of SPJ 's Code of Ethics (2), in the context of "Trial By Fire":
Preamble: "information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity." SPJ/Grann FAILED.
The Society declares these four principles as the foundation of ethical journalism:
1) Seek Truth and Report It - SPJ/Grann FAILED.
Sharp: This was not breaking news, but had lots of time for research, fact checking and vetting, by SPJ and by Grann. SPJ/Grann FAILED.
a) Beth Winegarner discusses in a post on Poynter several ways to cultivate better sources while maintaining boundaries.
SPJ/Grann FAILED.
b) The Society’s Ethics Committee writes in a position paper about the political involvement of journalists. “The simplest answer is ‘No,’” according to the Committee. “Don’t do it. Don’t get involved. Don’t contribute money, don’t work in a campaign, don’t lobby, and especially, don’t run for office yourself.” SOURCE: http://www.spj.org/ethics-papers-politics.asp
SPJ/Grann FAILED.
======
Media Disaster: The Death Penalty
HOW MEDIA MURDERS THE TRUTH
======
c) Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant. SPJ/Grann FAILED.
d) Katrina vanden Heuvel writes in the Washington Post about the danger of providing so-called false balance in news reports. “There are many sides to almost every story, but that doesn’t mean they are automatically equal,” she writes.
Sharp: No one disagrees with that. Here is the problem. The vast majority of media refuses to fact check or vet the anti-death penalty side and cares, very much, about not researching the pro-death penalty side nor knowing who the experts are nor what they have to say. SPJ/Grann FAILED.
Skipped 2 &3
4) Be Accountable and Transparent
Ethical journalism means taking responsibility for one’s work and explaining one’s decisions to the public.
Journalists should:
- a) Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. SPJ/Grann FAILED.
- b) Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news content. SPJ/Grann FAILED.
- c) Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness. SPJ/Grann FAILED.
- d) Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. SPJ/Grann FAILED.
- e) Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly. SPJ/Grann FAILED.
- f) Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations. SPJ/Grann FAILED.
"SPJ/Grann FAILED" means that if one, intentionally, refuses to fact check, to vet, to have any balance, when two distinct credible sides exist, one has failed every other journalism ethics requirement.
I do concede that most journalists are, intentionally, ignorant of the strength of pro-death penalty positions (1) and wish to stay that way, which is part of their anti-ethical problem, which, I assert, must be intentional . . . or
Can you fail to research, fail to fact check and fail to vet, accidentally?
FN
Research, with sources, fact checking, vetting & critical thinking, as required of anyone within a public policy debate and which rebut all anti-death penalty claims.
Most will realize that the media has been using only anti-death penalty claims and , then, failed to fact check, vet, not use critical thinking, with that research, while avoiding all pro-death penalty research and experts, for decades. How do I know most will realize this? Because they wouldn't have seen any of this, prior:
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
and
Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
(7 pro-death penalty experts listed)
======
600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victims' families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
======
Victim Services
Victims' Voices
======
