Journalism is under assault, from evolving technology that challenges how news is distributed to media corporations whose only response to economic downturns is to slash and burn.

Journalists and our brothers and sisters in advertising see this as a time to strengthen our newspaper and improve our value to readers; Lee Enterprises and its corporate cousins see this convergence of technology and economy as a perfect storm, a convenient opportunity to cut staff far beyond what is required and to assault the foundations upon which our union is built.

These corporate suits and dollar-strangling publishers also are beginning to breach what for generations has been a solid wall between advertising and editorial. They see the newsroom as a potential arm of advertising, with tailor-made “niche” publications (”Style,” “Summer Fun”) and stories made to order.  Merging advertising and features, for example, would destroy our readers trust: Which stories are honest? Which were written in return for ads? Which were bought and paid for?

It is time to think about an ethics policy for the Post-Dispatch, one generated by the journalists and advertising professionals who work here. Let’s start a discussion right here. To kick things off, here are links to two ethics documents:

Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics

Newspaper Guild-CWA principles of Professionalism and Honesty in the News Media

Speak up! This is our union; this is our profession. It’s up to us to protect them.

Marty Kaplan writes in the Huffington Post:

The trouble with this conception of journalism [so-called balanced and objective] is that it inherently tilts the playing field in favor of liars, who are expert at gaming this system. It muzzles reporters, forbidding them from crying foul, and requiring them to treat deception with the same respect they give to truth. It equates fairness with evenhandedness, as though journalism were incompatible with judgment. “Straight news” isn’t neutral. It’s neutered – devoid of assessment, divorced from accountability, floating in a netherworld of pseudo-scientific objectivity that serves no one except the rascals it legitimizes.

Check out Kaplan’s bio: professor, writer, former journalist, former White House speechwriter, former movie and TV producer, etc.

Read the complete column here.

“Those who do not edit do not understand the keen pleasure that comes from taking up a text and leaving it tighter, clearer, and more accurate. Working against deadline provides a structure and a stimulus. And it is far from widely understood how smart and funny copy editors are as a group.”

– John McIntyre, copy desk chief, Baltimore Sun

Read more about John McIntrye and the wonderful world of copy editing here, in the Christian Science Monitor.

From Slate, by Jack Shafer

The Washington Post’s plan to drag the editing process into the 21^st century

To accommodate its online operation and the 24-hour news cycle, the Washington Post is dramatically reshaping how copy is handled, and by whom:

Although Bennett calls [a memo to the staff] “fairly modest,” it calls for dramatic changes in the production of the paper. The plan shifts editing resources to earlier in the day, merges the night National and Foreign copy desks, reroutes the editing of feature stories and nonbreaking enterprise news pieces and projects to daylight hours, and eliminates the bottlenecks that tend to form at the end of the day.

The plan also mandates “fewer touches” on some stories by editors, which will elicit cheers from many Post reporters. They’ve long complained about “drive-by editing” in which editors up and down the chain of command drop into their stories and fiddle with them to the point of destruction. According to the memo, a half-dozen editors routinely make changes on A-section stories, and an internal audit discovered one inside story that 12 different editors changed. …

The reason many newspapers rely so heavily on editors—a reason rarely spoken—is that some reporters can’t write. Their copy isn’t edited as much as it’s rewritten. Bennett has a message for them: “Reporters who can’t write are a dying breed.”

Read the full story here.