Before I go into tonight's extra-long post, I want to again respectfully ask that comments in this thread be of a constructive nature, and if you wish to vent anger or mock anybody, you do it in another thread.  As in my previous post, not much in here is new for the people who have been on this site for a long time.  However, I'm hoping that newcomers to the site and Slager supporters who lurk here every now and then use it as a chance to open their eyes a bit.  Thanks!

Earlier today, when I read that "Paul Shooter", indeed does not exist, but is a pen-name for someone who is apparently writing for Slager (if one is to believe Slager's claims), the question of ethics in journalism popped into my head.  My other post on Slager's tactics touched on some of these things, but that was more of a "something doesn't feel right here" situation.  Now, I'm not a journalist, but I had to assume that there is some sort of code of ethics that professional journalists (which Slager claims to have been since his days in San Francisco) are supposed to follow.  Wouldn't you know, that Google pointed me to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.  I have no way of knowing if Mr. Slager is a member of this particular organization, but one would assume that, given his posturing as a respectable journalist with a respectable publication (you may disagree, again, this thread is hopefully not the place for that) he would volunteer to be bound by the code.  ou can read the full code for yourself at the link above - it's basically one page of bullet points.  Note that it is not a set of "rules" or "laws" - that would not be enforceable.  The document does state, though, that it is meant to be "a resource for ethical decision-making" and that it is "voluntarily embraced by thousands of journalists, regardless of place or platform, and is widely used in newsrooms and classrooms as a guide for ethical behavior." 

Now, on to the specific points of the code that I believe Slager has violated.  This is my interpretation of the code linked above.  Please keep in mind I've only been following this situation for a couple of months, so if your knowledge goes back further, please (respectfully) post that information below.  Additionally, I'm not a journalist, so these are my best interpretation of the code, but others may have better.  Note that I count 37 distinct points in the code of ethics, and in my view, Slager has violated 13 of them.  That's over a 35% failure rate.  Viewed another way, his grade would be less than 65%, giving him an Ethical F.

Any references to "my previous post", "Slager's methods and tactics", or anything along those lines refers back to this post.  Finally, please note that I have taken the first two bullets out of order, as I felt they were the most important.

1. Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
As much as Slager tries to paint the CBW/"power elite"/"hate bloggers" as a special interest (and often all as one big group), the members of the BoS, with their collective agenda, also represent a special interest group, one which Slager would never admit to.  With Slager's agenda so closely tied to them, and his finances so heavily dependent on them*, it's no wonder that his stories seem so supportive of them and their efforts.  I went back through every copy of the paper and the site that I have, and the only thing I could find that was close to critical of the BoS was a comment about the audit results taking too long, and if they don't come out soon then maybe Slager might think it's a bad thing.

*I don't know Slager's financial situation, but based on some of the things that he's said in his comments about charging for the site and the print copy, he's not doing so well.  That's too bad for him, but a factor of the economy and the newspaper industry as a whole.  That said, there are a couple of reasons people read his site and print copy:
-Sheer morbid curiosity - these are the folks that don't agree with anything he says, but are amazed by what he comes out with, and continue to read.  I'd guess that most of these folks read the online version(s) and don't pay for access.  Most of the people on this board fall into this category.
-Those that want all sides of the story - Face it, every news source has its biases.  Yes, even this site :).  There are some people that believe there are 3 sides to every story - mine, yours, and the truth.  Some of those people might want to read what he has to say, but like the first group, won't pay for it.
-People that agree with what he/the BoS says - Folks like MsLilly and 4dog (presumably - I'm basing this on the comments of theirs that I've seen) and other supporters will buy his print copy and pay for access to his site.  They would seem to be doing this because they want to hear what Savageau and others have to say.  That's the side of the discussion they're on, and they want to know what "their people" have to say. 

Following this train of thought, without the exclusive quotes from Savageau and others, Slager loses this value, and thus, loses his paying supporters.  Now, with his financial situation being dependent on keeping the BoS talking to him (since they won't talk to the S-T), how can he *not* let them influence the coverage?  It makes sense when you break it down.

2. Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
Slager has made a lot of claims in the time I've been following Wareham politics, including (a) that he welcomes all views, even those that disagree with him, and (b) that the people who disagree with him are "elite."  This doesn't wash at all with the fact that one must pay to comment on posts on his site - most, if not all, people who disagree with him will refuse to pay for access, thus closing off the open exchange of views.  If the posts were private, along with the comments, that would be one thing.  But what he has done is create an environment where only those who wish to support financially can have the privilege of commenting on his site.  He'll claim that you can write a letter to the editor, which he will publish, but I know from experience that he will not respond to an unsigned communication.  This forces anybody who doesn't want to pay Slager but wants to remain anonymous to come here, or to the S-T or Courier's boards.  In the end, he has a situation where only his supporters, or those that are willing to risk his wrath by offering up their name, can exchange views with him.  And we're the elitists?

3. Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
In my previous post, I discussed Slager's distortions using selection bias in both his polls and his report to distort his news stories.  Similarly, his selective non-inclusion of facts, and tendency to include irrelevant facts and draw incorrect conclusions from those facts (such as the fact that the library folks lost money) distort the stories as well.  His updates of the article about Coleman to include the employment details of a witness's husband create the distinct impression that the witness in question was biased, distorting the overall story.  To his credit, Mr. Slager appears to attempt to get input from the "other" side in some situations, but many of these people feel so strongly that Slager's biases distort the overall story that they refuse comment. 

4. Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
It's awfully ironic that Slager has railed against posters on this site for making comments anonymously, but now has a Correspondent working under a pen name.  It's one thing to post opinions and such under a pen name, perhaps to write a satire - but to report the news?  I did a lot of searching tonight, and I can't find any other examples where such an arrangement was used to write about the news.  Note that "Paul Shooter" has posted an editorial explaining himself while I was writing this post - again, I have no problems writing editorials/opinion under a pen name (heck, I'm doing it here in this opinion piece), but reporting the news is different.  If Woodward & Bernstein can go after Nixon under their real names, then the people reporting the news for the Observer can use their real names as well.  Additionally, the fact that Shooter's name was added to posts hours, or days, after they were originally posted seems to be unethical as well.  I'll leave the comparison of writing styles from the editorial and the "report" to someone else...

5. Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity.
Slager has long been accused of being a mouthpiece of the Selectmen.  Savageau won't even talk to other media outlets.  Slager claims to have sources that are leaking him information about the audit, as well as a "spy" in the "recall crew" (whatever that is - I thought that finally died when Brady's meeting wasn't about the recall at all).  One does not need incredible powers of observation to note that all of these sources, whether named or not, share the same agenda, and most, if not all, of them rely solely on the Observer to tell their stories.  To me, that definitely brings up the question of motives of these individuals, but it apparently has not done the same for Mr. Slager.

6. 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.
The clearest and most recent example of this is yesterday's headline about the Library settlement.  I'll repeat what I said yesterday.  Clear winners, as he presented the Board of Selectmen to be in the situation, do not pay, nor do they have their insurance company pay, FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS of the loser's legal expenses.  By stating in the headline that it was only the Trustees settlinge , and citing their investment loss (which I have yet to see corroborated anywhee else), it seems that Slager misrepresented the story and the situation. 

7. Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
The key here is the imposing of those values on others.  Say what you about what Slager's values are, the fact is that he has a specific set of values.  They may vary pretty wildly from yours and mine, but they're there.  Through many of his editorials, I have seen him attempt to push his agenda, and this often leaks into his "news" reporting.  Combine this with his lack of distinguishing between news and advocacy (see #8 below for more) and it seems like we have a hit here.

8. Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
Please see my previous post about Slager's methods and tactics for commentary about this. Specifically:

He would probably claim that the fact that there is small text saying "In This Corner" denotes an opinion column, but he really should be clearer about the differentiation, preferably putting all of the opinion posts on one page, and all of the news posts on a completely separate page.  This way there would be no chance of a reader coming across his opinion, and thinking it was fact.

9. Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
The whole situation with the Cape Verdean couple who allegedly came to his office (personally, I don't believe the explanation) is dubious, at best.  He wanted them to write an editorial, but they wanted more, so they placed an ad in the paper and his blog.  But they don't own a computer, so how did they make the ad?  Did Slager help?  Is he an adveritising agent now?  How did Donahue get a copy of the ad to mail out to all of his friends, in an attempt to create a racially-motivated protest outside of Brady's meeting?  There seems too many questions for the story to be as neat and buttoned up as Slager claims it to be.

10. Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
None of us can prove the relationship(s) between Slager and member(s) of the BoS.  Sure, we all have our suspicions.  At Brady's meeting, I heard him tell other attendees "I'm not friends with Bruce Savageau.  I've never been to Bruce Savageau's house".  Five minutes later, in the parking lot at the event, I promptly saw Savageau smile at Slager and give a tip of the finger (almost like a salute, but with his index finger up to his eye...sort of like a tip of the cap.  I can demonstrate it, but not really describe it).  Whether or not there's an actual conflict there, there is a distinct appearance of one.

11. Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
See point 2 above.

12. Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
See my previous post for discussion about his updates to posts and lack of notifcation, as well as his lack of correction in the Library settlement post after Nora Bicki corrected him.  This behavior is endemic in many of his posts.

13. Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
All I'll say here is that Mr. Slager is quick to make allegations towards the S-T, but has not looked inward, nor acknowledged any of my analysis, instead choosing to focus on Ham and others.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs