Some decisions readers shouldn't have to make

As an IU journalism school graduate, and as a working journalist, may I comment on the Oct. 17 column by your ombudsman, Brian Hartz? What Hartz calls "one of the dirty little secrets of journalism" -- that journalists sometimes receive "perks" ranging from free movie passes to free trips -- is not exactly new. I remember heated debates years ago at the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette on whether it was "ethical" for our sports writers to get free passes to hockey games (this was not too long after Watergate, when many of us eager young journalists were wearing tan corduroy jackets with leather elbow patches in imitation of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post). I do not see the smaller, often innocent, perks as life-or-death matters, so long as the giver does not feel that something is owed in return, and as long as the receiver does not feel indebted. A cup of coffee or a movie pass would fit in this category.\nBut something as expensive as a trip from Bloomington to New York is another matter. A journalist faced by such an offer has to ask himself: Will it in any way undermine the objectivity with which I write about the giver? More important: How will it affect readers' views of my integrity and of the credibility and independence of my newspaper? These questions are not hard to answer. When a "news" story about a company like Goldman Sachs appears near an ad paid for by the same firm, a reader can only assume a connection: The story will seem to have been produced to placate an advertiser.\nEisenstadt's article might have been perfectly factual. But to a reader, it will seem tainted by proximity to the ad. The hard part for a journalist -- as Hartz points out -- comes when the only way to get important coverage (especially for a low-budget newspaper) is to accept a complimentary trip, or some other similar assistance.\nBut how often does that situation really arise? Goldman Sachs is only one of hundreds (I would guess) of firms that recruit on campus. What makes its story so incredibly compelling? Eisenstadt might have gotten a better feel for the ambience of the firm by being there, but he could have obtained all the same information by telephone. Hartz said newspapers sometimes "'reward' big advertisers with news coverage." Well, some do, sometimes. But this is hardly as accepted -- certainly not as acceptable -- as he seems to imply. \nLast year, the Los Angeles Times, long one of the best newspapers in the country, faced a furious controversy when it was learned that Times business executives had agreed to split with the new Staples Center, home to local basketball and hockey teams, the profits from ads sold for an L.A. Times magazine devoted to the self-same Staples Center. The result: an angry revolt by Times journalists, dismayed over the dark smudge on their hard-earned honor and credibility. From the company's top ranks came painful public apologies. Hartz seems to confuse what can and sometimes does happen with what should happen. For an ombudsman to use the "everybody does it" argument strikes me as odd, to say the least. He asks: "Was the IDS rewarding Goldman Sachs for spending big bucks on a full-page ad?" Then he adds, "Perhaps such decisions are best left to the readers." \nHow could a serious journalist possibly want to leave to the readers -- indeed to plant in their minds -- the question of whether a newspaper's integrity and credibility are for sale? Integrity and credibility are all we've got.\nNo, such decisions are not "best" left to the reader. They are best avoided entirely -- by doggedly pursuing policies that produce manifestly fair, objective and responsible journalism, and by raising a high, solid, unbreachable wall between advertising and editorial content.