By Saundra Keyes
Advertiser Editor

As New York Times editors struggle with fallout from the case of Jayson Blair, a young reporter who resigned this month after being charged with journalistic fraud, other newsrooms confront a disturbing question.

Why is there such a disconnect between the shock journalists feel about what Blair did and the general public's view that it wasn't that unusual for our profession?

What Blair did, according to a well-documented Times report, was write multiple stories in which he stole other reporters' work, invented quotes for people he had never interviewed, and described places he had never been.

Blair's deceptions, staggering in their scope, dishonor every reporter who ever worked late, ducked out of a family dinner, stood in the rain for hours or tracked down a source half a world away to get an essential quote.

Trust me, what he did was very unusual.

Trouble is, a newspaper editor may be the last person you believe when she says, "Trust me."

The Blair case, which unfortunately is only one of several serious breaches of journalistic ethics that have surfaced recently, heightens awareness of credibility issues we have known about for years.

One of those is highlighted in a survey by the Associated Press Managing Editors that followed up on a puzzling aspect of the Blair case. Although several people involved in his stories complained of problems and some attempted unsuccessfully to do so, the Times reported that others, including some for whom he had fabricated quotes, did not.

Why wouldn't people who saw themselves "quoted" by a reporter they had never talked to complain to the newspaper that published those stories?

APME's survey suggests that many readers don't report mistakes because they don't believe editors would pay attention.

"What's the point?" said a Maryland woman quoted in the report on e-mailed reactions from more than 200 members of APME's national reader advisory network on credibility.

"Why waste the time?" said an Arizona man, who added that his newspaper has never responded to his calls or e-mails.

APME summarized responses from readers who don't alert their newspapers to errors:

"They doubted newspapers cared about mistakes or would listen to them. Navigating a newspaper's corrections system would take too much time. The error was so obvious that surely someone at the newspaper would correct it. They believed inaccuracies were intentional in journalism that glosses over the fine points and hypes storytelling."

Related points emerged in a discussion with members of The Advertiser's community editorial board last week.

Jo-Ann Adams, an O'ahu estate planning attorney, said the Advertiser building's imposing architecture may suggest those of us who work here are remote or intimidating. Readers may hesitate to call us, she said, because they think: "They're big, I'm little. I'm insignificant."

Board member Nelson K. Smith, an O'ahu healthcare worker who has been interviewed in other cities over the years, said he was sometimes misquoted but "just didn't know what to do about it."

The board members said we could enhance credibility by clarifying the role of our reader representative, calling more attention to our corrections process, publishing more information about the quality of sources relied on in our stories, and better explaining the safeguards we use to ensure the integrity of our news report.

Noting the striking lack of supervision the Times gave Blair's reporting (for example, editors failed to ask him the identities of unnamed sources he cited in major national stories), Smith asked, "What does The Advertiser do to support young staff?"

These are legitimate issues for readers of any newspaper to raise.

Like other newsrooms, our day-to-day operations rely heavily on trust — trust that we've hired ethical journalists, that our reporters are telling the truth when they say they went somewhere or interviewed someone, that our photographers don't set up fake scenes, that editors who handle stories and photos and graphics would not manipulate them to change their meaning.

And like other newsrooms, we accompany that trust with an ethics policy that spells out our standards.

The Principles of Ethical Conduct for Newsrooms, which are printed on this page, apply to all newspapers owned by our parent company, Gannett Co. Inc.

They are supplemented with detailed guidelines on such issues as the use of unnamed sources.

We give this policy to new employees as part of our hiring process, and our department heads certify annually that they have discussed it with their staffs.

Simply having or discussing a policy isn't enough, though. We have to live by the policy, too.

For example, we wouldn't publish major stories relying on unnamed sources without senior editors knowing who those sources are, and being satisfied that the material couldn't reasonably be obtained on the record.

We have a reader representative, Senior Editor Anne Harpham, who handles questions and complaints about issues of accuracy or fairness. Her name and telephone number are published daily.

Often, a reader's call results in a correction or clarification. Sometimes, when interpretation is more an issue than the accuracy of fact, we suggest a letter to the editor as the best way for a dissatisfied reader to make the point in question.

Based on her investigations of questions or complaints, Harpham tracks and categorizes reasons for errors.

She finds varied causes: rushing on deadline, temporary inattentiveness, failure to consult reference works, misunderstanding of a source, or sometimes misinformation provided by a source.

We do this tracking primarily to identify any patterns of deficiency in our procedures, but it would certainly serve as well to identify a pattern of repeated problems in an individual's work.

We try to create a climate in which no member of our staff needs to be afraid of alerting us to an honest mistake, but everyone is aware that repeated errors will not be tolerated. And in which no member of our staff would even consider offering work containing plagiarism or lies.

For the record, I don't believe that any member of this staff would do so.

I also believe that all of us benefit from frequently revisiting our ethics policy.

Does that policy make us perfect? Of course not. As an institution of human beings, we make mistakes.

And although we assume it helps our credibility to promptly correct our errors, we know you'd find us even more credible if we didn't make them in the first place.

We work hard every day to achieve that goal.

Meanwhile, we hope we've earned enough trust that you can join us in viewing Jayson Blair's conduct as a shocking aberration in our profession.

These principles of ethical conduct guide all Gannett Co. newspapers, including The Honolulu Advertiser. They are supplemented by detailed guidelines on such issues as the use of unnamed sources in stories.

We are committed to:

Seeking and reporting the truth in a truthful way

• We will dedicate ourselves to reporting the news accurately, thoroughly and in context.
• We will be honest in the way we gather, report and present news.
• We will be persistent in the pursuit of the whole story.
• We will keep our word.
• We will hold factual information in opinion columns and editorials to the same standards of accuracy as news stories.
• We will seek to gain sufficient understanding of the communities, individuals and stories we cover to provide an informed account of activities.

Serving public interest

• We will uphold First Amendment principles to serve the democratic process.
• We will be vigilant watchdogs of government and institutions that affect the public.
• We will provide the news and information that people need to function as effective citizens.
• We will seek solutions as well as expose problems and wrongdoing.
• We will provide a public forum for diverse people and views.
• We will reflect and encourage understanding of the diverse segments of our community.
• We will provide editorial and community leadership.
• We will seek to promote understanding of complex issues.

Maintaining independence

• We will remain free of outside interests, investments or business relationships that may compromise the credibility of our news report.
• We will maintain an impartial, arm's-length relationship with anyone seeking to influence the news.
• We will avoid potential conflicts of interest and eliminate inappropriate influence on content.
• We will be free of improper obligations to news sources, newsmakers and advertisers.
• We will differentiate advertising from news.

Exercising fair play

• We will treat people with dignity, respect and compassion.
• We will correct errors promptly.
• We will strive to include all sides relevant to a story and not take sides in news coverage.
• We will explain to readers our journalistic processes.
• We will give particular attention to fairness in relations with people unaccustomed to dealing with the press.
• We will use unnamed sources as the sole basis for published information only as a last resort and under specific procedures that best serve the public's right to know.
• We will be accessible to readers.

Acting with integrity

• We will act honorably and ethically in dealing with news sources, the public and our colleagues.
• We will obey the law.
• We will observe common standards of decency.
• We will take responsibility for our decisions and consider the possible consequences of our actions.
• We will be conscientious in observing these principles.
• We will always try to do the right thing.