ABC’s Condoleezza Rice Coverage Violated Journalistic Ethics

ABC's Coverage of Condoleezza Rice's Testimony Violated Journalistic Ethics

Posted by David Katz

Friday, April 09, 2004

While flipping through the television coverage of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission, I stopped at ABC. More clearly, I was floored by ABC.

Upon conclusion of Dr. Rice's testimony, Peter Jennings introduced ABC's consultant on national security issues to review, confirm, or rebut her testimony.

In an episode of naked bias, ABC's consultant was Richard Clarke. The same Richard Clarke whose prior testimony in front of the same commission and whose currently on-sale book places him squarely as part of the story. By way of an introduction, Mr. Jennings stated that ABC had retained Richard Clarke months prior to his testimony.

There was this odd moment when Peter Jennings introduced Clarke. Jennings seemed to look slightly down with a queasy expression like last night's Mexican wasn't sitting well. Richard Clarke's expression was stranger still. It was somewhere between smug self-satisfaction and the veiled triumph of a teacher's pet who successfully fingered a rival to the principal.

Regardless of the twilight zone natureof the exchange, ABC crossed the line by putting on a person involved in the story as a commentator. The Society of Professional Journalist's Code of Ethics gives multiple reasons why this violates journalistic ethics:

Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. - Mr. Clarke is conflicted by his prior testimony before the 911 commission alleging that Dr. Rice and the Bush administration were disinterested in, if not incompetent, concerning terrorism.

Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility. - Mr. Clarke was a Democratic appointee of the Clinton administration who was held over but later demoted by the Bush administration. Richard Clarke is clearly associated with one view on the story. By using him as ABC's consultant, that network is associating itself with that one view.

Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context. While Richard Clarke was clearly labeled as a commentator, his immediate appearance after Dr. Rice's testimony blurred the line between reporting and advocacy.

Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible. All the facts are not in, nor have those facts available been verified or validated. As part of an unfolding story, information supplied by Mr. Clarke cannot be tested for accuracy. His use as a network commentator, verifying or rebutting information supplied by others, deliberately creates a situation where his opinion is rendered as fact.

The bottom line is ABC's coverage of Condoleezza Rice's testimony was set-up to arrive at a foregone conclusion before she uttered a single word. No wonder people are switching to cable.

Chron Watch