What Do you Call A Newspaper That Defends Outrageous Journalistic Practices? How About “Di Tzeitung”?

If Di Tzeitung had covered the Civil War

If I could pronounce it, the Brooklyn-based Hasidic newspaper Di Tzeitung would be useful shorthand  for “shamelessly using rationalizations to defend indefensible conduct.”

Last week, the newspaper ran the now-familiar photo of President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and others in the White House Situation Room, except that in Di Tzeitung’s version, Clinton  and the only other woman present, Director for Counter-terrorism Audrey Tomason, had magically vanished. Di Tzeitung had airbrushed them out, Politburo-style.

Of course, publishing the photo of a historic news event and altering it to convey misleading or false information (in this case, “Hillary wasn’t there”) is a substantial and wide-ranging violation of core journalism ethics, a breach of the reader’s trust, unfair, dishonest, misleading, incompetent and disrespectful. The altered photo was alternately condemned and mocked all over the media and blogosphere. Yet Di Tzeitung is largely unapologetic, and made it clear that it would do the same thing again if the opportunity arose. In a prepared statement, the editors explained why they did nothing “wrong”…well, almost nothing…challenging the Olympic record for rationalization by a news organization along the way: Continue reading

Unethical CYA Trick Hall Of Infamy Inductee: the Phantom E-mail

Has this happened to you?

My firm submitted materials for a presentation to a client weeks before it was scheduled, sending them to the contact’s assistant, and asking that if there were any problems, to let us know. The day before the presentation, I received an urgent e-mail from the assistant, reading, “I am copying you in on this because I had not heard from your partner. The materials you sent may need revisions, as I informed her in my previous communication, and we were getting concerned because the revisions had not been received by us.” CC’d on the message were the assistant’s supervisor (my contact), and other firm members. Not my partner, however.

Panic ensued at ProEthics. After checking all phone logs, e-mail files and spam-blockers, it became abundantly clear that no such message about revisions was ever sent to my partner. Continue reading