I recently wrote about an interesting confluence of history, technology and discomfort.

People who find old embarrassing news – thanks to Google and its ilk – lobby to have stories wiped from the Internet.

Here’s how it unfolded at my former newspaper, an upstate New York weekly.

Tonight, I read that The Washington Post gets the same requests to ‘unpublish’ – and rebuffs them, too.

Would you ever honor a request to pull a story from your online archives?

There’s no need to wait for a crisis to follow a code of ethics.

And how do we define crisis? Here’s one way, courtesy of Bernstein Crisis Management.

What’s the connection? This post by Jonathan Bernstein, the president of Bernstein Crisis Management, at the Huffington Post.

He talks about why journalists should use the SPJ Code of Ethics and suggests how someone can counteract unethical actions of journalists.

Some questions of journalism ethics surface over and over.

One came up this week among members of the SPJ Ethics Committee: the pros and cons of using the descriptor “person of interest.”

I hate, hate, hate it.

I don’t fault police for using the vague phrase to flush people out to help speed up an investigation. But  journalists should not let themselves be pawns.

Every time we hear this phrase, we need to ask why a person is considered of “interest.” As a possible suspect? A witness?

Why not keep asking until we can be more specific: “Police say John Doe might have witnessed the crime,” for example.

If the person is a suspect, but hasn’t been charged, would your news organization name him or her? That’s an essential discussion and we subconsciously evade it by ducking behind “person of interest.”

Not everyone on the committee agrees with me. We’ll move the discussion here. We welcome you to join in.

In today’s changing information market, it’s sometimes difficult to tell what is news and what is entertainment.

With the recent, rapid changes in gathering and reporting information, the mainstream news media no longer are the exclusive sources of “news.” The public gets its information from many sources: cable and network television, newspapers and magazine, blogs, web sites on home and laptop computers, and on a multitude of hand-held devices. Information is everywhere.

The mixture is such that the lines between news/information and entertainment are sometimes blurred. In the confusion that this blurring has caused, the ethical issue of “checkbook journalism” has stirred complaints and excuse

The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics and mainstream news media say news should not be purchased. However, entertainment media frequently pay for exclusive interviews and stories. Sometimes such payment is called a “licensing fee.”

Cable and network television present many “shows” that may be news and may be entertainment. Note that TV calls such programs “shows”:  the Rick Sanchez Show, the Dylan Ratigan Show, the Sean Hannity Show, the Today show, Good Morning America, etc. They are called shows, but they also are sources of news/information.

If, for example, the Today show pays a “licensing fee” for an exclusive interview with a person in the news, is that checkbook journalism or merely a standard practice in the entertainment business of “licensing” an exclusive television presentation?

Does paying for an interview or story diminish its credibility?

When is information news and when is it entertainment?

Here’s a brief quiz involving a hypothetical news/information situation:
A woman is lost for several days in a wilderness and is rescued by a search party in a helicopter. Which of the following different situations would you say are not ethical and why?
• A freelance journalist is at the scene when the rescued woman steps from the helicopter. An area newspaper buys her exclusive story and pictures.
• Several area news media buy the freelance journalist’s story and pictures.
• The freelance journalist invites the rescued woman to stay with her while waiting for family to arrive. In her home, the journalist interviews the woman and an area TV station buys the video.
• An area newspaper pays a freelance journalist to report on and take pictures at a press conference by the rescued woman.
• An area television station buys an exclusive story and video from a member of the rescue crew.
• An area television station pays for travel and accommodations for the rescued woman to appear in an exclusive interview on its morning talk show.
• A national magazine buys a story written by the rescued woman.
• A national network TV show flies the woman to New York for an exclusive appearance on its morning show. It pays all the woman’s expenses – hotel, meals, etc. It also broadcasts excerpts from the interview on its network newscasts.
• A national book publisher buys exclusive rights to the rescued woman’s story.
• A major studio buys movie rights to the rescued woman’s story.
• A national newspaper offers to pay the rescued woman for an exclusive interview.
• A national supermarket publication bids for and wins exclusive rights to the rescued woman’s story.

All the above involve some type of financial transaction. Are there ethical differences, and if so, what are they? What would you do in each of the above situations? Ask your friends – what they would do? And remember, ethics does not always result in black or white solutions.

Paul R. LaRocque, Ethics Committee member

Outside magazine’s July issue is the latest example of using digitally altered photography to distort reality and to mislead readers. The cover shows Lance Armstrong, who is 38, wearing a T-shirt that says, “38. BFD.”

The point the magazine apparently is attempting to convey is that Armstrong, winner of seven consecutive Tours de France and a survivor of testicular cancer, is unconcerned about his age. “BFD” is a vernacular acronym meaning “big fucking deal.”

The problem is, Armstrong’s T-shirt did not say that; it was digitally added later, without his knowledge.

The magazine defended its use of digital manipulation as creative license, and pointed out that it carried a disclaimer that says: “Note: Not Armstrong’s real T-shirt.” But the disclaimer is in such small type that it is unreadable in the online version.

The magazine acknowledged the controversy in a statement that says, “We wanted to create a provocative image and make a bold statement about the fact that, because of Armstrong’s age, many cycling fans are skeptical of his chances in this year’s Tour de France.”

But it did not acknowledge that digital manipulation is wrong or apologize to Armstrong or to its readers.

Armstrong rightfully reacted with fury against Outside. He sent a Twitter message saying, “Just saw the cover of the new Outside mag w/ yours truly on it. Nice photoshop on a plain t-shirt guys. That’s some lame bullshit.”

The “message” on the T-shirt would make a legitimate teaser for the story if it had not been emblazoned on the shirt, creating the erroneous impression that it was Armstrong himself who was conveying the idea that he is unconcerned about his age.

The SPJ Code of Ethics says journalists should:
• Make certain that headlines, news teases, promotional material, photos, videos, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
• Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.

Outside skirts the spirit if not the letter of the Code of Ethics with its virtually unreadable disclaimer. This altered photo clearly does misrepresent and highlights something out of context.

The SPJ Ethics Committee has dealt with several recent cases of digital manipulation of images. Just because something is now technically feasible to do does not make it journalistically ethical.

An earlier version of this post incorrectly said it was the June issue instead of the July issue

Maybe ABC is trying to improve — maybe — but it has miles to go.

In 2008, the network paid $200,000 to the family of Casey Anthony — accused of murdering her daughter — for “an extensive library of photos and home video for use by our broadcasts, platforms, affiliates and international partners.”

Not only is it highly questionable ethically to pay a source while covering her, ABC compounded the matter by keeping it quiet for two years and continuing to report on the case.

The SPJ Ethics Committee chastised ABC in March 2010, shortly after the payment was revealed during a court hearing.

ABC denied that the $200,000 was an enticement for Casey Anthony to talk to the network. “No use of the material was tied to any interview,” the network said in a statement.

When the SPJ Ethics Committee asked ABC spokeswoman Cathie Levine about the $200,000 payment, she reiterated that it was not for an interview. It was for licensing exclusive rights, which she said is a common practice for broadcast news organizations.

We responded: “The SPJ Ethics Committee says news organizations that pay sources, for whatever reason, while covering them inject themselves in those stories and develop an ‘ownership’ interest. The public can legitimately question a news organization’s credibility and doubt whether its reports are fair and accurate.”

In talking to us, Levine said ABC stood by its decision to pay Casey Anthony’s family $200,000, but conceded that the payment should have been mentioned as the network covered the story.

“We should have disclosed it to our audience,” she told us, promising that disclosure would become the policy from then on.

Fast forward to several days ago. ABC aired an exclusive interview with Casey Anthony’s parents, George and Cindy Anthony, on “Good Morning America” and, once again, didn’t mention the $200,000 payment.

After hearing about this from another Ethics Committee member, I e-mailed Levine to find out what happened to the new policy or if this latest failure was another oversight.

She replied: “We did interview George and Cindy Anthony on GMA – we haven’t licensed anything from either of them so there was nothing to disclose.”

Is ABC actually trying to claim that a $200,000 payment to Casey Anthony is in no way tied to an exclusive interview it scored with her parents? And that it couldn’t at least be perceived that way?

Perhaps it’s the Ethics Committee’s fault for not spelling it out crystally clear.

Forevermore, ANY reporting the network does on this story is inextricably tied to the $200,000 payment. ALL future reports should disclose that the network has a business relationship with the subject of the story.

Obviously, this isn’t where I detected a glimmer of possible improvement at ABC. It was something else Levine wrote in her last reply to me:

“The policy we discussed has not changed – in case you didn’t see 20/20 on Friday night, we made a disclosure in our interview with Melody Granadillo as we licensed material from her.”

Because I’m sometimes a scandal behind, I had to look up who Granadillo was. It turns out she’s a former girlfriend of Joran van der Sloot, who is suspected of murdering one woman and was questioned several years ago about the disappearance of another.

ABC’s story previewing its “20/20″ report mentions that Granadillo kept mementos about van der Sloot and says: “Granadillo licensed a selection of these materials to ABC News.”

There it is: another weak ABC disclosure.

“Licensed”? Did ABC pay Granadillo? How much? What were the terms?

Why did the network feel the need to again breach basic journalism ethics?

And is it just a coincidence that ABC got an “exclusive interview” with Granadillo as part of the business transaction?

ABC isn’t alone in this charade of license payments and exclusive access. Other TV networks are using this same shell game of tortured logic to claim they don’t pay for interviews.

I look forward to the day when there’s real improvement.

For the Boston Globe’s Sunday magazine, Neil Swidey looked at the people who post anonymously at Boston.com.

Is posting after stories a fun, lively outlet for outspoken people?

Or a haven for the brash and insensitive?

If you think one way or the other, or somewhere in between, this might be the most telling detail in the story: In one day, Boston.com had to examine 1,330 comments flagged as possibly being over the line (whatever that line is).

Does your newspaper have the staff and time to police hundreds or thousands of comments a day to weed out the sludge? Isn’t that a waste of everyone’s time?

Remember, the 1,330 were only the comments that were flagged.

And that’s at one point in time. The cesspool under each each story has the potential to grow all day, every day.

This is about the rationalization you’d expect from someone criticized for being chummy with sources: We aren’t working 24/7. We get to see new sides of each other.

Ed Henry talks to On The Media’s Brooke Gladstone about goofing around with the vice president and others at a pool party. This was my earlier post.

He added an interesting excuse: When the vice president asks, you have to be receptive.

Doesn’t that illustrate the coziness factor Gladstone was getting at?

If you keep your relationships with sources professional, as ethical journalists try to do, I don’t see any problem saying no – yes, to the vice president, too.

Journalists across the country go to great lengths to keep their distance from sources. It’s not that we don’t like the people we cover – many are pleasant enough; some could be friends in an alternate universe.

But we shouldn’t get cozy; we can’t. It colors everything else we do, beyond our control.

Of course, there’s room for judgment in how to interact with people we cover. My rule of thumb is “Friendly, but not friends.”

Friendly might mean saying hello, smiling, exchanging small talk.

Friends do more. They meet socially. They do favors for each other, maybe protect each other.

It’s hard to define exactly where that line is. But when I read this post on The Daily Call about journalists pool-partying with Vice President Joe Biden, I knew: This sure ain’t it. Kudos to Mike Riggs for speaking out.

Then, I read Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic make this ridiculous rationalization of journalists getting chummy with sources. I was disgusted and ashamed.

Is it a Beltway thing? Are Washington journos more likely to get so entrenched in people, places and institutions they cover, they don’t see the actual and perceived conflicts of joining, playing with and being them?

Riggs’ take on it is exactly right. There’s an allure of being both in the know and in on the fun.

Glenn Greenwald also had a good report. How can you read the giggly, fawning Twitter messages of CNN’s Ed Henry and not feel sick?

Getting a chance to see Biden’s casual side? Chatting about Helen Thomas? Squirting each other with a water gun?

For this, it’s worth jeopardizing credibility, independence, neutrality and integrity, all at once?

Good luck telling people to trust you – that your journalistic acumen can’t be swayed by a day of laughing and splashing with Biden and Rahm Emanuel.

It won’t work. You don’t dictate perception.

Apparently, a Michigan lawmaker was just messing around when he proposed licensing journalists.

Under his bill (click on “Senate introduced bill”), reporters would have to “be of good moral character and demonstrate, by a signed statement, knowledge of any acceptable industrywide ethics standards acceptable to the board.”

They also would need to show a state regulatory board they have: a degree in journalism or a related field, three years’ experience, awards, at least three writing samples, or a letter of recommendation from another reporter. And pay $10.

Maybe the legislator is getting the attention he craved for his absurd, ham-handed idea.

Fine. Once the chatter dies down over his proposal, it will be time for another.

Something like: “Elected officials in Michigan shall a) demonstrate common sense, b) display a basic understanding of the First Amendment, c) eschew sham legislation … “