QUOTE(Hushthis @ Thu 25th May 2006, 8:47pm)
This has increasingly become the code of the road, especially with Gannett and the larger chains. But undercover reporting has an ethical place among the tools of the trade. Courts have drawn some lines. If one goes to work for a company with the intent of exposing that company's practices and is on the payroll of a company at the same time, there can be a legal conflict of interests. But reporters legitimately can do hidden camera interviews. Stone Phillips exposes of sexual predators demonstrates an interesting line. He tells them they are on camera after its already too late. I think he does that for ABC as I recall. The ethical obligation to readers or viewers is to find out as much about a situation as they have a right and need to know. But the ethical obligation to sources is to give them every opportunity to respond and explain their perspective in the context of stories that might reflect them in a bad light.
in Katefan0's situation, her unique profile was suspect because her access to information was a product of her professional reputation, but she appeared to be using information and access she gleaned from her day job to inform her Wikipedia habit.
Avoiding untoward appearances is part of journalistic ethics, though most journalists appear untoward to somebody sometime. Besides having been exposed, Katefan0's fault at wikipedia, from my quick analysis, was using the hate-language of wikipedia to slander editors who contributed contrary to the slant she was trying to enforce, then using administrative power to back up her actions.
Stone Phillips and the hidden camera's isn't exactly new "news" either. Its been repeated so often in local and national media that when its used and the people are exposed it really shouldn't be labeled as a unfair journalist report nor should it even be used as an example for this issue at hand. Anyone the complains because of it is simply a stupid person hince why these pedo perps are caught over and over again.
Katefan0's hate comment's on WP can be used directly at her job as a professional Senate Journalist. If this is how she acts behind a anonymous name it shows lack of character and degrades her as a journalist of any kind. There have been many times when a journalist thought they were off camera and they weren't when they made some smart, vulgar or derogatory remark that landed them in hot water.