Thursday, June 23, 2005
Diane Dimond vs. Journalism Code of Ethics
Dimond has proven herself to be unfair, unbalanced, and downright right devious when it coomes to reporting anything on Jackson. The fact that she was often, according to anonymous sources inside the Santa Maria courtroom, slip out whenever the defense cross-examined witnesses, is a telltale sign of the tabloidish media bias that has corrupted so much of the "reporting" in the United States.
Dimond should be applauded for her tenacity and her ability to see a story until it is finished. However, when deception, meanness, unfairness, and unfounded innuendo are bandied about by her as if they are true, her reporting becomes as worthless and as malodorous as a Porto-Potty.
Making her behavior all the more scurrilous is the fact that Dimond is writing a book on Jackson and is prepared to profit from twelve years of reporting.
To offer some insights, we would like to compare her practices regarding the Jackson coverage with the a Journalism Code of Ethics. The Cutting Edge will not address every single code as some would require us to guess about Ms. Dimond's practices. That simply would not be fair to Ms. Dimond. We will, however, highlight those codes we feel apply best to her. These codes of ethics are in black print and our assessment of Dimond's adherence to the codes will be in red.
Diane Dimond and the Journalism Code of Ethics
Code of Ethics > SPJ Code of Ethics
Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.
Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. Journalists should:
Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error.
Deliberate distortion is never permissable.
Dimond has violated this code so much that it would take forever to wade through the ruses she has attempted to pull of on a gullible viewing and reading audience. Throughout the case and ensuing trial, Dimond was quick to distort information, painting a picture of Jackson altogether different than what the evidence presented by the prosecution would evenutally bear out. For example, she has continued to state that child pornography was found at Jackson’s ranch, claiming that two books including one entitled “The Boy” fit the bill for such an assertion. But had Jackson had ANY child pornography in his home or on his computers, he would have been charged with a FEDERAL CRIME as possession of child pornography is a federal offense. Even more pathetic was Ms. Dimond’s claim that Jackson admitted to negligence involving a sexual abuse claim in 1993 that Jackson settled out of court. Ms. Dimond’s claim, however, are not supported by either of the documents that were given to her. She boldly lied without compunction and that is an absolute shame.
Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises. We cannot and would never suggest that any reporter or journalist actually expose their sources; however, whenever a clear pattern of deception emerges from the reporting of one journalist, questions must be raised by the reporter to make sure that the public is not being duped and deceived by dubious information. We find no such proof that Dimond has ever questioned her sources. Had she done so, we would never have been subjected to such horrific stories about twenty year old underwear (that was never confirmed to belong to Jackson), love letters puportedly from Jackson to Gavin Arvizo, or erroneous reports of Jackson plying the accuser with sleeping pills (this never came up in the prosecution’s case)
Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context. Ms. Dimond consistently violated this principle of sound journalism during the trial coverage. On numerous occasions, Ms. Dimond would offer a deliciously inviting sound bite that would lead one to believe that the prosecution was scoring major points in their push to convict Jackson and that the jury was "riveted" by the evidence against Jackson. Of course, only after consulting other reputable news outlets, persons who were actually in the courtroom, as well as the actual court transcripts would we learn the actual facts. And those facts almost always completely impeached every word that dropped from the lips of Ms. Dimond. If the jury was as riveted by the prosecution as Dimond had suggested, there is no way that same jury would have exonerated Jackson from ALL the charges against him. Her deception is a grave disservice to viewers, readers, and to the American journalism scene.
Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
Journalists should:
Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects. E! True Hollywood special on Michael Jackson will recall the glee in which Dimond stated Jackson would go "splat" before our very eyes. What was equally troubling to us was not so much what she said but how she said it. There was a certain vindictiveness in her voice and a frightening glint in her eyes when she discussed the likelihood of Jackson's alleged impending doom. Dimond is not a journalist but a glorified pen holder with an ax to grind against a celebrity who sued her for defamation. While she has claimed in one breath to feel sorry for Jackson, she has called him names and branded him guilty in another breath. How compassionate is that? No one is asking Dimond to like Jackson or agree with everything he does. However, true compassion in reporting is being willing to at least see things from different perspectives. In addition, true compassion in reporting involves not labeling persons sex abuse victims or insinuating that they are when in fact they have continued to deny such claims. One can only imagine what Culkin, Barnes, Robeson, and any others that she has mentioned in connection to Jackson have had to deal with as a result of her skewed reporting.
Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity. Ms. Dimond sniffed 20 year old underwear, intimating that they belonged to Jackson and would be used to obtain his DNA for the trial. The problem was the underwear were never confirmed to be his and Jackson’s DNA was never a real issue in the actual court trial. The most ridiculous thing about this lack of good taste is the image it brings up in the minds of those reading this article.
Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.
Ms. Dimond has spent the last 12 years trying to convince the world that SHE has the goods to prove Jackson is a serial pedophile. Do we need to comment any further on how she presented Jackson during the last 18 months? Be sure to read it in her upcoming book on Jackson. If Ms. Dimond believed in the constitutional rights of criminal suspects, she would have refrained from her one-sided reporting and her continual negative reporting of anything having to do with Mr. Jackson.
Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.
Journalists should:
Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility. One of the most interesting stories to emerge regarding Dimond’s reporting concerns her close ties to Santa Barbara district attorney Tom Sneddon. Rumors of an affair between the two emerged a couple of years ago, not from the lips of Jackson family attorney Brian Oxman but from her own network’s message board, a Court TV message board. In addition, the Cutting Edge was made aware of several independent sources who confirm the affair but the sources do not wish to be revealed for fear of reprisal. Even if such an affair never happened, Dimond is STILL clearly closely connected with the prosecution and has even been challenged on air by some of her collegues. While we certainly believe that who she sleeps with is none of our business, how she reports stories IS our business and her close ties to other Jackson haters like Vanity Fair’s Maureen Orth and Sneddon mouthpiece Jim Thomas (they were spotted having drinks together one afternoon after proceedings has ended) concern us.
Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. If Ms. Dimond adhered to this ideal, then why did she never ask her good buddy Tom Sneddon:
- he raided Neverland a second time in December 2004 to get DNA from Jackson when all he had to do was ask defense attorney Tom Mesereau for it
- he leaked the confidential grand jury testimony, a clear violation of the gag order set forth by Judge Rodney Melville
- he slid his card under the Arvizos door before the timeline of abuse he presented to jurors
- it took 113 warrants to search Neverland, only to discover that Jackson enjoys looking at naked women
- why he pressed forward with this case knowing that Jackson did not do it (yes, Sneddon is well aware of Jackson’s innocence)
We know why she would never question Sneddon. When she learns to question her sources (Sneddon included), then she is on the road to becoming as decent a reporter as one could expect out of someone with no advanced degrees in journalism or its theory.
Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.
Journalists should:
[] Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
[] Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
Dimond wishes to dialog only with those who agree with her. She slammed FOX's Geraldo Rivera, claiming that he was no longer objective in covering the Jackson case after he proclaimed that Jackson was the victim of a vindictive prosecutor with no real case. The hypocrisy is obvious, however. She attacks any journalist who offers an opinion that challenges her own. Just ask Ed Bradley, who found himself the target of Dimond's criticism after interviewing Jackson. Dimond insisted that the respected reporter failed to ask the "right" questions. Bradley's reputation (and Dimond's for that matter) precedes him and needs no defense from The Cutting Edge.
Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
Dimond has shown herself incapable of doing such, instead being content to point out the “mistakes” of others in their reporting of Jackson when those “mistakes” do not align with her own opinions.
Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others. If Ms. Dimond adhered to this principle, we would not be writing this article.
Diane Dimond makes no apology for her brand of "reporting," pointing out that respectable news outlets like '60 Minutes' do as much tabloid reporting as she does. "Mike Wallace would be the first one to say to you, 'Yeah, I do tabloid,'" she said. "'I package it real nice, and look at my promos: They're tabloid through and through. They're the best in the business.'" [1]
We believe that Dimond is correct in her assertion that tabloid journalism is the rule of the day. There are very few news outlet that resisted the temptation to sensationalize every story that comes there way. We have seen newspapers like The New York Times print questionable articles that appeared to be ghost-written by National Enquirer hacks, lacking foundation or propriety.
And in true tabloid form, Dimond will seek to profit from her years of obsessive focus on Jackson. Should we be shocked?
If nothing else, Dimond is a sad and pathetic figure who is clearly trying to compensate for a lack of educational training and theory in journalism. Her own insecurities surface everytime other highly trained and well-respected journalists with decades of investigative experience behind them challenge her and her reporting.
Will she mend her ways? With a book about the object of her obsession on the way, we highly doubt it.
How long will the viewing public, who shoulder some of the blame for even listening to her deceptive reporting, continue to tolerate Dimond and those like her? If the public continues to gorge itself with deceptive practices from members of the media and self-proclaimed journalists, then the state of American journalism will continue to descend at breakneck speed. So long as a gullible, lazy viewing audience insists on being spoonfed news instead of critically assessing what they read and hear, Dimond and others of her flock will continue to embroider every story they report with greed, vindicitiveness, and deception.
Perhaps the public’s toleration of Dimond and other tabloidish journalists is the biggest problem of all.
-------------------------------------------------------
[1] Source: The New York Observer, Dec 1, 2003.
The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands ofwriters, editors and other news professionals. The present version ofthe code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after monthsof study and debate among the Society's members.Sigma Delta Chi's first Code of Ethics was borrowed from theAmerican Society of Newspaper Editors in 1926. In 1973, Sigma Delta Chiwrote its own code, which was revised in 1984, 1987 and 1996.
