Taylor Carlson November 13, 2007 Ethics Paper Conflicts of Interest, Real or Perceived. Real.

The Phoenix New Times made national coverage after being charged with a subpoena by the Arizona grand jury. Directly following the subpoena, Phoenix New Times founders Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin were arrested on a misdemeanor for revealing the contents of a grand jury subpoena in their cover story, "Breathtaking Abuse of the Constitution" on October 18, 2007. It was perfectly granted for the Phoenix New Times to defend not only their own family of reporters, editors, and owners, but to defend their reader’s privacy. But was it ethical for them to chance creating a conflict of interest by reporting about an attack on their paper? Was the editor of the Phoenix New Times right in publishing their defense? In Lacey and Larkin’s double by-lined article they revealed: “In a breathtaking abuse of the United States Constitution, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, and their increasingly unhinged cat's paw, special prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik, used the grand jury to subpoena ‘all documents related to articles and other content published by Phoenix New Times newspaper in print and on the Phoenix New Times website, regarding Sheriff Joe Arpaio from January 1, 2004 to the present.’” The article also notified the readers that, “The authorities are also using the grand jury subpoenas in an attempt to

and B) the Internet Protocol addresses of any and all visitors to each page of items (the articles about Sherriff Joe Arpaio) from the date that each item was uploaded to the present.” The subpoena also demands to know which web pages visitors access or visit the Phoenix New Times website.” The subpoena itself demanded records from the Phoenix New Times directly related to several articles about Sherriff Joe Arpaio.research the identity. they include: Avoid conflicts of interest. The articles . “It is. real or perceived and remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility. we fear. the authorities' belief that what you are about to read here is against the law to publish. purchasing habits. But there are moments when civil disobedience is merely the last option. There are two clauses of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics in which the Phoenix New Times article breaches.” The Phoenix New Times also pleaded to their readers for forgiveness. and browsing proclivities of our online readership. We pray that our judgment is free of arrogance. the total number of visitors to the site and also information about which browser readers use. The information should include. The records demanded include: “All internet web site traffic information for the Phoenix New Times internet site related to (the articles about Sherriff Joe Arpaio). but not be limited to: A) Hit counts for each pave of (the articles about Sherriff Joe Arpaio) from the date that each item was uploaded onto the Phoenix New Times website to the present.

the judge in charge of the grand jury currently investigating Phoenix New Times. may have filed a complaint against Lacey and Larkin.’ The Phoenix New Times was simply recognizing that the real estate dealings of Sherriff Arpaio were justifying an overriding public need to know. and that's the reason they were arrested. The Phoenix New Times article “Breaking News: New Times founders Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin arrested!” proclaims. Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas spoke on behalf of the issue: "We are not going to proceed with this investigation. as well as the addresses. influence or attention. and to hold people accountable for their offenses. Speculation is that Phoenix New Times enemy Dennis Wilenchik. which can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy according to the SPJ Code of Ethics. of Maricopa County Sherriff Joe Arpaio were the reason the subpoena was issued. This reason seems to fall under perfectly ethical practices by the Phoenix New Times. the subpoena was retracted and special prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik was dismissed. Lacey and Larkin were released.” The day following public outbursts about the arrests. I do . The articles were ‘being vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable’ and ‘recognizing that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who see power.exposing the real estate dealings. “It's believed the arrests have nothing to do with Judge Baca. And what happened here was the wrong way. There is a right way and a wrong way to bring a prosecution. the special prosecutor in the case.

" from the Phoenix New Times article “Who’s Sorry Now?” written by reporter Stephen Lemons. sometimes the Irish prevail in theirs. “Sometimes law enforcement prevails in their view of the Constitution. I do not defend it. However. “More on this outrageous abuse of power by Sheriff Arpaio.” ." It is clear that the Phoenix New Times had no choice but to report and publish stories on their own attacks on their reader’s behalves as well as their own.not condone it. it is also clear that they made some incredible mistakes in doing so. the public may have been more prepared to accept and understand their unethical choices. In the same article Lemons adds. And so it ends today. According to the SPJ Code of Ethics the ideal role of journalism is that “public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy” and a journalists job is to “further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account events and issues.” "We tried to make a modest stand for our readers. The overall point the Phoenix New Times was attempting to make was that it is illegal for the grand jury to subpoena personal information on the readers of the Phoenix New Times. County Attorney Andy Thomas and their attack-dog Wilenchik as it develops. our reporters and our Constitution. If the Phoenix New Times were to attempt to make a more unbiased approach to their own issue.” said Michael Lacey in a statement issued to the Phoenix New Times article “Case against New Times dropped” by Bill Jensen.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful