Issues of fairness ADVERTISING Issues of fairness Serious concerns arise from the May 13 article titled “Judges’ disclosures of gifts questioned.” First, the article suggests that Judge Margaret Masunaga violated the “rules of the Supreme Court,” in accepting a gift
Issues of fairness
Serious concerns arise from the May 13 article titled “Judges’ disclosures of gifts questioned.” First, the article suggests that Judge Margaret Masunaga violated the “rules of the Supreme Court,” in accepting a gift at her public swearing-in ceremony, when she clearly did not.
Second, the newspaper’s “clarification” issued on May 14 characterizes the issue as to whether Judge Masunaga had an opportunity to respond before the article’s publication, as a “miscommunication” that “resulted in information received after deadline Tuesday being left out of (the) article … .”
We do not see this as a “miscommunication.” Judge Masunaga was not given a deadline time for response. We were told by the reporter that the deadline had passed only when we called to inform her that a response was forthcoming.
Finally, while we appreciate the newspaper issuing a clarification the day after the front-page story ran, that clarification does not reflect “due prominence” — i.e., placement that is commensurate with that of the original error. Several people who were actually looking for the clarification could not find it.
When newspapers make incorrect assertions damaging someone’s reputation on the front page of the newspaper, then run inconspicuous “clarifications” inside the paper, fundamental issues of fairness for the person whose reputation is harmed come into play.
As one press organization’s editors’ code of practice notes: “A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once (recognized) must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published.” The Tribune-Herald could show that it takes its errors seriously by placing corrections in a more prominent place.
The article about Judge Masunaga wrongly
insinuated that she failed to abide with the ethical duties relating to her profession. We note that the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics requires journalists to ensure that information is accurate, fair and thorough; that information be verified before released; that the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication be considered; and that mistakes be corrected promptly and prominently.
Judge Masunaga abides by the Canons of Judicial Conduct. We ask for the same consideration for journalists’ ethical requirements in appropriately correcting a prominently displayed news article that unfairly maligned Judge Masunaga’s reputation for ethical conduct and integrity.
Susan Pang Gochros
Director, Intergovernmental and Community Relations Department
Hawaii State Judiciary
