The track record on ethics

In the 17 months since Herald-Standard editor Mark O'Keefe took to his soap box and thumped his chest with his December 2010 column, "Ethics issues taken seriously," a lot has happened to demonstrate the opposite.

He's had one reporter who openly worked the polls for a county commission candidate.

He's had another reporter who was just hired as the county's chief clerk, as the favored candidate of Chairman Vincent Zapotosky, a person she was supposed to be objectively covering. (Props to blogger Julie Toye, for providing an interesting perspective on this hire, at http://www.julietoye.com/Amy.html )

And he has another reporter who is reportedly dating a prominent source on that reporter's beat -- a source whose name and comments have appeared in stories that the reporter has written for HeraldStandard.com

Nothing personal, but all three of these situations serve to seriously undermine the credibility of the publication that O'Keefe leads. And with each new revelation, his bold claims assuring us about ethics from two years ago ring hollower and hollower.

You can bet that O'Keefe doesn't want to address how reporter number one was able to do a hatchet job on Republican Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink in the week leading up to last November's election, in a story about the Fayette County Conservation District. (That same reporter was the one campaigning for the other Republican candidate.)

Was ethics taken seriously under O'Keefe's watch in that instance?

You can also bet that O'Keefe doesn't want too much scrutiny on reporter number two. But as Toye adeptly points out in her blog post, now it makes sense why that reporter failed to do any basic follow-up when a citizen assailed Zimmerlink at a commission meeting, again just before the election. As we pointed out then, it would have been fairly simple -- and in adherence to ethical journalistic principles -- for that reporter to follow up and prove or disprove that citizen's claims about Zimmerink's use of her work computer. But not a finger was lifted to do basic and fair reporting.

Was ethics taken seriously that time?

And in the case of reporter number three, there are just some things you have to give up when you are a newspaper reporter. Most places, you would not be allowed to date someone that you cover for the news. In those places where you would be permitted, it would mean that you never get to cover anything involving that person. Another reporter would be assigned in those instances.

If O'Keefe was not informed of this situation ahead of time, it certainly wasn't ethical on the reporter's part. If he was informed but allowed the coverage to continue as though nothing needed to change, it definitely was not ethical on O'Keefe's part.

We take no particular joy in pointing these situations out. But each of them stands diametrically opposed to O'Keefe's bold claims of December 2010. We will leave it to you to decide if the track record on ethics under O'Keefe is good or bad.