DeWayne Wickham: Paying For Polls Puts Media On Wrong Side Of Ethics Line.

Paying for polls puts media on wrong side of ethics line
By DeWayne Wickham

One of the basic tenets of journalism is that those reporting the news shouldn't have a hand in making it. People should be able to trust that what they read in a newspaper or see on a TV newscast is the work of a disinterested reporter.

There's no debating the value of this principle in much of what journalists do. In fact, the need for journalists to "avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived," is part of the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics.

But news organizations are increasingly crossing this line in covering elections.

They do this by partnering with polling firms to measure voter sentiment, then report the results as news. In other words, they have a hand in creating the news they report, though they rarely tell readers the extent of their association with the polling organization.

News organizations don't say how much they pay to commission a poll. But in almost all news coverage, following the money trail is a near obsession. Some stories on media-generated polls offer a link to the questions asked, others don't.

"I think there are certain cautions that need to be addressed when you commission a poll," said Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, the nation's leading journalism think tank.

Polls influence behavior and can create misconceptions, said McBride. But she doesn't believe news organizations should get out of the polling business.

"Polls, well done, serve a useful journalistic purpose," she said.

I don't agree. There are too many variables to "scientific polling" to report the results without extensive footnotes -- the kind of explanatory information that news organizations lack the space or time to include in poll stories.

Too often, people are told precious little about how polling results were obtained.

If that doesn't make you wonder, maybe this will. In this year's election, several newspapers that commissioned presidential preference polls also wrote editorials endorsing a candidate.

What's wrong with that? As McBride notes, "Polls influence behavior and can create misperceptions."

Of course, it's possible presidential preference polls don't affect election results. But it's also possible voters' opinions of John McCain and Barack Obama were influenced to some extent by polling questions.

Some news organizations compound this potential conflict by endorsing candidates who received favorable approval ratings in polls the news organizations financed.

There are ways to overcome such concerns, McBride said.

In addition to reporting how much they paid for a poll, news organizations should say why they wanted those questions asked, McBride said.

News organizations that conduct polling badly reinforce the notion they're "setting the agenda rather than following the agenda," McBride said.

That sounds an awful lot like my point: By commissioning political polls, broadcast and print companies risk being seen as creating the news they cover.

So what should they do?

They should do their job. They should ferret out the news wherever they find it -- but in doing so adhere to the Society of Professional Journalists' warning to remain free of associations and activities that could compromise their integrity or credibility.

They should get out of the polling business.

DeWayne Wickham is a columnist with Gannett News Service. His e-mail address is DeWayneWickham@aol.com.