Oral Histories

Gene Foreman

Interview Segments on Topic: Conflict of Interest/Credibility

Gene Foreman Biography

Gene Foreman joined the Penn State faculty in 1998 after  retiring from The Philadelphia Inquirer, where he managed newsroom  operations for more than 25 years under various titles—managing  editor, executive editor and deputy editor. He also was a vice  president of the company.At Penn State, he was the Larry and Ellen Foster Professor from 1999  until his retirement from full-time teaching in December 2006. He  taught courses in news editing, news media ethics and newspaper  management. In 2003, Foreman received two awards for excellence in  teaching in the College of Communications—the Deans' Award and the  Alumni Society Award.
His textbook, "The Ethical Journalist: Making Responsible Decisions in  the Pursuit of News," was published in fall 2009 by Wiley-Blackwell.

Foreman spent 41 years in newspaper journalism—not counting eight  summer jobs in high school and college, or his carrier route before  that. He was the managing editor of three different newspapers: the  Pine Bluff (Ark.) Commercial, the Arkansas Democrat in Little Rock and  The Inquirer. Also during his career he worked as a reporter and  assigning editor at the Arkansas Gazette in Little Rock, as a copy  editor at The New York Times, and as the senior editor in charge of  news and copy desks at Newsday on Long Island.

He was president of the Associated Press Managing Editors in 1990 and  was a board member of the American Society of Newspaper Editors from  1995 to 1998. He has been a presenter at the American Press Institute  and the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, and was a Pulitzer Prize  juror three times. In 1998 he received a career achievement award from  the Philadelphia chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists.

Transcript

Interviewer: Would you say those things were typical of the time, or was the publisher kind of pushing his own political agenda?

Foreman: Well, I think that Mr. Annenberg went beyond what is normally done. But yes, I do think that it was a different time, and editors like Harry Ashmore and others had behind-the-scenes involvement in stories that their staffs were covering. We know today that’s not a good thing. It’s difficult for me to say, to judge – I don’t want to judge people of another era – but that was what was accepted at the time. I think that to an extent it really corrupted the news coverage, certainly the Annenberg regime at The Inquirer was not good. Knight Newspapers, the predecessor of Knight-Ridder, bought the paper January 1, 1970. Gene Roberts was its second [Knight] editor. He came in October 1972, and I joined the paper in February 1973. We were dealing with the residue of that era, so definitely we needed to try to change the course.

We did have our own problem in 1976 and 1977 when a reporter – her last name is the same as mine, but we’re not related – Laura Foreman, was found to have been involved in a romantic relationship with Buddy Cianfrani, who was a Pennsylvania state senator from Philadelphia. He was one of the leading political forces in the state, and she was covering politics. Clearly it was a conflict of interest, which she had denied to Gene Roberts. When the FBI investigated Cianfrani, who was eventually sent to prison on corruption charges, they found evidence of multiple gifts to Laura, which kind of proved the relationship. So that led Gene Roberts to say we need to write a conflict-of-interest code of ethics so that everybody understands what we stand for. We now not only are trying to live down the reputation of the Annenberg Inquirer – a lot of people are not aware there’s been a change – but we’ve got our own problem that we need to try to overcome.

That was a period in which I think that, certainly at The Inquirer, but [also] in the newsrooms generally across the country, things were starting to change. Nowhere was this more marked than in the acceptance of gifts from people that you covered, whether it be politicians or businesses. I remember when I first started working at the Arkansas Gazette and the electric company, Arkansas Power and Light, would give everybody in the newsroom a gift. You could look around and see that the guy who covered the State Public Service Commission would get a big electric oven. Other people would get a toaster or something. So there was a pecking order. I asked people, “What about this?” And they would say, “Oh, it’s just part of the business. We don’t get paid very much, and so free admissions and gifts are just part of the trade.” And the racetrack, Oaklawn at Hot Springs, would throw a big party every year for the press, which was kind of the big social event of the year. Nobody thought a lot about that.

Interviewer: So here’s a thoughtful question: What’s the problem, ethically?

Foreman: What was the problem? Well, if you cover these people and you’re taking gifts from them, it would appear to the public – if they became aware of the gifts, which you had to assume they were – that we had a debt to them, and that [debt would] likely be paid in the way we covered the news. It’s called an appearance of conflict of interest. … What the older reporters would tell me, they would say, “Look, I’m not going to be bought out for a toaster, but I’m going to take the toaster and I’ll cover them just the way I would anyway. I know that I’m honest.” But what we realized as we started to think about it, [was that it gave the wrong impression] and I think that was the key. You really started thinking about it. I think our generation that became editors, say in the 1970’s, [did that]. We had the Hutchins Commission’s recommendations on the social responsibility of the press, issued in 1947. I think [Hutchins] had some effect even though, at least on the surface, the editors rejected that. But I think it did make an impression. As we went along, the older people – the people who told me … it’s okay to take a toaster – retired and moved on, and were replaced by younger journalists. I think that things changed by evolution. But it really did have a marked change; the evolution sped up in the 1970’s.

Interviewer: At what point did you see reporters starting to come in, young reporters just out of school who now had ethics training as students?

Foreman: I don’t know that I know which ones did and which ones didn’t, but I think that the education level was continuing to rise. When I went into business, fifty percent of the reporters did not have college degrees, and now any survey in daily newspapers shows that well over ninety percent – and probably anybody coming in the last twenty years – has got a college degree. So I think the education level has risen, and a lot of them probably did have some ethics training. But I’m not sure that I could say which ones did and which ones didn’t.

I feel good about the people we have at the paper, and I think that irrespective of their educational background, I would say they almost innately understood the importance of ethics. I say “innately”; I think that we were innate too, but we benefited from what we learned in the last fifty years. We learned as we went along. If we made a mistake, I think that … the dialogue there in the newsroom, was: “Let’s figure out why, if we had it to do over again, or if a similar situation presents itself in the future, what could we do to have a better outcome?” I think that sort of post-mortem is very helpful and useful. We would do that whether it happened to us or whether it happened to another newspaper. Remember the Janet Cooke story about Jimmy, the eight-year old heroin addict? That was what I call “an unnamed principal,” or subject of a story. It went even beyond an unnamed source, [and] we knew even then that the public did not like anonymous sources. We think that sometimes we’ve got to give information anonymous sources can only provide, but the misuse of anonymous sources, or abuse, or excessive use of it, is the problem.

Interviewer: Journalism's ethical standards are higher than ever, yet polls suggest that public confidence in journalism is lower than ever. Do you think people bash the news media because it's fashionable or sophisticated to do so, but that deep-down people continue to rely on the news media to tell them what's going on in the world?

Foreman: Yes, I have a chapter on this in the book. In fact, the name for it is the “love-and-hate” chapter. They love what we give. Deep down I think they do accept the news that we give them, by and large – even though they may tell a surveyor, “I don’t believe anything that the newspaper says.” But they read it every day. And they certainly blog about or talk on the radio about the lying newspapers, but this is where they get their information.

I can’t really explain why there is this antipathy toward journalists. The Gallup Poll, which writes about the perception of ethics in the different professions, puts us about middle way – ahead of, say, used-car salesmen and congressmen, but well behind nurses and teachers. In my view, we ought to be near the top, because we have very good standards, which the public doesn’t seem to know much about. I think we could do a better job of telling them what our standards are.  Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court justice, can go hunting with somebody who’s then going to have a case before the United States Supreme Court, and he sees nothing wrong with it. But we know if our reporter went hunting with somebody who he’s going to write a story about, and it’s very crucial that it be impartial and everything – that’s wrong. We have higher standards of conflict of interest than most judges do, and they have the ability to make rulings that have the teeth of the law. All we do is try to tell the public what’s going on.

I can’t really explain this, but I think they perceive that we’re arrogant, and sometimes we give them ammunition for that. What … we should do in journalism is to always try to do the right thing – never deliberately make a decision that would justify this kind of criticism. But also recognize that we’re not going to be popular. That we ought to be true to our code, true to being accurate and fair, and recognize our responsibility to respect the audience and respond to their questions. But also recognize that sometimes we have to tell them that we were right, and here’s why we made the decision we did. So … if the public points out that we’re wrong, correct and reform. But if we were right and our rechecking of the story’s facts shows that we had it right the first time, then we say, “This is the way we did it,” and explain our decision. That’s what we talk about, being accountable. What you and I teach in the classroom is to respect the audience and tell the audience either what we got wrong and here’s what’s right, or we think we had it right and here’s why we did it that way.

Interviewer: When you look at the current news media landscape, what are some of your biggest ethical concerns?

Foreman: [Discusses decisions stemming from shrinking revenue for news organizations and the unsolved problems of web journalism.]

The Daily News Summary is sponsored by a bank and has the bank’s ad on it, and the whole thing is outlined in the trademark color of the bank. It’s more problematic if a business column on the front of the business section is sponsored by a bank. Several television and radio stations sold naming rights in our newsrooms. A television station in Nevada has product placement on the news and features interview sessions where they have McDonald’s coffee cups in front of the anchors and interviewers. There have been television programs that have appeared to be like “Today” or “Good Morning America.” They’re done locally, but the difference is that some of the people are paying them to be interviewed on their program and talk about their products without, in my view, proper notification of the audience. It ought to be crystal clear what’s an ad and what’s a news story, or what’s entertainment. In the area of advertising, which flows from necessity to try to make ends meet, has led to what I think are some questionable decisions. This is not so much the newsroom as it is the news organization altogether.

[The Internet offers great opportunity to journalism, and also presents a set of new problems, including unmonitored reader comments and a tendency to skip the editing process.] You could have video as television does, and certainly audio the way the radio does. All of this is interactive, and it’s on demand. They have everything [that newspapers have] except the portability, and I guess … we’re coming to that with hand-held devices. Whether that gives you the satisfaction of reading the newspaper sitting in an easy chair [when you] read something on a hand-held device, to me that doesn’t seem to be right. But maybe to a younger generation that was brought up on electronics, that’s fine. I think that we’re trending in that direction. [There are] a lot of very good thinkers out there – and I think of people like Kinsey Wilson, who just left USA Today and is running the website at NPR, a very thoughtful person. And there are others: Ken Sands now at Congressional Quarterly, and Fred Mann, whom I worked with at The Inquirer and ran our website for its first ten years.

I really enjoy, and always have all my life, enjoyed very thoughtful letters to the editor. … They’re going to be tightly edited, but everybody will have a thoughtful position, whether it’s something I agree with or not. I welcome that diversity of opinion. What I see [on the Internet], I just cannot adapt to vulgar and mean-spirited postings.

I think that they’ve got to solve the problems like the ones I just mentioned, and I don’t see them being solved now. Standards are being set without a lot of thought being given that we are creating a template for the future of journalism, which are going to continue ad infinitum.

But we’re trying to teach [our students] how to make good decisions. While you’re informed by what the prevailing standards are in the profession, you’re not bound to them. And if you can come up with better solutions, then I want you to do that. Particularly you have to solve the problems of the Internet that I don’t think are [being] solved today.

Interview Segments on Topic: Conflict of Interest/Credibility

Gene Foreman Biography

Gene Foreman joined the Penn State faculty in 1998 after  retiring from The Philadelphia Inquirer, where he managed newsroom  operations for more than 25 years under various titles—managing  editor, executive editor and deputy editor. He also was a vice  president of the company.At Penn State, he was the Larry and Ellen Foster Professor from 1999  until his retirement from full-time teaching in December 2006. He  taught courses in news editing, news media ethics and newspaper  management. In 2003, Foreman received two awards for excellence in  teaching in the College of Communications—the Deans' Award and the  Alumni Society Award.
His textbook, "The Ethical Journalist: Making Responsible Decisions in  the Pursuit of News," was published in fall 2009 by Wiley-Blackwell.

Foreman spent 41 years in newspaper journalism—not counting eight  summer jobs in high school and college, or his carrier route before  that. He was the managing editor of three different newspapers: the  Pine Bluff (Ark.) Commercial, the Arkansas Democrat in Little Rock and  The Inquirer. Also during his career he worked as a reporter and  assigning editor at the Arkansas Gazette in Little Rock, as a copy  editor at The New York Times, and as the senior editor in charge of  news and copy desks at Newsday on Long Island.

He was president of the Associated Press Managing Editors in 1990 and  was a board member of the American Society of Newspaper Editors from  1995 to 1998. He has been a presenter at the American Press Institute  and the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, and was a Pulitzer Prize  juror three times. In 1998 he received a career achievement award from  the Philadelphia chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists.

Transcript

Interviewer: Are there any practices that were business as usual that people would be, if not appalled by or at least disturbed by it if anybody did those things today?

Foreman: Yes, there were a number of things. First off, you remember it was of course acceptance of gifts from people you covered regularly. I always wondered about this and I asked my elders and they said that’s part of the business. We don’t get paid very much so free tickets and a toaster from the power company at Christmas is acceptable because they’re not really influences. Of course, we learned later when we tried to [inaudible] in the late 1970’s that the only way you can really make it clear to the public that we are not going to be influenced is to say we don’t take gifts. That is now a given. Things in terms of practice, I remember one time we were doing a story about farmers having a huge blackbird problem in Arkansas, which they probably still do today. They were trying all manner of things to try to get rid of the blackbirds; shooting shotguns at them and everything. So the poor photographer had to go out there and try somehow to swindle a flock of blackbirds and no matter how hard the photographer tried, he could not get enough blackbirds to really make an impressive picture. So he saw that, in the darkroom, by printing the same negatives on the one positive, it was impressive, so he printed that and I don’t think any of the editors who handled the picture knew that it was a triple exposure. But even with very crude printing those days, with the letter presses, the Audubon Society got out their magnifying glasses and they [inaudible] and said how come these birds have four wings and things like that. Nobody really thought to [inaudible]. They caught the photographer, but nobody really would do today. They’d say that’s totally unacceptable, manipulating a photograph like that. In a news photograph it’s not done. I think that people coming out of our journalism ethics courses at Penn State would know going in that this is not an acceptable practice.

Interviewer: I gather that photographer was not fired?

Foreman: No he was not.

Interviewer: Not reprimanded?

Foreman: No not even that. It was just that they caught him and so not a whole lot of thought was given to that. The Arkansas Gazette, where I worked, was one of the best papers of its size in the country and I learned a lot of really good things there. So I’m not pointing fingers at that paper, but that was simply the way things were at that time.

Interviewer: So apart from maybe easing out people that weren’t quite up to snuff and bringing in your own people, were there other things that you did to change the culture of the newsroom—ethics, practices?

Foreman: Yes, I think that some of that indirectly over a period of time, but in the late 1970’s, I think 1977, we had a case involving one of our own reporters that we had brought in named Laura Foreman—same last name as mine and we’re not related. Laura was covering state politics and it was rumored that she had a romance with Buddy Cianfrani, who was a south Philadelphia state senator. He was one of the most powerful people in Pennsylvania politics at the time—clearly a conflict of interest. Roberts asked her about it and she denied it. When she didn’t come back and say well I didn’t but I do now, he took that as a continuing denial and even though other reporters were complaining to Gene about that, he took her at her denial and we found out later after she had left the paper and gone to New York—the FBI’s investigation of Cianfrani, an investigation that ultimately lead to him being sent to prison, that a part of that investigation showed that he had given Laura a lot of gifts. At that time she was covering him, so clearly there was a relationship and even accepting the gifts would have been a conflict that we couldn’t have accepted. So we ran a story about that.

About that time, as a result of that, Gene Roberts said that we need to have a comprehensive conflict of interest, code of ethics. So Jim Naughton helped me some on it. I was the chair of a committee and we had reporters, editors and photographers and Jim pretty much became the scribe for the group. Jim and I called a bunch of papers trying to find if there was such a comprehensive code out there. We obviously didn’t want to reinvent the wheel. We found only two papers that had something like that. They were the Milwaukee Journal and the Louisville Courier Journal. Other papers, including the Times, including our own paper, including the Wall Street Journal, had very thorough statements of policy on certain aspects of conflicts, but nothing across the board. So we devised our own. I think that we were, and this is [inaudible] in my textbook, that within a matter of four or five years, many, many, newspapers and television and radio stations had adopted conflict of interest codes and I’d see that as quite a welcome change in journalism ethics. As a coincidence, we were in early on that changeover.

Interviewer: So there’s this famous quote from My Fair Lady where Professor Henry Higgins appears to be buying Eliza Doolittle from her dad, or that’s what her father thinks, Alfred Doolittle. So Higgins is appalled that he thinks that the dad thinks that he’s trying to buy his daughter. He said where are your morals, man? And he said I can’t afford them, governor. So I wonder whether, given the financial troubles in the journalism business right now, is ethics becoming something that we can’t afford and perhaps explains a scandal like the Staples Center scandal, or did ethics become more important than ever in a period of financial difficulty.

Foreman: A lot of papers say we’re too small to pay our own way if we’re going to have travel stories. So we simply disclose that this story about a vacation in the Bahamas was written by a reporter who had free airline tickets and free lodging and meals and entertainment is sufficient. I argue that if you can’t afford it, then just don’t do it. Maybe [inaudible] or another wire service has travel stories. It’s not done by your own people. If you feel you need to do travel stories and you can’t afford to do them right, then go get them from somebody who does it right. So I think disclosure of the conflict doesn’t resolve the problem when the conflict is avoidable. I mentioned a number of cases in the chapter in the book about the cost of producing journalism, how expensive it is and how the news organization, whether it’s a television station, a newspaper or radio station, or a website has to make a profit and that creates conflict for an organization. The business side is to try to keep the advertising function and business function away from the news coverage, which I think is a principle that the public pretty well understands. Some of the nuances of our business I think they misunderstand, but I think that advertiser should not influence the news they understand. Editorials should be on the editorial page and not in the news column so you understand. So I think that what I pointed out is a number of cases where I think that they have either gone over the line or very close. An example of that is when the Inquirer publisher asked the governor to set up a meeting with a state retirement fund to see whether they would lend the money to the newspaper. They had the meeting; they didn’t get the money it turns out. It was not the kind of investment that the agency would make. But some readers had trouble with the publisher’s decision to ask for the meeting. The publisher said you mean of all the businesses in the state of Pennsylvania only newspapers are prevented from doing this? And the answer was yes; maybe a radio or television station too. Anybody who is trying to cover an agency can’t afford to take money from the agency. Unfortunately in some areas that does put the news organization at a disadvantage with other businesses in town. In my opinion, so be it. That’s the nature of our business.

Interview Segments on Topic: Conflict of Interest/Credibility

Gene Foreman Biography

Gene Foreman joined the Penn State faculty in 1998 after  retiring from The Philadelphia Inquirer, where he managed newsroom  operations for more than 25 years under various titles—managing  editor, executive editor and deputy editor. He also was a vice  president of the company.At Penn State, he was the Larry and Ellen Foster Professor from 1999  until his retirement from full-time teaching in December 2006. He  taught courses in news editing, news media ethics and newspaper  management. In 2003, Foreman received two awards for excellence in  teaching in the College of Communications—the Deans' Award and the  Alumni Society Award.
His textbook, "The Ethical Journalist: Making Responsible Decisions in  the Pursuit of News," was published in fall 2009 by Wiley-Blackwell.

Foreman spent 41 years in newspaper journalism—not counting eight  summer jobs in high school and college, or his carrier route before  that. He was the managing editor of three different newspapers: the  Pine Bluff (Ark.) Commercial, the Arkansas Democrat in Little Rock and  The Inquirer. Also during his career he worked as a reporter and  assigning editor at the Arkansas Gazette in Little Rock, as a copy  editor at The New York Times, and as the senior editor in charge of  news and copy desks at Newsday on Long Island.

He was president of the Associated Press Managing Editors in 1990 and  was a board member of the American Society of Newspaper Editors from  1995 to 1998. He has been a presenter at the American Press Institute  and the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, and was a Pulitzer Prize  juror three times. In 1998 he received a career achievement award from  the Philadelphia chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists.

Transcript

Interviewer: Are there any practices that were business as usual that people would be, if not appalled by or at least disturbed by it if anybody did those things today?

Foreman: Yes, there were a number of things. First off, you remember it was of course acceptance of gifts from people you covered regularly. I always wondered about this and I asked my elders and they said that’s part of the business. We don’t get paid very much so free tickets and a toaster from the power company at Christmas is acceptable because they’re not really influences. Of course, we learned later when we tried to [inaudible] in the late 1970’s that the only way you can really make it clear to the public that we are not going to be influenced is to say we don’t take gifts. That is now a given. Things in terms of practice, I remember one time we were doing a story about farmers having a huge blackbird problem in Arkansas, which they probably still do today. They were trying all manner of things to try to get rid of the blackbirds; shooting shotguns at them and everything. So the poor photographer had to go out there and try somehow to swindle a flock of blackbirds and no matter how hard the photographer tried, he could not get enough blackbirds to really make an impressive picture. So he saw that, in the darkroom, by printing the same negatives on the one positive, it was impressive, so he printed that and I don’t think any of the editors who handled the picture knew that it was a triple exposure. But even with very crude printing those days, with the letter presses, the Audubon Society got out their magnifying glasses and they [inaudible] and said how come these birds have four wings and things like that. Nobody really thought to [inaudible]. They caught the photographer, but nobody really would do today. They’d say that’s totally unacceptable, manipulating a photograph like that. In a news photograph it’s not done. I think that people coming out of our journalism ethics courses at Penn State would know going in that this is not an acceptable practice.

Interviewer: I gather that photographer was not fired?

Foreman: No he was not.

Interviewer: Not reprimanded?

Foreman: No not even that. It was just that they caught him and so not a whole lot of thought was given to that. The Arkansas Gazette, where I worked, was one of the best papers of its size in the country and I learned a lot of really good things there. So I’m not pointing fingers at that paper, but that was simply the way things were at that time.

Interviewer: So apart from maybe easing out people that weren’t quite up to snuff and bringing in your own people, were there other things that you did to change the culture of the newsroom—ethics, practices?

Foreman: Yes, I think that some of that indirectly over a period of time, but in the late 1970’s, I think 1977, we had a case involving one of our own reporters that we had brought in named Laura Foreman—same last name as mine and we’re not related. Laura was covering state politics and it was rumored that she had a romance with Buddy Cianfrani, who was a south Philadelphia state senator. He was one of the most powerful people in Pennsylvania politics at the time—clearly a conflict of interest. Roberts asked her about it and she denied it. When she didn’t come back and say well I didn’t but I do now, he took that as a continuing denial and even though other reporters were complaining to Gene about that, he took her at her denial and we found out later after she had left the paper and gone to New York—the FBI’s investigation of Cianfrani, an investigation that ultimately lead to him being sent to prison, that a part of that investigation showed that he had given Laura a lot of gifts. At that time she was covering him, so clearly there was a relationship and even accepting the gifts would have been a conflict that we couldn’t have accepted. So we ran a story about that.

About that time, as a result of that, Gene Roberts said that we need to have a comprehensive conflict of interest, code of ethics. So Jim Naughton helped me some on it. I was the chair of a committee and we had reporters, editors and photographers and Jim pretty much became the scribe for the group. Jim and I called a bunch of papers trying to find if there was such a comprehensive code out there. We obviously didn’t want to reinvent the wheel. We found only two papers that had something like that. They were the Milwaukee Journal and the Louisville Courier Journal. Other papers, including the Times, including our own paper, including the Wall Street Journal, had very thorough statements of policy on certain aspects of conflicts, but nothing across the board. So we devised our own. I think that we were, and this is [inaudible] in my textbook, that within a matter of four or five years, many, many, newspapers and television and radio stations had adopted conflict of interest codes and I’d see that as quite a welcome change in journalism ethics. As a coincidence, we were in early on that changeover.

Interviewer: So there’s this famous quote from My Fair Lady where Professor Henry Higgins appears to be buying Eliza Doolittle from her dad, or that’s what her father thinks, Alfred Doolittle. So Higgins is appalled that he thinks that the dad thinks that he’s trying to buy his daughter. He said where are your morals, man? And he said I can’t afford them, governor. So I wonder whether, given the financial troubles in the journalism business right now, is ethics becoming something that we can’t afford and perhaps explains a scandal like the Staples Center scandal, or did ethics become more important than ever in a period of financial difficulty.

Foreman: A lot of papers say we’re too small to pay our own way if we’re going to have travel stories. So we simply disclose that this story about a vacation in the Bahamas was written by a reporter who had free airline tickets and free lodging and meals and entertainment is sufficient. I argue that if you can’t afford it, then just don’t do it. Maybe [inaudible] or another wire service has travel stories. It’s not done by your own people. If you feel you need to do travel stories and you can’t afford to do them right, then go get them from somebody who does it right. So I think disclosure of the conflict doesn’t resolve the problem when the conflict is avoidable. I mentioned a number of cases in the chapter in the book about the cost of producing journalism, how expensive it is and how the news organization, whether it’s a television station, a newspaper or radio station, or a website has to make a profit and that creates conflict for an organization. The business side is to try to keep the advertising function and business function away from the news coverage, which I think is a principle that the public pretty well understands. Some of the nuances of our business I think they misunderstand, but I think that advertiser should not influence the news they understand. Editorials should be on the editorial page and not in the news column so you understand. So I think that what I pointed out is a number of cases where I think that they have either gone over the line or very close. An example of that is when the Inquirer publisher asked the governor to set up a meeting with a state retirement fund to see whether they would lend the money to the newspaper. They had the meeting; they didn’t get the money it turns out. It was not the kind of investment that the agency would make. But some readers had trouble with the publisher’s decision to ask for the meeting. The publisher said you mean of all the businesses in the state of Pennsylvania only newspapers are prevented from doing this? And the answer was yes; maybe a radio or television station too. Anybody who is trying to cover an agency can’t afford to take money from the agency. Unfortunately in some areas that does put the news organization at a disadvantage with other businesses in town. In my opinion, so be it. That’s the nature of our business.