Responsible journalism is in the eye of the beholder. On the national stage, candidates John McCain and Sarah Palin have complained about unfair questions and "gotcha journalism," while the media community defend the interviews as asking the tough questions. At the local level, we joined the ranks of media outlets across the country to find ourselves under attack.

Recently, reporter Joanne Faryon investigated San Diego's low ranking among cities that distribute food stamps. She found that only one in three people who are eligible actually apply. And that means the county is losing more than $140 million in free food.

This is a big story. These are days of shrinking wealth. Every income bracket is being squeezed with housing, food, transportation, clothing and education expenses.

To learn more, Joanne talked to Donna Hand, Deputy Director for Health and Human Services in the North Region. As it turned out, Ms. Hand did poorly in the interview. She misquoted information and at times got information entirely incorrect. The most egregious mistake came when Ms. Hand was asked whether the county received funding to administer the program. Ms. Hand said no. Joanne repeatedly tried to clarify. Again, the answer was no.

However, San Diego County does, indeed, receive $28 million to administer the food stamp program. (Whether those funds are enough, or whether they are being used effectively is the subject for another report.)

Here's the issue: How much responsibility does a reporter take for how an interview subject performs? And how much knowledge are officials expected to have at their fingertips? Is it responsible for KPBS to include Ms. Hand's interview as part of the story?

We decided yes. Ms. Hand is a senior executive who should know how her programs are administered. Her strategic decisions play an important role in determining how needy families receive food stamp benefits. And it is not like we're playing "gotcha" journalism, because we had told Ms. Hand what we wanted to talk about in advance of the interview.

The public relations staff for the county claimed that we're being irresponsible. They say it's unrealistic for an upper level manager to know fiscal details of the food stamp program. Additionally, a county spokesperson says that they will no longer cooperate with KPBS on the story.

Here's the finished report, and here's the unedited raw footage. What do you think?

- John Decker is KPBS Radio's Director of News and Programming.

This summer will mark my 20th anniversary as a reporter. It would seem that after two decades of doing the same thing, you wouldn’t constantly be second-guessing yourself. But my most recent assignment was among the most troubling for me in a long time. I was working on a story about Alzheimer’s disease. I didn’t know a lot about it. I thought it affected very old people, made them forgetful, end of story. And then I met Carl Hopkins.

Carl Hopkins is 74 years old. He’s had Alzheimer’s for about four years. When I met him at his house, he seemed like any other retired senior. He likes to drink a lot of coffee and putter around his well-equipped garage. At the beginning of the interview, he was articulate and upbeat. And then, I noticed traces of the disease. Something his wife, Sue Holloway, had pointed out earlier. Carl repeats himself. I know we all do, but this was different. He said the same phrase several times. This, I learned, is a common symptom of the disease.

When I began reviewing my tapes to decide what segments of the 45-minute interview I would leave in the story and what I would cut, I was faced with this dilemma: how do I show the viewer how this disease is affecting Carl in everyday life without subjecting Carl to embarrassment? I could have cut the tape so you saw a few of Carl’s articulate answers. You might think, gee, this guy is fine.  I knew from meeting Carl’s wife, that wouldn’t be fair. Sue, like so many caretakers, is watching her husband slowly fade away. He is no longer the guy who used to barbeque for friends every weekend because he’s now uncomfortable in social situations. It’s difficult for him to follow conversations. He can’t garden anymore because he fertilizes and waters everyday, forgetting he did it the day before. He still has a driver’s license but Sue won’t let him on the road by himself; last spring, he went missing for six hours. He used to be able fix things. He can’t do that anymore. He even forgets what he can no longer do.

Whether you love him or hate him, San Diego City Attorney Mike Aguirre is good at grabbing headlines by grabbing issues of public concern.

This week, he issued a report entitled, "KPBS Abrogated its Duty to Maintain Objectivity and Balance in its Local Public Affairs Programming by Cancelling the Full Focus Program (PDF)." I want to be among the first to thank him.

Oh, I don't think he makes a very good case against the station. Even his bold display of KPBS' internal emails fails to substantiate anything approaching an abrogation of balance and objectivity. In fact, I'm afraid Mr. Aguirre may have embarrassed himself and his office for pressing what appears to be a personal vendetta against an editor for the Union-Tribune who frequents our air.

For readers who don't have the time to digest Mr. Aguirre's report, you should know he establishes several facts: that KPBS operates as a public service with funding from various sources, that KPBS is obliged to an ethical code defined by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and (among others) the Public Broadcasting Service, and that KPBS cancelled its daily television public affairs program in August. 

Where Mr. Aguirre departs from the facts is in his assertion that the cancellation amounts to a violation of ethics. Taking Full Focus off the air was certainly a loss for our community -- because he's right when he says it was one of the few sources of balanced, in-depth civic discourse on San Diego television. But it was removed for failing to draw viewers, which amounts to a responsible programming decision, not a dereliction of duty.

But what is even further afield in his report, departing from its very premise, is his concern with a Friday morning radio program, Editors Roundtable.

By switching the topic to KPBS Radio (89.5 FM), Mr. Aguirre completely ignores the significant investment KPBS has made there in its local news, public affairs and news analysis. Editors Roundtable is but one hour among the more than 15 hours a week that we produce to help our region better know itself.

And if the bottom line in his report is to suggest that U-T editorial page editor Bob Kittle is some kind of controlling force in KPBS programming, that's just plain silly. Mr. Kittle certainly informs the producers about what topics he can speak about (the two times per month he appears). And if Mr. Aguirre is upset that Cox Channel Four only seems to cablecast those episodes featuring Kittle (and Tim McClain and John Warren), well then he should take that up with Cox. But Mr. Kittle appears as a guest of KPBS and does so with all due respect for being invited.

But back to my premise. I want to thank Mr. Aguirre for his time and attention to the matter. It's a legitimate concern that San Diego be covered with depth and objectivity. And it's a righteous position to take -- insisting that a single newspaper editor not dominate the civic agenda of a community. And, frankly, until this, how much time has the average San Diegan spent pondering the ethics and standards of its local media?

Mr. Mike Aguirre deserves our thanks for caring about San Diego... and about the editorial health of KPBS.

Sincerely: Thank you, sir.

We'd have a better city if more people cared as much as you.

-- Michael Marcotte is the news director for KPBS. Please read our guidelines before posting comments.

See also: Michael Aguirre spoke on These Days about this issue (he appears 28min into the program).

As luck -- or life -- would have it, I was not at the press conference where Mayor Jerry Sanders cried as he revealed he had changed his mind, that he would not veto the council's support of gay marriage after all. But when I heard the tape, as he struggled to speak without breaking down, I felt the power of his emotion.

So it was a surprise to me when I heard a listener commenting that, though she was glad the mayor made that decision, she wondered why he was crying; surely having a gay daughter isn't THAT bad! And then someone else asked me what Sanders' tears were about, and whether they might partly be for all the support he knew he was losing among his conservative base, by taking that stand.

I have watched the mayor since he first announced his candidacy and I am compelled to say I feel his tears were not about what he was losing, but about what he had found.

It was a letting-go of the official mantle of conservative views he has had to adopt to represent those who put him in office (and who will keep him there, assuming he toes the line).

Businessman Steve Francis is breathing down his neck as the campaign season begins and Sanders is holding him at bay. The mayor is working to appease business interests who want to see managed competition happen faster, and hold the line for voters who balk at the mere mention of rate increases, even as the city's infrastructure continues to crumble.

But this week's decision on gay rights was an opening of the heart that was so strong, Sanders went against his better political judgment and revealed his true feelings, making himself vulnerable to unknown political consequences.

Anyone who has struggled with their conscience and then found they had to let go of the fear to find the love, knows what this feels like. So in this case, I, for one, choose not to be the skeptical journalist, but to take what I heard in Sanders' voice at face value, applaud his courage, and leave the sniping for another day.

-- Reporter Alison St John has covered city hall since 2003. Please read our guidelines before posting comments.

That's not true.

I actually don't mind blogging or just writing, in general. In fact, I can write about a lot of things. I can write about food every day and why I think fried chicken works just as effectively as Zoloft. Or I can write about why I think dogs are great but cats are so-so. I can write about Venus and Mars. And why Venus is better than Mars.

What I can't write about -- after being a paid writer for the last seven years -- is journalism.

And, wouldn't you know it, it's a part of my job as a Jacobs Fellow here at KPBS. I am the co-host of Off Mic.

And I am struggling with it.

Why? It's because, to me, it goes against the grain of being a journalist.

We are trained not to say "I" in public. As in... "I don't believe you for one second, Mr. Politician, despite my avidly writing down what you are saying."

We are trained not to express an opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I say "I" a lot. But not when it comes to my work. And not when it's posted in public.

Not to mention that it's hard to write about my fellow reporters. I just started here. I just moved to town. I'm still looking for friends, for Pete's sake. I don't want to be the Lando of my newsroom. The Judas. The Freddo.

There are media watchers out there, like the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz, who do a great job. But it's a skill. It's one that I don't think I possess and definitely not while I am still a reporter.

How can I tell you about how frustrated I am that -- and, really, this is hypothetical -- a county supervisor doesn't call me back and then still try to interview that person the next day?

It's a balancing act between giving you a sneak peek as to what goes on in a newsroom and still trying to maintain a good relationship with your sources and co-workers.

So, what's a frustrated journalist to do?

I'll start with being honest with you.

And I'll try to write more. Promise.

-- Nicole Lozare is a reporter for KPBS News and co-host of Off Mic. Please read our guidelines before posting comments.

Update: Doug Myrland elaborates on the decision in the Current Conversation.

The KPBS general manager has struck down a long-standing ethics rule that forbids journalists from giving money to politicians. GM Doug Myrland cites freedom-of-speech concerns.

"The policy is an invasion of privacy," Myrland wrote in an e-mail to KPBS managers. "Please strike it out, and send an email to all of our news staff informing them that while we expect them to disclose any conflict of interest, their employer does not forbid them making personal contributions."

Myrland says he made the change after reading excerpts of the ethics code on Off Mic.

KPBS News Director Michael Marcotte does not support the change. "Trust is hard earned here every day," he says. "A breach of that trust could instantly negate all that we've stood for."

The dispute is over private rights versus professional responsibility. Myrland says the former policy, similar to that of NPR's, exposes the organization to law suits. Myrland quoted ethicist Randy Cohen, as reported by MSNBC:

"We admire those colleagues who participate in their communities -- help out at the local school, work with Little League, donate to charity," Cohen said in an e-mail. "But no such activity is or can be non-ideological. Few papers would object to a journalist donating to the Boy Scouts or joining the Catholic Church. But the former has an official policy of discriminating against gay children; the latter has views on reproductive rights far more restrictive than those of most Americans. Should reporters be forbidden to support those groups? I'd say not."

Marcotte says KPBS expects journalists "to exercise their private free speech rights in a manner that does not call into question our mutual ethical principles."

The change is effective immediately.

-- Andrew Phelps is a reporter for KPBS News and co-host of Off Mic. Please read our guidelines before posting comments.

Union-Tribune Editor Karin Winner

I asked Karin Winner, the editor of the Union-Tribune, to explain the newspaper's rules on journalists and politics. (See earlier.) Five U-T journalists are named in MSNBC.com's list.

Karin e-mailed me back tonight: "We do have a policy, albeit a loose one when it comes to journalists giving money to political campaigns," she writes. There are only guidelines. Essentially, she says, news staff "should" disclose a conflict of interest, perceived or real. But nothing says, "Don't give money to politicians."

Karin writes:

I was away last week when the story broke, but do plan to review this policy with the senior leadership of the news department and our publisher and in all probability will make some adjustments so the guidelines in this regard are more specific.

Do you think journalists should be forbidden from contributing to political campaigns? Join the Current Conversation.

-- Andrew Phelps is a reporter for KPBS News and co-host of Off Mic. Please read our guidelines before posting comments.

Fired: Calvert Collins.

(Leavenworth Street)

Update: KPBS has reversed the ethics policy described below.

MSNBC.com reports at least three journalists have lost their jobs since their political campaign contributions were revealed -- including Calvert Collins, the Omaha TV reporter who gave $500 to a candidate and then posed with him in a photo on Facebook.

Bill Dedman, the investigative reporter who broke the story, will be on These Days tomorrow. It's also the topic of Current Conversation at the moment.

I have never given money to any politician. I vote, but I'm registered as "No Party." My roommate teases me about how politically inactive I am -- even though I'm a relatively young man with deep political convictions. But you'll never see me at a protest, or on a petition. It just doesn't feel right.

I wasn't aware of the KPBS policy on journalists and politics, so I checked out our code of ethics:

KPBS journalists may not run for office, endorse candidates or otherwise engage in politics. Since contributions to candidates are part of the public record, KPBS journalists may not contribute to political campaigns, as doing so would call into question a journalist's impartiality in coverage.

[...]

KPBS journalists may not participate in marches and rallies involving causes or issues that KPBS covers, nor should they sign petitions or otherwise lend their name to such causes, or contribute money to them.

A quick check of the campaign finance search tool at NYTimes.com doesn't turn up any donors from KPBS (or our parent organization, San Diego State University Research Foundation).

Elsewhere, five people from The San Diego Union-Tribune are on the list. I called Bob Kittle, the newspaper's editorial page editor. He forwarded me to Karin Winner, the editor in chief. I haven't heard back from her yet. Read her response.

-- Andrew Phelps is a reporter for KPBS News and co-host of Off Mic. Please read our guidelines before posting comments.