Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

As a former journalist – yes, a long time ago – a column in the Wall Street Journal resonated with me the other day.

It raised a question about what could be called “journalism ethics.”

• What legitimately can reporters do “to get the story?”
• If the story is important enough, do “the ends justify the means?”

This came up the other day when a reporter who acted out the job by billing herself as something she wasn’t – a genuine journalist – taped two Supreme Court Justices without their knowledge at a social event.

The justices – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, and Alito’s wife – came across differently.  No surprise there.

Then, many news outlets treated the issue produced by the fake journalist as a real story.  They covered it as if was “real news.”

So, on the Public Broadcasting Service “NewsHour,” reporter Geoff Bennett was joined by columnists David Brooks and E.J. Dionne to discuss the issue.

Here, reported by the Wall Street Journal, is a summary of how the discussion went:

“Bennett: Speaking of Justice Alito, . . . he was in the news again this week after a liberal activist secretly recorded him.  David, what do you make of this?

“Brooks:  Yes, well, listen, I’m a journalist.  We’re journalists.  There are certain things we do.  When we interview somebody, we make it clear that I work for the New York Times, the “NewsHour,” the Washington Post.

“We make it clear who we are.  We don’t lie.  We don’t misrepresent ourselves.  We don’t hide a tape recorder somewhere, and we don’t lead people on with a bunch of ideological rants.  

“And this person did all that.  It’s a complete breach of any form of journalistic ethics.  And I was, frankly, stunned that all of us in our business just reported on it, just like straight up. And to me, this information is so doctored by her attitudes, the way she’s leading on Alito and his wife.

“It’s just — it’s unfair to them, frankly, to treat this as some major news story.  We should be treating it as a prankster.  And there’s a right-wing version of this called Project Veritas, where they lie too — as some prankster who’s creating distorted information.”

“Dionne:  Well, you know, am I a big fan of surreptitious reporting?  No, I’m not a big fan of somebody pretending to be someone other than who they are.  

“But, gosh, I reserve far more outrage over the setting of this.  What was it about?  This is where people can give big contributions to this perfectly fine historical society around the Supreme Court.  But they get privileged access to these justices.  And we don’t know anything about what happens, or very much, unless reporters go at it, which I think is what motivated this reporter to try to get some information.”

There you have it.

Two sides.

For my part, I join David Brooks.  He has it right.  The so-called journalist was a prankster.  Treat her as such and ignore what she produced.

Alito and his wife were caught saying dumb stuff and they failed to recognize the dilemma they faced. 

Chief Justice Roberts managed to avoid making negative headlines.

But, for me, as for Brooks, the best ethical approach for journalists is for them to work very hard to get a story, but do so in a straightforward, honest fashion. 

Too bad that didn’t happen this time.