Newspapers have an obligation to inform readers, but have no more obligation to publish the full text of the Starr report than to publish the complete text of the State of the Union address or the latest Supreme Court opinion, says media ethics expert Tim Gleason. "Having read much of the report and the accounts of it in a number of papers," says Gleason, dean of the University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication, "I'd argue that readers are far better served by good, concise, accurate reporting of the contents of the report. Yes, it is nice to have access to the full text, but for most readers, the full text is neither accessible (who has time to read it all) nor particularly informative. Yes, we get the graphic detail, but what does that information really tell us?" Gleason notes that as recently as 10 or even five years ago, few if any papers other than the New York Times would have published an extensive excerpt of the report. "We should not let the ability of news organizations today to publish primary materials get in the way of the true value of journalism," argues Gleason. "Journalists don't just deliver the raw data, they help us understand it."

—30—

#T-1111/Day