Yesterday, I did an unlikely thing: I lectured a class at USC on ethics.

Those who know me most intimately will roll their eyes at this point, because I am known as somewhat iconoclastic on the subject. When confronted with the simplistic ways in which we usually talk about ethics in our society — one that generally has nothing to do with actual right and wrong — I have been known to mutter “ethics, schmethics!” among friends who know and understand me. And I tried to be frank with the kids as to what I really thought, so they’re probably pretty confused by now.

What I tried to communicate was that I think the way modern society (and the media in particular) approach the subject of “ethics” makes a mockery of true moral discernment. We approach something requiring fine, sensitive distinctions with a club rather than a more delicate instrument.

We concoct “ethics rules” and then obsess about whether people in public life have properly crossed the t’s and dotted the i’s, and neglect whether they’re doing the right thing. And media share the blame for that. The “objectivity” model means that news reporters aren’t allowed to say a person did something wrong or dishonest, or pushed an unwise policy course, or otherwise make a value judgment. But they can sure as hell report whether someone filed his campaign finance disclosure on time — a purely bureaucratic act that measures no moral quality other than how organized the candidate is. So it is that we get “high drama” over whether Mark Sanford followed the rules properly, when the real question, the real moral issue, is what he tried to do to our state by fighting with every ounce of his being to keep us from getting stimulus funds — among other things.

I figure there’s a hierarchy to crime and moral wrongdoing. At the top you have murder, rape and child abuse. Then various gradations of assault. Then armed robbery, and lesser property crimes. Then white collar theft. Then “technical” crimes, and at the low end of that you have most of the acts that we lump into the category of “ethical” violations in politics and the media. Still a bad thing, but let’s have a sense of perspective.

Speaking off the cuff, and noting that the kids were getting glassy-eyed, I decided to get more specific. I spoke to them about how easy it was to be “ethical” in the conventional, facile sense as a journalist working in the MSM. When you’re in a newsroom of 140 people (like The State 10 years ago) and it’s part of a newspaper building of 500, with about as many people in advertising as in news, and they’re on a separate floor, it’s simple. No one in advertising would dare try to influence what news does (such as ask journalists to go easy on an advertiser), and no one in news would even take time to think about what advertising was. Everyone is pure, and hermetically sealed. (I shared with them the story of a friend who once worked in a city room in Little Rock where the city editor kept a gun in his desk. The gun, he explained, was there in case anyone from advertising dared to enter the newsroom. News people used to be like that.)

But that business model has collapsed. And we live in a world in which there is as much demand as ever for news, but the conventional model to pay for newsgathering is gone with the wind. From somewhere is going to come the new business model that will make newsgathering and commentary pay. And there are thousands of us wandering around on the frontier of that new world, trying to find our own respective paths through the Northwest Passage of our day.

To bring it down to Earth, I told the kids a story, a very current story.

Last week, I started selling ads on my blog. I have three now, soon to be four. This is very gratifying, but very weird, because I am not only my own writer, editor, photographer, press operator and circulation manager, but I’m the one and only ad salesman. I try to make it as clear as possible that my judgments and what I write will NOT be influenced by who takes out an ad — and to be open with my readers about the business side, and let them be the judges. But for an old MSM man, it’s weird.

Anyway, right after I started selling ads, Kevin Fisher — a candidate for city council in the 4th district — started complaining that he couldn’t get the media interested in a story about opponent Tony Mizzell having paid a $1,000 fine to the state Ethics Commission just before entering this race. Kevin’s implication, of course, was the Tony ONLY paid it because he was going to run for council.

I made a mental note to ask Tony about it, knowing I would be meeting with him Tuesday morning (THIS Tuesday morning). In the meantime, I sent him an invoice for the ad he had taken out on the blog — he was my very first customer. I suppose I could have handed him the bill when I saw him, but I wanted to keep those transactions — the bill, and my interview with him — as separate as possible. So I sent it to him Monday night.

Then, at breakfast the next morning, late in the interview, I asked him about Kevin’s accusation. It was a long, long story, stretching over two or three years (and of course that’s Kevin’s central accusation, that Tony should have paid the fine long ago). Here’s the short version: After he lost his re-election bid to county council (you may recall he was chairman of Richland County Council) four years ago, there was some money left in his account. He was therefore, according to the ethics rules of our society, required to keep filing quarterly reports, and he paid someone to do so. At some point, something was not properly accounted for. He learned that the Ethics Commission had a problem with that, and he talked to a woman with the commission, and thought he had it straight, although there was still some unfinished business. He failed to follow up, and so did the woman, and a short time later he heard from someone ELSE at the commission who said he owed $28,000 in fines.

That was a year or two ago. He went ballistic, and hired James Smith to represent him. The legal proceedings dragged out, and at the start of 2010 (I think he said January), a compromise was worked out. James notified Tony that he was to pay $1,000. A few days after that notification, Tony paid it. A few days after that, he entered the race for city council.

That’s what Kevin thinks is what Joe Biden would call a BFD. You be the judge.

Anyway, at the end of the interview Tuesday morning, an uncomfortable thing happened: Tony took out his checkbook, and wrote me a check for the amount he owed me for the ad. Seriously, imagine how weird that felt to an old newsman. I was thrilled to get the money (I scanned it, and will probably frame the image, the way small businessmen used to do with their first dollar); he DID owe it to me. But still…

Add to that the fact that Kevin was expecting me to make a huge deal of this thing that just sounded like a confused muddle to me, and what’s a journalistic pioneer to do?

I told all that to the kids at the J-school, and asked them. They looked at me blankly.

Last night, I asked Kevin (for a second time) for an interview. We set one for Friday morning, but he took occasion to e-mail me back (the ellipses are places where he reports conversations with other individuals that I haven’t confirmed):

Sure Brad, always good to see you — even when I’m disappointed in you, as I am now. How can you not post on Tony Mizzell being fined $1000 by the Ethics Commission, failing to pay it for over two years, then paying only when he filed to run for city council, blaming it on others etc. (look back at the emails for the details and documents). Does the public not have a right to know any candidate’s history of ethics law violations and fines?

Of course, your former colleagues have thus far taken the same approach, with only WACH-TV having reported the story to date…..

What happened to journalism…? …

Very disappointing, very discouraging. But we soldier on. I’ve got something at 8 Friday morning but could meet you at 9. Somewhere in the Vista? Kevin

I told him I’d discuss it with him when I saw him, although I might post something in the meantime. Of course, I knew he wouldn’t be satisfied with what I’d post. But look at what a nice guy I am, handing him the ad-check anecdote for him to use to question my character…

Kevin’s a little happier today because the letter that he was complaining The State hadn’t run on the subject ran today. Me, I’m just continuing to wander out here in the ethical wilderness…

Related Posts

• Vote ‘no’ to all those questions on the ballot
• Open Thread for Friday, July 28, 2023
• Sometimes there’s some good news in this world
• Should Trump be criminally prosecuted?
• How I’m going to vote today
• The ‘barbarism’ of the death penalty in S.C.
• You see, he’s the PRESIDENT, so I want him doing PRESIDENT stuff…
• Teague: Redistricting South Carolina: Nearing the end
• Well, I’ve got it. What now?
• I’ve got to read more Joan Didion