Publishing faculty salaries

[Donica]

The Sagebrush has posted a searchable database of faculty salaries at the University. When we discussed this in my J-102 class Thursday, most of the students felt this was an invasion of privacy. The objections centered on ethical questions, not legal. Legally, as public employees, faculty salaries are public information and papers have every right to make them public.

Ethically, many of the students felt that salaries are private information that should be made public in the news media only when it's newsworthy to do so. Students argued that if the information were given more context and explanation, with comparisons that helped readers understand what determines salaries and how to compare them intelligently, then it could be justifiable. But without an accompanying story to put the information in context, it appears to be information designed only to sensationalize and increase traffic to the site.

I'm curious what others think. Does this database increase understanding of the university's budget or does it sensationalize private information? How would you do something like this?

[Deidre]

A couple of weeks ago, I tried to find a detailed and exact breakdown of exactly what the federal economic stimulus package (House version) included. I found some journalistic cliff-notey versions -- that highlighted what the reporters or editors at various news orgs wanted me to know. It took me a long time by Internet research standards (more than 90 seconds) to find the full text of the Bill.
Information filtered by journalists who are qualified to explain and contextualize? Sure, it's important and we need it. But it seems unlikely that we'll get much of it, given the realities of today's newsrooms. Which are understaffed. Where the remaining journalists seem less likely to be well-honed info explainers with tons of institutional memory. (And more likely to be fresh eager faces who know Photoshop and social networking but lack perspective on economics, foreign policy, how major universities are funded, etc.)
I'm a fan of information -- the raw unfiltered kind; the chewy dough that's been baked at 350 degrees for a couple of hours; the cheesy processed information-like goo that comes in an aerosol can; the delicious liquid that's been aged in oak for a few years.
As for sensationalism? Hmm. The faculty salary search did get my attention for a long time -- about 90 seconds. If the Sagebrush really wanted to drive traffic to the site, photos of wet T-shirt contests or live sorority party cams would perhaps be a safer bet.

[Rosemary McCarthy]

I like to see primary data with a story as Deidre does but typically it has to be decoded to be useful. By itself, any collection of numbers can be more misleading than useful.

In this case the information is incomplete, it lacks context and it’s very dated.

And that’s the ethical problem in my view. While publishing or posting this information is legal it serves no good as it is. It’s less than helpful. It’s confusing. So why do it? How does the community benefit from the publication of data such as this? What purpose is served?

The 102 students are right to question the motive.

[Michael Higdon]

When Deidre first told me the 102 students said it was sensational, I scoffed. But when I read their reasoning, I'd agree, sort of. It's not sensational. I'm sick of people saying things are sensational because they aren't safe or because they are pushing boundaries or testing limits. Newspapers are squishy and soft and boring because they no longer do that.

However, I would say the lack of context and information about WHY they did it, is bad. So what, I can see how much a teacher makes? Big deal, why do I care? Tell me why. If there's a story with it, I can't find it.

Just more proof that the Sagebrush staff lives in its own personal bubble for the purpose of impressing themselves. We do not factor into their decisions anymore.

[Steve D.]

I've searched for hours, but I have yet to find something wrong with the posting of faculties' salaries. As far as I am concerned, as well as all of my friends and colleagues, it is a subject of much curiousity, and it is information worth divulging. Many present the issue as if The Sagebrush just listed every member of faculty and their respective salary on the front page of the weekly paper, when in fact it was posted in the form of a search bar, implying that anyone who wants to see it enough can look up a professor and find out how much they make. They didn't force-feed students information they didn't want to know, they simply presented studented with a capability, albeit enticingly. Everyone outside of my 102 class is elated that they can findly find out how much their professors make. I don't think the ethicality of this issue should be in question, the legality of the issue is certainly not in question, and as for the worthiness of the information, my friends and I agree it was one of the best things The Sagebrush has done.

[Michael Higdon]

Steve, I agree with "As far as I am concerned, as well as all of my friends and colleagues, it is a subject of much curiousity, and it is information worth divulging" but I think the question must be asked, what's the difference between a news organization doing that and a governmental institution doing it?

If a news organization is doing it, one must gather there is a reason or newsworthiness. That data needs to be filtered and contextualized even with just a headline or cutline or brief description or Snapple fact. I believe there is great newsworthiness to posting this information but if the readers (the class that thinks it's unethical) does not understand why it is being posted, then there is a problem. "Don't make me think" comes to mind. If the question is "why would the Sagebrush do this?" then there is a problem the Sagebrush must address in answering that question in the same way a nutgraf answers the question of a lede: "Why is this story being written?"

At the same time, I advocate for primary source information, which is what this is, so I think you're making a good point.

But I think, "They didn't force-feed students information they didn't want to know, they simply presented studented with a capability, albeit enticingly" is a false dichotomy. You say that if the information was published in the newspaper students are "force-fed" the information but when it's on the Internet, a news outlet is only enabling or providing the food but not forcing it down our throats. I think that's an interesting point while at the same time overestimates the way people read a newspaper. It assumes people MUST read ALL of a newspaper because it is a newspaper while they MAY read BITS of a website because it is merely a website.

[Jessica Estepa]

As a former Sagebrush staffer, I remember when we first came up with this idea more than a year ago after seeing another student newspaper do it.
That was the simple reasoning behind it - others provided this kind of information, so why couldn't we? We figured it would be a good feature that, yes, would make people pick up our paper (As a note: this was a year ago and I'm no longer on staff, so this may no longer be the case. I cannot speak for the Sagebrush editors who made the decision to create the database)
It took months, but eventually, the data from 2007 was made available by the university because it was the most recent and complete data available (and to address Rosemary's concern about how it's dated - this information was received before 2008 was over, so I was told it wasn't ready to be released).
What the Sagebrush has done is cut out that step where instead of going to the university for the information, the audience will instead come to the Sagebrush if they want to know.
I don't personally think it's an invasion of privacy, because this information is available to anyone who wants to take the time to get it. As long as the information provided is true and doesn't do any harm, then I think it's OK to publish it.
Is it particularly newsworthy? In the way it's currently presented, no, it's not because of the lack of context. It's just another way to draw an audience to the website. I don't think I'm going to fault the Sagebrush for doing that, though, because it's what news organizations DO. They want more people logging onto their website, so they come up with features that they think will get people to come..
The information would have been newsworthy if, for example, they had been able to show how certain faculty positions had been cut because of how much of their salaries were funded by state dollars.

[Deidre]

I'm following this conversation with fascination, and as I stated above, I support the Sagebrush's decision to run the information.
A couple of things I've noticed.
We're attributing to the press an ethical responsibility to be our *gatekeepers* in this instance. The information, it's being argued, should be contextualized through a story that explains how professors end up making what they make. I'd like to see many such stories. For example, in a more careful look at this albeit dated information with a now-retired faculty member, it seemed in one or two instances that guys in some departments (not journalism, no worries) tend to make more than women who've been in the university as long or longer and who've published as much or more research. That deserves a more careful look.
But if we had to wait until the Sagebrush could pull off all that reporting, we may never see that story.
At least we the people can run the data through our own info-processing system.
The good old gatekeeper function of the media has perhaps had its day.
Readers with Internet access no longer see themselves as slaves chained together in a cave, with our only source of information consisting of shadows dancing on the cave wall in the fire light.
Get thee behind us, Plato, who wrote that darn cave allegory.
OK, off my soapbox. I have a pile of Journalism 101 media autobiographies to grade.

[Rachel Alger]

It's not an "invasion of privacy," since it is public information. However, the way in which this was presented was unethical in my opinion. It gives very little background and no explanation or reasoning as to why they did it, nor is there a story, or even a paragraph for that matter explaining why this information needs to be put out in the open for all to see. If there were a story with it, maybe I would feel differently, but since there is nothing, I don't see it's relevance at all.

[Michael Higdon]

I have a problem with calling it "unethical." Can you give an example of an ethical code that it violates? What makes it particularly unethical?

[Jessica Estepa]

I agree with Mike. I'm missing the "unethical" part of this argument.

[Dana Kudelka]

I guess I don't understand WHY they did it. After reading Jessica's post, I have more insight.
But still. I don't get the point of publishing salaries, especially since they are outdated.
There was nothing from the editorial staff saying WHY they believe the publishing of salaries is important. I saw something small, saying a portion of our tuition goes toward the salaries.
Still, I'd like to know what the Sagebrush is trying to accomplish by publishing them. What has been achieved by these being published? Have a reason. A damn good one.

[Jessica Estepa]

I think Deidre hit that point right from the start: "I'm a fan of information -- the raw unfiltered kind; the chewy dough that's been baked at 350 degrees for a couple of hours; the cheesy processed information-like goo that comes in an aerosol can; the delicious liquid that's been aged in oak for a few years."

Whether the staff gives an explanation or not doesn't make a difference in whether it's publishable or not. It's simply information for people to absorb if they choose to do so.

Would this entire debate be going on if the Sagebrush staff had simply linked to another database instead of creating its own?