Poynter Online

Why Plagiarism Continues & What Writers, Editors Can Do About It

By Kelly McBride

In the first years post Jayson Blair, it seemed like there was a new plagiarism case every month or so. In newsrooms big and small, young reporters -- as well as long-time editors -- got caught by savvy readers, or their victims. For a while, it seemed like plagiarism, along with fabrication, would be the journalism problem of the decade.

Then the bottom fell out of the news business and we started talking more about survival than standards. But plagiarism never really went away. Two high-profile cases, one this week and one last, brought back flashbacks of the summer of 2003, when Blair and several others were exposed. 

First, editors at the Daily Beast suspended, then accepted the resignation of, their chief investigative reporter Gerald Posner. Second, editors at The New York Times suspended, then accepted the resignation of, business reporter Zachery Kouwe. 

Both cases followed a similar pattern. First, an outside journalist pointed out the questionable copy. Jack Shafer of Slate exposed Posner. Robert Thomson of The Wall Street Journal, alerted the Times' to Kouwe's problematic story.

In both cases, when the reporters were confronted, they readily acknowledged their work was flawed and said they were dumbfounded or stunned by the revelation. Then, in both cases, a closer look at their work revealed more stolen words.

Posner and Kouwe said they were completely shocked and baffled by the additional allegations. They each blamed their systems of research and note-taking. They blamed the "warp speed" at which they must work. They blamed the Internet. (Jack Shafer lists the "dirty dozen excuses" plagiarists use.)

This is how it goes.

Plagiarism may have faded from the headlines in the latter part of the 2000s. That doesn't mean editors everywhere stopped catching it and letting people go. If anything, plagiarism became a more mundane, run-of-the-mill crime. When editors call me to seek advice after catching one of their own stealing the work of others, I tell them about the drill. 

It goes like this: You confront the writer with the evidence and see what he or she says. Then you suspend him pending a deeper investigation. Then you randomly go back and check his work. But before you do that, you tell him that you're going to do a check and ask if you're likely to find anything else. Of course he will tell you, "no." But nine times out of 10, you're going to find something. It's not hard. You just drop distinctive phrases from their copy into Google. Then compare the publication dates and time stamps.

Plagiarism will continue to flourish on the Web. It's a crime that will be committed by veterans and novices, by professionals and amateurs. Here are some simple tips for stopping this unoriginal sin (a phrase I first read in a column written by Roy Peter Clark, who got it from someone else.)

If you are a writer:

• Do not cut and paste information from other sources into your notes pages. Instead, create bullet points where you synthesize the information in your own words and note the original source.
• Before you start to research, write. In the middle of your research, write. Expressing your own thoughts and using your own words will force your brain to flex the self-expression neurons, rather than the repetition neurons.
• Develop your own voice. Too much information on the Internet is simply repeated. Even if you aren't doing any original reporting, you can find original expression.
• Do original reporting. It's hard to duplicate the work of others when you have the knowledge to say it better.
• Attribute any information. If you found it, say how. If you read it somewhere, say where.

If you are an editor:

• Require your writers to attribute.
• Learn the style and voice of your writers. When you see something that seems unusual, check it out. 
• Even if the copy is published directly to the Web, go behind and read with a critical eye.
• Ask writers to explain their reporting and research processes.
• Coach all writers, including those with a lot of experience, to make their work transparent. Always assume the reader is asking, "How do you know that?" and answer the question in the copy.

AP Made Right Call in Publishing Photo, Story of Fallen Marine

By Bob Steele

There is considerable controversy about the decision by the Associated Press to distribute a photograph of a Marine killed in combat in Afghanistan. I've written extensively about war coverage over the years, and I spoke with MSNBC on Friday about the news organization's decision in this case.

Based on what I know, the Associated Press went through a purposeful, thoughtful process in deciding to distribute this photo, and I believe that the AP's decision was journalistically sound and ethically justifiable.

		RELATED
		Slideshow: "Death of a Marine: A Photographer's Journal" Excerpts of journal entries by AP photographer Julie Jacobson

Importantly, the Associated Press photo is accompanied by a substantive, sensitive AP story that recounts the battle in which Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard was wounded. That story also tells us a good deal about Bernard, including comments from his father and fellow Marines in his squad. Together, the story and the photograph paint a more complete picture of this fallen Marine.

The AP's decision was undoubtedly made more difficult by an important step it took in determining if, how and when to distribute the photo. The AP appropriately sought input from the Bernard family as essential stakeholders. Family members viewed the images taken by AP photographer Julie Jacobson. According to an AP statement, "Bernard's father after seeing the image of his mortally wounded son said he opposed its publication, saying it was disrespectful to his son's memory."

Certainly the AP must give very serious consideration to Mr. Bernard's thoughts and his wishes. Yet, no matter how important that request from the father, the final decision sits with the AP. It means the journalists had to have a compelling journalistic purpose and an overriding ethical justification to go against the family's wishes.

I'm not surprised that the AP's decision to distribute the photo and the decision by some news organizations to publish it has stirred considerable controversy. Almost every time journalists show images of the horror of war, there is a backlash. There also is considerable criticism of journalism for not showing the horror of war more often.

Journalism's obligation is to inform the public about significant issues in our society. That includes telling stories -- with images, words and sound -- that meaningfully describe both the horror and the heroism of the battlefield.

In February of 2007, I wrote about a New York Times story that told of the death of Army Staff Sgt. Hector Leija in Iraq. I pointed out that war coverage is always a balance between reporting reality -- the truth as best journalists can capture it -- and minimizing harm to the vulnerable, including the family members of those who fall in battle.

I commended that New York Times "Man Down" story. I feel the same about the AP photo and story on "The Death of One Marine in Afghanistan."
 
The images and words of war reporting may cause pain. But we owe it Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard and to all those who fight our wars to try to comprehend what happens in battle.

AP sets up registry to track and protect online content

paidContent.org | Editor & Publisher
The Associated Press is creating a news registry to tag and track all AP online content "to assure compliance with terms of use." It says "the system will register key identifying information about each piece of content that AP distributes as well as the terms of use of that content, and employ a built-in beacon to notify AP about how the content is used." || Related story   

Journalists Can't Uphold Standard Set by News Blackout of Rohde Kidnapping

By Kelly McBride
Dear Bill Keller,

Your defense of the total news blackout surrounding the kidnapping of David Rohde has made the job of every free journalist in the world much harder. In doing so, you have put your loyalties to a few in front of the larger journalistic principle of truth telling.

You have indicated that when a life is in danger, we should avoid reporting the truth until that life is secure. In taking this position, you've created a standard that we journalists can't possibly uphold.

By telling the story of Rohde's escape, we've already violated it, compromising the life of the driver who was left behind. The driver's life may be in even more danger now from those same kidnappers. If we were to uphold your standard, we would continue the news blackout until the driver, too, is safe.

That invites the question: Is the driver's life less valuable than a reporter's? Is it that he's Afghani and not American?

What about the next story? What will you do if an American soldier is kidnapped? What if an oil company executive disappears in the Middle East? Will you insist on a months-long news blackout? Will you set aside your role as a watchdog, as the paper of record, in order to preserve a life?

The next time you are challenged by a newsworthy kidnapping, I believe you'll put journalism first. You'll return to your role of holding the powerful accountable and informing the citizens who count on the Times to deliver the most important, accurate stories of the day. And when critics point out the inconsistency, they will accuse The New York Times of creating a special standard that applies only to journalists, maybe only to journalists working for the Times.

		RELATED
		Excerpt of June 22 "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" episode with Bill Keller & Kelly McBride Jeffrey Brown: Are you worried, as I guess some people might worry, that it looks as though there's a double standard for the media reporting on itself in this sense or on its own story? Kelly McBride: Well, I worry about our credibility, yes. I also worry -- I actually didn't think it was possible that that many news organizations could agree on a total blackout of a story that would be, I think, relatively interesting to many people. So I worry on that level, too. You know, the conspiracy theorist in me says, well, if they kept that from me, what else are they keeping from? And I know many of those conspiracy theorists, and I know that we're losing credibility with them by the day. Jeffrey Brown: Well, Mr. Keller, respond to that. It sounds as though you had much the same debate and discussion there yourselves, but respond to all you just heard. Bill Keller: Well, we did. You know, I mean, I guess what I've got to say to that is that sometimes decisions that seem easy and clear cut in an ethics seminar are a lot more complicated in real life. I talked to a number of the editors who agreed to keep this story to themselves over the last seven months, and the reason they did it was they agreed that it was the right thing to do. I talked to David Rohde this morning. And, unprompted, one of the things he said to me was, Thank you for keeping this quiet. If the story had been publicized, I would have been in greater danger. Jeffrey Brown: All right. Well, we will leave it there. Thanks for telling us the story and its implications. Bill Keller and Kelly McBride, thanks very much.

Monday night on the "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," you dismissed me when I suggested that your handling of Rohde's kidnapping put your loyalty to a few people before the newspaper's duty to report the truth fully and accurately. You said, "Sometimes decisions that seem easy and clear-cut in an ethics seminar are a lot more complicated in real life."

I would not want to trade places with you. Running The New York Times is infinitely harder than teaching journalism ethics to professionals, students and others around the world. 

In my work, I frequently guide and observe powerful people as they make agonizing decisions. These men (they are almost all men) find themselves in the heartbreaking position of having to choose between causing immediate harm to a few individuals, about whom they care deeply, and the overall good of a large number of people. It's the very position that President Obama is in regarding the release of additional prison abuse photos. Releasing the photos would uphold his commitment to open and accountable government, yet it could endanger the lives of the military serving overseas.

As I deal with newsroom leaders in these situations, I encourage them to search for alternatives that minimize the immediate harm while upholding the core values of journalism. They often choose to protect the people they care about, just like you did with Rohde. I respect that decision. In fact, there's a description for such behavior. It's called an ethic of care, a model of decision-making we often use in our personal relationships. That's different from an ethic of justice, the model most commonly used when confronting issues on behalf of an organization or government.

Because these leaders have turned to me for advice, I encourage them to honestly, yet privately, acknowledge the values underpinning their decision. I encourage them to say as little as possible publicly, unless they are prepared to allow the ethic of care to become the prominent ethical model in their workplace. And if they must make a public statement, I suggest they go for the honest one, in which they simply say, "We set aside our core values in the face of imminent consequences."

Journalists the world over, including some from The New York Times, come to Poynter and express, often for the first time, their doubts, pain and confusion about decisions made in their newsrooms. I walk alongside these journalists and their bosses as they make choices as difficult as those you face. I firmly believe that we can uphold the values of journalism in the face of such decisions.

Sincerely,

Kelly McBride

Report: Finke's Deadline Hollywood Daily sold for "an exceedingly high price"

TheWrap | FT| Daily Finance| paidContent
Sharon Waxman reports Nikki Finke got $14 million for her entertainment website, FT says it was $15 million, while Jeff Bercovici's source claims it was $10 million. Rafat Ali calls the numbers "fantastical"; he guesses Deadline Hollywood Daily was sold for low seven figures. (LAT also goes with that.)   

Dowd Could Learn from the 'Retweet' Ethic, Giving Credit Where it's Due

By Kelly McBride   

Behind every writer is an army of friends, family members, editors and colleagues. They are the unofficial researchers, the invisible test market for new ideas and arguments, the "thought farmers," who help grow the writer's work.

I believe Maureen Dowd's explanation that she inadvertently plagiarized Joshua Micah Marshall's Talking Points Memo post in her Sunday column. What Dowd says she did -- take what she thought were her friend's words and make them her own -- is understandable. Yet, it is inexcusable.

What Dowd didn't know was that her friend was posturing, presenting Marshall's argument as if it were an original thought. So when Dowd lifted what she thought were her friend's words, she was actually re-stealing something. But because this is Dowd, the high liberal priestess of biting political criticism, the woman who excoriated Joe Biden for plagiarism, her crime is further stained by an air of hypocrisy.

Thus, she is busted and will be virtually eviscerated by her enemies. And it was all so avoidable.

If you find yourself within a columnist's inner circle, you are likely to see evidence of your influence in their work. That's flattering and appropriate. But when you see your actual words, strung together as you uttered them or typed them, you might feel a bit used.

Technology is informing and even changing that practice. We live in a digital era of fast-paced, open-source communication. Yet, a new ethic of transparency and attribution is emerging. Dowd, who is part of the old guard of thought leaders, appears to have a somewhat dormant Twitter account (although it may not be hers). She might want to log on and take note of this new world, where we capitalize on the collective intelligence of many, and give credit where credit is due.

This is known as the retweet, the moment when you send out the thought of another, because you find it funny, clever or insightful, while giving full credit to the original source. It has the same effect as forwarding an e-mail. The original thought is shared, while the original author's stake is preserved.

There is nothing shameful in the retweet. It's not a sign of weakness or failure. Instead, it is an acknowledgment that no one person has a lock on originality or cleverness.

Granted, some of the people within a writer's circle don't want credit or acknowledgment. I'll bet Dowd's friend is thankful for that anonymity. Still, a nod to those who shape your thinking is a sign of intellectual honesty, and Dowd could use that right now.

Archived Chat: Today's Source May Be Tomorrow's Boss for Job-Seeking Journalists

By Kelly McBride   

I've had at least a dozen beat reporters call with this dilemma: They know, or they suspect, their jobs are on the line. Layoffs are coming. They are looking for new jobs. And their best prospects for work are with their current sources.

An education reporter is seeking a job with a local school district as director of public relations. A technology reporter is looking to become a writer for a software developer. An investigative reporter has an interview with a government agency for a job running a new program that serves impoverished families.

All these reporters are grasping for a resolution that will allow them to continue to do their journalism jobs while they still have them, yet open some doors that will provide them with a paycheck should their reporting jobs disappear.

Talk about competing loyalities. Under normal circumstances, it would be unconscionable for a beat reporter to fish for job opportunities among companies or agencies he is currently covering. The reporter would have a difficult time serving the needs of his audience, when his own needs are at stake. How could one offer up fair and critical coverage of an issue, when the primary stakeholders can impact the reporter's future income?

While many reporters aren't questioning their commitment to their audiences, they are losing their loyalty to their newsrooms. They don't know if their jobs will be there in a year. And they can't seem to get any sense of security from their editors or news directors.

One reporter told me this: "I would never sell out my readers and I would never distort the truth. But it feels like you're asking me to put my obligation to provide for my family behind my journalism. And I can't do that."

It feels that bleak for many of these reporters, who are mothers and fathers, sole income providers, and sole insurance providers.

After I explain that they are not alone, that many reporters are going through this, here's what I tell them:

• Resolve this quickly. The longer you entertain a job option with one of your sources, the more likely you are to find yourself in the middle of a news story where you have no good choices.
• Find an ally or a resource in your newsroom. Ideally this would be your direct supervisor. But many reporters tell me they believe they will paint a target on themselves if they let their boss know they are actively seeking outside employment. Another experienced reporter is a good second choice. Whoever you tap, you want them to be there to question your judgment and help you manage this conflict of interest.
• Avoid reporting directly on the company or agency in question while the job prospect is in play. This may force you to come clean with your boss when obvious news breaks and you insist on passing the story to another reporter.
• Make sure your sources understand your conflict and the steps you are taking to act with integrity.

Every time I end one of these conversations, I'm struck by the sharp emotional edges. Most of these journalists are smart and passionate people who have developed an expertise on a subject over years and years. They have decades of service to the business, if not their employer. In some cases, they will make a lot more money doing something else, but not always. They can all name dozens of colleagues who weren't aggressive enough when it came to developing a Plan B and are now collecting unemployment. They still love their jobs. They just don't know whether they'll have them in three months.

Next Tuesday at 1 p.m. EDT, join McBride and Ask the Recruiter columnist Joe Grimm in a live chat: "Can Today's Sources Become Tomorrow's Bosses?"

SPJ Celebrates 100 Years

By Bob Steele   

We often think of journalism in the context of big, metropolitan newspapers and far-reaching television networks. Significantly, a milestone in our country's journalistic history took place at a college newspaper in small-town mid-America. It's worth revisiting that moment –- and its meaning -– amdist the dramatic upheaval that is changing our country's journalism and to a great extent its values and its value.

In April of 1909, 10 student journalists at DePauw University in Greencastle, Indiana founded Sigma Delta Chi. SDX was an honorary fraternity that we know today as the Society of Professional Journalists, or SPJ. The founders' purpose was inspirational and aspirational –- to improve and protect journalism. The movement spread to other college campuses and to newsrooms. SPJ grew to thousands of members across the country over the decades. The focus was on training, ethical standards and First Amendment issues.

As we mark the centennial of SPJ, there is merit in recognizing the important role this organization has played and the significance of its mission in the current era of profound change in the profession. If ever there was a time to reaffirm the unique, essential role of journalism in democracy, it is now. It's also important to recommit to clear ethical principles and high standards to guide those who practice journalism.

Here's what SPJ stands for as reflected in the mission statement: "The Society of Professional Journalists is dedicated to the perpetuation of a free press as the cornerstone of our nation and our liberty. To ensure that the concept of self-government outlined by the U.S. Constitution remains a reality into future centuries, the American people must be well informed in order to make decisions regarding their lives, and their local and national communities."

SPJ has been in the forefront in championing Freedom of Information, not for the benefit of journalists but for the good of democracy. The Society has fought hard in courtrooms and legislative bodies to support journalists and news organizations who seek and report information that informs citizens about important issues and events.

The Society of Professional Journalists also serves as a pacesetter in setting high standards for journalists to practice ethical and responsible journalism. Sigma Delta Chi's first code of ethics was adopted in 1926. It helped professionalize the craft. More than a half-century later, I had the honor of being part of the team that wrote "Doing Ethics in Journalism," the SPJ sponsored handbook. The ethical principles we articulated in that book became the fabric of the updated Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics in the mid-1990s. The ethical decision-making process we advocated in the "Doing Ethics in Journalism" book has been used in newsrooms and classrooms across the country.

I believe that the principles SPJ championed and the ethical decision-making process we've taught are just as applicable for the bloggers and tweeters and multimedia all-platform journalists as they have been for the editors, reporters and other newsroom journalists of generations past. In fact, it may be even more important for journalists in the digital era to use a sound moral compass and to embrace clear ethical principles.

The gatekeeper model for American journalism that relied on multi-level checks and balances in a newsroom is very different from the emerging system. Journalism is much less institutional. Individuals have greater ability to gather, produce and present news independent from organizations.

Importantly, citizens play an increased role in the process as both participants and consumers.

Traditional ethical values are under pressure for a range of reasons. How is accuracy defined in a digital delivery system where content is constantly updated? What does fairness mean with many more voices entering the arena, some of whom challenge such traditional values as respect and civility? What are the consequences when many of the players in the journalism arena say that transparency is enough to outweigh conflicts of interest that undermine independent reporting? 

The Society of Professional Journalists does not and should not provide simplistic answers. For that matter, the goal should not be to provide any answers for those who practice journalism.

Rather, SPJ should continue to be in the forefront in giving those who want to practice journalism the skills and smarts to serve the public and the public interest. SPJ should continue to champion ethical principles that serve as guideposts for journalists who report the news and as standards for citizens who hold accountable those same journalists. SPJ should continue to advocate a substantive decision-making process that helps journalists make good ethical decisions no matter their method for gathering and presenting news stories.

And, to be sure, I have a responsibility in all of this since my journalism career is woven into the history of the Society of Professional Journalists. I was a member of SPJ as an undergraduate at DePauw in the 1960s, an economics major who spent a lot of time learning journalism at the campus radio station, WGRE, and at the student newspaper, The DePauw. I was deeply involved in the "Doing Ethics" book efforts of SPJ in the 1990s. Now, on this 100th Anniversary of SPJ's founding at DePauw, I'm back on this same campus for six years as a visiting professor of journalism.

I have a responsibility to help develop and guide journalists of the next generation. I also have a wonderful opportunity to help all the DePauw students I teach to appreciate the essential role journalism plays in our democracy.

Bob Steele is a 1969 graduate of DePauw University and now the Eugene S. Pulliam Distinguished Visiting Professor of Journalism at DePauw. He also serves as the Nelson Poynter Scholar for Journalism Values at The Poynter Institute for Media Studies in St. Petersburg, FL, where he's been on the faculty since 1989.

When Obama Appears on Leno, It'll be Interesting but Not Journalism

By Bob Steele   
I don't have a problem with Jay Leno interviewing President Obama. In fact, I'm fine with it. But let's not call it journalism.

The Leno-Obama moment is a conversation between a television talk show host and a government leader. It's worth watching. It's worth hearing what the President has to say in this type of setting. It's one more way to get to know what's inside Obama's head and his heart.

I hope, though, that President Obama does not diminish the importance of being regularly accessible to journalists. Jay Leno can ask some fascinating –- even probing -– questions of Obama. We saw that happen when David Letterman interviewed former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. Journalists bring different obligations and different knowledge to their reporting. They will ask different questions. Journalists serve a "watchdog" function in our democratic society.

I hope in these turbulent times citizens recognize the unique and essential role that journalism plays in this country. Imperfect though it is, journalism is built on a set of professional and ethical principles that can produce substantive information-gathering and reporting that serves the public interest.

I don't believe there's much value in debating who is a journalist.

I do believe it's worth distinguishing the characteristics of journalism and the unique role it plays in our society.

Jay Leno entertains. Journalism informs.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta Covers Obama's Health Care Policies with Competing Loyalties

By Bob Steele

Dr. Sanjay Gupta wears many hats, or in his case, multiple white coats. He's a practicing neurosurgeon, CNN's chief medical correspondent, a TIME magazine columnist and more.

His multifaceted roles present ethical problems. The pressure points are on the principle of journalistic independence.

For the last couple of months it appeared that Sanjay Gupta was likely to become this country's surgeon general. He met with Barack Obama about that job and discussed it extensively with administration officials.

On March 5 he withdrew his name from consideration, saying he wants to spend more time with his family and on his medical practice. He also will continue as a journalist for CNN.

My first reaction to the news of Gupta opting out focused on a tepid effort by his CNN colleagues to genuinely report the story of his withdrawal. My heightened concern focuses on the erosion of Gupta's journalistic independence given his two-plus months of discussions with the Obama administration about becoming surgeon general.

While the surgeon general's position is not the most important in the cabinet, it is reasonably high profile and its relevance is considerable in the current debate over health care issues and government policy.

Gupta's withdrawal from consideration deserved scrutiny it did not receive on CNN Thursday night. Larry King had a buddy-buddy chat with Gupta that elicited little insight. But King's show is more entertainment than journalism.

However, on "Anderson Cooper 360," which is a news program, Cooper said how happy he was Gupta was going to stay at CNN and lobbed a few simple questions his way. There was no serious attempt to probe why Gupta had stayed in contention for over two months only to withdraw now. No effort to report on what his pulling out might mean to an Obama administration that has lost a number of appointees. No references to concerns about Gupta voiced by some politicians.

Cooper did not interview Gupta as he might have Bill Richardson or other potential nominees who withdrew from consideration.

It was ironic that CNN used a breaking news label for the interview, imparting the event with that sense of importance, then treated Gupta's interviews like soft news.

Cooper certainly didn't go where New York Times columnist Paul Krugman went in questioning Gupta's possible nomination as surgeon general.

Nor did Cooper touch on the points made in The New Republic article headlined "Sanjay Gupta Treads The Ethical Line." That TNR story said Gupta "is no stranger to the ethically sticky situation physicians often find themselves in with drug companies."

There was nothing in the Thursday night CNN coverage comparable to the Los Angeles Times story on Gupta's withdrawal that detailed crititcs' concerns about his connections to pharmaceutical companies.

Anderson Cooper and CNN gave Sanjay Gupta a pass.

It sure appears to me that CNN and Gupta are on a collision course filled with competing values and competing loyalties, one that could affect future coverage. In his wrap-up of the interview, Cooper teased Gupta's upcoming coverage of the administration. The transcript says:

We should mention that Dr. Gupta's brush with life inside the Beltway drew him deeply into the health care debate. He's been devoting a lot of time to different proposals out there to fix it.

We're going to have reports all next week, a rare inside look at how the reform process is working; Sanjay Gupta inside the White House healing health care, all next week on "360."

For a couple of months we've had Sanjay Gupta in the running to be one of Obama's trusted allies. As surgeon general he would have had a key voice in the President's health care policy. While Gupta was, in essence, interviewing for the surgeon general's position, he was likely interviewing the President as well, not as a reporter but as a potential team player. He was bound to learn some insider information.

That's where the ethical challenges surface. To whom does Dr. Gupta owe loyalty? Can he serve the public with comprehensive reporting uninfluenced by his White House connections? Can he fairly report on an administration he almost joined? Can he fairly report on critics of Obama's health care plans?

Do CNN executives share these concerns about Gupta continuing to report on the Obama White House and the administration's health policy?

I asked CNN for comment, and heard back from Jennifer Dargan, PR director. She said in an e-mail, "Sanjay is a first-rate, independent journalist, with nearly 10 years of solid reporting experience. He will continue to cover health care issues and policy objectively, as he's always done."