"I know some ombudspeople; some of my best friends are ombudspeople. Wiley, you are no ombudsman."

Still I like to think I have - to invent a word - an ombuds - sensibility, which most of my colleagues assure me is a very good thing, although a few seem to think I have a compulsion about getting things right that borders on a benign personality disorder.

I am glad to be among you this evening and thank the Organization of News Ombudsmen for inviting me and Emerson College for hosting this event.

FRONTLINE, with which I have been associated since it began, has won all the major journalism awards many time over. As Executive Editor, I sometimes get fixated, however, not on our successes but on our mistakes. I regret to say we have had our share.

But in thinking about a clip reel for this evening I chose not to focus on past error, but rather on present problems.

Here's one we are confronting more and more on FRONTLINE and our sister series, FRONTLINE/World.

Our journalistic standards call upon us to identify our sources on air but there are exceptions. In the clip you'll see how we approach these exceptions, and in a special case, how a confidential source almost upended a broadcast two days before air . . .

(Six minute clip followed showing these examples.)

THE TORTURE QUESTION
October 18, 2005
Narration: "In "The Torture Question", FRONTLINE traced the history of how decisions made in Washington just after 9/11 led to prisoner abuse in Afghanistan; Guantanamo; and Iraq. In the process of reporting the film, FRONTLINE was contacted by an Army interrogator who told us he had been at Abu Ghraib and said he had witnessed the abuse of prisoners there. He was still on active duty as an interrogator and asked FRONTLINE to obscure his identity."

Question to consider: what steps did we take to try and verify his story?

GANGS OF IRAQ
April 17, 2007
Narration: " In April, FRONTLINE broadcast “Gangs of Iraq” which reported on the US-led effort to “stand up” the army and police in Iraq. In this scene, the FRONTLINE team went to see how the training effort was going. A condition of filming was an agreement to blur the faces of all Iraqi police."

Question to consider: What agreements are reporters and producers making when they wish to embed with U.S. forces in Iraq?

ZIMBABWE: Shadows and Lies
June 27, 2006
Narration: "FRONTLINE/World reporter Alexis Bloom and producer Cassandra Hermann traveled to Zimbabwe as tourists to report on conditions under the Mugabe regime. The team found people who were willing to talk about their lives, but in some cases FRONTLINE chose to protect their identities."

Question: Do ordinary people understand the danger they may be putting themselves in by speaking to a foreign crew? Do they appreciate how material is often streamed worldwide on the web?

THE INSURGENCY
February 21, 2006
Narration: "Last year FRONTLINE reported on the insurgency in Iraq. In Tal-Afar, the producers heard about the brutality inflicted there by insurgents. Some of those victims were willing to go on camera – this time FRONTLINE decided not to protect their identities."

If private individuals insist on telling their story and apparently understand the risks, then isn't blurring their faces a disservice to their courage?

NEWS WAR: Secrets, Sources, and Spin
February 20, 2006
Narration: In “News War,” one issue was confidential sources. We interviewed the San Francisco Chronicle reporters who had been covering the Balco steroid case and had printed leaked grand jury testimony. Now they were facing jail for refusing to reveal their sources. But FRONTLINE got a surprise just days before broadcast."

Just before broadcast, the confidential source in the Balco case identified himself. It was all we could to to report this development in the broadcast. It turned out, however, that not only had the source - a defense attorney - leaked the grand jury testimony to the reporters, but he had used the publicity generated by his leak to file a motion seeking dismissal of the charges against his clients - the providers of the steroids. This was an obstruction of justice on his part although his motion was denied.

One angry viewer saw the reporters whom we had portrayed as heroes, willing to go to jail to protect their source, as chumps or worse. Did they know what the defendant was going to do asked the viewer? Did they continue to do business with him after the leak was published?

FRONTLINE took the position that as long as the reporters had not asked the source to commit an illegal act and as long as the material provided was accurate, the public interest in learning about the athletes use of the drug was paramount? What do you think?

I would welcome your thoughts and questions on this or any other matter.

These remarks were delivered, in abbreviated form, by Louis Wiley Jr., executive editor of FRONTLINE for the Organization of News Obudsmen Panel on "Investigative Journalism and Ombudsmen" on May 22, 2007.