Herman Cain thinks journalists are being mean.

Herman Cain has been in the media all week long, defending himself from rumors of sexual misconduct after Politico broke the story about harassment settlements. I covered the ethics of Politico's story here. However, now the story has shifted and become an issue of Cain versus the media.

Recently Cain responded to reporters' questions about the allegations by stating "Don't even go there," and followed up with "Where's my chief of staff? Please send him the journalistic code of ethics." Cain is accusing the media of ganging up on him, picking on him unfairly because he's (a) conservative, (b) black, and (c) the front-runner. According to Cain, the big, bad liberal media are out to get him, and breaking ethical barriers to do so.

So, is the persistant questioning of Cain bad journalism? Cain wants reporters to re-read the code of ethics. Let's take a look at it.

Unfortunately for Cain, the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics mentions nothing relevant to the situation. In fact, it specifies that journalists should "Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection." As a candidate for president, Cain is a very public figure, and his conduct in prior offices or positions is just as much the public's business as are his policy proposals. In this case, the media has done nothing wrong in trying to get to the bottom of this story and expose a potential president for his character flaws. Chalk one up to the investigative media. Cain's whining about a biased and corrupt media out to get him are just plain wrong.

Politico's dirt on Cain: the Good and the Bad

Politico's monday story alleging a sexual harassment scandal involving Herman Cain has received a ton of media attention. I say kudos to Politico for some aspects of the story, but Politico clearly made mistakes on others. First, the good:

Politico, a news organization known for a culture valuing speed over accuracy, did not immediately publish the story. Politico waited ten days to give Cain a chance to respond to the allegation; the Cain campaign had no comment. Clearly thorough research and good timing paid off: the story turns out to be true, and Politico can take the credit.

Now, the bad:

Politico bases the entire scoop off of unnamed sources. Most reporters now know at least one of the sources' names, but regardless, the sources' relevance to the story is not generally known. It sounds suspicious and gives Cain ample room to deny it as an attack on conservatives.

This all being said, the Washington Post should also be criticized for the story it published on Monday covering Politico's story. Sure, proper attribution was given throughout the article, but actually the entire article simply restated information Politico had already published. Essentially, the journalist read the politico article, summarized it, and tried to pass it off as news. If a paper decides to write about a breaking news story, it should at the very least include some original reporting. This story has none.