My Personal Code of Ethics

Throughout this semester, we have certainly touched on a number of ethical concerns that exist in the field of journalism.  We have discussed plagiarism, objectivity, interviewing tactics, going undercover, and countless other ethically questionable reporting issues.  As a result, my own personal code of journalistic ethics has become a combination of historical thinking, modern practices, and current events. These aspects of our studies offer great insight into the challenges of journalism – all of which have helped me come to the understanding that it is a journalist’s fundamental duty to provide the public with comprehensive and honest accounts of significant events and matters.  All ethical decisions should be made accordingly, in order to best educate our society and contribute to the establishment of an informed public.  I believe that my actions as a journalist should always reflect such integrity and trustworthiness.

First and foremost, I think that journalists should seek truth and report the facts– whether that means revealing injustices and exposing corruption, or simply weeding out all biases. It is our responsibility as journalists to be sure that we present entirely accurate information.  That includes refraining from inserting our own opinions into stories – we must learn how to separate our own beliefs from the actual facts, detach ourselves from preconceived notions, and remain fully objective.  When presenting information, we must be sure to tell the complete story, even if it may be unwelcome or even if we disagree.  Part of being truthful, is never misleading readers or sensationalizing a story.

Mill’s concept of utilitarianism also plays a large role in my own code of ethics.  This applies to reporting on tragic events, accidents, politics, war, etc. I believe that everything I do as a journalist, should consider the greatest good for the greatest number of people.  Because journalists serve to inform the public, they should strive to do so in ways that help rather than harm society.  This means that while we want to educate people, we should simultaneously avoid and minimize harm. It is important to take into account the potential consequences of our actions, both positive and negative.  We have to strike a balance between undying curiosity and insensitive or inappropriate questioning.  In talking with professional journalists, it’s become evident that although we have a hunger to dig and a desire to root out and break those controversial stories, we also have a basic duty as human beings to do good for one another.

And aside from definitive rules like never plagiarizing or bribing, it seems as though most ethical decisions are best made on a case-by-case basis.  While these rules and guidelines exist and serve to shepherd our decisions, there will always be specific details that make each dilemma unique.  It is within close examination of both those details and my code of ethics, that I believe I’ll be able to rationalize my decisions as a working journalist.  

Bernie Fine - The Post-Standard Declined to Publish Molestation Allegations 9 Years Before His Ultimate Arrest

Last week, I wrote about the ethics of covering rape cases, and the associated vocabulary.  Again this week, I've come across yet another story that raises issue with media coverage of  sexual abuse.  This time, the conflict involves ESPN and Syracuse newspaper, The Post-Standard- and is less about wording and more about failure to take action.

Back in 2002, Bobby Davis shared his sexual abuse allegations [accusing assistant men's basketball coach Bernie Fine of molestation] with the newspaper.  The paper subsequently refused to print his accusations because they could not confirm the alleged incidences.  In 2003, Davis took his allegations to ESPN, who also declined to publish the information for the same reasons.

Now 8 years later, in 2011, in light of the Penn State scandal, Davis has come forth once more - and just a week after Joe Paterno was fired, ESPN aired Davis' story. Furthermore, just days after the ESPN story, another student gave police a statement also accusing Fine of molestation.

Only after Bernie Fine was fired from Syracuse University 4 days later, The Post-Standard finally published an article on Davis' story.

The ethical issue here, draws conflict between only publishing verified information, and publishing potentially inaccurate information in an effort to help the "greater good".  The Post-Standard declined to publish the story in 2002 because it wasn't completely corroborated - an understandable stance.  But we later find out that Davis was telling the truth, and that if the paper had taken a risk and published the story 9 years ago, a criminal could have been apprehended much earlier. So, is journalism about accuracy or about risk taking? Should journalists at The Post-Standard  have taken greater interest and paid more attention to Davis in 2002? Was it unethical for them not to take action? OR was it only appropriate for them to forgo publication at the time?

In my opinion, I would not publish allegations that cannot be confirmed, but I would certainly have a hard time choosing to ignore such serious accusations.

[Get the full article and details from Poynter here]

Nuances of Terminology: 'Rape' vs. 'Sexual Assault'

In the last week, there has been a flurry of media attention surrounding the Penn State scandal.  It seems that among such coverage, The New York Times  has been criticized for referring to the incident as "sexual assault" instead of "rape". In an article for Poynter, Arthur Brisbane discussed the issue with Times sports editor, Joe Sexton:

"...[he said] the charges included a variety of acts, so the paper had used “sexual assault” to cover the range. Further, he said, the paper’s reporting on Penn State officials’ accounts of their actions required careful wording, as none of them besides the graduate assistant had acknowledged that rape was involved."

Though I'm not sure if this is an issue of ethics of just plain terminology, I think that there is something to be said about reporting on such sensitive stories.  How should journalists write when talking about cases of rape? Where is the line drawn between being hypersensitive and hardened? Like the article suggests, journalists should begin by using language that is as specific as possible.  Perhaps such an accurate start will lay the foundation for the conscious reporting of tragedies.

In my opinion, this is a very specific incident that has much larger implications.  But, I'm not sure where on spectrum of journalism ethics it lies. What do you guys think?

News Tweets: Reporting or Publicity?

Through a couple of my internships, I've been given the opportunities to engage in social media on behalf of entertainment companies.  In both cases, we used Twitter as a marketing, branding, and outreach tool.  But I never considered that for news organizations, using Twitter to market themselves, may actually pose a problem. Although I follow plenty of news outlets on Twitter, rarely, if ever, do I stop to truly think about the way they're tweeting - rather, I just consume the news that they release.

Recently, Mashable wrote about a study done by The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism and The George Washington University's School of Media and Public Affairs, which revealed that over 90% of the time, news outlets tweet a link to their own website.  The conclusion here, is that news organizations and journalists are using Twitter solely to promote themselves, instead of tweeting in the interest of completely informing the public.  It appears that it is rare to find a news tweet that links to another organization/source.  Are news outlets being selfish, and depriving followers of all potential resources?

"News organizations use Twitter mostly to promote their own stories. Sharing of other content and engagement with readers is “rare,” according to a new study."

The study suggested that while the initial concern with Twitter was to build your own following, "Now, the idea is that being a service — of providing users with what they are looking for even if it comes from someone else — carries more weight". Are mainstream news organizations failing in their duty to fully inform the public by refusing to direct their followers to other sources as well as their own?  By linking mostly to their own sites, are these outlets engaging in unethical marketing/promotion tactics?


Check out the full article here.  It's an interesting analysis of "Twitter intentions", and I'm curious as to what you all think of it. 

INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM: TO CATCH A PREDATOR

This weekend, I've been working on a paper considering the ethics of undercover journalism.  I briefly considered writing about the hit NBC show, To Catch a Predator, but eventually settled on a different topic.  However, I keep finding myself returning to the idea of the Dateline series - is what they're doing ethical?

For those of you who aren't familiar with the show, To Catch  a Predator has volunteers pose as 13-year-olds and log into online chat rooms, where they wait to be hit on by older sex offenders.  They then invite the men over to their house, where Dateline is waiting with hidden cameras and police force.  The decoys greet the men, right before the host, Chris Hansen, enters the room to apprehend the potential offenders.  

Ever since the show's premier in 2006, questions have been raised regarding whether or not their work is an ethical form of journalism.  Some argue that the premise of the show is "entrapment". Stone Phillips, a Dateline host, said this:

"In many cases, the decoy is the first to bring up the subject of sex. However, the transcripts show that once the hook is baited, the fish jump and run with it like you wouldn't believe... Enticement? Yes. Entrapment. I don't think so. The closer I look at the online conversations (which are available on Perverted Justice's Web site) the more obvious it becomes that these men are not first-timers when it comes to engaging minors in graphic online chats. They tend to be remarkably matter-of-fact in their approach, as if it is part of an all too regular routine." 

Chris Hansen wrote:

"Our job is to investigate topics like computer predators, delve as deeply as we can into the topic so that viewers can see first hand what's happening. "

But are they delving too deeply?  How far should a show like this go? Where do they draw the line when enticing these men? Can this type of undercover work be justified under the umbrella of investigative journalism?

While I have absolutely no sympathy for the men featured on this show and am completely disgusted by their behavior, I am left wondering whether or not NBC has gone too far.  There are some huge ethical journalistic implications here, and I'm not sure exactly where I stand - although I'm inclined to side with NBC. What do you guys think?

ASKING THE TOUGH QUESTIONS: JASON MATTERA

After writing our paper on the ethics of interviewing, I believe that I am slightly more attuned to the ways in which journalists approach and question people.  Jason Mattera, has recently made headlines with his aggressive and upfront methods of interviewing public officials- in one incident he frankly asked a congressman, "why are you such a disgrace?" In the video below, he's seen questioning Vice President Joe Biden about using a "rape reference" to push President Obama's employment initiative.  By asking a series of very direct questions, Mattera manages to aggravate Biden into barking, "don't screw with me".

How aggressive is too aggressive when it comes to asking those tough questions?  I don't think that Mattera did anything wrong by asking Biden to confirm or deny his statements.  Though Mattera was assertive, he was also calm at the same time.  I don't believe that he was ill-mannered in his behavior, unless asking a major politician and public leader uncomfortable (but necessary) questions is considered rude.

What do you guys think? Did Jason Mattera cross a line when questioning Joe Biden? Was his behavior inappropriate or unethical?

GADHAFI CORPSE PHOTOS: EXPLICIT OR JUST UNNECESSARY?

When news broke Thursday that former Libyan Leader, Muammar Gadhafi,  had been killed, the celebratory headlines were quickly followed by the release of multiple gruesome photos of his dead body.  There were photos of his body being shoved into an ambulance, lying lifeless on the floor of the ambulance [including close-ups of his blood-stained and battered face], and later photos of his corpse being displayed at a private home.  There were even photos of his deceased son's body lying on the ground, with dozens of reporters/bystanders hoovering over it, snapping pictures with their cellphones.  


While I certainly understand the enormity of Gadhafi's death and the liberating effect it will have on the country of Libya, there may be a point were some type of privacy should be respected.  As a journalist, I fully support the free-flow of information, the exposure of any and all truths, and the presentation of relevant evidence.  I also think that visual proof is often key to public understanding, but the extremely graphic pictures may not be entirely necessary. I'm somewhat torn on this issue, unable to decide whether or not I believe that news organizations should have released such explicit images of the dead dictator.  


James Poniewozik of Time wrote an interesting article on the issue.  Here's a little of what he had to say...

A photo of a corpse is something more than just a data point. As a human being, I’d like to think that we’re disturbed by pictures of the dead–even evil tyrants–for good reason, because we recognize something sacred about life. (Which is a separate consideration from whether someone deserves to die.) Sometimes the news should, sparingly and with consideration, show dead bodies–because news is also about conveying the enormity of events, the fact that wars and disasters are not abstract and bloodless.

What do you think? These are clearly powerful images, with some level of news worthy value, but was it ethical for news organizations to show photos of Gadhafi's corpse?