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? 

THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION: WHY DO YOU WRITE?

This week, I'd like to talk about something slightly different.  I don't have an example of a current event - a journalistic ethical dilemma that begs to be dissected or a reporting decision waiting to be scrutinized.  Rather, I have but one simple question: Why do you write?

It's a basic question that lies at the core of all journalistic efforts.  And it requires an answer that can help us understand what it means to be a journalist - what it means to be 'good' at this profession.  Today, the New York Times posted an article entitled, "Why I Write: Q. and A. With Seven Times Journalists".  It includes the responses to a number of questions relating to the field of journalism. But the responses that I found most striking were those answering the question, "why I write".

Here are some of what I thought to be the most interesting responses:

"I write because I believe in sharing information. I’m a journalist, so it’s my responsibility to inform others." - Simone S. Oliver, Senior Producer, Styles

"Writing will always be the connective tissue of a story, no matter what format it ultimately takes. And that’s what I’ve always wanted to be — a storyteller." - Jeffery Delviscio, Senior Producer, Foreign

"It’s a pleasure and a privilege to get to contribute to the public discourse and to be involved in the world of ideas." - Maraglit Fox, Reporter, Obituaries

"...through my writing, I was giving dignity to people’s lives. I liked that and still do today. A lot of times that is what we are doing as journalists, capturing people’s lives and giving them dignity, whether they are people in some far off land, or here at home. That is why I write." - Michael Luo, Domestic Correspondent, Investigative

"I write because I love to tell stories that make people see things they never saw." - Fernanda Santos, Reporter, Education

"I write because I think it’s a fascinating window into the world." - Pete Thamel, Reporter, Sports

The notions of contributing to a world of ideas, of further sharing information and spreading compelling stories, seem to be a common belief among these reporters.  It would seem that as journalists, they take pride and pleasure in informing the public. While this view may be a cliché, it is nonetheless worth discussing.  Is it the primary ethical responsibility of a journalist to inform the public, and nothing more?

What are you thoughts? Why do YOU write?

SMITHSONIAN PROTEST: REPORTER OR REACTIONARY?

At times of political protest and social uprising, it seems it may be difficult to draw the line between being a reporter and a reactionary.  On Saturday, a group of people held a protest in Washington D.C., and attempted to march into the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum.  The event made news on its own, but received further attention when a reporter from the American Spectator published an article admitting that he had attended the protest as an "agent provocateur". 

Patrick Howley wrote that he had participated in the march not as a supporter, but rather in order to discredit, mock, and undermine it.  He claims that he the protesters lacked nerve and courage in the face of authority.  He also said that he rushed past museum guards in an effort to further escalate the protest.

Howley has been widely criticized for attempting to incite a riot, engaging in criminal activity, and breaching journalistic integrity.  It appears as though he abandoned his duties as a reporter, and chose to behave in a manner that would provoke illegal activity.  

In a Guardian article, Charlie Grapski, a fellow journalist, disagreed with the way Howley participated in the protest.  He said this:

"It is not journalism. This goes against every tenet of ethical journalism. Howley was doing it in order to 'mock and undermine'. His actions shows that the protesters were not out to disrupt, but that chaos and disruption followed his actions. Not only has he distorted the story to discredit others, he has engaged in criminal acts."

Do you believe that Howley's actions were unethical?  Is the idea of acting as an "agent provocateur" fundamentally at odds with the principles of ethical journalism?  Does the act of provoking the public (as a journalist) alter the reality of which you are supposed to report? 

THE FRONT PAGE: AMANDA KNOX

I've always found it particularly interesting to see which photos are chosen for front page new stories - whether it is for a print newspaper, magazine, or online content.  Today, I was reminded of this issue when the media seemed to erupt in coverage of the Amanda Knox trial.  Just a few hours ago, the public received word that an Italian court had overturned Knox's 2009 murder conviction.  Knox, accused of killing her roomate, Meredith Kucher, in 2007, is now free after spending four years in jail.

I certainly haven't followed the details of the case well enough to make any judgements on the outcome of this trial.  I did however, find it somewhat compelling how the media chose to cover the news of Knox's acquittal.  As pointed out by an article on Poynter, photos of Amanda Knox seemed to pop up on the home page of every major online news source almost instantaneously.  Here are a few screen shots that they grabbed from earlier today...

In these three sources, the editors have chosen very different photos of Knox, all of which portray her in very different ways.  The one that most stands out to me, is the photo from the Seattle Times - this zoomed-in shot of her eyes is to some extent disturbing and sinister.  Just from first glance, it seems to me, to characterize Knox as an emotionless, cold-hearted killer.  Meanwhile, the CBS photo appears to do the exact opposite.  

I suppose my questions here are: What are the ethical standards for choosing front page photos? Which photos should the newsroom choose to present to the public? Should Amanda Knox be presented in a neutral light? 

Perhaps most importantly: Can one photo skew the objectivity of an entire news article?

CARL BERNSTEIN: HACKGATE

Again, we return to subject of phone hacking -- but what can I say, it's a hot topic right now! And this week was the first time that I stumbled across the term "hackgate".  And as you can probably imagine, it's a clever little comparison between phone hacking and the monstrous scandal that brought down Richard Nixon.


Carl Bernstein, the legendary journalist who played a main role in uncovering Watergate, is currently across the pond in London, participating in a debate called After Hacking: How can the press restore trust?  Seeing as many are probably curious as to his comments on the issue, Dan Sabbagh of the Guardian has written a great article, which pulls together a number of things that Bernstein has said in regards to the relationship between Watergate and Murdoch's phone hacking case.  Most notable is the way in which Bernstein directly equates Murdoch to Nixon...

"Hacking is about a notion of what journalism is and what is permissible – just as Watergate was about what it's permissible for the president to do," [Bernstein] says, arguing that Murdoch is, in the broadest sense, responsible for his now closed Sunday tabloid.

Bernstein also says...

"Some of his newsrooms showed such disregard for any semblance of reasonable privacy and even the law, and this had an effect on other newsrooms on both sides of the Atlantic".

After reading through several of his comments, it is clear that Bernstein believes that Murdoch crossed a journalistic line that transcends both legal and ethical principles.  I think he's suggesting that the very nature of journalism rejects the underlying moral codes of phone hacking...an idea that I certainly agree with.  Bernstein continually makes reference to the practice of journalism and the purpose of the journalist -- and without explicitly defining either concept, he indicates that the answer is the direct opposite of what he refers to as "the spectacle and the triumph of the idiot culture". 


Thus, the job of a journalist is to defeat such an "idiot culture". Bernstein has famously written, "the media are probably the most powerful of all our institutions today; and they are squandering their power and ignoring their obligation". Do you agree with him? Is the media failing in their journalistic obligations? Has journalism abandoned its ethical ideologies? 

FOOTBALL OR GADHAFI?

For this week's post, I'm going to stick to a pretty simple observation.  At my internship, I've recently been given the task of sorting through the morning newspapers and picking out some of the more interesting business stories.  And of course, this means that I spend a lot more time than I normally would, flipping through the Wall Street Journal, the SF Chronicle, and the SF Examiner - because let's be honest, I rarely pay for a newspaper when I can browse the news on the internet for free. In any case, I was particularly struck by what I found in the Examiner...


Aside from the cover story being something about a dog-killing artist (that's an entirely different discussion in itself), I also noticed that the sports section seemed to dominate the paper.  The Examiner is a fairly short newspaper to begin with, but when you take into consideration the amount of space that is used for sports, it leaves little room for the rest. Compared to the one page dedicated to business, and the one page dedicated to world news, there are a total of SIX sports pages. And I understand the undying love that America has for football, but at the end of the day, is that more important than the happenings in Libya or the 2012 U.S. presidential election??

What is more important for American journalists to report? Do they have an ethical duty to devote more time, energy, and space to world affairs? What ethical principles go into the Examiner's decision to favor the sports section?

TO PUBLISH OR NOT TO PUBLISH?

When it comes to Sarah Palin, I think it's safe that say that there's no shortage of outrage and drama.  From her teen mom daughter, to her claims to be able to see Russia from her backyard, and her down-and-dirty animal hunting ways on her TLC reality show, Palin has been surrounded by what seems to be an incessant cloud of critique and opposition.  But recently, her name has been slightly absent from the mouths of her critics...cue the next Sarah scandal.


The National Enquirer (not necessarily journalism at its finest) has released reports that Sarah Palin and former Miami Heat player Glen Rice, had a shocking "one-night stand" back in 1987, along with a whole string of nasty allegations of cocaine use and adultery.  And while we know that the National Enquirer isn't exactly the most reputable source, our question of journalism ethics lies in the fact that the Miami Herald has chosen to publish the same story.


Herald Reporter, Armando Salguero, has made it quite clear that he disapproves of his colleagues decision to run the story.  Here's what he had to say (via Poynter):

Do we know this story to be TRUE? Are we certain it is TRUE because we’ve done the work or have a reasonable certainty that is TRUE?

Did anyone actually try to confirm this story before giving it Herald front page credibility? Did anyone call Glenn Rice to get independent confirmation? He lives in Miami, you know.

Is it now OK to repeat any “report” from the National Enquirer on the front page of the Herald’s website without actually reporting even one fact independently? The blog calls The Enquirer’s sources “solid.” …

If this Rice story, unconfirmed and unreported by us, can be published on our site, do the alien stories not meet the same standards?

The Miami Herald certainly seems to be walking a fine line between honest reporting and tabloid journalism.  While we might expect a story of this nature to pop up in the National Enquirer, I know I was surprised to see that it had made it into the Herald.

Is it ethical to report a story that at its core, is nothing more than a rumor?  The story is clearly capable of, and probably well on its way to harming Sarah Palin's reputation. Does that mean that the journalists didn't consider her well-being...certainly their loyalties don't lie with Palin.

My initial reaction: I agree with Salguero, the Miami Herald's decision to publish something of this nature is questionable...and I'm leaning towards unethical. What are your thoughts?

PHONE HACKING INVESTIGATION RAISES BIGGER & BROADER CONCERNS

As I browsed some of my go-to news sites this week, one headline caught my eye: "Press Freedom Fears As Police Question Guardian Reporter"  (And though it is about the phone hacking scandal, and it has more to do with British journalism than American, I think it's nonetheless worth mentioning).

According to the article, Guardian journalist, Amelia Hill, has been cautiously questioned by police in regards to her contact with off-the-record sources during her work on the News of The World phone hacking scandal.  Basically, she's been accused of publishing information that was leaked by an officer assigned to the case, AKA Operation Weeting. And while this is largely a legal debate, I feel like there's surely a matter of ethics somewhere in there.  So, here are the controversial questions: Is it ethical for a journalist to publish leaked information on the basis that it is in the public interest? Is public interest more important that the interest of the police investigation?

Gaurdian reporter Dan Sabbagh wrote this:

Martin Moore, the director of the media watchdog the Media Standards Trust, said that in light of the phone-hacking scandal it was becoming "increasingly important to sustain and defend journalism in the public interest." He said that it was "not the time to be threatening public interest journalism" by the police moving to question reporters such as Hill.

It seems Moore is saying that it is perfectly ethical for a journalist to publish info from an off-the-record source, and that the real unethical action here, is the fact that the police are threatening public interest by going after Hill.

Sabbagh also noted that Michelle Stranistreet, the general secretary of the National Union of Journalists said this:

"There is a clear distinction between legitimate off-the-record interviews and the illegitimate payment of bribes."

This brings up another question: Is allowing a source to remain off-the-record the same as bribing a source? I'm going to agree with Stranistreet, and say no.

The general consensus of the article seems to lean towards the conclusion that Amelia Hill's actions were ethical...but that could also be because the article was written by one of her fellow Gaurdian reporters - just a thought. Either way, what do you think?

A LITTLE INTRO...

As a student in Prof. Robertson's American Journalism Ethics class at the University of San Francisco, I have been asked to create a blog-- which will most likely end up playing host to anything and everything related to the practice of journalism in today's society. From what I imagine, this blog will come to be a place where I can post things of journalistic/ethical interest: articles, reactions, photos, video clips, and so on...

Clearly I'm in the very early stages of getting into the blogging routine, but I figured now is as good a time as any. So I'm just going to jump right into it with something we discussed in class last week: the supremely awkward Piers Morgan and Christine O'Donnell interview.

In class we talked about whether or not Piers Morgan was justified in the way he approached the interview.  Was his behavior unethical? Was his undeniable and overt persistence questionable?

At first, the only thing I could think about was how uncomfortable their tension made me feel...and I'm not even a participant in strange the nationwide broadcast.  And even now, after watching the clip multiple times, I'm still on the fence about the whole thing.

I'm tempted to say that Piers Morgan was only doing his job... As a public figure who has already exposed herself and her views to millions of people, I feel as though Christine O'Donnell should have been prepared to speak openly about all of her opinion and politics.  Because Morgan was questioning her about material that is currently public knowledge (in the form of a published book), I have a difficult time understanding why such a topic should be off limits for discussion.

And while I do sympathize with Piers Morgan, I also believe he could've handled the situation differently.  His incessant pressuring of Christine O'Donnell showed both a lack of ethics and professionalism.  I do believe he crossed a line in the interview that could've been avoided had he approached the question in a different manner.

Either way, there was undoubtedly something not right about this interview...