EJ Chapter 10
During my spring break in Washington, D.C., I was able to see all of the security measures in place in this vast metropolis, so I can only imagine how scary it must have been in October of 2002. I often get freaked out by the constant UF Alerts, so I know I would have been paralyzed by fear.
The fierceness of media competition is to be expected. Everyone wants to receive credit for shedding light on a particular issue or scandal. However, it surprised me how the New York Times was still disappointed about coming up short in the Watergate coverage. To me, it seems like a no-brainer that the Washington Post, which is based in our nation’s capital, was able to devote its resources to uncovering this government secret. Does being the “paper of record” mean you have to be everywhere, all the time to get the next blockbuster story?
After seeing the well-oiled New York Times machine in “Page One: Inside the New York Times,” I saw many talented journalists and editors working diligently and looking at topics in ways I never would have considered. With this access to the best and brightest in journalism, it concerns me how reporter Jayson Blair, with less than two years of experience, was sent to D.C. during the fall of 2002.
Red flags were also raised when established reporters, such as Eric Lichtblau, questioned some of Blair’s reporting. While egos and jealousy are rampant in the field of journalism, Lichtblau had questions based on the input of trusted sources. I wonder why this was not taken more seriously. I ponder this issue further in my discussion question because I do not see why a news organization would not want these types of internal checks and balances to benefit the organization. Section, managing and executive editors cannot keep their eyes on everyone all the time, so they should value the “on-the-ground” perspective from other journalists.
It angers me how it took an outsider from another paper to cause executive editor Howell Raines and managing editor Gerald Boyd to take a closer look. In 2001, Boyd became the first African American managing editor at the New York Times. Did this factor into special treatment for Blair, who was also an African American? I do not like to speculate, but I question how this behavior could have gone undetected for so long.
I give some credit to the management of the New York Times for attempting to open up the lines of communication, but I think it was too late, at least on this particular issue. An article pertaining to the resignation of Raines and Boyd mentioned how 36 articles written by Blair raised ethical concerns. This is not exactly something you can sweep under the rug.
Having no laws or licensing in journalism can be viewed as a negative, but these types of regulations would hinder the work of journalists. In lecture a few weeks back, we saw what it takes to be a journalist in China. I think I am content to pursue a journalism career here where there is much less restriction and emphasis on following those who are in power.
However, I think the lack of rules and regulations also places a heavier burden on individual journalists. We may not be bound to follow certain laws, but do we have any credibility if we do not follow some standards? While codes of ethics provide a sound foundation, I think an ethical compass must also be found in every reporter.
Ultimately, I do not think we can avoid an oligarchic media structure. Editors need to use their news judgment to evaluate and monitor what their journalists are doing. Within these structures, I think more can be done to allow for discussion and internal audits about what is going on. It is much better if an ethical issue can be dealt with from the onset instead of months or years later when a problem of a greater scale attracts the attention of the outside media and the rest of the public.
In my first blog post for this course, I defined ethics as “a moral foundation that allows someone to evaluate and make decisions in his or her personal and professional life.” I think this relates to Kovach and Rosenstiel’s ninth principle that states, “Journalists have an obligation to exercise their personal conscience.”
Journalists must use their voices to announce when something is ethically questionable or biased. I applaud Sharyl Attkisson, not only because she is a Florida Gator, but because she decided to leave CBS because of its alleged liberal bias and lacking focus on investigative reporting. While this chapter mentions how calling attention to issues at an organization are rare because journalists are worried about job security, it is refreshing to see when someone’s morals are considered more important than salary.
Even though many journalists could likely not afford to do what she did, she sets an example for others to follow. I wholeheartedly agree with Carol Marin when she said, “I think a journalist is someone who believes in something that they would be willing to quit over.” It appears that Attkisson took this advice.
Our media ethics text by Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins also referred to the NBC “Dateline” special about General Motors. To me, it seems obvious how journalists and producers should never manufacture anything when it comes to the news. If the actual crash tests had resulted in small fires that burnt out on their own, this is what should have been shown. Adding additional crash tests “rigged to be more dramatic,” leads to journalists crossing boundaries into the land of make believe.
This situation also raises the question of why aren’t the concerns of journalists taken more seriously? Michele Gillen, like Eric Lichtblau at the New York Times, did her job by voicing her issues with the segment. Michael Gartner might still have a job with NBC News if he had listened to her.
It interests me how websites like Mediabistro exist to provide news about the world of journalism. Journalists are no longer only celebrated or critiqued for the reporting they do. They also receive attention for various judgment calls they make, such as when Bob Costas chose not to host the “Larry King Live” special about Natalee Holloway. Members of the general public and other journalists are serving more and more as “media watchdogs,” which hopefully will continue to help with transparency.
I do not think we are facing an industry-wide degradation of ethics. While shows like “House of Cards,” show journalists sleeping with congressmen and threatening sources, I think these ideas make for good television. I may be naive, but I think the moral dimension continues to lead people to careers in journalism.
However, I think we are seeing a change because of the influx of citizens who are producing journalistic content. These citizens do not have managers exercising the final judgment about what they can and cannot publish, which is why they sometimes engage in fabrication. Our group saw this when a citizen journalist falsely published that Steve Jobs had a heart attack in 2008. As Kovach and Rosenstiel said, exercising conscience is not easy, especially when someone’s moral compass is skewed.
Credit must also be given to Carol Marin for refusing to anchor a station that was heading down a path of hype and sleaze. She knew how journalists “live and die by their reputation as people with ethics.” If a journalist does not have standards and a moral compass to guide himself or herself, can that person’s work be trusted as being believable and credible? If journalists allow their work to become about hype and infotainment, audiences will not continue to place their work in high esteem.
I am struggling with something said by Linda Foley, the former president of the Newspaper Guild. She declared, “It’s credibility, more than objectivity, that’s important for us in our industry.” Can journalists or media organizations be deemed credible if they are not covering the news objectively? Covering the news accurately and proportionally without bias leads to credibility, so I think they go hand in hand.
I do agree with the discussion about the importance of collaboration when dealing with a decision or dilemma. Whenever I am considering the news value of a pitch or whether a story is biased or missing a certain stakeholder view at WUFT, I always like to ask my fellow advanced editors and supervisors what they think. Donald Shriver effectively expresses this view when he said, “If journalism is a medium of dialogue among citizens, it seems right for the dialogue to begin in the newsroom.”
My various political science courses have exhaustively discussed the publication of the Pentagon Papers by the Washington Post. However, hearing from Katherine Graham about the views of different journalists and editors demonstrated how collaborative discussion and decision-making was essential for the publication decision. The publication of the Pentagon Papers had far-reaching implications that resulted in the “passing of an era” for the American press.
Do these types of discussions still occur today? Journalists are largely thought of as being lone rangers working individually without the necessity of teamwork, apart from consultation with editors. However, I think we need to get away from this belief because it limits the reporting capabilities. Having a second set of eyes or someone’s advice on working with a particular source can be invaluable. Editors and management not only have to listen to journalists, but journalists must also listen to each other.
Diversity is one of those terms that is used so frequently that it has lost its meaning. As I have applied to law school, I have seen the negative impacts of ethnic, racial and gender quotas. While I understand that universities and news organizations want to embrace different ethnicities and races, I do not think that quotas are an effective way to do this. Does choosing to hire an African American mean he or she is going to report about life in the ghetto? It is preconceived notions of this nature that people of a certain race all come from the same background.
All white people are not the same, just as all African Americans are not all similar to one other. Newsrooms need to look to hire journalists who will bring new perspectives and those who will challenge the status quo. If these journalists are of a different race or ethnicity than the majority of a newsroom, this should come secondary in the admissions or hiring process.
I appreciate how Kovach and Rosenstiel acknowledged the factors inhibiting newsrooms from including journalists from more heterogeneous backgrounds. Investigative journalism, like what uncovered Watergate, seems to be few and far between in today’s media. Is this because of the bureaucratic inertia preventing people from pushing the envelope? At first, I was struggling with what these terms meant, but it can be thought of as routines becoming safe havens. As I continue to see CNN’s coverage of Malaysian Flight 370, news organizations giving into the routine is all too apparent.
John Quincy Adams once said, “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.” While editors and publishers want to maintain their authority, they should also look for reporters to question their antics and even to defy them when it is appropriate. Efficiency may be important, but is a homogeneous newsroom in this period of cultural change and progress the key for long-term media success?
Heterogeneous newsrooms can facilitate communication with citizens who are as unique as each falling snowflake. (I apologize for the corny metaphor). One of the duties of a journalist is to help build a bridge across people’s differing views. This role is made much easier if people in the newsroom are well aware of the views based on their own backgrounds. While some might call this bias, these background experiences can contribute to more well-rounded reporting that does not leave out important details because of ignorance.
While citizens have a role in driving what receives coverage, they are not wholly responsible for the state of the media today. However, as they begin to take on a more active role, their future role may be transformed. As Poynter’s Kelly McBride said during a recent interview with our group, the terms “citizen journalist” may be redundant as everyone is able to create and publish content.
As I began reading this article, I definitely identified with what Alana Moceri was saying. Whenever I scroll through Twitter or watch the nightly network news, which is not as often as I should, I constantly feel like there are only bad things happening.
When I looked at ABC News on Sunday night, this is what I saw. It is easy to be overwhelmed by these menacing headlines.
Where is the news about the good happening in the world?
In this article, Moceri also said three words that do not usually come out of a journalist’s mouth: “I’m an activist.” Journalists are instructed to be objective and unbiased, so it is rare to have a reporter bucking the trend and saying something so unusual.
Is it ethical for someone to call himself or herself both a journalist and an activist? Can you accurately report on something if you are passionate about a particular aspect of the issue or topic? This seems to be where journalism is headed with the growth of citizen journalism. Many citizen journalists are not reporting on city commission meetings. They are writing blogs and creating websites about what they are passionate about.
Upon scrolling through ChicagoNow, I see posts about parenting, pets, sports, etc. While traditional journalists also write about these topics, citizens do not have to follow the standards of objectivity and fairness. They can, but their paychecks are not on the line if they choose to pursue an activist approach. This ethical shift is raising many questions about the future of journalism and its credibility.
Citizen journalists add their voices to the conversation
Moceri is supporting a “journalism for action” that not only reports the facts but also provides resources and information for readers who want to do something about a problem or issue. I am struggling to determine how this would work in everyday practice. Would a story about an attack on a lesbian woman have to be accompanied by where people can go to receive counseling if they have been attacked? Will providing these resources become a part of a journalist’s job description?
Would the pursuit of finding out what people can do to solve a problem detract from journalists having the ability to keep track of news as it changes ever day? It does not appear as though this would be economically feasible for news organizations that are already struggling to stay afloat.
I agree with Moceri how people need to become more civically involved. Many people wrongly believe that their civic abilities are limited to voting for elected officials. What ever happened to people coming together and expressing their views? The civil rights movement and the women’s movement would have been much less successful if citizens had not engaged in collective action.
Vince Lombardi once said, “Individual commitment to a group effort – that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work.” With access to new tools, people have the ability to engage and express themselves more than ever before. What is stopping people from taking this step to take on a more active role?
The press serving as a watchdog over government is a widely held belief in this country, especially after the Pentagon Papers and Watergate. However, we are entering a new chapter as citizens are able to post photos, tweets and videos that keep power in check. Just ask Scott Prouty, the man who videotaped Mitt Romney’s now infamous 47 percent video. With this access, it is easier than ever to post, but it may lead to people making decisions without considering the possible ethical consequences.
Moceri focused on journalists providing citizens with an ability to take action on governmental issues. How would this work without journalists revealing their political leanings? Would journalists be required to do this equally for all party positions? While it is one thing to tell people how they can contact a member of Congress, it is a whole other issue to instruct someone how to get involved with a pro-rights or pro-choice group. I think false equivalency would become an issue for many of these topics because journalists want to avoid being called bias. However, as we have seen, false equivalency can provide a jaded view of reality. Global warming, anyone?
I comprehend how journalism for action does not need to translate into biased journalism. However, I do not see how an activist would not be biased. Is someone capable of switching between his or her journalism and activist hats?
Maybe so. If Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Nicholas Kristof is partaking in this journalism of action by providing the names of organizations helping to solve assorted problems, I feel like this type of journalism has a future.
This type of journalism is a shift from the status quo, but we must remember that journalism’s first loyalty is to citizens. If the citizens want to get involved and be told ways they can take an active role, journalists should do what is in their power to provide this information alongside objective reporting of the news.
In Praise of the Almost-Journalists
While many are quick to say journalism is a dying field, I have always been quick to point out that it is an industry going through a transformation. Finding a reporting job may no longer be a guarantee but more avenues continue to open up.
Citizen journalism is one area revolutionizing the media. The advent of digital technology, including smartphones and social media platforms, has given ordinary people the opportunity to become publishers. Forums like CNN’s iReport help amplify the voices of those who were relegated to the audience in the past.
While citizen journalism can often be celebrated, it also has its critics. Are platforms like AllVoices where anyone and everyone can write about everything a positive for journalism? I want people to have a voice, but I am also skeptical about whether these citizens uphold the same ethical standards that paid journalists subscribe to.
I am still having trouble considering advocates to be journalists. The American Civil Liberties Union is described on its website as “our nation’s guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.” While I appreciate this passion for liberty, I question whether this disqualifies the organization from considering itself to be journalistic.
However, I agree with Dan Gillmor when he said how citizens and advocates can provide more ample coverage than traditional groups. I wonder if this is because of their access to resources or whether this ties in with their passion for a particular subject.
In various classes, we have often discussed how journalists are not typically viewed as experts. Journalists are often considered to have working knowledge of various topics, which allows them to do their jobs more effectively.
Many of these citizens and advocates are experts in their respective fields. We can debate for hours the ethical dilemmas of whether they can provide accurate information without letting their biases infiltrate coverage. However, wouldn’t the input of experts provide better reporting on topics that are difficult to grasp?
Gillmor points to the ACLU looking into surveillance and freedom of information lawsuits long before Edward Snowden entered the scene. While I think journalists should continue knowing a little bit about as much as they can, I think these citizens and advocates should be consulted more regularly in the future. Why shouldn’t Human Rights Watch be contacted about stories and investigations into a potential rights violation?
It is interesting to consider how advocates used to have to pass through gate keeping organizations, such as the New York Times or “60 Minutes,” before people were made aware of their work. However, they now have the ability to post their research on the Internet where people from around the world can access it. This is true for the Cato Institute, as well as moms blogging about new parenting trends.
I follow in the steps of Gillmor when I attempt to gather news from a variety of sources, including those who tend to be more liberal and conservative. While I acknowledge how CNN and Fox will not give me everything, I feel much better about hearing from multiple organizations before exercising my judgment.
Ethical dilemmas will continue to appear in the future, especially as these “almost journalists” gain stronger footing. However, it is also an exciting time where publishers may have more knowledge about a topic than ever before. If we can impart some of this “expert” knowledge onto the general audience, aren’t we providing an invaluable resource people will be willing to pay for? As someone who wants to be employed in the near future, I am hoping so.
Discussion Question
How would you notify editors and management if you had suspicions about a colleague plagiarizing?
As we saw in this Kovach and Rosenstiel chapter, journalists in the newsroom are sometimes able to find red flags and issues with the reporting of their colleagues. This included the journalists at the New York Times who worked with Jayson Blair. “Complaints about Blair’s work had infected the newsroom in New York like a persistent fever for months before Blair was sent to Washington.” Reporters, including Eric Lichtblau, raised their concerns, but it seemed like management and editors higher up the food chain did not want to listen. It also troubled me when the chapter mentioned how “the doubts about the quality of his work didn’t travel with him, as if the editors worked on different continents rather than a few years or miles from each other.” In our class discussion about Janet Cooke’s article “Jimmy’s World,” we saw how flukes can occur when a journalist’s typical editor is out of town or not consulted for a particular story. A news organization’s credibility can be threatened when a single journalist does something ethically questionable, especially when he or she fabricates and plagiarizes. Editors and management should take the concerns of journalists seriously before brushing them off, especially if publications or news outlets do not want to see their credibility and integrity questioned.
Link to Ethical Issue of the Week
Kovach and Rosenstiel focused on hype in chapter nine by discussing the principle of the “naked body and the guitar.” In order to attract audiences in today’s competitive media markets, it appears like many news organizations are providing more “naked bodies” or sensationalistic work instead of substantive reporting. This news is not only limited to celebrities and infotainment. As this ethical issue demonstrates, it also applies to the outbreak of infectious diseases. Publications, such as the Washington Post, largely stuck to the facts about what was happening in Africa with the spread of Ebola. Other news outlets, including the Daily Mail, were more sensationalistic. The Daily Mail used the excessively long title of “A terrifying fight against the deadliest virus on Earth: Medic reveals true horror of Ebola outbreak as incurable disease liquefies victims from the inside.” While I agree that people need to be made aware of this disease, I think news organizations are quick to give into hype to attract more clicks and sell more papers. Do you think this is wrong in every case? Can sensationalistic tactics ever be harnessed for good? The media, including ABC News, also speculated how the infection could reach the United States. This is technically possible, but many factors were overlooked. The disease is transmitted from wild animals to people. People can only contract the disease from other people through bodily fluids. It is easy to cause panic among the masses, but isn’t it the media’s job to educate the public about what is going on to reduce any potential panic? Fewer papers might be sold and articles could receive fewer hits, but is that all journalists care about these days?
Questions from Dr. Rodgers – Vocabulary Terms
No vocabulary words are listed for week 13.
Cassie Vangellow, cvangellow@ufl.edu
Vangellow, Cassie 