Ethics in Journalism E-Book

Ron Smith

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 675

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

The reputation of journalists is continually being questioned. Nearly every public opinion poll shows that people have lost respect for journalists and lost faith in the news media. In this fully updated and expanded 6th edition of Ethics in Journalism, author Ron F. Smith provides a highly readable introduction to journalism ethics, and offers solutions for the many ethical dilemmas facing journalists today.

• Utilizes dozens of new case studies, mostly taken from everyday experiences of reporters at both large and smaller newspapers and TV stations
• Explores the practical ethical issues involved in developing sources, coming to terms with objectivity, and bringing compassion to the pressures of journalism
• Considers the impact of blogs and the internet on traditional values of journalism
• Compares journalistic practices across different free societies

Leseprobe

Contents

List of Illustrations

Preface

Part 1 Principles and Guidelines

1 The Search for Principles

Journalism and Ethics

Improving the Profession

Notes

2 The Study of Ethics

The Birth of the Study of Ethics

Virtue and the Greeks

The Social Contract and Hobbes

John Stuart Mill and the Utilitarians

Kant and the Categorical Imperative

Making Ethical Decisions

Further reading

Notes

Part 2. Telling the Truth

3 Truth and Objectivity

What Is Truth Anyway?

The Question of Objectivity

Should Journalism Abandon Objectivity?

Cases to Discuss

Notes

4 Errors

How Many Mistakes?

Why So Many Errors?

Checking Facts and Quotes with Sources

A Disaster Brings Out the Best – and the Worst

Notes

5 Transparency

Explaining Ourselves

Being Held Accountable

Are We Being Too Transparent?

Notes

6 Faking the News

Fabricating News

Why Do Journalists Cheat?

Handling Quotes

Staging the News

Manipulating Photographs

Plagiarism

Notes

Part 3. Reporting the News

7 Working with Sources

Selecting Sources

The Care and Feeding of Sources

The After-the-Interview Request

Paying for News

Notes

8 The Government Watch

Government Secrecy

Secrecy in War

Working with Police

Cases to Discuss

Notes

9 The Shady World of Unnamed Sources

A Love–Hate Relationship

Use Secret Sources or Miss Big Stories?

Sinister Leakers and Secret Sources

The Trial Balloon

Deciding When to Grant Anonymity

Forms of Confi dentiality

Secret Sources, Reporters, and Jail

Cases to Discuss

Notes

10 Deception

The Two Faces of Deception

From Nellie Bly to Diane Sawyer

A Controversial Method

Improving the Profession

Cases to Discuss

Notes

Part 4. Compassion and the Journalist

11 Compassion, Privacy, and Ordinary Citizens

Room for Humaneness?

Reporters as Vultures

Names in the News

Details of Crimes

Reporting Sex Crimes

Cases to Discuss

Notes

12 Privacy for Political Leaders

The Partisan Press

The Era of the “Lapdog”

Are Politicians Still Fair Game?

Cases to Discuss

Notes

13 Compassion and Photographers

Pictures of War and Death

Pictures of Grief

Should Journalists Help Victims?

Notes

Part 5. Conflicts of Interest

14 Journalists and Their Communities

Journalists and Free Speech

Reporters and Diverse Communities

Cases to Discuss

Notes

15 Freebies and Financial Concerns

Goodbye, Free Lunch

What’s Wrong with Freebies?

Bought for a Cup of Coffee?

Different Rules for Different Sections?

Outside Jobs

Contests and News Judgment

Improving the Profession

Cases to Discuss

Notes

16 The Business of Journalism

The Changing Nature of Ownership

The Television News Business

Growth of Ethnic Media

Problems of the Under-Funded Newsroom

Can Quality Journalism Make Money?

Notes

Discussion of Cases

Chapter 3: Truth and Objectivity

Chapter 8: The Government Watch

Chapter 9: The Shady World of Unnamed Sources

Chapter 10: Deception

Chapter 11: Compassion, Privacy, and Ordinary Citizens

Chapter 12: Privacy for Political Leaders

Chapter 14: Journalists and Their Communities

Chapter 15: Freebies and Financial Concerns

Notes

Index

© 2008 by Ron F. Smith

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK550 Swanston Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia

The right of Ron F. Smith to be identified as the Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks, or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

First edition published, 1983Second edition published, 1987Third edition published, 1994Fourth edition published, 1999Fifth edition published, 2003This edition published 2008 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd

3 2009

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataSmith, Ron F.[Groping for ethics in journalism]Ethics in journalism / Ron F. Smith. – 6th ed.p. cm.Includes bibligraphical references and index.ISBN 978-1-4051-5934-0 (paperback)1. Journalistic ethics–United States. I. Title.

PN4888. E8G66 2008174'. 907–dc22

2007028078

A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library.

The publisher’s policy is to use permanent paper from mills that operate a sustainable forestry policy, and which has been manufactured from pulp processed using acid-free and elementary chlorine-free practices. Furthermore, the publisher ensures that the text paper and cover board used have met acceptable environmental accreditation standards.

For further information onBlackwell Publishing, visit our website:www.blackwellpublishing.com

To Rene

List of Illustrations

Figure 2.1 Potter's box. (Page 32)

Figure 5.1 Polly Klass' murderer.The San Jose Mercury News took the unusual precaution of including a front-page letter explaining its decision to publish this photograph of Richard Allen Davis' obscene gesture. (Photo courtesy of the San JoseMercury News.) (Page 84)

Figure 7.1 Pay the source? A businessman walks from the World Trade Center after the 9/11 terrorist attack. A year later, he wanted $911 to be interviewed and photographed. (Photo by Stan Honda, Agence France-Presse.) (Page 135)

Figure 8.1 Military color guards carrying the coffins. This photo was released by the Bush administration responding to an FOIA request and a lawsuit for pictures of American military dead returning from Iraq. The Pentagon said it obscured the faces out of concern for the privacy of the honor guard units. (Page 147)

Figure 13.1 A family's anguish. As the weeping father kneels over the body of his young son, a rescue worker (left) tries to console the drowning victim's brother and other family members. The editor who ran this picture said he wished he hadn't. (Photo courtesy of The Californian, Bakersfield, Calif.) (Page 265)

Figure 13.2 Dangling by the seatbelt. Before taking the photo, the photographer ensured that the woman was not badly hurt and that paramedics were called. (Photo courtesy of The Lima [Ohio] News.) (Page 269)

Preface

Chances are, if you’re reading this book you’re planning a career in TV or newspaper journalism. If you’re like many of us, you chose your career because you like to write and think you’re pretty good at it. Or maybe you want the excitement and prestige of being an anchor on TV. Or perhaps you want the challenge of meeting lots of people, ranging from the powerful and the famous to the powerless and forgotten.

You understand why you are required to take courses in news writing and editing. Your employers are going to expect you to perform these tasks. And you probably won’t balk at taking a mass-media law course. You know you don’t want to lose a million-dollar libel suit.

However, why must you read books like this one? Why must you study journalism ethics? I’m going to offer four reasons. You and your instructor are welcome to add to this list.

You need to think about what your role is as a journalist. Journalism plays a greater role than just allowing us to satisfy our desire to write, to be on TV, or to have the proverbial front-row seats to history. Journalists give communities an opportunity to see themselves. We point out the problems in society and show its successes. We are also playing a role in America’s experiment in self-government by informing voters about their government. If we lose sight of the important role the news media play in American society, our society will be the worse for it.Journalism is going through a tough time. Nearly every poll shows that people are losing respect for journalists and that they doubt if they can trust the news media. Their dissatisfaction is not with journalists’ technical abilities. It is with our ethics and our sense of what our role is in society. Your technical skills as a writer, editor, or producer are not going to amount to much if the public doesn’t believe you.Some of the behavior of journalists stems from a basic lack of morality. We can at least understand the motives of a reporter who, hot in the chase of a story, bends the rules. But there is no defense for reporters at major papers who make up stories wholesale or manufacture quotes from nonexistent sources. Yet, unfortunately, reporters have done that at some of our best newspapers, including The New York Times and USAToday. You are entering the profession at a time when you will have to regain the moral high ground. Our democracy demands an informed citizenry, and your job will be to make sure that journalism fulfills that role.Journalism ethics continue to be challenged by problems in ownership. There is no question that good corporate owners can foster quality news organizations. The first chapter of this book highlights the quality of news projects at news organizations, two of which are owned by large corporations. But as corporate owners feel the pressure of investors, they too often take steps to boost their bottom lines by cutting staff and thus reducing the quality of their journalism. It will fall on your shoulders to try to practice ethical journalism in an environment that is filled with hindrances.

As you read this book, challenge yourself. Put yourself in each story that opens a chapter. If you were in that situation, how would you handle the problem? What responsibilities do the journalists have to their sources, their readers and viewers, and their employers? Are there other ways to handle the problem? But also ask yourself how you would react to the reporter’s conduct if you were a source. And ask yourself what impact the story would have on you as a reader or viewer. Chapter 2 offers some insights on how philosophers have approached ethical problems and provide some additional factors to consider.

Many people helped me as I continued the work of Professor Eugene Goodwin, whose first edition of Groping for Ethics in Journalism won the Frank Luther Mott-Kappa Tau Alpha Research award in 1983. Foremost is Rene Stutzman, a reporter in the OrlandoSentinel’s Sanford bureau. As a first-rate journalist, she provided valuable insight as we discussed many of the cases covered in this book. And as my wife, she tolerated my secluding myself in my office working on the book.

About a dozen other newspaper and TV reporters, editors, and anchors read parts of the book. Their contributions were vital in ensuring the accuracy and completeness of the material. Also, I thank the reporters and editors at The Tampa Tribune for helping me to a better understanding of convergence, and those at the South Florida Sun-Sentinel for letting me sit in on some of their meetings.

My students have also shaped this work. Many have done so directly. Michelle Martinez and Maureen Tisdale made key contributions to sections on diversity. Other students have also helped track down references and anecdotes. As anyone who has taught can attest, my students, through class discussion and written work, have broadened my understanding of the issues. They have also been candid in their critiques of early drafts of the manuscript, helping me to avoid dry passages and reduce some of the long-windedness that marked earlier editions.

Blackwell Publishing assigned a great staff to this endeavor. Production editor Lisa Eaton kept the project moving forward gracefully. As a former copy editor myself, I was most impressed with the work of Sally Landsdell. Her detailed editing of the manuscript saved me from some embarrassing mistakes.

Despite the quality of the people who read portions of the manuscript, the observations of my students, and the care taken by Blackwell Publishing staff, I am sure you will find an occasional mistake. We’ll try to get it right next time. If you have comments or questions about the book, feel free to e-mail me at [email protected].

Ron F. SmithProfessorUniversity of Central Florida

Part 1

Principles and Guidelines

1

The Search for Principles

Imagine a city as big as New York suddenly grafted onto North Carolina’s Coastal Plain. Double it. Now imagine that this city has no sewage treatment plants. All the wastes from 15 million inhabitants are simply flushed into open pits and sprayed onto fields.

Turn those humans into hogs, and you don’t have to imagine at all. It’s already here.

A vast city of swine has risen practically overnight in the counties east of Interstate 95. It’s a megalopolis of 7 million animals that live in metal confinement barns and produce two to four times as much waste, per hog, as the average human.

All that manure – about 9.5 million tons a year – is stored in thousands of earthen pits called lagoons, where it is decomposed and sprayed or spread on crop lands.

That’s the beginning of a series of news stories that appeared in The News Observerin Raleigh, N.C. Having that much manure in your backyard can lead to problems. The paper talked to experts and reported:

New scientific studies had determined that contaminants from hog lagoons are getting into groundwater. One North Carolina State University report estimated that as many as half of existing lagoons – perhaps hundreds – are leaking badly enough to contaminate groundwater.Scientists are discovering that hog farms emit large amounts of ammonia gas, which returns to earth in rain. The ammonia is believed to be contributing to an explosion of algae growth that is choking many of the state’s rivers and estuaries.Experts said the odor is absorbed by the fatty tissues in the human body: “That’s why some people say they can smell the odor on their breath long after they left the farm.”The odor may be more than a nuisance. A Duke University researcher said that it was affecting residents’ mental health. She found that people living near large hog farms experienced “more tension, more depression, more anger, less vigor, more fatigue and more confusion.

With all the concerns about the environment and health of the residents, you might imagine that government agencies were trying to do something about this dangerous situation. Guess again. According to The News Observerseries:

You don’t have to look hard to spot the pork industry’s connections in North Carolina politics and government. Just start at the top.

U.S. Sen. Lauch Faircloth, a Republican who leads a congressional subcommittee on the environment, is a wealthy hog farmer.

Democratic Gov. Jim Hunt is the top recipient of political contributions from Wendell H. Murphy, whose Duplin County hog company is the biggest in the nation.

The chairman of the environment committee in the state House, Republican John M. Nichols, is building a large hog operation in Craven County and will raise pigs for Murphy.

The chairman of the Senate committee on environment and agriculture, Democrat Charles W. Albertson of Duplin County, is a friend of Murphy’s, and – judging from contributions – the pork industry’s favorite legislator…

To people with grievances against big pork, the alliances look like a power bloc.

“We have not found a sympathetic ear anywhere, ” said Robert Morgan of Lillington, a former U.S. senator who represents plaintiffs in four lawsuits against large-scale hog farms.

The ethics rules of the North Carolina Legislature do not bar representatives with a personal stake in a bill from pushing it in the Legislature. So it was considered both legal and ethical for one hog producer to be elected to the General Assembly and then to help pass laws worth millions of dollars to his company and his industry.

The “King Hog” series was a major project for The News Observer. Special projects editor Melanie Sill and reporters Pat Stith and Joby Warrick spent seven months interviewing hundreds of people and searching through mounds of records. Photographers, graphic artists, and editors also worked on the project. The result was a series of stories that provided a detailed portrait of the growth of hog factories and stirred many North Carolinians to reconsider the factories’ impact on the state.1 The series won a Pulitzer Prize for public service.

In Houston, television station KHOU opened its 10 o’clock program with a report by its Defenders investigative team. Reporter Anna Werner began the segment like this:

ANNA WERNER:It was a new marriage for Cynthia and C.J. Jackson.CYNTHIA JACKSON:We were just two middle-aged people trying to start over and to have fun.WERNER:So one June day this choir teacher and her husband packed up her Ford Explorer.JACKSON:He says let’s just take a ride.WERNER:And they took off for Galveston. But as Jackson drove back north something went horribly wrong.JACKSON:As I went to change lanes, I heard a pop.WERNER:What she heard was the tread coming off a back tire, a Firestone Radial ATX that came with the car.JACKSON:I yelled at my husband, hey baby wake up! The truck is shaking!WERNER:Then the car began to roll.JACKSON:Next thing I remember waking up in the hospital.WERNER:And she was facing bad news. Both of her legs would have to be amputated below the knee. But worst of all, her husband of a year and a half was dead... leaving her with one haunting memory.WERNER:So the last time you remember seeing CJ was when he looked up... do you find yourself thinking about that?JACKSON:(whispered) Yes...WERNER:Now, she does the best she can with a life that’s very different than the one she had planned.

Werner then reported a story about a 14-year-old cheerleader who was riding in a Ford Explorer on her way to a homecoming pep rally. One of the Explorer’s Firestone tires came apart at highway speed. The vehicle flipped three times, killing the girl. Werner told viewers:

Those are just two of many similar cases the Defenders found all over Texas – as many as a dozen over the past few years. And all of them have a familiar combination: a Ford Explorer and a Firestone ATX tire with what’s called tread separation, where the tread literally peels off the tire. When that happens, experts say, with some vehicles it can mean a devastating rollover crash.

Werner’s report lasted for nearly10 minutes. In gathering information for it, Werner not only talked to local accident victims, she had traveled to Washington to talk to a former head of the National Transportation Safety Board. She interviewed an expert on tire construction and a former employee of Firestone Tires who admitted that he had made bad tires. She tracked down similar accidents involving Explorers and Firestone tires in other states.

Werner also contacted Ford and the Bridgestone/Firestone tire company and asked them to give their side of the story. A Ford spokesperson told her that the Explorers were not to blame: It was “driver error” that caused the problems. Firestone would not comment on the air, but sent a letter saying the company stood by the safety of its tires.

Immediately after Werner’s report was broadcast, viewers flooded the station with reports of other accidents involving Explorers with Firestone tires. Werner began to put together a follow-up story. When Firestone officials learned she was doing another report, they fired off a letter to executives at the A.H. Belo Co., the owners of the station. The letter accused Werner of “falsehoods and misrepresentations” in her reports about the tires. “This series has unmistakably delivered the false messages that Radial ATX tires are dangerous, that they threaten the safety of anyone using them, and that they should be removed from every vehicle on which they are installed,” a Firestone vice president wrote in the letter. “Each of these messages is simply untrue.” Furthermore, Firestone charged, KHOU was more concerned with “sensationalism and ratings” than serving its viewers. If the station really wanted to help Houston-area drivers, it would do reports on “proper tire maintenance procedures” and “proper driving methods.”

Although the letter did not mention libel or directly threaten lawsuits, it was clear that Firestone meant business. Other media were slow to pick up the story. It was months before newspapers and networks started writing about the potential problems. A KHOU journalist told The New York Times that he thought the strongly worded letter from Firestone may help explain why other news media stayed away. Nevertheless, the letter did not scare off KHOU. The station broadcast a nine-minute segment by Werner in which she reported more accidents caused by defective tires.

Months after KHOU’s first reports, the National Highway Safety Agency opened an investigation that concluded KHOU was right. Bridgestone/ Firestone began to recall 6.5 million tires. As Rep. Billy Tauzin of Louisiana said, “It took a television station’s publicly embarrassing the agency to get the agency off the dime.” The New York Times editorialized, “Had it not been for a Houston television report on the problem that triggered a spate of complaints to the agency earlier this year, most drivers would still be unaware of their danger.”2

The series won the station and Werner several honors, including a Sigma Delta Chi award from the Society of Professional Journalists and a prestigious Peabody Award.

In Springfield, Ill., Scott Reeder heard parents and teachers ask each other why incompetent teachers were never fired. The answer was always the same: “They can’t fire him – he’s got tenure.” Reeder, however, isn’t an ordinary parent who frets about the quality of his child’s education. Reeder covers state government in Illinois for newspapers in Kankakee, Ottawa, Moline, and Rock Island. He decided to find out how difficult it was for schools to fire bad teachers.

The task was not easy. Illinois does not have particularly good public–record laws that would require government to provide reporters with the information they want. Teacher records were even harder to obtain because they were spread among the state’s 876 school districts, and personnel records were often sealed. But Reeder was undaunted. He had another reporter take over the routine stories he normally would have written. In the next six months, he:

Filed 1,500 Freedom of Information Act requests demanding that school districts show him their public records. On one occasion, his newspaper company had to file a lawsuit and get a court order before Reeder could see the records.Read every arbitration case involving a schoolteacher and a school district.Spent countless hours poring through court records and legal documents and tabulating the results.Interviewed hundreds of people, including parents, students, teachers, lawyers, and experts in education.Conducted one of the largest media document searches in the history of Cook County, which is the home of Chicago.

Reeder had set aside six months to work on this one story. He quickly learned that there was so much to do the investigation became more than a full-time job. “I worked straight through a number of weekends,” Reeder said. “I didn’t take vacation and even found myself inputting data on a laptop computer in a hospital maternity ward as my wife and newborn daughter slept nearby.”

What did his investigation uncover? It is extremely rare for a tenured teacher in Illinois to be fired. Reeder found one small rural district that had spent more than $400,000 in attorney fees to fire one teacher – and the case was still in the courts. One district could not fire an assistant principal who fathered a child by one of the seventh-graders at his school. The courts ordered him to pay child support, but he kept his job.

Reeder also discovered:

Illinois has about 95,000 tenured teachers, but on average only two are fired each year for incompetence.In the past 10 years, 94 percent of the districts had never even attempted to fire a tenured teacher.During that time, 84 percent had never given a tenured teacher an unsatisfactory rating on year-end evaluations. “Just about everyone gets an ‘excellent’ or ‘superior’ rating,” one superintendent told him.

Reeder thinks the reason so few bad teachers are detected and fired in Illinois has to do with the clout of the state’s teacher unions. On a statewide level, they are the largest contributors to the political campaigns of Illinois legislators. They have forked over more than $16 million in the past 12 years. On the local level, teachers sometimes elect their bosses. School board elections are often off year, meaning they occur when there are no highly publicized races like those for president or governor. Only a handful of people vote. Observers say the teacher unions get the voters out for those minor elections and elect candidates favorable to teachers. Most districts don’t have the money for big pay raises. So when the unions ask for job security instead of pay, the boards happily agree to rules that make it difficult to identify and remove teachers who are underperforming.3

The above three reports are examples of thoroughly reported, well-told news stories. Nearly everyone would agree that they are first-rate journalism. We would take that a step further and say that they exemplify “ethical journalism.”

They made life better for lots of people. The News Observer’s King Hog informed citizens about a major development in their state and heightened voters’ awareness of an important societal issue. The journalists showed compassion for people who lacked the political clout to make their concerns known. Editors and managers were willing to expose some of the state’s most powerful businesspeople and politicians.

Undoubtedly, KHOU improved the safety of thousands of motorists. The series challenged the federal government to investigate these cases. KHOU went ahead with the stories even though the station was taking on two major corporations that spend lots of money on television advertising. When Scott Reeder wondered why Illinois public schools just didn’t fire the bad teachers, he started on a course of action resulting in reforms that may improve the quality of public education in Illinois.

These reports illustrate another truth about the ethics of journalism. Unlike most lawyers and many doctors, most journalists do not work for themselves. These journalists worked for managements that displayed courage in shielding the news team from the pressure of powerful people in business and government. They were willing to free reporters to work for months on stories – instead of limiting them to stories that can be quickly reported in order to fill the news hole. The News Observer, KHOU and Reeder’s Small Newspapers Group gave the journalists the time and support they needed to create quality, ethical journalism.

Journalism and Ethics

To many, “ethical journalism” is an oxymoron in the same category as “jumbo shrimp” and “military intelligence.” In an Internet discussion group for journalists, a police reporter ridiculed ethical questions as “mental masturbation for people who want to get master’s degrees.” He’s not the only journalist who has a faulty understanding of ethics. Perhaps the most common misconceptions are these:

Some think of ethics only as a list of rules that spell out what they can and cannot do: Do not accept freebies, do not engage in activities that may create a conflict of interest, do not plagiarize, etc.Others fear that if reporters get “too ethical,” they will produce wishy-washy journalism: They will be so concerned about hurting someone’s feelings or doing the wrong thing that they will not pursue the truth aggressively.And some write off the whole area as little more than a public relations ploy to make people like reporters. Reporters aren’t supposed to be liked, they say. They’re supposed to report the news.

But ethics is broader than these people recognize. As will be discussed in Chapter 2, most philosophers consider ethics to be the study of the distinctions between right or wrong, virtuous and vicious, beneficial and harmful. Professions place more specific ethical demands on their practitioners. Lawyers, for example, are required to give their clients the best possible defense even if they doubt their innocence. Physicians swear they will do no harm to their patients. Priests and psychologists are obliged not to repeat what they are told during confession or counseling.

Just as lawyers, doctors, and priests have special responsibilities, journalists too have obligations that define their profession. Although some might quibble with this list, most American journalists would agree that they share these goals:

To inform the public about incidents, trends, and developments in society and government. Journalists are obliged to gather information as best they can and to tell the truth as they find it. They must be undaunted in their pursuit of truth and unhampered by conflicting interests.To treat people – both those in their audience and those who are making news – with fairness, respect, and even compassion. It does journalists little good to strive for the truth if a large number of people do not believe news reports because they do not trust or respect the news media.To nurture the democratic process. For people to govern themselves, they must be informed about the issues and the actions of their government. The news media are the chief providers of that information.

Journalism and democratic society

The expectation that journalists should explore both social and political issues has long been fundamental in the United States. Even before the American Revolution, newspapers were leading fights on religious, health, and political issues. For example, a newspaper founded by Ben Franklin’s older brother, James, clashed with Puritan clergy on the issue of smallpox inoculations. As the Revolution neared, colonists used pamphlets and newspapers to rally support against England. After the British imposed the hated Stamp Act, interest in politics grew and so did the number of American newspapers. These publications were so much a part of American intellectual life that once the new country was established, the First Amendment to the Constitution guaranteed press freedom.

Although historians debate what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment, early American editors believed they understood what their role was to be in this new democracy.

Their comments sound very modern. One South Carolina editor argued that as long as newspapers were keeping tabs on Congress, senators could not “betray their trust; convert serious matters into jokes; or transfer mountains into molehills.” Another editor interpreted the First Amendment much as the Supreme Court would more than 180 years later in its ruling in Times v. Sullivan. He wrote, “Considerable Latitude must be allowed in the Discussion of Public Affairs, or the Liberty of the Press will be of no Benefit to Society.”4 To these Colonial journalists, freedom of the press was vital if the American experiment in democracy was to work.

Modern editors feel much the same way. “If you look at the history of this country... the thing that makes this experiment in government unique among democracies has been the continued independence of the daily newspaper serving as a critic and watchdog of government,” said James D. Squires, when he was editor of the Chicago Tribune. “It goes hand in hand with us being the forum in which the political debate is played out.” 5 Thrity Umrigar, a reporter for the Akron Beacon Journal, contended that “journalism is an idealistic profession. It is based on the hopeful belief that if readers know the truth, they will make intelligent, informed decisions that will change things for the better. The power of the pen, the freedom of the press, the First Amendment, are optimistic, even joyous ideals.” 6

Some worry that many journalism students today do not appreciate the role that journalism plays in democracy. Studies have found that many students gravitate to print journalism because they have been told they can write. Likewise, a recent study found that about half the students majoring in broadcast news were drawn to what was called the “actor” side of the business. They wanted to be television personalities.7 Neither group is drawn by the core principles of journalism. When some students begin work in the news media, they develop an understanding of the importance of journalism and see the impact they can have. Unfortunately, others never catch on. They take a cynical view of their profession and that cynicism is often reflected in the quality of their work.

Journalists as watchdogs

Journalists have been talking about their “watchdog role” since the early days of the American republic. Another popular phrase used to define the role of journalists is relatively new. “The public’s right to know” became a mantra of American journalists after World War II as journalists fought to expand access to information about government.

The idea that journalists are watchdogs in their communities is common in the English-speaking world. American journalists – particularly newspaper journalists – overwhelmingly embrace the watchdog role. A large-scale survey found that about two-thirds of American journalists said investigating government claims was among their top priorities.8 British and Australian journalists are even more committed to the watchdog role, with more than 80 percent of them listing it among the most important roles for the news media.

Journalists in some other nations see their role differently. Only 12 percent of journalists in Germany and 25 percent in the Netherlands consider investigating government claims to be an important role of the news media. They – like many other European journalists – are more likely to consider analyzing and interpreting the news as a major responsibil–ity.9 Adam Gopnik wrote in The New Yorker, “French journalists tend to think that there are more interesting things to do in life than to pester some politician or official who has never said anything interesting in the first place for one more quote.” The strength of France’s most important paper Le Monde is not its exhaustive reporting but its large section of editorials and opinion pieces, Gopnik said.10 One group of researchers decided that the differences in news cultures were so distinct they identified journalists’ attitudes as either Anglo-American or European-Continental.

Many American political and news blogs combine American watchdog spirit with heavy doses of analysis. These blogs are so different from American mainstream media that many refuse to label them “journalism.” Because most of them do little original reporting, veteran journalist Michael Shear told a convention of bloggers, “You are political activists. You are gossips. You are agitators. You are not journalists.” 11 Others see blogs as “participatory journalism,” because they convey news and invite input from so many sources including traditional media, other bloggers, and their own readers.

Whether or not their work qualifies them for the title “journalists,” there can be little doubt that many bloggers take very seriously their watchdog role in their niche areas. Columnist Arrianna Huffington, whose Huffington Post is one of the largest blogs, calls bloggers “the true pit bulls of reporting.” She notes that bloggers have taken big bites out of several major politicians in recent years. Powerful Republican Sen.

Trent Lott was brought down after he seemed to wax fondly about the days of racial segregation in the South. “Bloggers turned him from Senate majority leader into political chum by pursuing a story the mainstream media passed on,” Huffington wrote.12 After Sen. George Allen of Virginia used what apparently was a racist term in a speech, blogs kept the story alive and uncovered other allegations from Allen’s past. He was narrowly defeated in his re-election bid. Web sites had such an impact on the 2006 elections that The New York Times said it was America’s first blogger and YouTube election and predicted these new media outlets would play an even bigger role in national politics.13

Public doubts its self-proclaimed watchdogs

While mainstream journalists in Britain, Australia, and the United States may envision themselves as watchdogs protecting the public from governmental misconduct, many in the public would prefer to have protection from the media. The public has lost much of its faith in news people. In Australia, journalists were rated below used-car salespeople in one survey. In Britain only 15 percent of the public said they expected newspaper journalists to tell them the truth, while 52 percent expected to be told the truth by total strangers.14 Another survey found that only 20 percent of people in Britain had trust in their newspapers. That was the lowest among European Union countries, even lower than Italy where, at the time of the survey, the prime minister owned many of the nation’s television networks and newspapers and required them to support his policies. Trust was highest in Belgium, Luxembourg, and Finland; about 60 percent of their populations said they trusted the news media.15

Americans’ respect for journalists is plummeting. In the 1980s, the American public had as much trust in the news media as it did in most other aspects of society and only 16 percent of the public gave low credibility ratings to their daily newspaper. Today that figure is 45 percent. “Public trust in the three broadcast networks, leading news magazines (Time and Newsweek),and CNN also fell,” Carroll Doherty, associate director of the Pew Center, wrote. “The percentage saying they could trust little of what they saw on ABC News rose from 13 percent to 36 percent, CNN from 15 percent to 28 percent, and so on.” The public is, at best, unsure about trusting the news media as its watchdog. “After all, more and more citizens each year don’t think they can trust the press at all,” Doherty concluded.16

Other researchers suggest that Americans have lost sight of the importance the Founding Fathers put in the news media. Only 14 percent were able to name freedom of the press as one of the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. [Americans were more likely to see freedom of religion as essential to a democracy as they were freedom of the press.] About 43 percent said they thought the news media had “too much freedom.” Almost one in four believed government should be able to censor newspapers.17 It is dumbfounding that so many Americans would rather have government bureaucrats editing the news than journalists.

And matters may be getting worse. High-school students appear to offer even less support to press freedom. More than one in three highschool students told researchers that they thought the Constitution goes “too far” in the rights it guarantees. About half the students said they would have no objection to laws that would require the news media to get government approval before reporting stories. “These results are not only disturbing; they are dangerous,” Hodding Carter III, president of the foundation that funded the study, told the Associated Press. “Ignorance about the basics of this free society is a danger to our nation’s future.” 18

Perhaps the most damning indictment of the press was reported in a large-scale survey by journalism professor Robert O. Wyatt a few years ago. Although Americans pride themselves on living in a free country, he found that they probably would not ratify the First Amendment if it were on the ballot today.19

Are things really that bad?

Here’s a conundrum. Many would argue that today’s news coverage is much better than that of, say, 40 years ago. Both television and newspaper reporting today provides more thorough stories on a wider variety of topics. Advances in technology allow television news programs to provide live reports on most breaking stories. Newspapers are emphasizing in-depth stories. The Internet has created hundreds of new sources of information and commentary. Today’s journalists are better trained, better educated, better paid, and more professional than ever before. They may even be more ethical than most people. A study using a standard sociological test of moral and ethical reasoning found that journalists were more “sophisticated moral thinkers” than people in most professions were. They concluded: “Thinking like a journalist involves moral reflection, done at a level that in most instances equals or exceeds members of other learned professions.” 20

Researchers have compared how journalists see themselves and how the public sees them. “Journalists believe they are working in the public interest, and are trying to be fair and independent in that cause,” they concluded. “The public thinks these journalists are either lying or deluding themselves. The public believes that news organizations are operating largely to make money, and that the journalists who work for these organizations are primarily motivated by professional ambition and self-interest.”21

Many have tried to explain this mystery by pointing out that Americans’ respect for all organizations, including churches, schools, and government, has declined. To some degree they are right. Yet none of these groups has lost as much respect as the news media.

It may be that a combination of factors has soured the public’s view of journalists. One may be that the public is more familiar with how the news is gathered and that familiarity has bred contempt. Not long ago, if a politician or military leader held a press conference, the public would either read about it in the newspaper or watch highlights on the evening news. The public would never know whether journalists asked stupid questions or behaved brutishly. Today, the news conference is likely to be broadcast live. The public can see journalists in action. Often that isn’t pretty.

The 24-hour television news networks have had an impact, too. Some of the coverage has been impressive, particularly of the 9-11 attacks. Yet, the 24-hour news cycle combined with the constant hunt for ratings has also caused cable news to overplay meaningless stories. Police chasing a stolen car in California suddenly becomes national news. A teenager missing in the Aruba, while certainly a news story, receives the same massive coverage as the outbreak of war. Also, cable news has created the “rant shows” in which guests are encouraged to have angry arguments. These programs are often hosted by news personalities who blur the roles of news anchor, talk-show host, columnist, commentator, and reporter. For example, Bill O’Reilly on Fox News objects to being called a reporter, preferring the term “analyst.” Yet many Americans are unaware of the distinction and judge all journalists by his behavior.22

Journalists are also under attack by many politicians who have discovered that bashing the media is an effective campaign tactic. ”The media is everybody’s favorite whipping boy,” said Matthew T. Felling, media director of a nonpartisan media research center. “When politicians attack each other, it’s irritating partisan politics. But when politicians attack the media, everybody jumps on board.” If a campaign hits a bad snag, candidates prefer not to acknowledge a problem. They will portray themselves as the victims of a vicious, biased press.23 News talk shows – sometimes out of an obligation to provide balanced coverage – discuss the candidates’ attacks on the media, thus amplifying the criticism and undoubtedly reinforcing negative opinions of the media in many people’s minds.

Television shows also shape some perceptions of journalists. Only police officers and lawyers are shown more often than journalists are during entertainment programs on prime-time television. But these portrayals are rarely flattering. Only 14 percent of the fictional newspaper reporters and 24 percent of their television brethren are shown favorably, according to one study. Most reporters are depicted as unethical, sloppy, insensitive, and foolish.24

Although some recent movies have provided positive images of journalists, that is not generally the case. After viewing more than 1,000 films depicting journalists, one researcher in the early 1990s said only a few showed journalists as the least bit competent.25 A New York Timesstory about reporters in films was headlined “Movies Blast Media, Viewers Cheer.” Glenn Garelik pointed out that the image of reporters has changed. The wisecracking of earlier reporters has become arrogance, and reporters who had been shown as the working-class enemies of pretension are now seen as pretentious themselves.26 As the public’s respect for journalists continued to erode in the 2000s, another Times writer Caryn James contended that the movies are treating journalists even worse. James wrote: “The more that confidence plummets, the more likely movies are to portray reporters unfavorably; and, in a snowball effect, the more unsavory reporters appear on screen, the more that image takes hold.” As an example, she cited what she called a “throw-away scene” in the movie Cinderella Man in which an insensitive journalist makes a boxer’s wife cry by asking her if she thinks her husband will be killed in the ring.27

The American public has also become aware that the media are owned by huge, out-of-state businesses that are more concerned with the bottom line than the public good. Although journalists, particularly print journalists, may see themselves as independent seekers of truth, to many of the public they are just lackeys working for corporate America. When corporations cut the number of reporters covering the news, they are reinforcing the public’s belief that the primary role of newspapers is to fill the pockets of wealthy owners – not to provide a public service.

Another factor in the decline in respect for journalists is the tendency of many people to lump all news outlets into a monolith. Phrases like “the mainstream media” (MSM) mask a dizzying variety of news media. The term lumps together cable news debate programs like “The O’Reilly Factor” with The New York Times, crime-riddled local television news in some markets with the network’s nightly news, and Geraldo Rivera’s grandstanding with Jim Lehrer’s sober News Hour on PBS. This MSM monolith becomes one big, easy-to-attack entity. For example, after the death of Princess Diana, early news accounts erroneously suggested that freelance photographers, the paparazzi, caused the car crash that killed her. The next day, photographers working for news outlets in smalltown America were cursed by passers-by as “the killers of Di.” When a reporter at a news conference asked a woman who said she had an affair with President Bill Clinton if he used condoms, many people condemned the conduct of insensitive reporters. The question was asked by a “reporter” from Howard Stern’s radio program, which prides itself on its tastelessness.

The British public is less likely to tar all media with the actions of some. They routinely divide their newspapers into the “red-top tabloids” and the “quality broadsheets.” In the past, the terms referred to the actual size of the printed pages in these papers, with tabloids being smaller newspapers about the size of the American grocery-store tab National Enquirer. Although the British papers today are mostly the same size, the names and their connotations still stick. British tabloids like The Sun, News of the World, and The Daily Mirror package their news with sensationalized, sometimes exaggerated reports and pictures of scantily clad women. On the other hand, Britain’s quality broadsheets like The Guardian and Independent are among the world’s most respected newspapers with solid reporting and analysis. The British have great respect for the public-supported BBC, which some consider the world’s pre-eminent broadcast news source.

Improving the Profession

The chapter opened with portions of The News Observer’s “King Hog” series, KHOU’s report on Firestone tires, and Scott Reeder’s work on Illinois education. They are excellent examples of “ethical journalism.” To produce these exceptional series, the journalists:

Practiced the principles of ethical journalism. They found stories that shed light on a part of society that probably had been overlooked by many people. And they were diligent in finding the facts. The King Hog series told the voters of North Carolina about some of the actions of their state government and their elected officials. The KHOU series warned consumers about a hazard and prompted government regulators to do something about it. Reeder spent months looking through public documents and filed more than 1,500 public–information requests when bureaucrats were not forthcoming.Were talented at their crafts. To be ethical and credible, journalists must be competent at what they do. If a story is incomplete or has errors, the public is misinformed. And if the story is not told well, the public may not bother to read it or watch it on television. Most of us will not wade through a sea of bad writing, dull video, and uninspired design.Worked for a strong news organization. The News Observer, Small Newspapers, and KHOU gave them the support and time they needed to produce their stories. And management stood behind the journalists as they challenged influential political figures and powerful corporations. While first-rate journalism is produced every day in second-rate newsrooms, having enlightened owners and managers is often a major ingredient in the practice of ethical journalism.

Notes

1. The “King Hog” series was written by Melanie Sill, Pat Stith, and Joby Warrick. It ran in The News Observer from February 19 to 28, 1995. It is on the Internet at www.pulitzer.org. For the aftermath, see Craig Whitlock, “NandO hog series takes top Pulitzer, Public service prize rewards stories on pork industry,” The News Observer, April 10, 1996, p. A-1.

2. Information about the KHOU reports came from “Defenders Investigate Accidents,” aired on KHOU, August 10, 2000: “Local TV uncovered national scandal,” The New York Times, September 13, 2000; “11 News Defenders: Firestone ATX Tires,” aired October 5, 2000; Richard Connelly, “Rubber fetish: Glory days for KHOU and Anna Werner,” New Times, September 28, 2000; “Firestone letter to Belo and KHOU executives,” posted on KHOU Web site, February 10, 2000: Alicia C. Shepard, “Local heroes,” American Journalism Review, December 2000; “What they are saying about KHOU’s groundbreaking Firestone stories,” posted on KHOU Web site.

3. Scott Reeder’s series on Illinois schools is online at www.thehidden-costsoftenure.com. They appeared in Small Newspapers in 2005. Also see Scott Reeder, “Teacher failures,” IRE Journal, March/April 2006.

4. William David Sloan, James G. Stovall, and James D. Startt (eds), The Media in America, Worthington: Publishing Horizons, 1989, p. 104. It has an interesting section on Colonial editors, pp. 99–120.

5. Interview with Goodwin, February 10, 1986.

6. Thrity Umrigar, “A feeling of being set adrift,” Nieman Reports, Fall 2001.

7. Lynn Corney, “Watchdogs or actors?: Student perception of television journalists, ” paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, 2006.

8. The first is reported in John W.C. Johnstone, Edward J. Slawski, and William W. Bowman, The News People: A Sociological Profile of American Journalists and Their Work, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1976. David H. Weaver and Cleveland Wilhoit have replicated and expanded on their research three times. See their books The American Journalist: A Portrait of U.S. News People and Their Work, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, First Edition, 1986, and Second Edition, 1991, and their report, “The American Journalist in the 1990s: A Preliminary Report of Key Findings from a 1992 National Survey of U.S. Journalists,” Arlington: Freedom Forum, 1992.

9. Mark Deuze, ‘National news cultures: A comparison of Dutch, German, British, Australian and U.S. Journalists,” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Spring 2002.

10. Adam Gopnik, “The end of the world,” The New Yorker, November 15, 2004.

11. “An MSM rebuke and admonition for bloggers,” Beltway Blogroll, June 20, 2006.

12. Arianna Huffington, “Now the little guy is the true pit bull of journalism,” The Guardian, March 14, 2006.

13. Ryan Lizza, “The YouTube election,” The New York Times, August 20, 2006.

14. MORI poll, February 2002, cited in Karen Sanders, Ethics and Journalism, London: Sage Publications, 2003.

15. Ian Black, “British newspapers ‘the least trusted in Europe,’” The Guardian, April 24, 2002.

16. Carroll Doherty, “The public isn’t buying press credibility,” Nieman Reports, Summer 2005. Also see “Media: more voices, less credibility” at http://people-press.org/commentary/.

17. “National Polls of Journalists and the American Public on First Amendment and Media,” University of Connecticut, May 16, 2005.

18. “Survey finds First Amendment is being left behind in U.S. high schools,” John S. and James L. Knight Foundation Web site at www.knightfdn.org, January 31, 2005.

19. George Garneau, “Press freedom in deep trouble,” Editor & Publisher, April 20, 1991. Wyatt’s report is titled “Free Expression and the American Public” and was commissioned by the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

20. Lee Wilkins and Renita Coleman, The Moral Media: How Journalists Reason About Ethics, Mahwah, NJ: LEA Publications, 2004.

21. Project for Excellence in Journalism, “The State of the News Media 2004,” at www.journalism.org.

22. “Fair Reporting,” a segment on “The O’Reilly Factor,” January 31, 2006. A transcript is at www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183441,00.html.

23. Quoted in Nick Madigan, “Making an issue of the media,” The (Baltimore) Sun, August 20, 2006.

24. Gerald Stone and John Less, “Portrayal of journalists on prime time television,” Journalism Quarterly, Winter 1990, p. 707.

25. Bill Mahon’s findings in his master’s thesis at Penn State University are cited in Chip Rowe, “Hacks on film,” Washington Journalism Review, November 1992, p. 27. A study of the newspaper industry’s efforts in the 1930s and 1940s to have journalists shown in a more favorable light can be found in Stephen Vaughn and Bruce Evensen, “Democracy’s guardians: Hollywood’s portrait of reporters, 1930–1945,” Journalism Quarterly, Winter 1991, pp. 829–837.

26. Glenn Garelik, “Stop the presses! Movies blast media. Viewers cheer,” The New York Times, January 31, 1993, national edition, pp. H11 and H18.

27. Caryn James, “The decline and fall of journalists on film,” The New York Times, July 19, 2005.

2

The Study of Ethics

Imagine you are sitting around with a group of friends, laughing and talking. You gossip about people who aren’t there, discuss sports and even argue about politics and current events. Then one of your more thoughtful friends begins to talk quietly.

“You know,” the friend says, “we spend a lot of time putting down other people. Athletes who act like the laws don’t apply to them. Auto mechanics who fix things that aren’t broken. Politicians who promise things they never deliver. Corporate executives who cook the company’s books and get rich.

“We’d like to think that we wouldn’t do those things because we think that we are ‘good, moral’ people. But what if you were given a ring that had the power to make you invisible? You could sneak into any home, office, or business. No one would ever see you. You could eavesdrop on any conversation. You could lie and cheat and never be found out. You could gather passwords, hack your way into computer systems, put money in your bank account, and change all your grades to A’s. You could do whatever you wanted. You could steal, even kill, and know that no one would see you do it.

“How would you behave if you had such a ring? If you are honest with yourself, you know you would put the ring on and forget all about being a ‘good, moral’ person. You would do whatever makes you happy.”

Your friend’s comments may prompt a lively discussion. But his argument is not very original. Glaucon made the same challenge to Socrates about 2,500 years ago,1 and philosophers have been dealing with similar questions ever since. What do we mean when we say some actions are good? What do we mean when we say actions are bad or unethical or immoral? And, even if we know right from wrong, why should we do the right thing? Aren’t people who lie and cheat usually the ones who get ahead in life?

In this chapter, we will look at how some philosophers have tried to answer these questions. From studying these philosophers’ ideas, you may be able to develop some new strategies on how you can handle ethical problems.

The Birth of the Study of Ethics

In many ways, for Western civilization the formal study of ethics began 2,500 years ago with Socrates, a teacher in Ancient Greece. His teaching style was to ask increasingly difficult questions of his students and anyone else who would submit to his grilling. “You’re a man known for your high moral standards,” he would say. “So you would be a good person to ask this question: What does it mean to be moral?” The person, flattered by the way the question was asked, would offer a response. Then Socrates would ask a series of follow-up questions that would expose the inconsistencies and weaknesses in the man’s answers. Socrates claimed he was not being mean-spirited when he cut their arguments down. He said he believed that this continual questioning would eventually lead to basic truths. Many students apparently enjoyed his approach, which we now call the Socratic method, and he became a popular teacher. Nevertheless, people in authority were annoyed by him. They put Socrates on trial, convicted him of undermining the morals and deities of Athens, and ordered him to drink a deadly substance called hemlock.

Socrates left no writings. Much of what we know about him came from the writings of people who knew him, particularly his most famous student, Plato. Plato’s books read like conversations and are on topics ranging from politics to the nature of the real world. These conversations are not dry lectures. Some are more like barroom talk; in fact, in one of Plato’s dialogues the participants drink until some of them pass out. All the while, they continue to discuss philosophic topics ranging from the role of government to the nature of pleasurable sex.

Plato honored his old teacher by naming the main character in these conversations Socrates. Today, philosophy professors are faced with the problem of trying to sort out what the real Socrates believed and what Plato himself believed but had the character named Socrates say.

Plato started his own school in Athens. He also had a famous student, Aristotle, who became one of most important figures in both Western philosophy and science. These three men – Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle – have played a key role in shaping the understandings of ethics in Western culture.

Virtue and the Greeks

When Glaucon posed his question on why people should worry about ethics and morality, he clearly thought he had Socrates stumped. After all, the wearer of the magical ring could commit any act without fear of being caught. Why would anyone worry about ethics or morality if there were no penalty to pay?

To Glaucon’s surprise, Socrates agreed with him. Socrates said it was obvious that people do whatever makes them happy. Sensible people never intentionally make decisions that harm themselves. To Plato, ethics and morality were not lists of laws that kept people from enjoying life. Instead, ethics provided a guide to help people live good lives.

Plato argued in a lengthy dialog called The Republic that people are composed of three temperaments. One consists in the base drives that cause people to seek food, sex, and other creature comforts. A second is an assertive nature that drives them to defend themselves, to compete against others and survive in the practical world. The third is reason.