51,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
The Ethical Journalist
Praise for the Third Edition of The Ethical Journalist
“A riveting examination of journalism ethics, updated for the seismic change that is now an industry constant. The Ethical Journalist is written to fortify journalism students, but real-life examples of everything from faked photographs to reporting on presidential lies make it valuable to all of us who care about the news.”
ANN MARIE LIPINSKI, CURATOR OF THE NIEMAN FOUNDATION AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY AND FORMER EDITOR OF THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE
Praise for the Earlier Editions
“The book is superb — the definitive work on journalism ethics and practices. It should be a basic text in every school of journalism.”
GENE ROBERTS, FORMER EXECUTIVE EDITOR OF THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER AND FORMER MANAGING EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK TIMES
“At a time when the internet has turned journalism inside out and blown up long-held traditions, the need for media ethics is even more critical. This is the book to help guide students and the rest of us through the revolution.”
ALICIA C. SHEPARD, FORMER NPR OMBUDSMAN
The third edition of The Ethical Journalist is a comprehensive examination of current issues in the field of journalism ethics, researched and written by four journalists with experience in both the newsroom and the classroom. It gives students and professionals the tools they need to navigate the challenges of journalism today, first explaining the importance of ethics in journalism and then putting a decision-making strategy to work. The text is supplemented by case studies and essays, and two companion websites provide additional materials for educators and a forum for all users to discuss new topics in journalism ethics as they arise.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 1105
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022
Ähnliche
The Ethical Journalist
Making Responsible Decisions in the Digital Age
THIRD EDITION
GENE FOREMAN | DANIEL R. BIDDLE
EMILIE LOUNSBERRY | RICHARD G. JONES
WEBSITE FOR INSTRUCTORS: www.wiley.com/go/foreman/theethicaljournalist3e
AUTHORS’ ONLINE FORUM: theethicaljournalist.com
This third edition first published 2022
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Edition History
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1e. 2009, 2e. 2015)
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 law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of Gene Foreman, Daniel R. Biddle, Emilie Lounsberry, Richard G. Jones to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered Office
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
Editorial Office
The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty
While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Foreman, Gene, author. | Biddle, Daniel R., author. | Lounsberry, Emilie, 1954- author. | Jones, Richard G. (Richard Gordon), 1971- author. Title: The ethical journalist : making responsible decisions in the digital age / Gene Foreman, Daniel R. Biddle, Emilie Lounsberry, Richard G. Jones. Description: Third edition. | Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2022. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2021021054 (print) | LCCN 2021021055 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119777472 (paperback) | ISBN 9781119777496 (epdf) | ISBN 9781119777489 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Journalistic ethics. | Reporters and reporting. | Journalistic ethics--Case studies. | Reporters and reporting--Case studies. Classification: LCC PN4756 .F67 2022 (print) | LCC PN4756 (ebook) | DDC 174/.907--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021021054
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021021055
Cover image: © People Images/Getty Images
Cover design: Bill Marsh
Set in 10/12pt and ITC New BaskervilleStd by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd, Pondicherry, India
For Gene Roberts,who built The Philadelphia Inquireron a foundation of ethics and excellence.
Contents
Cover
Title page
Copyright
Dedication
Detailed Contents
Foreword
Preface
About the Coauthors
Acknowledgments
Part I: A Foundation for Making Ethical Decisions
1 Why Ethics Matters in Journalism
2 Ethics: The Bedrock of a Society
3 The News Media’s Role in Society
4 For Journalists, a Clash of Moral Duties
5 The Public and the Media: Love and Hate
6 How the ‘Trump Effect’ Challenged Journalism
7 Applying Four Classic Theories of Ethics
8 Using a Code of Ethics as a Decision Tool
9 Making Moral Decisions You Can Defend
Part II: Putting Journalism Ethics to Work
10 Getting the Facts Right and Being Fair
11 Showing Empathy for People in the News
12 Avoiding Conflicts: Appearances Count
13 Lifting the Curtain on How Journalism Is Done
14 Navigating Social Media’s Uneven Terrain
15 Covering a Diverse, Multicultural Society
16 Dealing With Sources of Information
17 Making News Decisions About Privacy
18 Making Decisions About Offensive Content
19 Deception: A Risky, Controversial Tool
20 Ethics Issues in Visual and Audio Journalism
21 Stolen Words and Invented Facts
22 The Business of Producing Journalism
Thoughts to Take With You
Glossary
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1
Lovelle Svart faces the camera during...
Journalists in the United States would be...
Chapter 2
This “Rock of Truth” inscription...
Chapter 3
Covering the terrorist attacks of September...
Chapter 4
After taking this picture of a fugitive...
Wendy Ruderman (left) and Barbara Laker...
Chapter 5
Flood and fire struck...
Chapter 6
Donald...
Chapter 7
Lawyers for The New...
Chapter 8
Journalists, like these in...
Chapter 10
West Virginia residents...
Representative Gabrielle...
A glimpse of the historic...
A candelight vigil at Sago...
Richard Jewell, the security...
Manti Te’o, the linebacker...
Chapter 11
Steven Hendricks Jr., 20, comforting...
A mother’s anguish is evident...
Chapter 12
The choice between President Barack...
Chapter 13
In
The Washington Post’s
...
Chapter 14
Investigators looked for clues...
A photo that Alexis Johnson...
Alexis Johnson
Chapter 15
Most news organizations...
Chapter 16
Reality Winner, who translated...
Len Jenoff
Laura Foreman and Henry...
Chapter 17
Richard Simmons
Chapter 18
Tony Auth, Pulitzer Prize-winning...
Fig.18.2 Pennsylvania Treasurer...
Fig.18.3 Pistol in the mouth.
Chapter 19
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld...
Chapter 20
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld...
Chapter 20
Photojournalists at the 2000...
A man falls from the World...
Pushed onto the subway track...
Chapter 22
Pressman Keith Jones (left)...
The Staples Center in Los...
Guide
Cover
Title page
Copyright
Dedication
Table of Contents
Detailed Contents
Foreword
Preface
About the Coauthors
Acknowledgments
Begin Reading
Thoughts to Take With You
Glossary
Index
End User License Agreement
Pages
i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
xix
xx
xxi
xxii
xxiii
xxiv
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
Detailed Contents
Foreword
Preface
About the Coauthors
Acknowledgments
Part I: A Foundation for Making Ethical Decisions
1 Why Ethics Matters in Journalism
Our society needs news professionals who do the right thing
Contemporary journalists are keenly aware of the ethics of the profession, dealing frequently with ethics questions.
In a profession that cannot be regulated because of the First Amendment, responsible journalists adhere voluntarily to high standards of conduct.
The goal of this book and course is to teach you how to make ethically sound decisions.
Discussing case studies in class is crucial to learning the decision-making process.
The digital era, which has radically changed the way the news is gathered and delivered, has provoked controversy over whether ethics should radically change as well.
Confronted with a daily deluge of information, the public depends on ethical journalists for news that can be trusted.
Point of View: A “Tribal Ferocity” Enforces the Code (John Carroll)
2 Ethics: The Bedrock of a Society
An introduction to terms and concepts in an applied-ethics course
Ethics is about discerning between right and wrong and then doing what is right.
Ancient societies developed systems of ethics that still influence human behavior.
Though often related, ethics and law differ; law prescribes minimum standards of conduct, and ethics prescribes exemplary conduct.
A member of a society absorbs its ethical precepts through a process of socialization.
Our value system – based on the things we prize most – influences how we make moral choices.
An ethical dilemma demands such a moral choice: a person may have to violate one ethical principle to fulfill another.
3 The News Media’s Role in Society
The profession has matured and accepted social responsibility
Journalists generally agree that their fundamental ethical principles are to seek truth, serve the public, and maintain independence from the people they report on.
Journalism, like other professions and institutions, owes society a moral duty called social responsibility.
In the 1940s, the Hutchins Commission defined journalism’s social responsibility: to provide reliable information for the community.
An ethical awakening occurred in journalism during the decade beginning in the mid-1970s.
During this period of reform, many news organizations codified their principles, first addressing conflicts of interest and then refining news-coverage practices.
Today’s journalism reflects decades of rising professionalism, but the transition to the digital era presents new challenges.
Point of View: The Essential Pursuit of Truth (Martin Baron)
Point of View: Decision-Making in the Digital Age (James M. Naughton)
4 For Journalists, a Clash of Moral Duties
Responsibilities as professionals and as human beings can conflict
In the abstract, journalists should avoid becoming involved with the events and the people they cover.
However, certain situations require journalists to decide whether they should step out of their observer role and become participants.
In those situations, guidelines can help journalists reach sound decisions about whether to intervene.
Point of View: Journalists Are Humans, Too (Halle Stockton)
Case Study: The Journalist as a Witness to Suffering
Case Study: Protester Is Beaten; Reporter Steps In
5 The Public and the Media: Love and Hate
The goal for the journalist should be respect, not popularity
Even as the news media mature and accept social responsibility, the public is increasingly hostile, and that is documented in surveys.
As a journalist, you should be aware of this hostility and the likely reasons for it.
You should treat the audience with respect and take complaints seriously; stripping away the rancor, you might find useful lessons.
The public’s hostility has to be put in perspective; it may not be as bad as it seems.
Point of View: Journalism, Seen From the Other Side (Jane Shoemaker)
Case Study: A Journalist’s Trial by Social Media
6 How the “Trump Effect” Challenged Journalism
The news media had never dealt with a president like No. 45
As a candidate and president (2015 - 2021), Donald Trump vigorously tested journalism’s habits, tools, and tenets.
Modifying their reporting practices, journalists adapted to Trump much as earlier generations had adapted to Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. But the transition was not a smooth one.
To deal with a multitude of false statements, news organizations created fact-checking units and debated whether to use the word
lie
.
Coverage of Trump and his administration ranged from hard-hitting investigations to snarky commentary that tended to confirm critics allegations of bias.
Point of View: Impartial Journalism’s Enduring Value (Thomas Kent)
7 Applying Four Classic Theories of Ethics
Ancient philosophy can be a factor in the decision-making process
The strengths and weaknesses of four classic ethical theories in the context of editor’s decisions to publish government secrets.
Rule-based thinking - doing the right thing, even if there are consequences.
Ends-based thinking - choosing to do what brings the most good to the most people.
The Golden Rule - treating other people the way you would want to be treated.
Aristotle’s Golden Mean - finding a moderate solution when the extremes won’t work.
The practice of journalism typically blends rule-based thinking and ends- based thinking.
8 Using a Code of Ethics as a Decision Tool
Written professional standards can be a valuable guide
Ethics codes in journalism trace their origins to the early twentieth century, as some editors put word-of-mouth standards into writing.
Codes adopted by professional associations of journalists are voluntary; codes adopted by news outlets for the direction of their staffs are enforceable.
Codes can be useful as a part of the decision process, not as a substitute for that process.
The Society of Professional Journalist’s 2014 revision of its code of ethics is a model for the profession. Its four guiding principles are: seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable and transparent.
9 Making Moral Decisions You Can Defend
How to apply critical thinking and a decision template
A careful decision-making process draws on the practical skills of journalism: gathering facts, analyzing them, and making judgments.
Critical thinking - thoughtful analysis - is an essential component of the decision process.
A step-by-step template can guide you to a better decision.
You must test your decision to see if it can be defended.
In this course, approach the case studies as a laboratory exercise in decision-making.
Point of View: Avoid These Rationalizations (Michael Josephson)
Case Study: Deciding Whether to Identify a CIA Agent
Part II: Putting Journalism Ethics to Work
10 Getting the Facts Right and Being Fair
SPJ’s guiding principle of seeking truth and reporting it
Accuracy and fairness are journalism’s fundamental ethical values.
The digital era, with its emphasis on speed, entices reporters to take shortcuts and, thus, to risk mistakes.
Journalists have to be alert for hoaxes, especially on the web.
Problematic trends in the newsroom: less specialization, less editing.
Point of View: Declaring What You Wont Report (Craig Silverman)
Case Study: A Story of Rape at Mr. Jefferson’s University
Case Study: A Double Disaster at the Sago Mine
Case Study: Richard Jewell: He Really Was a Hero
Case Study: The Football Star’s Fictitious Girlfriend
11 Showing Empathy for People in the News
SPJ’s guiding principle of minimizing harm
Recognizing that the truth can hurt, journalists should weigh the information they are reporting against the harm it can be expected to cause. Sometimes that calculation might lead to a decision not to publish a detail of marginal relevance or possibly an entire story or photograph.
Requests from the public to “unpublish” archival content create an ethical dilemma: a desire to protect the historical record versus consideration of the people hurt by that record, especially when it is flawed.
Reporters should take particular care when interviewing children and survivors of a tragedy, or when reporting on suicides.
Journalists should be aware that their presence can be viewed as intrusive.
Case Study: The Death of a Boy
Point of View: Reporting a Fact, Causing Harm (William F. Woo)
12 Avoiding Conflicts: Appearances Count
SPJ’s guiding principle of acting independently
In an actual conflict of interest, journalists allow self‐interest, or a loyalty to any other person or organization, to take precedence over their duty to the audience.
Because a conflict of interest gives the audience reason to doubt the journalist’s loyalty, it undermines credibility.
An
appearance
of a conflict of interest can damage credibility even if the journalist’s reporting is honest.
By following reasonable guidelines, you can avoid most conflicts, actual or apparent.
Identifying situations that commonly lead to conflicts.
Case Study: A Reporter’s Son Joins a Foreign Army
Case Study: A Journalist’s Gifts to the Clinton Foundation
Case Study: The Columnist’s Other Job
Case Study: Carrying a Torch, Stirring Debate
13 Lifting the Curtain on How Journalism Is Done
SPJ’s guiding principle of being accountable and transparent
News organizations should correct their mistakes promptly, prominently, and clearly.
News organizations should have a system to invite, receive, and act on inquiries and complaints about news coverage.
News organizations should be willing to explain and discuss how they cover the news.
The audience can be a partner in reporting the news, but journalists have a duty to verify all user-generated content.
There are limits to journalistic transparency, including the question of whether reporter’s personal opinions should be revealed.
Point of View: A Digital Dialogue With Readers (Mark Bowden)
Case Study: Roughed Up at Recess
14 Navigating Social Medias Uneven Terrain
Connecting with the audience while maintaining impartiality
Using social media helps journalists report their stories and promote them. However, journalist’s comments about people and events in the news can damage their credibility and that of their news organizations.
Social media policies are a common source of tension in newsrooms, and enforcement of those policies has led to staff protests.
Point of View: Race, Gender, Social Media, and Power (Ingrid Sturgis)
Point of View: A Journalist’s Duty (Bob Steele)
Case Study: A Reporter’s Tweet Hits a Sour Note
15 Covering a Diverse, Multicultural Society
An ethical duty to be inclusive in news coverage and in the newsroom
Covering society’s diversity is an ethical responsibility, because news organizations have a duty to cover the entire community.
Careful, sensitive reporting is required to analyze the complex issues of racial and ethnic conflicts.
Journalists face challenges in their efforts to provide knowledgeable coverage of cultures other than their own.
Reporters who cover new immigrants are confronting ethics issues such as protecting the identity of sources who are not documented.
Point of View: Gaining Respect by Showing Respect (
Joann Byrd
)
16 Dealing With Sources of Information
The fine line between getting close and too close
Ethics issues arise in reporter’s efforts to cultivate sources while maintaining independence from those sources.
If a journalist agrees to protect a source who provides information on condition of anonymity, honoring that agreement is a solemn ethical duty.
Journalists must avoid placing their sources in any kind of jeopardy.
Beat reporting requires reporters to balance their relationships with newsmakers whom they depend on for information but also may have to report on critically.
Showing copy to sources and other situations in which ethics issues arise in source relationships.
Point of View: Sometimes, Different Rules Apply (Jeffrey Fleishman)
Case Study: The Strange Intercept at “The Intercept”
17 Making News Decisions About Privacy
The public may need to know what individuals want hidden
Journalists often must decide between the publics legitimate need to have certain information and the desire for privacy by the individuals involved.
Although there are certain legal restraints on publicizing private information, most decisions are made on the basis of ethics rather than law.
A three-step template, weighing the value of the information to the public against the degree of harm to the subject, can aid decision-making in privacy cases.
Reporting situations in which privacy is central to decision-making.
Case Study: Tracing the Source of Web Comments
Case Study: Identifying a 13-Year-Old Rape Victim
18 Making Decisions About Offensive Content
The conflict between reflecting reality and respecting the audience
Journalists often have to decide whether to publish or broadcast content that could offend a significant element of the audience.
Offensive content falls into three categories: perceived insensitivity, offensive words, and offensive images.
A two-step process can help you make decisions, weighing the content’s news value against how offensive it is.
Although the internet empowers the audience to be heard, news organizations are struggling to find ways to curb incivility, and some are discontinuing online comments.
Case Study: A Vulgar List in the News
Case Study: A Killer Records a Video of His Murders
19 Deception: A Risky, Controversial Tool
When values collide: Lying while seeking the truth
To decide whether to use a deceptive reporting practice, you first must acknowledge the deceit and not rationalize it.
Before engaging in undercover reporting - pretending to be someone else you must meet exacting standards.
There are other situations, short of undercover, in which journalists could deceive or could be perceived as deceiving.
There is a consensus in the profession that a journalist should never deceive the audience or the journalists colleagues.
Point of View: The Truth About Deception (Brooke Kroeger)
Case Study: Rumsfeld’s Q&A With the Troops
Case Study: Spying on the Mayor in a Chat Room
20 Ethics Issues in Visual and Audio Journalism
Seeking truth with the camera or microphone while minimizing harm
The public, aware how easy digital manipulation can be, must be able to trust the truthfulness of the news media’s photography and audio reports.
News organizations have adopted standards to ensure the integrity of their photography and audio reports.
The success of podcasts has created a new opportunity for audio journalism where ethics standards are still being formulated.
Recognizing that some news photography can offend the audience, journalists weigh its news value against the likely offense.
A number of news organizations are reducing their use of police arrest portraits because of fairness concerns.
The use of aerial drones for news photography is increasing, and ethics guidelines are being put in place to protect privacy and safety.
Case Study: The Falling Man, World Trade Center, 2001
Case Study: Photographing a Man Pushed to His Death
21 Stolen Words and Invented Facts
Dishonesty can kill a career in journalism
Plagiarism and fabrication are morally wrong. Plagiarism is stealing the creative work of another. Fabrication is making things up and presenting them as fact.
The offenses of plagiarism and fabrication destroy journalism’s credibility and cost offenders their jobs and their careers.
Committing illegal acts is unacceptable in the pursuit of news.
Following sound work practices can help you avoid any hint of impropriety.
Newsroom leaders have a duty to establish clear rules about journalistic misconduct and to enforce them.
22 The Business of Producing Journalism
Seeking financial stability in a turbulent era of transition
Technological and economic transition has caused tensions in today’s news media.
More people are getting their news digitally, but online sites are struggling to find stable sources of revenue.
Although advertisers have historically paid for news coverage, consumers are now being asked to pay for digital subscriptions.
Native advertising has found a home on news websites, where stringent rules are needed to protect integrity of news content.
The business and news executives of media companies frequently have a strained relationship, mainly because their cultures are so different.
Case Study: Sharing Ad Profits, Creating a Crisis
Thoughts to Take With You
Glossary
Index
Foreword
By Philip B. Corbett
The writer is associate managing editor for standards of The New York Times.
It feels like ancient history, but it wasn’t so long ago that our whole job in the newsroom of The New York Times was to put out the print paper once a day. It seemed hard at the time – unforgiving deadlines, lots of stress and pounding on keyboards. Now, looking back, I wonder what we actually did all day. One print edition every 24 hours? Sounds pretty cushy.
Everything’s different now, for The Times and every other news organization. A daily print paper, yes, many newsrooms still do that. But now we also have minute-by-minute digital deadlines, 24 hours a day. Constant social media posting on an ever-expanding range of platforms. Video. Audio. Interactive graphics. Live chats. Newsletters. Every day, it seems, brings a new journalistic tool, and every innovation brings new questions about journalistic standards and ethics.
What’s appropriate for a journalist to post on Twitter, and what’s off limits? Are there different standards for corrections on breaking-news alerts? What are the anonymity rules for podcast interviews? Do reporters always have to identify themselves on Facebook? Are tools like facial-recognition technology fair game for journalists? Does Google change how we think about archived stories?
It can feel deeply disorienting. But even as the journalistic ground shifts under our feet, it’s crucial to remember this: The most important parts of our work are not changing at all.
Get the facts right. Be fair and empathetic. Guard your independence. When it’s time to hit “publish,” tell your readers, viewers and listeners the truth, as best you can.
This book explores those fundamental principles and how to apply them, whether in traditional stories or new formats. You’ll wrestle with how to balance a subject’s right to privacy with a reader’s right to know. You’ll think hard about whether your personal views might skew your reporting, and how to cultivate sources while guarding your independence. You’ll consider whether your empathy as a person ever conflicts with your obligations as a journalist. And you’ll confront the complex challenges of covering a diverse society with sensitivity and rigor.
The basic principles – accuracy, fairness, independence – are clear. But the case studies in this book demonstrate something I’ve learned and relearned during nearly four decades in journalism. For many of the most important decisions we make, there’s no single, obvious right answer. Even when we agree on the principles, it’s not always clear how they apply to a messy set of circumstances. There are hard calls, gray areas and difficult balances to strike. This textbook doesn’t provide a convenient list of the right answers to all the problems you’ll face. It helps you learn how to think about those problems.
As you grapple with these issues of journalistic standards and ethics, here’s one simple tactic I often find helpful. Imagine a thoughtful reader – fair-minded and reasonable, but tough and skeptical as well. Not your mother, who’ll applaud everything you do. And not a bad-faith critic whose whole goal is to undermine your efforts. But a reader who cares about the topic you’re covering and wants you to get it right.
Now imagine that this fair-minded but skeptical reader knows everything about how you reported, wrote or edited the story you’re working on. Heard the very conversations you’re having with your editor. Saw what you chose to put in and what you left out. Knew how you dealt with your sources. Watched while you or your colleagues decided what picture to use, what anecdote to lead with, what headline to write.
What if you walked that reader through everything you did and explained every decision you made? Would the reader trust your journalism more, or less? If there are some things about your work that you’d rather a reader not know – well, maybe you should think again about that part of the process.
Sometimes this thoughtful-reader test isn’t just a theoretical exercise. One big step forward in journalistic practices in recent years is the trend toward transparency – a greater willingness to show our work and explain how we did it. It’s increasingly common for reporters to lay out how many sources they interviewed, how they first learned about a crucial document, what elements of a story they still haven’t nailed down. But even if you don’t put those details into a story, imagine what you would say to a reader who wanted to know.
Earning and keeping that reader’s trust is the ultimate goal of all our ethics guidelines. This book will help prepare you for that challenge.
Preface
By Gene Foreman
I am pleased to present this thoroughly updated third edition of The Ethical Journalist and to welcome three esteemed former colleagues as coauthors: Daniel R. Biddle, Emilie Lounsberry, and Richard G. Jones. All of us have worked at The Philadelphia Inquirer, and all of us have taught journalism at the college level.
Our book is intended to inform your professional life. Technically, it is published as a textbook for college courses in journalism ethics and communications ethics, and as the ethics textbook in a course combining journalism ethics and law. We hope that practicing journalists will also find it useful for its comprehensive discussion of the standards of the profession.
If you fit those categories of student journalist or practicing journalist, you will find yourself addressed directly in this book. We reach out to you in two ways: first, to help you learn to make ethically defensible decisions in the practice of journalism; and, second, to give you the benefit of the thinking of generations of professionals and scholars that resulted in today’s consensus guidelines for ethical conduct.
With these goals in mind, we have divided the book into two parts. Part I examines ethics in a general way, explains the importance of ethics to journalism, and outlines a decision‐making strategy. Part II discusses subject areas in which journalists frequently confront ethics questions, and it offers real-life case studies in which you can decide how to respond to the ethics challenges that the actual journalists faced.
Throughout the book, the consensus guidelines are explained, not to dictate your decision‐making but to offer a starting point for thinking through the issues. The idea is that you don’t have to start from a zero base; you can build on the best thinking of those who have gone before. Where there is disagreement in the profession, we have noted that, too. In several instances we advocate for what we consider to be the best practice.
Teachers who have used previous editions of The Ethical Journalist will notice a modest restructuring. Recognizing Donald Trump’s profound influence on the practice of journalism, we have devoted an entire chapter in Part I to “the Trump effect.” In Part II, each of the first four chapters is devoted to an in-depth discussion of a guiding principle of the Society of Professional Journalists ethics code, and we have added a chapter on journalists’ use of social media. Finally, the chapters on journalist misconduct and “the business of journalism” have been moved to the end of the book, not to minimize their importance but to separate them from the Part II chapters focusing on practical ethics issues.
The book reflects the coauthors’ experience in the practice of journalism. It is important to note, however, that we have also been influenced by ethics scholars. We have benefited from the scholars’ thoughtful analysis of issues whose nuances we practicing journalists sometimes overlooked as we focused on the next deadline.
To learn journalistic techniques like writing headlines for a website, we presume that you will take other courses and read other textbooks. In contrast, the purpose of this book is to encourage you to ponder the ethics ramifications of what journalists do, whether the consumer gets the news from a computer or a mobile device or a newspaper or a TV or a radio.
The case studies and other actual experiences of journalists recounted in this book illustrate ethics choices you may have to make. In selecting the case studies, we applied an essential yardstick: whether the case illustrates an ethics issue that might be encountered by a journalist in the digital age. The cases reflect episodes that occurred on all news platforms – digital, broadcast, and print. Most of them occurred in recent years, but a few were earlier. For today’s journalists, all of them are pertinent.
The journalists’ decisions in the book’s examples are open to debate, which is precisely why you should study them. If you decide that the journalists involved in case studies made a mistake, bear in mind that, nearly always, those were mistakes of the head and not of the heart. In many ways, learning journalism ethics is about learning from our mistakes.
Our online resources
This book is accompanied by two websites that allow readers to continue to explore issues in journalism ethics.
For instructors who are using the book in their courses, there is a password-protected Instructor Companion Site offering sample slideshow presentations, quiz templates, and other materials for use in the classroom. This site can be reached by visiting www.wiley.com/go/foreman/theethicaljournalist3e.
For all users of the book, the authors have created an Online Forum featuring news updates, videos, supplemental readings, and a comments section for continued discussion. The Online Forum can be accessed at theethicaljournalist.com. The forum is regularly updated by the authors; it is not managed by Wiley-Blackwell, nor is its content published, pre-screened, or pre-approved by the publishing company.
Gene ForemanApril 2022
About the Coauthors
Gene Foreman Daniel R. Biddle Emilie Lounsberry Richard G. Jones
Gene Foreman was the managing editor of three newspapers in a 41-year career, of which the last 25 years (1973–98) were devoted to managing newsroom operations of The Philadelphia Inquirer. He previously was managing editor of the Pine Bluff (Arkansas) Commercial (1963–68) and the Arkansas Democrat (1968–71). After retiring from The Inquirer, Foreman was the inaugural Larry and Ellen Foster Professor at Pennsylvania State University (1998–2006). He received two awards for teaching excellence and was the first winner, in 2013, of the Douglas Anderson Contributor Award for contributions to the College of Communications. In 1997 he received a lifetime achievement award from the Philadelphia chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists; in 2017 he received the Benjamin Franklin Award for excellence from the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association; and in 2020 he received the Larry Foster Award for Integrity in Public Communication from the Arthur W. Page Center. He is a 1956 journalism graduate of Arkansas State University.
Daniel R. Biddle wrote investigative stories for The Philadelphia Inquirer in 1986 that won a Pulitzer Prize. With two other reporters, he produced the series “Disorder in the Court,” which revealed transgressions of justice in the Philadelphia court system and led to federal and state investigations. As an editor he oversaw investigative reporters and guided Inquirer coverage of three presidential races. Before joining The Inquirer, he reported for The Plain Dealer of Cleveland. He has a bachelor’s degree in history from the University of Michigan and was a Nieman Fellow at Harvard University. He is a coauthor of a book on civil rights history: Tasting Freedom: Octavius Catto and the Battle for Equality in Civil War America (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2010). He teaches journalism at the University of Pennsylvania.
Emilie Lounsberry was a staff writer at The Philadelphia Inquirer from 1982 to 2009, and for much of that time she covered trials and wrote about the law, examining a range of issues from a regional and national perspective. Before joining The Inquirer, she worked at The Bulletin in Philadelphia. She has a bachelor’s degree from Temple University and a master’s from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, which she attended as a Knight-Bagehot Fellow. She also attended a semester at the University of Pennsylvania as a Richard Burke Fellow. She received the National Association of Black Journalists’ Excellence Award in 2018 and an American Judicature Society’s Toni House Journalism Award in 2013 for “outstanding reporting that enhances public understanding of the courts.” Since 2009, she has been an associate professor in the Department of Journalism and Professional Writing at The College of New Jersey. Earlier, she taught a semester at Princeton University as the Ferris Professor of Journalism.
Richard G. Jones is managing editor for Opinion at The Philadelphia Inquirer and was, most recently, the Walter H. Annenberg-Edmund P. Joyce Director of the John W. Gallivan Program in Journalism, Ethics, and Democracy at the University of Notre Dame. Earlier, in eight years at The Inquirer, he wrote a daily column and was a national correspondent based in Atlanta. Moving to The New York Times, he was a reporter and later associate editor. He led The Times’s newsroom summer internship program and a two-week professional development program for collegiate members of the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. He was twice a winner of the Times Publisher’s Award. He is a graduate of the University of Delaware, where he was editor of the student newspaper. He holds a master’s degree from Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, which he attended as a Knight-Bagehot Fellow. He has advanced to Ph.D. candidacy in journalism studies at the University of Maryland, where he is a Scripps-Howard Doctoral Fellow.
Acknowledgments
We the coauthors are grateful to friends and fellow journalists who contributed their expertise to help us create, in this Third Edition of The Ethical Journalist, a comprehensive examination of journalism ethics in the digital age.
We offer our thanks to the Arthur W. Page Center for Integrity in Public Communication, whose generous grant supported the research, writing, and production of the Third Edition. Established in 2004 at what is now the Donald P. Bellisario College of Communications at Pennsylvania State University, the Page Center is dedicated to the study and advancement of ethics in all forms of public communication. Denise Bortree, the Page Center’s director, took a personal interest in our project and offered encouragement as work progressed.
We thank Charles Knittle, retired copy chief at The New York Times, for his tireless work as editor, fact-checker, proofreader, and counselor in guiding the manuscript into print. We are also grateful to Katie O’Toole, who teaches in the Bellisario College at Penn State, and Mary Lowe Kennedy, who is retired after decades of editing. Katie and Mary Lowe read the entire manuscript and did what gifted editors do: They raised questions that made us think, and they recommended revisions that improved the book.
The exciting new page design of this edition is the work of Bill Marsh, who also produced the book’s graphics. Bill did this superb work during crises in world health and US politics, which made his day job at The New York Times particularly demanding. One Times graphic of this period that he helped design, depicting the US death toll of the COVID-19 pandemic, occupied nearly 40 percent of a print edition’s front page.
We are indebted to Dean Marie Hardin of the Bellisario College at Penn State. Along with other support they gave our project, Dean Hardin and Assistant Dean Robert Martin put us in touch with Varshini Chellapilla, who worked as our researcher in the weeks after receiving her degree in journalism from Penn State in May 2020.
We are grateful to Elizabeth H. Hughes, Gabriel Escobar, Danese Kenon and Evan Benn of The Philadelphia Inquirer for the use of its photo archive.
We thank Philip B. Corbett, associate managing editor for standards of The New York Times, for writing the book’s insightful Foreword.
We thank the journalists who generously allowed their work to be used in the book as Point of View essays or as illustrations. Their contributions are acknowledged where they appear in the book.
We thank our colleagues at Wiley-Blackwell who worked to shepherd our book into print. Todd Green is the editor whose idea it was to publish a Third Edition. Others at Wiley-Blackwell who joined the project include Andrew Minton, Nicole Allen, Jon Boylan, Sophie Bradwell, Christy Michael, and Robert Saigh.
Below, the coauthors extend individual thanks to people who sat for interviews or who gave support in other ways:
Gene Foreman – Bob Steele, the longtime ethicist at the Poynter Institute, retired but still a leading authority on the rights and wrongs of journalism. Colleagues at Penn State: Katie O’Toole, Russ Eshleman, John Affleck, Tony Barbieri, John Beale, John Dillon, Patrick Plaisance, Shaheen Pasha, Bu Zhong, and Curt Chandler. Other interviewees: Jane Eisner of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism; Thomas Kent, professor and consultant; Steve Bien-Aime of Northern Kentucky University; and Megan O’Matz of the South Florida Sun Sentinel. And special thanks to Gene’s children and grandchildren for their continued support of his research and writing.
Daniel R. Biddle – Clea Benson of Politico; Rick Berke of the STAT health and medicine news site; John Daniszewski of The Associated Press; Mary Jordan, Eugene Robinson, Paul Farhi, and Kevin Sullivan of The Washington Post; Al Letson of Reveal; Ann Marie Lipinski of the Nieman Foundation at Harvard University; Kelly McBride of the Poynter Institute and NPR; Monica Rhor of the Houston Chronicle; Peter Nicholas of The Atlantic; George Rodrigue of Advance Local Media; Hasit Shah of Quartz; Sandra Clark of WHYY in Philadelphia; David Shribman, formerly of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Cindy Skrzycki of the University of Pittsburgh; Joseph Tedesco of SUNY Maritime College and his daughter, Julia Tedesco of the Fordham International Law Journal; Julia Terruso and Barry Zukerman of The Philadelphia Inquirer; the biographer Larry Tye; Dean Baquet of The New York Times; the psychologist Augie Hermann; Professor J. Nathan Matias of Cornell University; Deb Howlett and Deborah Gump, former directors of the University of Delaware’s journalism program; co-director Elaine Simon and program coordinator Victoria Karkov of the University of Pennsylvania’s urban studies program; and the Philadelphia lawyers Amy Ginensky and Vincent V. Carissimi. Thanks as well to former Inquirer colleagues Murray Dubin and Stephen Seplow, and to Dan’s students in his Spring 2020 journalism classes at the University of Delaware and the University of Pennsylvania, who gave feedback on this textbook’s Second Edition and suggestions for the Third Edition. And special thanks to two career journalists for their wise counsel: his daughter, Ellery Roberts Biddle, and his wife, Sara Rimer.
Emilie Lounsberry – Penny Muse Abernathy of the University of North Carolina and these former Philadelphia Inquirer colleagues: Katherine Hatton, Jennifer Lin, Fran Dauth, Hank Klibanoff, Rick Edmonds, and Neill Borowski. Thanks also to Emilie’s journalism students at The College of New Jersey, who provided feedback on the textbook’s Second Edition and proposed updates for the Third Edition. Finally, she acknowledges her mom, Anna Lounsberry, who inspired her in so many ways over her lifetime and who died of COVID-19 during the writing of this book.
Richard G. Jones – Sandy Banks of the Los Angeles Times, the photojournalist Bita Honarvar, Jackie Jones of Morgan State University, Doug Mitchell and Keith Woods of NPR, Akili Ramsess of the National Press Photographers Association, and Al Tompkins of the Poynter Institute. Special thanks to his sons, Jude and Luke; his father-in-law, Dr. Carlisle L. St. Martin; and four extraordinary women: his mother, Shirley Mackins; his mother-in-law, Dr. Linda Barney-St. Martin; and his wife and teaching partner, Victoria St. Martin, and their daughter, Elizabeth, who celebrated her first birthday during the writing of this book.
Part I A Foundation for Making Ethical Decisions
This part of the book will prepare you to make ethical decisions in journalism.
Chapter 1 explains why journalists should understand ethics and apply ethical principles in their decision‐making.
Chapter 2 explores the history of ethics and the way that members of society develop their ethical values.
Chapters 3, 4, and 5 discuss journalism’s role in society, the shared values of the profession, and the often tenuous relationship of journalism and the public.
Chapter 6 discusses the unique challenges that Donald J. Trump presented to journalists as a candidate and president, and how the experience changed some journalism practices.
Chapters 7, 8, and 9 lay the foundation for moral decision-making in journalism, which is the goal of a course in applied ethics. Chapter 7 discusses classic ethics theories, Chapter 8 codes of ethics, and Chapter 9 the decision process.
Words that are defined in the book’s Glossary appear inboldfacewhere they are first mentioned in the text.
1 Why Ethics Matters in Journalism Our society needs news professionals who do the right thing.
Lovelle Svart faces the camera during one of her “Living to the End” video diaries on The Oregonian’s website.
Photo courtesy of The Oregonian.
Learning Goals
This chapter will help you understand:
why ethics is vitally important in a journalist’s everyday work;
why responsible journalists adhere voluntarily to high standards of conduct;
how journalists should make ethically sound decisions;
how discussing the case studies in class is crucial to learning the decision-making process; and
how the digital era, in revolutionizing the way the news is gathered and delivered, has made a common language of ethical standards more essential than ever.
LOVELLE SVART, a 62-year-old woman with short, sandy hair, faced the video camera and calmly talked about dying. “This is my medication,” she said, holding an orange bottle of clear liquid. “Everyone has told me … I look better than I did ten years ago, but inside, I hurt like nobody’s business.” On that afternoon of September 28, 2007, after she had danced the polka one last time and said her goodbyes to family and close friends, the contents of the orange bottle quietly killed her.1
Svart’s death came three months after her doctor informed her she would die of lung cancer within six months. The former research librarian disclosed the grim prognosis to a reporter friend at The Oregonian in Portland, the newspaper where she had worked. She said she had decided to avail herself of Oregon’s assisted‐suicide law. Svart also said she wanted to talk to people frankly about death and dying, hoping she could help them come to grips with the subject themselves. Out of that conversation grew an extraordinary mutual decision: On its website and in print, The Oregonian would chronicle Lovelle Svart’s final months on earth.
In her series of tasteful “video diaries,” she talked about living with a fatal disease and about her dwindling reservoir of time. In response, hundreds of people messaged her on the website, addressing her as if they were old friends.
But before Svart taped her diaries, journalists at The Oregonian talked earnestly about what they were considering. Most of all, they asked themselves questions about ethics.
The threshold question was whether their actions might influence what Svart did. It is not unusual for journalists to worry about doing something that could change the story they are covering. In this case, however, the stakes could not be higher. Would Svart feel free to change her mind? After all the attention, would she feel obligated to go ahead and take the lethal dose? On this topic, the Oregonian journalists were comforted by their relationship to their story subject. Familiarity was reassuring, although in the abstract they would have preferred to be reporting on someone who had never been involved with the paper. In 20 years of working with her, they knew Svart was strong‐willed; nobody would tell her what to do. Even so, the journalists constantly reminded her that whatever she decided would be fine with them. Michael Arrieta‐Walden, a project leader, personally sat down with her and made that clear. The story would be about death and dying, not about Svart’s assisted suicide.
Would the video diaries make a statement in favor of the controversial state law? No, they decided. The debate was over; the law had been enacted and it had passed court tests. Irrespective of how they and members of The Oregonian’s audience felt about assisted suicide, they would just be showing how the law actually worked – a journalistic purpose. They posted links to stories they had done earlier reflecting different points of view about the law itself. Other links guided readers to organizations that supported people in time of grief.
In debates among themselves and in teleconferences with an ethicist, they raised other questions and tried to arrive at answers that met the test of their collective conscience. For example, a question that caused much soul‐searching was what to do if Svart collapsed while they were alone with her. It was a fact that she had posted “do not resuscitate” signs in her bedroom and always carried a document stating her wishes. Still, this possibility made them very uncomfortable – they were journalists, not doctors. Finally they resolved that, if they were alone with her in her bedroom and she lost consciousness, they would pull the emergency cord and let medical personnel handle the situation. As Svart’s health declined, they made another decision: They would not go alone with her outside the assisted‐living center where she lived. From then on, if they accompanied her outside, there would also be another person along, someone who clearly had the duty of looking out for Svart’s interests.2
The self‐questioning in the Oregonian newsroom illustrates ethics awareness in contemporary journalism. “Twenty years ago, an ethical question might come up when someone walked into the editor’s office at the last minute,” said Sandra Rowe, then the editor of The Oregonian. “We’ve gone through a culture change. Now an ethical question comes up once or twice a week at our daily news meeting, where everyone can join the discussion. We are confident we can reach a sound decision if everyone has a say.”3
Incentives for Ethical Behavior
Most journalists see theirs as a noble profession serving the public interest. They want to behave ethically.
Why should journalists practice sound ethics? If you ask that question in a crowd of journalists, you will probably get as many answers as there are people in the room. But, while the answers may vary, their essence can be distilled into two broad categories. One, logically enough, is moral; the other could be called practical.
The moral incentive
Journalists should be ethical because they, like most other human beings, want to see themselves as decent and honest. It is natural to crave self‐esteem, not to mention the respect of others. There is a psychic reward in knowing that you have tried to do the right thing. As much as they like getting a good story, journalists don’t want to be known for having exploited someone in the process.
The practical incentive
In the long term, ethical journalism promotes the news organization’s credibility and thus its acceptance by the public. This translates into commercial success. What journalists have to sell is the news – and if the public does not believe their reporting, they have nothing to sell. Consumers of the news are more likely to believe journalists’ reporting if they see the journalists as ethical in the way they treat the public and the subjects of news coverage. Just as a wise consumer would choose a product with a respected brand name over a no‐name alternative when seeking quality, journalists hope that consumers will choose their news organization because it behaves responsibly – because it can be trusted.
Why Standards Are Needed
There are also practical arguments for ethical behavior that flow from journalism’s special role in American life.
The First Amendment guarantee of a free press means that, unlike other professionals, such as those in medicine and the law, journalists are not regulated by the state and are not subject to an enforceable ethics code. And that is a good thing, of course. The First Amendment insulates journalists from retribution from office holders who want to control the flow of information to the public and who often resent the way they are covered in the media. If a state board licensed journalists, it is a safe bet that some members of the board would abuse their power to rid themselves of journalists who offend them. The public would be the loser if journalists could be expelled from the profession by their adversaries in government.
But there is a downside to press freedom: Anybody, no matter how unqualified or unscrupulous, can become a journalist. It is a tolerable downside, given the immense benefit of independent news media. Nevertheless, bad journalists taint the reputation of everyone in the profession. Because they are not subject to legally enforceable standards, honest journalists have an individual obligation to adhere voluntarily to high standards of professional conduct. Ethical journalists do not use the Constitution’s protection to be socially destructive.
Yet another argument for sound ethics is the dual nature of a news organization. Journalism serves the public by providing reliable information that people need to make governing decisions about their community, state, and nation. This is a news organization’s quasi‐civic function. But the news organization has another responsibility, too – and that is to survive in the marketplace. Like any other business, the newspaper, broadcast station, or digital news site must earn an income.
The seeming conflict of those two functions – serving the public, yet making money – is often regarded cynically. Decisions about news coverage tend to be portrayed by critics as calculated to draw web traffic, raise broadcast ratings, or sell newspapers rather than to give the citizens the information they need. The truth is that good journalism is expensive, and the best news organizations invest significant sums in deeply reported projects that could never be justified in an accountant’s profit‐and‐loss ledger. If there is a pragmatic return in such projects, it is in the hope that they build the organization’s reputation as a source of reliable information.
No matter how well they do their jobs, journalists cannot expect their work to be universally acclaimed. But they have an obligation to themselves and their colleagues to never deliberately conduct themselves in a way that would justify the criticism. They have an obligation to practice sound ethics.
The Growth of Ethics Codes
For reasons that are explored in Chapter 3, journalism matured in the second half of the twentieth century. During this period, it became common for individual news organizations to articulate their ethics standards in comprehensive codes, which could be useful guides in decision‐making about the news. Today, not only professional organizations of journalists, but also individual news sites, broadcast stations, and newspapers typically have ethics codes.
There is a distinct difference in the effect of the codes adopted by organizations of professional journalists and those adopted by individual newsrooms. Although the codes of professional organizations fulfill an important purpose of establishing profession‐wide standards, they are voluntary and cannot be enforced. But, when a newsroom adopts a code, violations can be addressed by suspending or dismissing the violators. Of course, codes are valuable only to the extent that they are practiced, and newsroom leaders have a responsibility both to enforce their codes and to set an example of propriety.
Journalists new to the profession may be surprised to find that the rank‐and‐file reporters, editors, and photojournalists often are more effective than their bosses in enforcing the code. John Carroll, when he was editor of the Los Angeles Times, said that among journalists “certain beliefs are very deeply held,” and that the core of these beliefs is a newspaper’s duty to the reader – that is, the news consumer, the audience, no matter how the news is delivered.
