 |
Seeking
Ethical Standards | |
|
Journalism Ethics
In recent years, the public's opinion
of the news media has become increasingly negative due in part to high-profile
instances of individuals breaking the largely unwritten code of journalism ethics.
 In
the wake of The New York Times' 2003 journalism scandal involving Jayson Blair,
many news organizations reexamined and tightened their internal ethics policies
in an effort to avoid a similar scandal. To rebuild the damaged trust, news organizations
are becoming more transparent with the public about their internal professional
standards and ethics.
It is difficult to codify exactly what is right
from wrong since real life situations present many gray areas, yet there are general
principles that American journalists recognize as proper professional standards
for conduct.
The common denominators include the obligation to be accurate
and fair, to inform the public fully of legitimate concerns, to be honest in dealing
with sources and subjects, to create authentic work and to uphold journalistic
independence and avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, Bob Steele,
director of the Ethics Program at the Poynter Institute, told the Online NewsHour.
The Call for Standards in Journalism
Although it may seem that
the media's credibility is declining, journalists are dramatically more professional
and ethical than their predecessors from the 19th and early 20th centuries.
In the 19th century, news organizations acted largely as party organs and, consequently,
were heavily biased toward a particular politician or party, said Mark Feldstein,
associate professor at the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington
University. In fact, reporters of that era routinely accepted bribes and many
were on the payrolls of government officials.
Professional journalism
developed in the late 1800s and early 1900s as many fields, including medicine,
teaching and the law, moved to adopt professional standards during the country's
Progressive Era.
 Professionalism
in the news industry represented a backlash to the "yellow journalism" -- sensationalist
and factually questionable stories -- that dominated newspapers of the 19th century,
Steele said.
Additionally, news organizations -- wanting to expand their
audience and their bottom lines -- began to discard partisan reporting that appealed
to small "niche" groups in favor of objective and independent reporting that could
attract a wider readership, Christopher Hanson, assistant journalism professor
at the University of Maryland, told the Online NewsHour.
By the 1920s,
the new media of movies and radio challenged the newspaper business, prompting
the industry to stress its growing professionalism.
In 1922, the American
Society of Newspaper Editors introduced the first ethical guidelines, called the
"Canons of Journalism." The Canons focused on Responsibility; Freedom of Speech;
Independence; Sincerity; Truthfulness and Accuracy; Impartiality; Fair Play and
Decency.
The guidelines underscore that because journalists are protected
under the First Amendment, they have a responsibility and public obligation to
maintain professional integrity and to respect the code of ethics.
Most
broadcast and print news organizations have adapted their internal policies from
various journalism associations, including ASNE, the Associated Press Managing
Editors, the Society of Professional Journalists and the Radio-Television News
Directors Association. These professional organizations have created voluntary
ethical standards as a basis for news organizations and individual journalists
to tailor for their own needs.
A Foundation for Ethics
The Society of Professional Journalists developed one of the more comprehensive
ethical codes.
The SPJ code says journalists should "Seek Truth and Report
It," and addresses plagiarism, vetting sources, presenting full and fair information,
avoiding stereotypes and reporting subjectively.
Second, the code says
"ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving
of respect." This section, entitled "Minimize Harm," encourages journalists to
be sensitive in covering tragedies and to recognize that "gathering and reporting
information may cause harm or discomfort."
The third section, under the
heading "Act Independently," addresses the sticky issue of conflict of interests,
which could include political activities, family ties and financial holdings.
"Journalists should remain free of associations and activities that may compromise
integrity or damage credibility," the SPJ said. For instance, many newspapers,
such as the San Francisco Chronicle, explicitly forbid newsroom staffers from
participating in political demonstrations or from making political donations.
This guideline can also be applied to being offered gifts, favors, free travel
and other special treatment.
SPJ's final section, "Be Accountable," stipulates
that journalists "are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each
other." This article encourages a dialogue between news organizations and their
audience to ensure that journalists are fulfilling their obligation to inform
the public and for journalists to "expose unethical practices of journalists and
the news media."
Unique Codes for Individual News Organizations
Throughout the years, organizations have tailored the SPJ guidelines to address
particular newsroom situations.
At Reuters, for instance, reporters must
notify an editor when writing about a company in which they own stock. They cannot
trade in that security for a month after their assignment to prevent even the
appearance that they gained inside knowledge about the company, according to Businessjournalism.org.
Steele said the intersection of journalism and business values represented a growing
challenge to ethical standards, but some organizations have maintained meaningful
firewalls between the corporate units and the news division.
 Because
many newspapers and broadcasts are owned by publicly traded corporations, news
organizations, including Gannett Co. Inc. and Knight Ridder, strictly prohibit
staffers from sharing inside information or from trading company stock until such
information becomes available to the public. Gannett's ethics code lists the possible
consequences, including job termination and being turned over to the federal authorities,
for violating this rule.
News organizations covering the federal government
often create more stringent guidelines regarding ethical challenges unique to
reporting in Washington, D.C.
In its Standards and Ethics Statement, The
Washington Post acknowledges that its unique power as "the dominant morning newspaper
in the capital of the free world carries with it special responsibilities."
The guideline devotes substantial attention to the "Conflict of Interest" issue,
underscoring that staffers must avoid any political involvement that could even
appear to discredit the Post's journalistic standards.
Furthermore, the
Post warned that the political activities or employment of staffers' relatives
could at least appear to "compromise our integrity." For this reason, "the business
or professional ties of family members must be disclosed to department heads,"
according to its 1999 guideline as posted on ASNE's Web site.
Another
difficult issue major news organizations must tackle is the use of anonymous sources.
Many national news broadcasts, such as PBS' NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, and newspapers
have entirely ruled out the use of anonymous sources for various reasons, such
as the questionable credibility and unknown motivations of unnamed sources. But
several major newspapers, including the Post and The New York Times, will permit
unidentified sourcing in certain circumstances.
Following the New York
Times' 2003 plagiarism scandal, the Post in February 2004 issued new guidelines
regarding the use of confidential sources, as well as other stylistic changes.
The updated policy requires that "at least one editor know the identity of every
anonymous source quoted in the newspaper."
The revision aims to ensure
that anonymous sourcing would be used judiciously. "We must be certain in our
own minds that the benefit to readers is worth the cost in credibility," the new
guideline states.
In a Feb. 17 staff memo, Post executive editor Leonard
Downie Jr. and then-managing editor Steve Coll urged all employees to learn the
new rules: "Please read them carefully, refer to them when necessary, remember
and respect them. They are important."
Later that month, The New York
Times also introduced rules designed to significantly limit the paper's use of
unidentified sources in its articles. The Times' revision sought to improve reader
trust and clarify how the paper justified citing anonymous sources.
The
revision came several months before the Times published a critical self-review
of its prewar reporting found to depend too heavily on unreliable anonymous Iraqi
sources.
But, several media experts, including Hanson and Feldstein,
expressed skepticism about these recent efforts to better regulate anonymous sourcing.
The Washington press corps will cite "unnamed officials" more often than
anywhere else as though it was "part of the territory of covering the federal
government," Hanson said. Hanson underscored that the journalists who do not provide
sources confidentiality will find themselves at a competitive disadvantage --
and will miss out on stories -- against other news organizations that do.
There have been "periodic spasms against using anonymous sources, but nobody really
wants to get rid" of the practice, Feldstein said. On the other hand, he noted
that the Post's legendary Watergate reporting removed some of the stigma around
the "unnamed source," saying the practice can be crucial in revealing important
government secrets or breaking other significant news.
A Simple
Code?
The basic ethical principles appear straightforward, but there
are numerous instances in which the best course of action was not so clear.
"The trouble (with ethics codes) is most real life situations fall in gray areas
that are difficult to spell out in an actual code," Feldstein noted.
 Sometimes
one principle -- such as to report with decency -- will conflict with another
-- to report accurately and fully. For instance, a reporter trying to cover the
alleged rape of a teenage girl by five football players may wonder how much information
to reveal, such as the victim's name or information on the suspected perpetrators.
The directives against plagiarizing or fabricating seem obvious as well,
yet journalists may feel they can "borrow" a quote or embellish for narrative
detail.
Kelly McBride, an ethics faculty member at the Poynter Institute,
wrote in May 2003 that taking quotes or details from other publications is sometimes
unintended.
"The Internet and newspaper databases allow a reporter to
download the work of others into word-processing files that can be mistaken for
genuine notes or intentionally cribbed," McBride wrote.
Along those lines,
the technique of embellishing, or reconstructing, scenes "is becoming more widespread
since narrative writing has become a common tool of the newspaper." Even so, McBride
wrote, "the reader should be told, and so should the editor. Disclosure can easily
be made with a sentence in a story or an editor's note."
"Not everyone
understands what plagiarism means these days," Steele told the Online NewsHour.
Journalists know it is inappropriate to claim others' work as their own without
giving appropriate credit, but, according to Steele, how much of another's work
can be used without accreditation and what about information in the public domain,
such as historical information, remains unclear.
Another conundrum journalists
routinely encounter is the effort to report fairly and without bias.
Steele
rejected applying the term "objectivity" to journalism -- saying no human being
could be a "blank slate" without opinion or feeling -- but stressed that it was
possible to keep biases out of reporting to protect the independence of journalism.
"There are mechanisms to be objective -- by using multiple sources, opposing
sources and multiple checks and balances. Those techniques help create objective
reports," Steele continued.
"I would hope these techniques would guide
journalists to report from a position of independence that does not ignore our
beliefs and biases, but keeps them in check," he said.
While an ethics
code cannot be applied to every situation, such guidelines can be used as a guidebook
for journalists to make intelligent decisions.
"The important thing is
to be able to realize when you're in a difficult ethical situation and have a
discussion in the newsroom about the right course of action. To weigh the possible
actions, consequences and which areas you are willing to compromise on," Hanson
said.
At the same time, he observed, journalists faced with tight deadlines
may not have the luxury of a newsroom conversation on the ethical pros and cons.
"I believe it is important for every news organization to have clear standards,
but not rules because rules imply rigidity and do not allow for decision on individual
cases," Steele concluded.
-- By Liz Harper,
Online NewsHour
|
|
|
|
|
