The basic job of a journalist is to seek truth and report it. That seems simple enough. Find out what’s really going on; tell everyone else.
But that is not always what happens. There are far too many instances of journalists and photojournalists enhancing or even fabricating information to gain a competitive edge. That, no doubt, was behind CBS News’ fiasco involving Dan Rather and his report on President Bush. And it was considered a harmless thing by the Sacramento television reporter who recreated events in order to have a good story on camera.
The news business is highly competitive and increasingly sensational. The journalist who hits the market first and with the most titillating story is in a position to get better assignments, more recognition and better employment offers.
The sad truth is that sometimes the good guys finish last. And that can be true, at least commercially, of a journalist who maintains personal and professional integrity by telling only what is true with no embellishment. But I believe the price is too high to act otherwise.
There is always the risk of being exposed, which, as Rather found out, can end an otherwise impressive career. But the far greater risk is this: if I were to report anything other than the plain truth, I would compromise my integrity. Long after the media or the public have forgotten who I was or what sins I committed, I would still have to live with me.
Minimize Harm
As important as it is to get the story, it is incredible to me to think that any journalist needs to be told to minimize harm. We are human beings first, who deserve to be treated with respect, and from whom others deserve respect. When we lose that and start treating people as objects, as stories to be told instead of people with lives and emotions, it’s time to get out of the business.
Getting the story is our job and it’s important. But it is never more important than the people involved. Should we take the pictures or stop the bleeding? Do we even need to ask? Will the story have less impact without the close-up streaming video of the child holding her dead mother? Probably, but what impact will the child suffer for the ratings point that video may garner?
Even in less-dramatic cases, we have to be careful that what we report is necessary and pertinent to the story and will not cause unnecessary harm. If the story is about the Senator who is involved in an illegal land deal, does the news of his/her marital infidelity, or closet homosexuality also need to be splashed across the news, where his/her spouse and children will learn of it in the worst possible way? Probably not.
There are almost always at least two ways to tell a story. Choose the one that causes the least harm.
Act Independently
It is virtually impossible to be objective with a story when one has a personal involvement. And as soon as we are personally involved, human nature is such that we begin to look out for those about whom we care (as well as look for ways to stick it to those whom we dislike).
Being entangled with people who are the subjects of our stories opens the door to violation of the other three practices in the Journalistic Code of Ethics. We see truth somewhat differently because of our relationships, and that filter will affect how we report it. We can take the principle of minimizing harm to extremes, failing to report the pertinent truth if it will harm our friend, relative or associate. And we cease to be accountable to journalistic standards and our public, if we switch our loyalties and become accountable instead to a special interest, a benefactor, or someone with whom we have a personal relationship.
Be Accountable
One of the most difficult aspects of accountability, in any field, is to expose ethical breaches and illegal activity. Within an industry, people tend to protect each other, even when they shouldn’t.
I think there are two main reasons for this. First, there is the sense that if I cover your back, you’ll cover mine. That sounds reasonable, except that, if neither of us is behaving unethically, there should be no reason to need “cover.” The second reason people often fail to expose bad behavior is that whistleblowers (Sarbanes-Oxley notwithstanding) are far too likely to be the ones who suffer for going public. Nearly every industry has something on paper that speaks to high ethical values, but often those value statements are just words on a paper and nothing else.
I’ve been in the position of exposing, through proper channels, the illegal and unethical behavior of a member of my industry, and I was the one who suffered for it, while he was protected. And yet, I would do it all again. Even though I was unsuccessful in ending the harm this man caused, at least I tried, and at least I know that I maintained my integrity throughout the process.
I'm trying to get back in the habit of writing every day. Lately, I've been working on character sketches. Some of those will find their way here, in the form of individual comments to this post.
Comments
The basic job of a journalist is to seek truth and report it. That seems simple enough. Find out what’s really going on; tell everyone else.
But that is not always what happens. There are far too many instances of journalists and photojournalists enhancing or even fabricating information to gain a competitive edge. That, no doubt, was behind CBS News’ fiasco involving Dan Rather and his report on President Bush. And it was considered a harmless thing by the Sacramento television reporter who recreated events in order to have a good story on camera.
The news business is highly competitive and increasingly sensational. The journalist who hits the market first and with the most titillating story is in a position to get better assignments, more recognition and better employment offers.
The sad truth is that sometimes the good guys finish last. And that can be true, at least commercially, of a journalist who maintains personal and professional integrity by telling only what is true with no embellishment. But I believe the price is too high to act otherwise.
There is always the risk of being exposed, which, as Rather found out, can end an otherwise impressive career. But the far greater risk is this: if I were to report anything other than the plain truth, I would compromise my integrity. Long after the media or the public have forgotten who I was or what sins I committed, I would still have to live with me.
Minimize Harm
As important as it is to get the story, it is incredible to me to think that any journalist needs to be told to minimize harm. We are human beings first, who deserve to be treated with respect, and from whom others deserve respect. When we lose that and start treating people as objects, as stories to be told instead of people with lives and emotions, it’s time to get out of the business.
Getting the story is our job and it’s important. But it is never more important than the people involved. Should we take the pictures or stop the bleeding? Do we even need to ask? Will the story have less impact without the close-up streaming video of the child holding her dead mother? Probably, but what impact will the child suffer for the ratings point that video may garner?
Even in less-dramatic cases, we have to be careful that what we report is necessary and pertinent to the story and will not cause unnecessary harm. If the story is about the Senator who is involved in an illegal land deal, does the news of his/her marital infidelity, or closet homosexuality also need to be splashed across the news, where his/her spouse and children will learn of it in the worst possible way? Probably not.
There are almost always at least two ways to tell a story. Choose the one that causes the least harm.
Act Independently
It is virtually impossible to be objective with a story when one has a personal involvement. And as soon as we are personally involved, human nature is such that we begin to look out for those about whom we care (as well as look for ways to stick it to those whom we dislike).
Being entangled with people who are the subjects of our stories opens the door to violation of the other three practices in the Journalistic Code of Ethics. We see truth somewhat differently because of our relationships, and that filter will affect how we report it. We can take the principle of minimizing harm to extremes, failing to report the pertinent truth if it will harm our friend, relative or associate. And we cease to be accountable to journalistic standards and our public, if we switch our loyalties and become accountable instead to a special interest, a benefactor, or someone with whom we have a personal relationship.
Be Accountable
One of the most difficult aspects of accountability, in any field, is to expose ethical breaches and illegal activity. Within an industry, people tend to protect each other, even when they shouldn’t.
I think there are two main reasons for this. First, there is the sense that if I cover your back, you’ll cover mine. That sounds reasonable, except that, if neither of us is behaving unethically, there should be no reason to need “cover.” The second reason people often fail to expose bad behavior is that whistleblowers (Sarbanes-Oxley notwithstanding) are far too likely to be the ones who suffer for going public. Nearly every industry has something on paper that speaks to high ethical values, but often those value statements are just words on a paper and nothing else.
I’ve been in the position of exposing, through proper channels, the illegal and unethical behavior of a member of my industry, and I was the one who suffered for it, while he was protected. And yet, I would do it all again. Even though I was unsuccessful in ending the harm this man caused, at least I tried, and at least I know that I maintained my integrity throughout the process.