Ethics and Journalism

Ethics
1

Context: I’m taking a journalism class and we were assigned to write a short paper regarding journalism and ethics. We were suppose to answer such questions as, “What makes for good journalism?” “What standards should journalism follow?” “If you were a journalist, which standards would you follow?”

Here’s my short paper. . .I would appreciate any feedback regarding my arguments and the teacher’s comments.

Here’s it is:

New Republic stood for, nor what its readers wanted. Therefore, Glass acted very unethically. (And as I’m sure, after Glass’ fabrications were revealed, the newspaper must have suffered financial losses. . .so much for the alleged dichotomy between the moral and the practical!)

If I were a journalist, I would follow my ethical guidelines described above. Whatever would earn me the most profit would serve as my standard of value. So in other words, if the question was: would I support the truth? My ethical answer would be: only if the truth is in support of profit.

END

Here is what my teacher wrote for comments on my paper:

Very logical and true, but consider a deeper motivation than making a profit.

What if telling lies makes more money? Is it OK then? Consider the tabloid magazines.

There has to be more to being a journalist than profit. Most journalists don’t go into it to make money. They have varied motivations, but one of the foundations among many is the desire to help people know and understand what’s going on in the world and how it relates to their lives. This is what I hoped you would have gleaned from Nachtway’s example. [to the readers of this forum, if I remember correctly, Nachtway is a war photographer]

–You have an interesting argument here–certainly news outlets ultimately lose money if they tell lies or half-truths. But is profit the only ultimate end? If so, then tabloid magazines are justified in what they do. Yet, something in us cringes when we see their far-fetched headlines. . .and something in us is drawn to their unbelievable stories about celebrities’ lives. Why? Because we’d like to think what we’re reading is true, even though we know at some level it’s likely not true. Is it OK, then, to tell lies about real people–I’m not talking about fictional characters and their stories in novels–because, who cares? The publication is making money, and that’s what poeple want–it’s what they are buying, after all? I just think your argument doesn’t hold true across the board of everything out there that calls itself journalism.

End of Teacher’s Comments.

Once, again, I’d appreciate any feedback.

[and PS. . .this isn’t the account I normally use on this forum; I’m just trying to maintain some anonymity]

2

While I understand what you are trying to say (due to background knowlege of Rational Selfishness) your teacher obviously did not. I think you could have gone one step further and explained why Honesty (i.e. adherence to reality) is a virtue and thus is always the way to profit in the long term.

About your teacher’s objection about tabloids, people who read those are not looking for truth - they are looking for entertainment. It’s not journalism and sensible people know it’s not. That said, tabloids get a lot more heat for publishing things that are true than otherwise, from what I can tell.

mrocktor

3

Did you forget to paste the first part of your paper? Anyway,

(1) It’s not your job to teach your professor the Objectivist ethics in a journalism essay. You should always keep the context of your audience in mind.

(2) Your principle actually advocates pragmatism, which is really not profitable at all. (If you didn’t mean to advocate pragmatism, it’s certainly not evident from the way it’s stated.)

(3) Your implication that high profits (always) require honesty is not true – in a society with a corrupt philosophy, one can get rich selling lies, even if it is not fulfilling or in one’s self-interest. Furthermore, for an individual, seeking profit without concern for spiritual fulfillment or non-monetary consequences is ultimately self-destructive. Profit should never be the prime career goal of an individual.

(4) An application of an ethical principle to a specific field is supposed to provide a guide to action. Saying “do what is profitable” is not helpful even if you are aware of the value of honesty. At best, it leaves out essential context, at worst, it’s pure pragmatism.

4

Argh! That’s bizarre–I did type the whole thing out and could have sworn it was posted. Thanks for both your comments. . . I’ll post the entire article later.

5

Sorry again, here’s the paper in its entirety.

Ethics and Journalism

Ethics and journalism is a confusing topic. When it comes to journalism, what are the standards a journalist ought to follow and why? I really have absolutely no idea. I would first have to know what a journalist is before I could prescribe any sort of ethical standard. According to dictionary.com, journalism is “The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts.”

This definition gives us no insight of how a journalist ought to act; it merely tells us what a journalist does. Should the journalist collect, write, and edit news truthfully? Or should the journalist collect, write, and edit news according to whatever his fancy may be? The definition gives us no prescription.

Nevertheless, just as a business should seek the greatest profit it can, so should journalism. What this means is that the ethics of journalism (i.e., the code of values journalism accepts to guide its choices and actions) are dictated by what is most profitable. All businesses, including journalism, will go bankrupt if they do not make a profit. Thus, journalism should be intimately concerned with making a profit.

The best way to make a profit is to give the people what they want. If, in regards to journalism, people seek the truth, then the truth will sell and be profitable. If what they want is truth but are instead given a complex interwoven web of truth and falsehood, then the journalist has failed and will soon go out of business (see Shattered Glass for evidence). Thus, the code of values journalism should accept to guide its choices and actions is that code which is best governed by profit.

The ethical journalist, then, is one who views profit as an absolute necessity. The unethical journalist is one who completely disregards profit. (If this isn’t convincing, imagine what would happen to journalism if it wasn’t profitable.)

To put theory into practice, you may observe Stephen Glass in the film, Shattered Glass. Were his choices and actions ethical? No. The reason they were not ethical was because The New Republic portrayed itself as a truthful newspaper–a newspaper dedicated to reporting the truth. Stephen Glass, however, did not report the truth; rather, he fabricated sensational stories. This isn’t what The New Republic stood for, nor what its readers wanted. Therefore, Glass acted very unethically. (And as I’m sure, after Glass’ fabrications were revealed, the newspaper must have suffered financial losses. . .so much for the alleged dichotomy b/t the moral and the practical!)

If I were a journalist, I would follow my ethical guidelines described above. Whatever would earn me the most profit would serve as my standard of value. So in other words, if the question was: would I support the truth? My ethical answer would be: only if the truth was in support of profit.

END

Thoughts?

I’m not sure if my reasoning is correct. I know it’s important to look at the nature of the subject when prescribing ethical standards–so that is what I thought I did in this article. I looked at the nature of journalism and then prescribed profit as its standard of value. When I think about it further, though, I don’t think I asked the question, “And just exactly what entity lies under journalism?”

Anyhow, I’m confused.

6

I’ll offer the point of view of a journalist of nearly 14 years experience who is also an objectivist. I am one of the local news editors at a small-to-mid-sized daily. Before that I was a reporter for about nine years at papers big and small, national and community, business and general news. I’ve covered everything from city councils and school boards as a community news reporter to decisions by the Federal Reserve as an economics writer.

Members of the craft are generally expected to follow the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. In a nutshell, the way we operate at my newspaper is to produce a fair, accurate and complete report and do the least harm possible in doing so.

Presumably, that mantra is intended to establish and protect a news organization’s credibility. We are supposed to tell the truth and give people information they need to be citizens. Curiously, that mantra does not address the individual journalist’s point of view or frame of reference created by his or her life experience. That sum of life experience, without a doubt, factors into the journalist’s news judgement and reporting.

I am very comfortable reporting the truth of basic news (where cars crash, what a city council decided or what got damaged in an earthquake). It is when news requires choices on reporting that is not hard news where I frequently get annoyed by my journalistic brethren.

For instance: I supervise a health-care reporter on my team who is decidedly liberal and advocates a state-run, single-payer health insurance system with private insurance and private payments to health professionals outlawed - much like in Canada. The reporter frequently cites studies and statistics whose methodology I find flawed (http://blog.mises.org/archives/005523.asp).

For context, in our newsroom of about 50 people, there are two Republicans, overwhelming majority of Democrats and a decent amount of decline-to-state registration, according to our local voter rolls. One Republican is in high management, the other a middle manager.

My ethical dilemma is that on the one hand, one could argue that someone of my values is needed to keep journalists in check (I’m sure the other side would say the same of me). On the other hand, am I hurting more than helping by being a part of the media apparatus?

Journalists like John Stossel as my heroes, and that is what I strive to be. But it’s a tough fight.