Democracy requires transparency and openness from it's branches of government in order to operate effectively and fairly. As we have often stated in class, the news media is considered the fourth branch of government. This means that we expect to see the same transparency and openness from the news media. Transparency and openness also need to reflect inside the institution itself. Checks and balances should be everywhere.
If journalism claims to be an institution of the government, it needs to function like one. This can include speaking out about something that you, as a journalist, feel wrong about; whether this is in your own organization or another. It is okay for journalists to have a conscience, though I am not sure it should be called a "moral compass" as Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel say. This is because people have vastly different feelings on issues that are typically deemed to be moral. I find that I do not like the authors' use of the words moral and ethical interchangeably. Journalists should not be deciding what is moral. Ethical is more of a word that suggests they work through a process of decision-making. This way it is not a doctrine but more of a guidance of conduct. Ethics is more along the lines of separation of church and state, which is mainly what this country believes in. This will help the process of democracy work more smoothly and fairly.
News organizations used to hold a monopoly; there was no other substitute. Now, however, that is not the case. There are a limitless amount of organizations that produce news (reputable or not). This means that the (mostly) reliable news sources have more competition than ever and they have to find a way to stand out. Generally, I think that the best way to stand out is by being the most accurate and unbiased source there is and there are some organizations that do follow that. However, there are also some that honestly exploit their audience and care more about viewership and ratings than the actual news they are producing.
There is a fine balance that journalists have to walk between keeping their audience, the citizens, engaged and keeping their stories relevant and newsworthy. Technology has led more people to be even less entertained by the news. This has led to news taking a different sort of turn away from what it used to be. It is more often seen that the news takes on a storytelling type of writing. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as their purpose is telling stories whose purpose is providing people with information they need to understand the world.
News organizations need to understand that while they may want to write their news as a story, what really matters is substance. THAT is what will keep audiences coming back. THAT is what will build a stronger and more loyal audience. People in this day and age simply do not have time to comb through a billion different media sources. They will always go to two or three familiar places. In order to be a go to source, news organizations will need to make sure that they help people conserve their time by writing stories on relevant and significant information. There should not be too many fluff stories. And if there are, there should be a specific place for them. Headlines should be straight headlines. They should not be incendiary or biased, they should simply state fact. Citizens have a right to demand this from their news organizations.
Ethics in journalism is a topic that never seems to leave the spotlight. Why? Because journalists control the spotlight, thus, they are constantly in it. The media is often called the fourth branch of the government; its responsibility being to watch over the government for the people. Journalists talk about ethics because it is their guideline to follow. And they would rather have a guideline to follow than have to have severe checks and balances from the government. As a full supporter of democracy and freedom in all aspects of citizens lives, I believe it is a good thing that the media is not too overly watched over by the government, however, I also believe that even though the media tries to rein itself in with a sort of "code of ethics" they need to be watched over as well, a responsibility that should fall on the citizens of this country.
Ethics is currently in the limelight because of recent sexual allegations brought against presidential candidate Herman Cain. Cain is calling himself a victim of the media. He blames the media rather than the women who have accused him of extremely inappropriate behavior. He says he has become the victim of sensationalism, hidden agendas, and anonymous sources. When a reporter tried to ask Cain about the accusations Cain scolded the media saying, "Don't even go there."
“Can I ask my question?” the surprised reporter asked.
“No!” Cain replied, before adding, bafflingly: “Where’s my chief of staff? Please send him the journalistic code of ethics.”
THIS was weird. I don't understand what Cain was thinking. He is running for president of the United States of America. Examining the relationship between Cain and the women at the restaurant association is exactly the role of the press! Sexual harassment is a legitimate area of inquiry especially when the person being accused of it is a possible candidate to lead the strongest most influential country in the world.
The media in this case has been doing what it should for the citizens of America. They have exposed unethical practices that have been alleged against a very important person and journalists have been attempting to clarify and explain this situation for the citizens of this country. It is now in our hands to decide whether or not Cain and others like him are being victimized by sensationalism in the media.
Journalism has always been and will continue to be a rather dangerous career. Some people, mostly criminals, do not like journalists. When journalists start reporting on touchy subjects and being 'watchdogs,' situations can get dicey. The recent uprisings in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia have been especially interesting to watch in relation with journalism.
Before the uprisings began in Libya, I’m not sure that many people cared or even were aware of the dictatorship that was in place there. Even after the protests started, real concern and outrage did not occur until we were given pictures and video evidence of the tyranny. I think that the rebellion would have continued without the journalists and that the frustrations of the citizens of Libya would have sustained the protests for a while, but the world would not have been fully aware of the situation without journalists there showing us. And without the world being aware what was going on, it is very likely that the United Nations would have placed less urgency on protecting the citizens or doing something about Gadhafi. I think that the journalists may have given more hope to the citizens there that something good might actually come out of the protests and I think that plays a distinct part in watchdog journalism.
These varying situations of danger will continue to occur for journalists, whether because of protests, war, or natural disasters, and with them come instances where journalists have to make the decision of crossing previously set boundaries. I am talking about the times when journalists have to decide whether to lend a helping hand if it is needed, or to ignore the calls for help and walk away. These boundaries are what some call ethics, but I would say that ethics is the wrong word. I believe that it is unethical for someone to walk away when life or death is on the line, if one is able to help. I think its absolutely ridiculous to even ask the question: should journalists help out in a life-threatening situation or should they stand back in order to remain independent (a laughable concept anyways) from those they are covering? Journalist or not, if you have the ability to help someone in need, do it. It is not a matter of ethics, image, or controversy, its a matter of humanity and equality. Saving a life, or even helping to save one is more important than ANY job. And you're a tremendously arrogant SNOB if you think otherwise.
The video above, of Anderson Cooper carrying a gravely injured boy out of the line of dangerous looters, is an amazing and moving example of compassionate heroism. The boy was clearly in shock and could hardly stand; he was not capable of getting himself some help. What Cooper did was the only right thing to do and it's what everyone should have done - journalists included.
I remember my first experience with racism very distinctly. When I was eleven years old I was talking to a boy my age, James, down the street. With me was Maya, a little African American girl that I considered to be my sister. My mom and her mom were best friends and I had known Maya since she was born. While we were talking to James, his twin brother came outside. James called to his brother to come over but the boy shook his head and stood staring at us. I asked him what was wrong and he said that he was scared. I asked why and he responded by pointing at Maya. I was shocked....floored. I probably didn't have the best reaction, I believe I said something along the lines of, "Are you freaking kidding me?? What decade are you living in?? You better shut up and get over yourself!" Yea, not exactly my shining moment, but hey. It was my first experience with blatant racism.
I've never had another experience quite like that one since. And for a good reason. Diversity is everywhere and in general Americans are accepting of all kinds of diversity. Of course, there are some things that still need to be worked on but things are improving. Diversity is not only race. Gender, economic status, and religious backgrounds all contribute to diversity in America.
Diversity in journalism is key to knowing your audience and communicating well with them. While each journalist should not place too much emphasis on their background, they certainly can use it to make sure that different perspectives are not forgotten in the news. In this way, there will be less holes in their coverage. Because America is so diverse, the news media has a responsibility to cater to that diversity. Opinions should not be ignored simply because they are the minority. That truth is at the heart of democracy.
Should journalists keep independent from those they cover by remaining non-partisan and objective in essentially all they do? Most journalists would say yes. Phrases such as 'Journalism is a way of life,' and 'Its a sacrifice journalists make' frequently are heard when discussing independence. I think that independence is certainly necessary but what frustrates me is the clear hypocrisy shown by journalists. At the national, it is obvious that we have an abundance of opinion journalism and very little considerations for the independence of faction belief that journalists are supposed to have.
I am not at all convinced that bias, and the removal of it, is always in the mind of the journalist when they are writing or discussing a topic. But I believe wholeheartedly that it should be. There are many media that claim to be 'news sources' but there is an apparent bias in much of their reporting that worries me. Instead of watching the news and being able to form your own opinion, the opinion is being formed for you. What good does professing to be non-partisan and objective do when no one actually believes that you are?
I do not feel much sympathy towards most journalists on this issue (and I believe most of the pubic would agree) because they usually come off seeming self-righteous on top of their clear hypocrisy. The only true way to remedy this is for bias to be removed or balance to be restored to the media. Codes of conduct and professed objectivity are not going to cut it any more; we need to see results.The news media should not be hindering the viewers abilities to make opinions in the first place, yet sometimes it is clear that rather than reflecting public opinion it is creating it.
A recent PEW research study shows that citizens are trusting the news press less and less. Similarly, I am sure that if you conducted a study and asked the public if they believed that journalists followed a code of conduct where their first loyalty is to the citizens, the participants would answer with a resounding no. I would also agree that I do not believe that journalists follow their supposed codes of conduct. While it is good to hear that such a thing exists, it is unfortunate and rather hypocritical for most citizens to feel like journalists do not actually follow it. Journalists ARE in control of the news. So it is their own fault that citizens don't trust them. They incite fear and distrust more than anything else. The media will only mention stock numbers when they are low, they never mention them when the stock ended on a high. The media will report frightening statistics on deaths, but not hopeful statistics on crime. The news is not balanced. They feed off of trends similar to authors feeding on the vampire romance craze. The next presidential debate is more than a year away yet most of our news is consumed with following the lives of nominees. Rumors fly all around; questions such as "Is this person actually going to run for president?" are asked even when politicians have stated many times that they are not going to. Why waste news time to talk about ridiculous things like that? The news media is not trusted by citizens because they give no reason for citizens to trust them. If journalists truly believe they follow a code of conduct, then they should ACTUALLY FOLLOW IT and quit trying to simply get high ratings and profit.
