Ethics concepts and applications

Ethics in Journalism: Case Study

Looking at the headlines of the various publications on the news stands today, and it quickly becomes clear that the place where journalism is coming from today is less one reflective of the ethics of journalism as is depicted in the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics, and more reflective of a tabloidism, for which there are really no rules for. This only emphasizes the responsibility of journalists today to keep the professional code of ethics in their focus, because at some point in history, the professionalism associated with responsible and ethical reporting will be what distinguishes journalists from the amateurs. The journalism that is reflective of the professional code of ethics will be used to support and clarify historical analysis. The sensational tabloidism - which rides on the coattails of the ethics of professional journalism - will be used to demonstrate, like the fall of Rome, the deterioration of the values of the modern society.

Even in journalistic reporting that is being reported as non-tabloid, news and events has been subject to allegations of "staging," as occurred in July, 2006, when the following photo appeared on the cover of the prominent publication U.S. News & World Report.

The above photograph, with the blackened fires burning in the background, was taken at the height of the 2006 attacks between Lebanon and Israel. This particular image was circulated on the news wires by the Reuters, Associated Press (AP) and United Press International (UPI) with stories saying that the blackened fire was an Israeli bomb. However, the photograph and the story came under fire itself when upon close inspection readers realized that it was not a bomb in the background, but that a hillside covered in tires that was afire. How the hillside came to be covered in old tires and how it came to be on fire remains unknown. The number of "staged" photographs coming out of Lebanon that were intended to evoke anti-Israel sentiments, prompted the creation of a web site, by sources unknown, where people can post photographs of "staging."

These kinds of photographs are accompanied by stories reporting on the circumstances and events surrounding the photographs. It casts a shadow of suspicion over a profession that looked to as a source of what is really going on in the world around us. If we cannot rely upon the news journalists to report truthfully and accurately, without resorting to the staging and sensationalism that is indicative of tabloidism; then as a society we must be concerned, and we must hold those news entities and persons that perpetrate fraud in journalism accountable, and even prevent them from being employed as news reporters or journalists.

The Case Study

The case study that is the focus of this paper is interesting from a journalistic perspective. It involves a public official, elected to office by a constituency that relies upon his representations to them be truthfully and well informed on matters for which he was elected to his public office. The problem with casting a shadow of doubt over the elected official's character is that it will tarnish his image in the eyes of his constituency. The Senator denies the allegations that he has drugged certain female members of his staff, and molested them too. The Senator alleges that the reporter is conducting a smear campaign that could ruin his life.

One of the former employees, Mabel Mosby, authorizes the use of her name for the story. Four others substantiate her claim with their own stories that are similar to Mosby's claim. The four women do sign affidavits that they will testify if the paper is sued by the Senator for libel.

When contacted to respond to the allegations before the story goes to press, which is done in accordance with the code of journalistic ethics, but unfortunately the Senator becomes angry and refuses to comment. The question here is whether or not the journalist should go with the facts of the story when the Senator has not commented, and his comments could very well change the direction of the story.

Philip Seib (1994), in his book, Campaigns and Conscience: The Ethics of Political Journalism, reminds us:

Issues. They're the intellectual heart of politics. They're what the voters need to know about. They're what journalists are supposed to explain. 'We'll focus on the issues' is the vow in virtually every newsroom in virtually every campaign. Ideally, it means producing comprehensive, thoughtful analyses of candidates' positions on economic growth, health care, education, defense, the environment, and so on."

There is, however, a story that became the political issue when Senator Berry's public life, for whatever, became entangled in the lives of not one, but five of his staff people; all women, and all with similar accounts of allegations of a criminal nature. It is not in discord with the ethics of professional journalism to report on this story. That the allegations involve a public officer, whose behavior is incompatible with that of a publicly elected official, and, if the charges are substantiated, are criminal in nature, in which case much more than the Senator's office would be at stake. It is the responsibility of the journalist reporting the case to publish the fact of that form the basis of the allegations against the senator, especially since the senator has refused comment.

That the senator has refused comment is not an admission of guilt, because the nature of the case becomes very complex, even if the senator innocent. Should he comment, his comments could incriminate him, and be used against him. Legally it is in his best interest not to comment on the allegations that have been made against him.

The reporter should report the details of the case, but he should also be careful to refrain from using the names of the women whom have requested their identities not be revealed. He should also remark that the senator refused to comment, but should not go into any description of what he, as a reporter, perceived the senator's state of mind to be, or quote his use of profanity. Even though the profanity is a fact, it is not relevant to the allegations, and it has no news value.

By reporting on just the fact, the reporter does not risk judging, or influencing the reader by interjecting his or her own interpretation of the facts, and making that interpretation become the story. When a reporter reports the fact, it allows the reader the discretion to arrive at their own conclusions. If the reporter has done a really good job in reporting the story, the reader will no doubt follow the story through its evolution, and even - in this day of the internet - perform his or her own research of the senator.

The ability of the public to engage in mass communication has put a greater burden to stick to the facts of the story on the news journalist. People, by the thousands, engage in blogging and on forum discussions kicking around opinions, ideas, and judging people and events that are brought to their attention in the news today. When the journalist gives reports on just the facts, the story remains within the framework of the events. In the case of the senator, ostensibly a criminal investigation, the outcome of which will determine the fate of the senator legally.