Journalistic ethics

My friend Claire recently posted an entry about how ethics came up in a class, and she ended it by saying she expected me to have some thoughts on it. At least, I think that's what she meant. I'm not quite sure what made her think that, but as it turns out, I do.

I think I've already made up my mind that I'm not getting my master's or (possible) doctorate in journalism. I might be willing to work in the field as a designer, but if I can't do that, I'm getting out. Journalism is so cutthroat. In movies, you always see these cruel editors (Sorry, Claire!) and despicable reporters. I mean, the journalists you see in media are horrible. It's no wonder so many people say they hate the media. Sadly, I've found that a lot of the people I've met in the J-school, though nice now, could easily become the people shown in movies. I heard about a study last semester that found that most current journalism students now follow situational ethics rather than absolute. This may or may not be a bad thing; for example, someone who thinks murder is wrong might still kill someone in self-defense if he had to and were able. If he followed absolute ethics, he wouldn't do that. He'd be killed rather than killing. His sense of self-preservation would win over his sense of morality in an extreme situation like that. I don't really see that as unethical; in situations like that, instinct takes over and it's almost out of the person's control. However, it is a major problem when journalists are willing to put aside their ethics to get a story. It seems that many students now will do just that. I was given a copy of a relatively recent speech about journalistic ethics last semester and asked to write a story about it in an hour (which means it's pretty bad). Here it is:

A world in which morality takes a backseat to personal success may be coming to America, said John C. Merrill, emeritus professor at the University of Missouri, Columbia, on Friday.
Many modern American journalists follow Machiavellian ethics, said Merrill, in a speech given at the National Conference on Ethics and the Professions.
Machiavelli was a medieval author who wrote “The Prince,” a book that places “political expediency” above morality, according to Wikipedia.com.
Merrill said that for journalists, this means getting a good story without regard to ethics.
“It seems to follow for most of these students that such a duty dictates a policy of success or of getting the story ‘by any means,’” he said.
In his speech, he said that a “strong hunger for power” has driven journalists even decades ago, citing William Randolph Hearst as an example.
However, Merrill sees the Machiavellian code of ethics exemplified in Robert Sherrill, a 1980s American journalist. He quoted Sherrill’s book, “News Ethics: Press and Jerks,” in the speech.
“…I am inclined to pass over the ethical question entirely. If it works, I am generally for it,” writes Sherrill.
To find out what kind of ethics future journalists have, Merrill surveyed three classes of journalism juniors and seniors. He gave them a quote from Sherrill and asked for their opinions. He was surprised to find that about 89% of them agreed with Sherrill.
“A rather dismal journalistic image seems to be coming over the horizon,” he said.
For the students’ anonymity, Merrill quoted them in his speech using only their initials. Here are some of their comments:
“It is the journalist’s job to get the story, no matter how they do it,” said S.C.
“I think journalists are willing to break the rules of ethics to get a story because if they get a story no one else can get, they will be recognized and praised for it,” said J.C.
“It is the job of a good journalist to find out and report the truth. Oftentimes there are serious barriers standing in his way. Journalists should use whatever means necessary to find out the facts of a story,” said K.W.
Merrill is worried about the world that journalists such as these will create.
“This is not a pleasant picture for the person concerned with ethics,” he said. “It is a downgrading of the humanities at the expense of the practical and hard-nosed utilitarian world.”

***

One person even said that media ethics and personal ethics should be kept at a distance from one another. This was all very disturbing to me. Even more disturbing is that I don't know how this can change. I see a lot of people who are already cynical and jaded entering the journalism field. I think that does have an impact on how ethical a person is, although there are obviously exceptions. If they see a lack of ethics, it won't matter, because they don't see the value in being ethical. The world will remain hard, they think. The hard part for Christian journalists is not giving in to these beliefs. Situations will arise in which we are required to have some serious ethical debates. Is going undercover ethical? It involves lying. What if an anonymous source tells us that the information we need for a breakthrough on a major story is in a file cabinet in someone's office? We can't go steal it, but releasing the story would provide a measure of safety for the public. What do we do? I don't know. I wish I did. Of course, the question is not what I will do, but what the future reporters will do. Let's hope they make good choices.

Here's another related article.