Is that my conscience talking?

“In the end journalism is an act of character” (The Elements of Journalism, page 230). That measure of character is put to the test every day. As we learned towards the end of class today, some of those instances where the character of a journalist is put to the test provides considerable dilemmas. Take for example, Arthur Ash. USA Today phoned him and asked if he had AIDS, he would neither confirm or deny it and USA Today responded by saying they were going to publish the story with or without his support. They were just looking for a legitimate source. The next day Ash held a press conference himself admitting that he had AIDS (derived from a blood transfusion during surgery) and felt bullied into his confession by the press.

I love the checklist we received as a handout in class because I think it covers all ground when it comes to ethics and the media. In this particular case I feel the big ethical dilemma is between #6, Who are the stakeholders –those affected my decision? What are their motivations? Which are legitimate and #8, What are the possible consequences of my actions? Short term? Long term?

These are great philosophical questions that really get down to the essence of character in journalism. There is a whole chapter devoted to character in Elements, entitled Journalists Have a Responsibility to Conscience. I completely agree with that statement and I think that journalists should have the constant opportunity to exercise that responsibility to conscience openly with others by having debates with others in the newsroom of whether or not pushing a story or revealing a source is ethical. With that, there should be an open forum in the newsroom for employees to express feelings about the ethics of their own business. I believe when such a forum occurs, employees are able to realize that many of their colleagues from all different departments share the same concerns and questions. Such an open forum may have stopped fallacious journalists such as Jayson Blair of The New York Times and Stephen Glass of The New Republic. Check out The New York Times ten page article covering one of their own, well formally one of their own, the infamous Jayson Blair.
And don’t miss this extensive, contemporary report on Ethics for the new investigative newsroom: A Roundtable Report on best practices for nonprofit journalism. Nonprofit journalism is debatably the most promising and innovative solution to the search for a new model of journalism, thanks to the ingenious ProPublica.

Beware of the Watchdog

Listen to what the public officials are saying and see if their actions match their words. In essence, that is the responsibility of a watchdog journalist but through class discussions and assigned readings, it becomes apparent that the definition of the watchdog role is much more complex.

The Elements of Journalism gives three different types of reporting that watchdog journalists use, they are - original and investigative reporting and reporting on investigations. I think the first two are the most important out of the three because it involves reporters exposing previously unknown information and presenting it in a way that can be understood by the public. A terrific example of this is Daniel Ellsburg’s uncovering, and The New York Times’ interpretation and presentation of The Pentagon Papers.



However, it is apparent in journalism textbooks and everyday life that the role of the watchdog is weakening in America. This is because “too much of the new ‘investigative’ reporting is tabloid treatment of everyday circumstance” (151, The Elements of Journalism). Check out such’ investigating’ reporting from msnbc on ‘Dirty Ice'.

I thought Gan’s eight “enduring values” were incredibly enlightening. It is so true how every news article relates to at least one of the eight values. This article on how the Oil Rig’s Siren Was Kept Silent in today’s New York Times most definitely falls under the Responsible Capitalism value because it is not responsible business ethics.

The New York Times article is also a great example of watchdog journalism, keeping companies like BP in check. It serves as a reminder of why “the role of the press as activist, reformer and exposer” is still needed today (139, The Elements of Journalism).

good night, and good luck.

As a film enthusiast it was a cinematic treat to watch George Clooney’s Good Night, and Good Luck. As a student in a journalism class, it was very interesting and refreshing to see the principles of journalism make the jump from textbooks to the screen, as they were portrayed in real life examples of true journalism at play in a very exciting time.

Under considerable trust derived from CBS president William Paley, Edward R. Murrow and his staff at CBS gave a voice to the powerless as they inflicted the comfortable, Joseph McCarthy. In taking on McCarthy, Murrow and others took great effort to maintain a strong sense of journalistic independence.

In the beginning of the film Murrow states, “We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Murrow “tackled the complicated and unobvious” and presented them in a manner that the public could comprehend (The Press, page 70). Our mass media reflect this”. Murrow would not concede to as The Elements of Journalism calls it, “journalism of affirmation”. In this case, Murrow refused to affirm the idea that McCarthy’s allegations contained any truth. However this refusal to affirm McCarthy’s allegations came at a cost. Murrow and Fred Friendly paid for CBS’s newspaper advertisement for the program, lost sponsorship and risked being named a “communist” by McCarthy. In doing so, Murrow and his staff at CBS made it clear that their first loyalty as journalists was to citizens.



In their efforts to enlighten the public by challenging McCarthy’s accusations, Murrow and his staff had to walk a fine line to be independent. They first had to make sure everyone who would be involved in challenging McCarthy was “clean”. This means that they had to have no Communist ties, however small it may be. This precaution was put into place because they knew that as journalists, they “must maintain an independence from those they cover” (The Elements of a Journalist, page 118). Murrow and his staff did not want their reporting to be accused of any biases, this is a precaution that is still practiced in newsrooms today and is taken quite seriously. For example, CNN’s firing of Octavia Nasr for her twitter that jeopardized her independence from her covering of the Middle East. In a time when communist “witch-hunts” were in full swing, Murrow’s producers knew it was crucial that their staff maintain an independence in practice.

Adhering to the elements of the liberal model of journalism, Murrow and his staff made a strong attempt to present themselves as politically neutral. This was seen as the US military was allowed to comment on the firing of Milo Radulovich, an alleged communist. At the pinnacle of their efforts to maintain political neutrality Murrow gave McCarthy himself, time to make unrestricted comments on his program. Murrow exhibited sincere journalistic neutrality as he consistently gave the opportunity to McCarthy to comment on or challenge his reporting. Such a determined effort to present the news in an unbiased manner is a key component of the liberal model of journalism.

Murrow and his staff could have never engaged in such a televised conflict with McCarthy had it not been for the independence granted to them by CBS president William Paley. Paley indeed exhibited the five characteristics that current news companies that have not yet been defeated share, namely: The owner/corporation must be committed citizens first and Journalists must have the final say over the news (The Elements of Journalism). Paley exhibited these characteristics as he allowed Murrow and his staff to air reports on controversial and uncomfortable topics, even when allowing the airing of such reports made Paley himself, extremely uncomfortable.

Verify Verify Verify

It is amazing how much the news has changed in the last fifteen years. The pressure to get the "scoop", write it up and post it is more apparent than ever. All this competition is good. It pushes journalists to be at the top of their game and to push themselves. Unfortunately, in the midst of all of this the crucial practice of verification can slip and even be dropped completely.

The in class example from The Herd with Colin Cowherd is a terrific example of how journalists will jump on the bandwagon, reporting information whose only verification is a loose word of mouth. As said in class, "they report just for the sake of reporting it".

The guest speaker Don Hudson from ABC4 brought up a point that I hadn't thought about during the assigned reading or the group's presentation. He said he couldn't think of anyone that pledges allegiance to a certain news group simply because they have the story first. That is so true. Online I just click on whatever headline I see first, no matter the accompanied news organization. But the story I want, the story I will search for, is the in-depth article detailing that story or headline. And that kinda story only comes when journalists dig deep and practice gruelling verification.

A slip in verification could be something small but it could also swing the other way. An associate editor at The Oregonian told me that in one horrific case they posted that a person had died, when he or she were really only injured. Though it was only online for less than a minute, it is a reminder of how critical the process of verification is, even if it causes one to be second with a story.

Find out why Corrections Aren't Just For Journalists Anymore

A Complex and Binding Profession

In The Mind of A Journalist journalism is compared to a priesthood. When one gives it thought, it is easy to see why journalists would be compared to one who is authorized to perform sacred acts. Journalists are bound by tight covenants. With the reader, the journalist promises accuracy and the truth in return for a reading. With a source, the journalist at times promises confidentiality in return for powerful information. This passing of information could put a source on "the chopping block" if the journalist were to reveal that he or she is the source. A most notable example of a journalist diligently adhering to such a covenant is Judith Miller, who went to prison for eighty-five days to protect her source, Scooter Libby.



Judith Miller upon being released from prison. Miller is currently advocating a federal shield law that would protect journalists from having to reveal sources. Read her article, In Prison Without A Shield.

I agree with the idea that the profession of journalism is like the fourth branch of government. Journalists keep those in power in check, through the information they provide citizens. It is very much a public service.

Parisa Khosravi, a CNN senior vice president is a very recent example of how "sacred" the calling of a journalist is. After tweeting that she respected Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, CNN gave her the axe. This extremely contemporary example shows how seriously news organizations take the profession of a journalist. And how it can only take 140 characters to send a journalist packing.

While I don't hold the calling of a journalist anywhere near the calling of a priesthood holder called of God, I do sincerely respect the role that journalists play in society and the service they give.

Loyalty: A Double Edged Sword

Throughout the history of journalism in America, loyalty has proven to be a complex aspect in journalists' daily affairs. Shareholders, citizens, corporations, the government, managers and editors all vie for journalists' loyalty. Journalists are left with a moral dilemma that goes way back.

1971: The federal government obtained a court order to stop The New York Times' from further publishing any articles of what would be known as The Pentagon Papers. Ultimately, The New York Times won a landmark case that gave them freedom from prior restraint. (See: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/p/pentagon_papers/index.html)


(Groundbreaking journalist of The Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsburg)

This is a perfect example of a contemporary dilemma for journalists. With a government at war, forcefully trying to stop their work, these journalists at The New York Times actively put citizens as their first loyalty. In doing so The New York Times displayed some of "the five characteristics that news companies that have not been defeated share" (The Elements of Journalism): The owner was committed to putting citizens first and letting journalists have the final say over the news.

I think it is very interesting that the news companies that have not gone under, are the ones that give journalists true power and in turn, put citizens first.

Much has changed in the world of journalism since the 70s. In class we learned that one-third of journalists' time is devoted to business matters. I was not surprised nor dismayed by this. I think journalists need to play apart in the much needed reworking of their business matters and model. However, one of the student presenters brought up an intriguing thought - "Who you're working for largely dictates how you skew your story", and really how you approach your job. So if journalists are spending a significant amount of time in the business matters, they could forget who they are working for - citizens - and that could largely skew how they approach their work, putting the public at a loss.

Truth & Journalism

"Journalism is the material that people use to learn and think about the world" (pg 37, Elements of Journalism). This quote illustrates the weight that journalism has on citizens because of their reliance on news. The in-class example of the "bag of ignorance" illustrated very well the disservice citizens commit to themeselves when they don't pay attention to the news. A reason "journalism's first obligation is to the truth" is because citizens exert a sense of trust to journalists as they read their product (pg 36, Elements of Journalism) . There may not be such a thing as truth that is undiluted, as a result of innate bias and other factors, but as Albert Einstein said, "it's not about truth but about making what we know less false".


"You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!" (Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men).

After the clip of The Insider, there was a discussion in class about whether it was ethical for CBS to air its findings on a tobacco company, news that would potentially tarnish the company. I think a good way to view a dilemma such as this, is to ask, "Will this information if released, do more harm or good?" I think in most cases in the world of journalism, such information will do more good. But in a case such as the gay magazine that outed a pastor who was at a same-sex attraction support group - probably did more harm than good.

Of course there will always be opposing views when it comes to releasing the truth or what is the actual truth, hence the name of the chapter in Elements of a Journalist, Truth: The First and Most Confusing Principle .