Business
pressures on journalists can create significant ethical issues.
Sometimes,
the pressure is direct ... though at least in the print media, actually
not as often as the public seems to think. More often, it's subtle,
stemming largely from the nature of the media business today:
* News
outlets today are likely to be part (a small part, often) of
vast publicly held corporations. In this country, FCC-approved
media deregulation has
resulted in a corporate emphasis on either (or both):
* Vertical
integration, or ownership of everything that goes into
making and distributing a media product.
For
instance, one company (such as, say, General Electric)
might own the production studio where a TV show originates
(Universal Studios); the
broadcast network (NBC-TV) that originally airs the show;
and the cable network (USA Network or Bravo) that airs
it in syndication.
CJR offers a terrific list of who
owns what. |
* Horizontal
integration, or ownership of multiple outlets
across a single medium. For example, Clear
Channel now owns hundreds of
radio stations from coast to coast, including three
in the Iowa City/Cedar Rapids market and six in Chicago
alone.
|
There are a number of potential ethical problems created by
this situation. For instance:
* Potential
conflicts
of interest in covering other parts of a giant,
multi-faceted corporation.
|
* Decreased
budgets for news operations, which are both
costly and, as the company becomes larger, of shrinking
significance
to the overall bottom line. Cuts can and do threaten
meaningful journalism, particularly investigative journalism
and coverage of foreign news.
|
| * Less
diversity of voices as fewer competing interests
have a stake in major media outlets. As the "marketplace of
ideas" becomes dominated by a few giant companies, complete
and complex truth is at risk. |
| *
In particular, a tension among
loyalties -- for instance, to shareholders,
to consumers, to advertisers ... and, last and potentially
least, to citizens. |
|
|
These
issues are particularly difficult as matters of ethics because
as we've seen, ethics deal almost exclusively with individual
decisions and actions.
But there's
really not much that individual journalists can do about the influence
of corporate interests on their profession.
There are
some effective actions that can be taken collectively. The chapter
you read before the test from David
Mindich's book highlighted some
of these.
But at the
individual level, I think you have a limited number of choices when
your employer's goals conflict with your own commitment to truth and
public
service:
* Going
along with company policy.
|
* Protesting
company policy and refusing to follow it. Your immediate boss
may or may not support you. But almost surely, the higher
up the food chain your protest goes, the less likely you are
to find a sympathetic ear.
|
* Ignoring
the policy and following your own beliefs -- a risky option,
employment-wise.
|
*
Working to change company policy -- an ethical option, but often
a difficult, frustrating, and time-consuming
one.
|
| * Finding
a better company to work for. They're not all the same, and the more
experience you have, the more choosy you can be in where you work. |
|
Having
now thoroughly depressed you, I will say that corporate influence
is less a part of day-to-day journalism than most citizens seem to
think. Rarely is there overt or even covert corporate interference
in news decisions.
The effects
of a bottom-line orientation are more subtle: smaller staffs, smaller
news holes, smaller budgets ... less of a priority given to news in
general and a far less prominent "news culture" within the overall
organization.
But at least
in newspapers, journalists do not decide what stories to cover or how
to play them based on a desire to sell papers. They make their decisions
based primarily on news judgment, on their assessment of reader interests
and on similar content-based factors -- plus the adrenaline rush of
reporting, writing and publishing a "good story."
Some of
their
decisions certainly are open to criticism -- but the profit
motive
generally is not
a direct factor at the level of deciding what goes on the front page
tomorrow. ("Street sales" are a minuscule fraction of newspaper revenue
anyway;
the vast majority of the money comes from advertising and paid
subscriptions.)
|
There
also are some counter-arguments to the "big is bad" proposition. Three
of the major ones:
* It
takes a powerful, rich media institution to take on other powerful,
rich institutions in business and government.
|
* Large
corporations are in fact able to support and nurture diversity
within their ranks.
|
* If
there's one thing that's definitely not lacking in today's
media environment, it's a multitude of voices!
|
|
Switching
gears slightly ... a key issue that arises in any consideration of
conflict of interest for journalists is what we call the "separation
of church
and state."
As journalists
use it, the term refers to separation of advertising and news (feature,
sports, business, opinion, etc.) content. There are basically two issues:
* The
increasing use of "advertorials" (also
called "infomercials").
This
is content that is designed and positioned to look like
a news or feature story ... but in fact is an advertisement,
provided by someone who wants to sell
you something. |
* The
increasing influence that advertisers are seeking (and sometimes
getting) over editorial content.
The
biggest danger here is not so much censorship by advertisers.
It's self-censorship by news executives.
|
|
Merrill
devotes the chapter for this week to the topic of propaganda.
He runs through some characteristics of propaganda -- it's manipulative,
it's
controlling, it's self-serving, it's deceptive -- and a bunch of ways
that journalists can be propagandists.
Most journalists
do not deliberately commit the sins contained in this chapter's long
litany. But a few relatively common ones to watch out for, as journalists
and as citizens:
* The
one-person cross-section: Journalists, particularly
when pressed for time or space, can use quotes from a single
source to provide "representative views" from an
entire
group.
Watch
out for "university students say" stories in which only one student,
probably nabbed while rushing to class, is quoted. Or "city
officials believe" articles that quote a lone council member.
And so on. |
* The
use of stereotypes: One person from a particular
ethnic or racial group can be portrayed as speaking for the whole
group.
This is similar to the one-person cross-section, with the additional
problem that it often contributes to biased or stereotypical
views of the group in question.
|
| * Unavailability
for comment: Sometimes journalists try really hard to
reach a source and fail. Other times, they try once and give up.
It's hard for
readers to separate a truth-ducking source from a lazy reporter
when the story simply says, "The mayor was unavailable for comment." |
On the other
hand, some of the things Merrill lists here are hard to distinguish
from the ordinary process of doing journalism -- of turning
potential truth into selected and reported truth. Making that distinction
requires knowledge of the journalist's motives, knowledge you typically
do not have (even if you think you do).
See what
you think of ...
* "Selection
of data," meaning some information is left out of the story.
Well,
of course it is. That's how the writing process works. |
* "News
management," or deciding what gets into a story and
what does not.
This
sounds to me a lot like the basic journalistic role of gate-keeping,
no?
|
* Appeal
to authority, or over-reliance on official sources.
It's true that journalists do too much of this, leaving themselves
open to manipulation by those sources.
But
surely we do need to know what people with expertise and/or responsibility
in a given area have to say about it ... |
|
The
Elements of Journalism authors discuss various aspects of independence
in the chapters for this week.
* "Independence
from faction" relates to several things, including
keeping an appropriate distance from sources and guarding against
personal group loyalties and biases.
|
* The
idea of the journalist as an "independent monitor
of power" relates
to the watchdog role of the press.
They
say several factors have weakened this role, including its overuse
as a marketing tool, as well
as the
devotion
of "investigative"
resources to lifestyle and consumer issues rather than issues
related to democratic self-governance.
|
* In
addition, they discuss various forms of investigative
journalism:
* Original
and interpretative investigation, which they
consider separately but which sound pretty similar to
me.
Both
involve journalists undertaking investigations of some
aspect of society and producing contextual reports
as a result. |
* "Reporting
on investigations," which involves covering
other investigatory agencies or bodies in society --
simply reporting on what they find.
Examples
abound, from coverage of the Clinton-Lewinsky saga (which
mostly consisted of covering the activities of independent
prosecutor Ken Starr and his staff) to coverage of the
response to the 9/11 attacks to coverage of homeland security
in general. Much (though not all) of the assessment of
our nation's preparedness for attack, then or now, has
relied on committee reports. |
|
|
Merrill
(and, less directly, the E of J authors) are right that journalists
can become too close to their sources, risking their independence and
potentially
foregoing
their
primarily
loyalty to citizens and obligation to truth-telling.
The authors
of the SPJ Code of Ethics offer these guidelines (in the chapter you
read before the test) for maintaining necessary independence
from sources:
* Be
knowledgeable. Be willing and able to make your own
assessments of the information sources give you.
|
* Be
tough-minded. Resist “seductive persuasions.”
|
* Have
a secure personality. Develop confidence in your judgments.
|
| * Know
the audience. Understand what really matters to the public
for whom you are serving as the eyes and ears. |
| * Listen
critically. Be attuned to potential self-interests. |
| * Be
analytical. Consider long-term implications on trust. |
| * Be
"disclosive." Be able and willing to say why you
acted as you did. (This relates to the notion of "transparency"
contained in Elliott's and Bok's decision-making tools, of course.) |
| * Be persuasive. Argue effectively for the ethical course. |
| * Be
willing to sacrifice. Sometimes, you just won’t get the
scoop! |
|