Re-examining Ethics

Jaelynn Grisso

jg764811@ohio.edu

Open scene. In an office clearly situated in New York at a sizeable company. Dialogue begins. Two men sit on opposite sides of a desk, discussing the news. As your mind begins to let the dialogue fade into a lull passed the edge of conscience thought, you look at the man on the far side of the desk and his grin. His smirk.

This scene, in the 1994 film “The Paper,” may be the most accurate depiction of the competitive nature of news: the looked-down-upon journalist for a small, struggling outlet and the smug, entitled journalist at the well-established news outlet. More often than not, these roles are being fulfilled, even at the college level.

But then, of course, the ethical dilemma with the protagonist Henry Hackett’s actions during his job interview with the smug, entitled journalist. Without giving it any real thought, Hackett steals the lead story for the next day’s paper from the editor’s desk of the well-established paper. Even more, he then runs it in his own publication.  

While, objectively I don’t believe what he did was moral, I wanted it to happen. I wanted him to get the scoop and to bring the paper up with him. I wanted him to get the exclusive before the bigger paper. Stealing the lead, by any standard, was unethical. Yet, the audience (myself included) rooted for him the entire time, especially when he tells the smug competitor off.  We wanted him to steal the lead right out from under the self-aggrandizing journalist and effectively rid him of his smirk.

Perhaps it is because the manner of the journalist at the well-established paper is unethical too. While many wouldn’t think of a sense of entitlement and smugness to be inherently unethical, I think it can be. When a journalists began to take on these characteristics, they lose the characteristics that make journalism great. Stories start to become a means of receiving awards and gaining recognition rather than being about the story. Journalists begin making themselves the story rather than (as the cliché goes) giving a voice to the voiceless. They become the only voice.

While Hackett may have temporarily needed his moral compass realigned, he knew a good story when he had one, and not because it was going to garner attention for him. He knew a good story because it was a story that needed to be told. That knowledge is where journalism began, and that is where journalism thrives. Now, journalists need to step back long enough to have that epiphany.