et104714@ohio.edu
The To-Be or Not-To-Be's of Ethical Journalism
In the article, The New Ethics of Journalism, there were many topics addressed. Most of theses topics dealt with what journalists should and shouldn't be in this new "era" of journalism. Be transparent. Be part of a community but still maintain independence. Report the truth but don't harm the public. Be ethical. These are standards set for journalists which are exceptional standards to be held to. But, I found them contradicting.
Transparency
Transparency is one of the easiest ways to gain the trust of your audience. Being transparent allows others to see exactly how you got your information, what you have done with it and what you are planning to do with it. Transparency has been an enormous part of journalism since the dawn of journalism itself.
This was not one of the contradictory points I found in the article, although, the contributors, Kelly McBride and Tom Rosenstiel, propose a new set of Guiding Principles for Journalists in which transparency is one of their three points. The Poynter staff of the 1990's does not agree with my above statement that transparency has been around since the dawn of journalism. The set of ethical guidelines they propose also contain three points, none of them being transparency. Their principles include seeking the truth and reporting it as fully as possible, acting independently, and minimizing harm. While all very valid principles it brings in the question of 'what were people really reporting in the 1990's and how did they find their information?'
If journalists are not transparent it is a determent to their credibility. In this new era of journalism nearly anyone has the power to look up where the information is coming from and is willing and able to call you out if you are spreading fake news. This is where the concept of community comes into play. You wouldn't question information if others within your community didn't raise suspicion against facts you thought you knew.
Community
Community is a key point in journalism. You have to be in a community to hear about news. You have to be a part of a community to receive news. In order to talk about news you have to be within a community. Community is defined as "a feeling of fellowship with others, as a result of sharing common attitudes, interests and goals". By sharing news with others whether or not you are a journalist, you are part of a community. But, journalists are not always independent. This raises the question 'is it more important to be independent or part of a community as a journalist?'
Independence
Independence is brought up in The New Ethics of Journalism when McBride and Rosenstiel mention the journalism guidelines proposed in the 1990's. The second point of these proposed guidelines is to act independently and to "remain free of associations and activities that may compromise your integrity or damage your credibility". I believe to be a good journalist you must remain unbiased and follow this set of rules. But, you can still be a journalist if you don't.
In this new era it is hard to remain unbiased while reporting with so many different influences around you. I believe that it is almost impossible to remain 100% unbiased.
I. F. "Izzy" Stone
https://www.ithaca.edu/rhp/independentmedia/izzy/
Above is a picture of I. F. "Izzy" Stone. In 1953, he started his own publication, I.F. Stone's Weekly, with the goal of exposing McCarthyism and racial bigotry within the government. He now has an award dedicated to him, The Izzy Award, that goes to a journalist or a publication that have an "outstanding achievement in independent media". The most recent winners are Shane Bauer, Ari Berman, and Seth Freed Wessler for their work on the documentary series "America Divided".
While this is an amazing concept and one I fully support, being the skeptic that I am, it brings me to question whether or not if Izzy himself was really independent? Sure he was independent from the government. But is that what independent means now? That you are just a separate entity than the government? That doesn't seem like independence to me.
In this new era of media I believe independence is more than just separation from the government. To be completely independent is nearly impossible. Sure, you may have independent views, more so views that differ from your communities, but someone else also has those views. Many independent publications claim to be independent but isn't that publication a community within itself? With it's own similar views and standpoints?
No comments:
Post a Comment