Katie Hendershot
Kh679010@ohio.edu
Good sources are key to any good journalistic career. The
basis of any story starts with a good source who is willing to talk, which
takes a lot of trust on his or her end. Journalists already are in hot water with
public trust.
When working with sources, especially about sensitive
topics, they tend to get a little iffy when talking. They’re worried about
having their words twisted, so trust is a huge factor in any source’s decision
to talk to a journalist.
Often that turns into a friendly relationship between
journalists and their sources. This practice of becoming too friendly with
sources happens even more with local news. In the article “A Journalist Breaks
the Golden Rule," Anna Song, a reporter with KATU-TV, offered a eulogy at the
memorial service of two girls who were kidnapped and murdered in the station’s
coverage area. Song had covered the kidnappings.
In this instance, Song seems to have overstepped her
bounds, but as the article pointed out, those above her at the station
should have known better and encouraged her to turn down the opportunity. It
becomes even muddier because her station was recording the service. That’s
clearly a conflict of interest on more than one count.
The thing about a beat and local news coverage is that you
can get too cozy and start treating sources like friends. That destroys
credibility.
Bending over backwards to keep sources happy happens on all
levels and often runs rampant in areas that are considered “soft news.”
Sports news can be especially guilty of this conflict of
interest. Recently, ESPN found itself under scrutiny because it is
removing its name from a documentary that could portray the NFL in a bad
light. The documentary is about the NFL’s response to head injuries.
Though ESPN is denying the allegations, ESPN is noted for
doing its best to keep the NFL happy because they rely on the benefits of the
close relationship. ESPN’s journalistic principles come into question with this
instance. They have a responsibility to report the truth and to act
independently.
 |
| Photo from http://arstechnica.com |
In the Society of Professional Journalists’s code of ethics,
it clearly says, “deny favored treatment to advertisers
and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.” The NFL clearly has a special interest in the coverage ESPN provides, therefore
there should be no preferential treatment.
If ESPN considers itself more of a news
organization than an entertainment company, it is crucial that the lines become
more clearly defined.
Bribery
Accepting gifts in return for favorable
coverage is a clear violation of the code of ethics, yet so often it’s all over
the news. Sometimes, it’s more discreet and sometimes it might not seem like
much of a big deal. But as Melanie Lim of Sun Star, a news organization in
the Philippines, notes, it often starts small and escalates.
Whether it’s outright bribery or just a
small gift from a subject of a story, it’s a conflict of interest. It is a
journalist’s job to be objective and once gifts have been exchanged, it all
becomes cloudy and coverage is compromised.
For critics, that is a particularly
strong conflict. As is the case in the article, “Bottle Prose: The Ethical
Paradox of the Wine Press," critics are given special accommodations from
wineries. According to the article, “Critics Sound Off on the Ethics of Music
Journalism,” it’s reported that music critics also often take bribes for their
reporting.
Critics are supposed to be working to
help readers make informed decisions. If they’re being swayed due to a conflict
of interest, then their opinions can’t really be trusted. A consumer’s time and
money is valuable, so when critics report about something, they’re being
trusted to provide fair and accurate information.
Conflicts of interest often run rampant
in journalism and harm the reliability of news organizations.
No comments:
Post a Comment