Miscommunication between the public and journalists

Taylor Petras

tp941310@ohio.edu

After reading the PewResearch article “Amid Criticism, Support for Media’s ‘Watchdog’ Role Stands Out,” I was very surprised by the statistics revealing the public’s harsh criticism toward journalists.

Courtesy of PewResearch.

This data clearly shows that the public has a mainly negative perception about journalists and the jobs they perform. While the majority public does believe that we act highly professional, less than half feel that we protect democracy and over three-fourths of the public believe we tend to favor one side. 

As an aspiring journalist, I’m not entirely sure why they feel this way. During my summer internship at KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh, I distinctly recall my assignment editor telling me to get both sides of the story. It seems that it is something instilled in journalists of all mediums. However, the public does not agree.

While reading through the various organizations’ code of ethics, I found The Society of Professional Journalists to be the most intriguing and specific. I especially enjoyed the follow-up reading of "Ethic Answers: Why doesn’t SPJ enforce its Code of Ethics?"

To me, this explained part of the reason why the public criticizes journalists so harshly. There seems to be a missing link between the public and journalists about their ethical values and codes.

SPJ does not have a system that investigates and disciplines questionable ethical journalistic decisions because they feel this could harm a person’s guaranteed First Amendment rights – the rights to free speech and press.  So instead of allowing the courts and government to handle unethical cases, the society has handed it over to the public.

As we have discussed in lecture numerous times, journalism is a dialogue and not a monologue.  SPJ wants to encourage the public to speak out about their disagreement about a journalist’s work. In the same case, SPJ feels it is important that journalists can have a conversation and explain their ethical values to the public as well.

The organization feels that this method of an open conversation is the most effective. “Instead, we encourage the exposure of unethical journalism as a means for rooting it out; more speech is the most effective counter measure” (http://spj.org/ethicsfaq.asp).

  

However, the public is not aware of the values and codes that many journalists abide by. For example, SPJ’s four core values are: Seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently and be accountable. If the public were to understand our ethics code, they may be more likely to have a positive perception of journalists, rather than the negative one we are experiencing now.

I strongly believe that the Society of Professional Journalists idea of engaging the public with journalists will help to create a better perception of journalists. Because this Pew Research study was just done a few months ago, it seems that we still have a ways to go until the public understands our ethical codes and values. As an aspiring journalist, these research numbers do frighten me; however, they also motivate me to adopt an ethical code of my own for the future. I want to be part of the reform and help mend that missing link between our professional society and the public.