The Elephant in the Room

Rachel Sharkey
rs783310@ohio.edu

Oh, the irony...

I’m sitting in my first class of the day and my mind drifts to the fact I hadn’t checked the news headlines yet. Typical for a Scripps School of Journalism student, I suppose. The first headline I see on NBC snatches my attention, as they intend. But what holds my attention is the typo that reads:



I hate to address the elephant in the room, but did anyone else read that as “Well, at least people actually died this time?”

The typo was quickly fixed by NBC. But I did not see or hear any apology from the network acknowledging the mistake. The irony that I ended my day reading how to properly handle a public mistake took on a higher level of purpose.

 Unfair Advantage

Craig Silverman of Poynter Institute said, “Leaders in a profession dedicated to shining a light on truth and helping enforce accountability need to meet the same standard of transparency they demand of others.”

It is difficult to define journalism; this we have discussed. But one undeniable role of journalists is to shed light where the public cannot see. If journalists alter the lighting or only shed it when we choose, we are not being held to the standards we set forth for ourselves and others. NBC should have quickly acknowledged the mistake to meet the transparency they inquire of their interviewees and sources.

If you’re not first…

Bill Kovach of the Committee of Concerned Journalists said “As long as news organizations are prepared to allow competitive pressures to be an excuse to ease up on integrity, it's going to keep happening.”

The pressure to be first is building to create a potential explosion of ethical shortcuts. But rather than staying true to the ethics codes set by journalism professionals when faced with these pressures, we point fingers at the high level of competition. Maybe the goof by NBC News wouldn’t have occurred if the producer would have taken the millisecond needed to review it before he or she published. Is the excuse “But then CNN or Fox could have gone live first!” really worth the distrust and disdain from the public?

 The “T” Word

The issue concerning transparency is debated in our industry consistently. Not enough transparency and the public may question validity or perhaps simply tune into or subscribe to another station or paper that provides the transparency they seek. Too much transparency and you may end up on the receiving end of fiery backlash like Washington Post Ombudsman, Deborah Howell, after incorrectly stating that both Democrats and Republicans had received "Abramoff campaign money.”

Photo Source: DesignLovr

I truly believe until we have a uniform standard of ethical codes agreed upon by news networks and stations of all sizes—that we hold ourselves accountable for, more importantly—transparency will always help to an extent. There must be a level of transparency to the public in order for them to trust us while also providing a reason to be held responsible. When news is a dialogue instead of a monologue, we must remember that public apologies come with the territory; it seems odd to apologize to ourselves—it makes sense to apologize to others.