What About Protection?

Catherine McKelvey

cm146709@ohio.edu

Ethics, Fall 2013

Before opening the class reading for today titled, "Why Not Enforce the Code?" I thought it only fair to first carefully read each separate code of ethics.  Then, after having fully engrossed myself in said various ethical codes, I planned to find out the rationale behind why these sets of codes aren't enforced. 

The codes, each unique in it's own fashion, were strikingly reassuring.  I found myself thinking, after having read each point, "Okay, awesome!  There is hope!"  Yet, then the reality sunk in:  They're just a figurehead.  

We all read it, (hopefully...) so I do not plan to provide a play-by-play of the article, however, I will admit that I found the fact that the code is not enforced odd before I read the article, and after... Well, after I found it down right unsettling.  

If it weren't for the sight of my ever-so-rambunctious puppy trailing off into a deep slumber, I might have just screamed, "hypocrite!" at that very moment.  On one hand, we as journalists are encouraged, by our code of ethics, to uphold our No. 1 responsibility to one thing, and one thing alone; truth.  We are also told to be accountable, always.  Yet, we are not held accountable by a society of our professional peers.  

According to the SPJ, utilizing a quasi-judicial system in which the codes could be properly enforced would only serve to interfere with our First Amendment rights and the freedom of speech as a whole.  Also, stated according to the SPJ, the codes are sets of guidelines in which all journalists should follow in order to uphold ethical practices.  Lawyers are held accountable by the bar and their license to practice law.  Doctors are held accountable by their license to practice medicine.  Why, too, aren't journalists held accountable by a license to practice of some sort?

Why, then, do news programs cater so heavily to one system of beliefs or the other?  For example, while NPR attracts a more liberal crowd, Fox News attracts a more conservative crowd, etc.  Why does this obvious bias exist if it is every journalists job to avoid biased behavior at all costs?  

Think back to our last class meeting in which we discussed some pretty appalling statistics.  These statistics showed us that less than 50 percent of Americans believe that journalists protect democracy.  LESS THAN HALF!  Am I crazy for thinking that, maybe, just maybe, if journalists were held accountable, always, for the information they provide, this statistic might be shaped a little differently?  

While it might seem like implementing a system that would enforce the codes and hold all journalists accountable for his or her actions might infringe on our very crucial freedom, that of speech, would it not also serve to protect us in the face of harsh criticism?

Photo courtesy of Kevin Carter

For instance, consider the famous photojournalist and Pulitzer Prize winner, Kevin Carter.  His widely recognized photo, taken in 1993, depicts a young girl in the Sudan hunched over resting while a buzzard watches her, intently, from a distance.  This man, alongside his colleagues, chose not to interfere with individuals in order to prevent the spread of disease.  Yet, he received a significant amount of backlash as individuals were stunned that the man sat back and waited for a perfect opportunity to capture the shot, all the while the vulture sat back and waited, too.  Could the enforcement of the codes not have protected a man who was merely doing his job?  Could the SPJ not have stood up for this man in the face of harsh criticism?

Maybe it's time, for us as journalists, to want to be held accountable.  If not for the sake of the integrity of our profession, then for the need to eliminate those who do not uphold these same principles.