sa407611@ohio.edu
Conflicts of interest are, as defined by NYU's Journalism Handbook for Students, "situations in which there are competing professional, personal and/or financial obligations or interests that compete with the journalist's obligation to his outlet and audience." They can come in many different forms - from romantic relationships to family ties, from financial investments to speaking engagements. Sometimes they are hard to identify and at other times they are more blatant. Yet in an era of increasing public dissatisfaction and distrust of the media, it is imperative that journalists try their best to avoid these situations altogether.
The importance of transparency
Certain conflicts can be unavoidable. First and foremost, a journalist's responsibility should be to the public. In order to secure the public's trust, we have to make that responsibility clear to them. When confronted with situations that might inhibit our ability to remain unbiased, or even situations that might create the perception of bias, sometimes a written statement or disclaimer may be needed.
In order to truly be held accountable, however, it is not enough to simply profess ourselves to our audiences. Journalists working at NPR must disclose to their supervisors any information or relationships that could lead to a conflict of interest, including "business, commercial, financial or personal interests". This is not only meant to help the news organization as a whole, but also help the journalists themselves. Talking through your potential personal stakes in a story can help reveal biases and/or conflicts you yourself may not have seen right away or thought about.
Exercising recuse
Recuse does not mean you will stop contributing to your news outlet. It means you recognize when it is inappropriate for you to a cover a subject at all. For instance, when a family member or close friend is involved in political activity or business relations being covered, one should consider that this could create a real conflict of interests. In October of 2011 when All Things Considered host Michele Norris's husband accepted a position with Obama's re-election campaign, she raised the point to the NPR staff. A plan was put together that would allow her to still contribute to NPR, but would separate her from reporting on politics.
Case Study: A Mayor/Editor?
 |
| Dodgeville Mayor Todd Novak |
Todd Novak has work for the Dodgeville Chronicle since 1990 as the Government and Associate Editor of the Dodgeville Chronicle. In 2012, however, he was elected mayor, and more recently he has been running for the Assembly in the 51st District of Wisconsin. Co-publisher at the paper, Pat Reilly, stated that the Chronicle created policies to ensure Novak wouldn't cover stories that got too close to his interests as mayor and assured that if he was ever caught doing something such as accepting a bribe, the paper would still "nail" him for it.
The paper has a "firewall system", as stated by Novak, and it has even criticized him as mayor in some editorial pieces. Still, Novak has understandably garnered some skepticism concerning his precarious position. The SPJ code of ethics states that journalists should "shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity."
The citizens of Dodgeville know that he is both politically active and an editor for their local newspaper. Does this level of transparency allow them to read critically and take what is said with a grain of salt? Should they have to read critically at all? Do you think the paper is still capable of objective reporting, or do you find it inappropriate that the "perception (of bias) is always there," as stated by Robert Drechsel, the director of the UW-Madison Center for Journalism Ethics? What do you think should be done?
No comments:
Post a Comment