Emma Stefanick
es421018@ohio.edu
The First Amendment to the United States' Constitution is perhaps the most well-known and highly respected freedom for all within the U.S. It is the right of free speech, expression, religion, press and assembly.
It reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This amendment guarantees protected speech, only excluding certain topics such as obscenity, fighting words, defamation or incitement. However, the First Amendment only protects against government infringement on the right to free speech and, since news media organizations are individual private companies, they have every right to censor their employees.
 | |
| Picture source: History.com |
Recently, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal put into place strict social media guidelines for their journalists to follow, requiring that they don't post any partisan opinions or like any posts that reflect politically charged viewpoints on their own personal social media pages, during their own free time. These publications argue that what is said by their employees will reflect negatively on the paper by association.
While it's obvious that putting personal opinions online could very likely reflect back on the integrity of the paper, shouldn't journalists be free to advocate for what they believe in without fearing the loss of their job? Why doesn't the weight of the First Amendment have any influence on the lives of the people who so firmly believe in its power?
After all, these journalists are more than their career, and the right to stand up for change should never be taken away in the name of paper circulation, views, likes or budget concerns.
The necessity for change has become clear, but I fear we've made the wrong one. Taking away the rights of journalists to advocate for a better world, reflects worse on a publication than any partisan Tweet ever will.
In addition, most audiences are already aware that this concept of objectivity is fundamentally unachievable. Everyone has biases and by now the public has already made up its mind. To hide the opinions of journalists only diminishes the value of our core ethical standard: transparency.
According to the SPJ Code of Ethics, a journalist should be transparent with its audiences about the process of ethical decision making, acknowledging and correcting mistakes, establishing an honest, two-way flow of communication and exposing unethical behavior of others. But that also means that journalists must be transparent with their own conflicts of interest and personal biases. To not do so would be blatant hypocrisy.
Simply pretending these things don't exist just isn't going to cut it in a time where trust in the news media is nearing another all-time low.
It's about time journalists sit down with their newsrooms and update the ethics codes. The one that's already in place is filled with outdated ideas of objectivity that obscure the need for transparency. And replacing objectivity doesn't mean that we strive to create partisan propaganda. It just shows that we're taking the stand to value truth above all.
By showing the audience the truth in what journalists do and who journalists are, the bond between news and community grows stronger.
Facts are facts. And nothing about that statement is going to change when the writer who's writing those facts is allowed to have a voice.
No comments:
Post a Comment