Unethical Media: Why Journalists are Both the Problem and the Solution

by Alexandra Corsi

ac986013@ohio.edu

Why do profits often get in the way of journalism ethics? Put simply, this industry revolves around sales: sales of newspapers, sales of subscriptions, sales of advertisements, and more.  Without sales, companies can’t thrive or even, in some cases, exist. This is why readers’ cries of “This newspaper is mostly ads!” aren’t far from the truth: according to the State of the News Media 2012, while the percentage of newspapers’ revenue from advertisement has decreased significantly over the years, ads nonetheless are still today a greater source of income for newspapers, even more so than are circulation costs.

When Profits Trump Ethics

So why do newspapers choose ads over stories? There is so much going on in the world today that journalists can’t possibly print every story they come across, but why fill up the pages with ads instead of seizing the opportunity to print more stories? The answer is money. The newspaper companies want to maximize their profits. Which makes sense, right? Doesn’t everyone want to maximize his or her profits?

But the next question we have to ask ourselves is whether it is unethical for newspapers to choose turning a profit over the main duty of journalism: to provide factual information to consumers so they can be self-governing. Is it only unethical to choose money over matter when the newspaper chooses a clothing store ad over a trivial story?

What Hasn't Been Said (or Written) 

One might argue that newspapers typically always run the most significant stories and wouldn’t choose ads over major headlines. But in the end, there is always a could-be story that is replaced by an ad, even if the story was never written. Maybe that story that wasn’t printed—or even written—wasn’t so trivial to someone. So in the end, the consumer loses out on information he or she could be obtaining rather than the ad that attempted to sell a product or service. Readers could be learning more, but they have no idea what they are missing out on. This is part of the reason, I think, that print journalism is on a downfall and digital forms of media are increasingly popular. There is essentially unlimited space on a website to post news content, and there are ways consumers can avoid ads.

Sponsored Content 

BuzzFeed's old way of labeling sponsored content
(courtesy of the Wall Street Journal)

However, this brings up the ethical issue of sponsored content, or advertising designed to look like stories that are distributed directly by the news site. Some consumers feel “tricked” when they read a story and realize it’s actually an advertisement. However, BuzzFeed.com has shown there is a way to make the use of sponsored content a more ethical practice. The short-form news site just recently rebranded the way they label sponsored content, moving away from their original tactic of presenting the story on a light yellow background with a tag reading “Presented by [company/product name]” and replacing it simply with a bright yellow tag reading “Promoted by [company/product name].” BuzzFeed made this transition because it was difficult to pick out the light yellow color, especially on mobile platforms. 

New labels for sponsored content on BuzzFeed's website

What Can We Do?

As budding journalists, college students should set out to prove that the phrase “journalism ethics” is not, in fact, a contradiction. The journalism industry has been tainted by reports about some media professionals’ unethical practices, but those stories are not an accurate reflection of the media industry as a whole.  As consumers, we must look past the tabloids and advertorials and consider the quality journalism that we have available for us. We must keep in mind that stories about misfortunes render higher profits than stories about positive events, so in that way, we, as journalists, are both the problem and the solution. It is up to us to turn the tables and redirect the spotlight towards credible and ethical journalism.

Reporting The Truth Will Set Us Free

Katy Andersen
ka100211@ohio.edu

“Journalists’ credibility has fallen precipitously in the minds of the public,” according to Steven Knowlton and Bill Reader, authors of Moral Reasoning for Journalists.  Confirming this statement, a survey taken by Gallup in 2012, states that 60% of Americans say they have little or no trust in the media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly.   As a journalist, I am concerned for the future of journalism if this is true.  

                          

With all of the various formats and technical devices for gathering news, it’s easier now, more than ever, for people to stay current with the events going on throughout the day.  However, people can receive limited information when they only receive news from a single source.  Many people get comfortable with one particular source of news because they like the style and political slant in which the news is reported.  It’s important for the everyday citizen to do his or her own homework to find a credible news source that covers all angles of the story. 

Two key reasons why journalists may not always follow ethics are sensationalism and money. Any time the focus is to sell an idea or product, it’s not news. People often confuse docudramas, politically-inspired programs, and infotainment as factual news.  There is a difference between reporting the news and tabloid journalism; one requires a factual, objective reporting and the latter does not adhere to the same principles.  Journalists need to consider what we can do to get people to trust us again.   

While “a society functions, even minimally, only if most members of that society obey its’ rules voluntarily,” likewise, journalists must maintain integrity for journalism to work.   Unfortunately, there is no doctrine stating how journalism should be run or a rulebook clearly defining the rules, except that reporting the truth is our mantra.  According to Sociology, we know that when social norms within a society are broken, there will be consequences.  Reporting the truth should be the social norm in journalism everywhere.  If not, this could lead to ethical egoism. Ethical egoism is when journalists lose sight of the core value of telling the truth and instead makes decisions based upon the greatest good for themselves.  Even if one journalist fails to report the news fully, accurately and fairly, we all suffer in lack of integrity and lose the trust of our audience.  Losing the trust of our audience eventually means the extinction of journalism.  It’s important to remember that our job as journalists is to educate the public to help them make decisions in their everyday lives. 

According to the Preamble of the Society of Professional Journalists, "the duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues." Should we fail to report the truth, and consider the story from every angle, we fail the public and we fail one another.  Even though, currently, more than half of the American population distrusts the media as a whole, journalists can change this by reporting all sides of the truth and maintaining integrity at all times. 

Craft or Profession?

Dani Dean

dd929212@ohio.edu

What is journalism? Some would argue it is considered a profession, while others say it is a craft of rhetoric. It is difficult to categorize a work when it ranges from someone getting a masters degree in journalism, to someone who simply free-lances as a hobby. It is unethical to deny anyone the right to call himself a journalist, because it would be denying that person of their first amendment. Especially an amendment that every journalist lives and breathes by. If that is the case how is it possible to distinguish a professional journalist from a casual blogger if they have skill as a writer?

www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com

The answer to this question is determined by a journalist’s ethics and understanding of ethics.

Profession:

Webster’s definition of a profession is, a type of job that requires special education, training or skill. The instant outlier is the requirement of the special education it takes to be considered a professional journalist; which would be a degree from a university. Obviously the quality of the university affects the level of education one receives and affects the reputation of the degree they earn. With that education comes an understanding of ethics and that is what really sets apart the professionals. In Moral Reasoning for Journalists the authors point out how “journalism, medicine and law all have important public roles, their own professional organizations and their own codes of standards of behavior, including ethics codes.” In my opinion, to be considered a professional journalist one must fully understand the ethics codes in journalism. I am excited to break down and understand the ethics of journalism this semester . . . therefore becoming one step closer to being a professional journalist. At the surface/definition level of this it is obvious that journalism can be claimed as a profession. But there is still the argument of journalism being considered a craft rather than a profession.

Craft:

Webster’s definition of a craft is, a job or activity that requires special skill. Now, special skill is not as serious as a special education required to fit under the definition of a professional. The special skill in this craft is to write well and understand rhetoric. But that does not just make for ethical journalism because it says nothing about understanding ethics or the importance of them. Journalism as a craft and as a profession are completely different, but many people view them as the same. That is where the public’s disconnect and distrust of journalists comes from.

There are still critics that believe journalism has lost its way. There is a lot of blame placed on the media while no constructive action is being taken to fix this problem. That is where passion needs to come in play.

Calling:

Webster’s definition of a calling is, a strong desire to spend your life doing a certain kind of work. Professional journalist feel this passion. That is where their desire to dig up information and inform the public in an unbiased way comes from. I believe that – along with ethics and education – the calling a journalist feels makes them a professional.

businessjournalism.org

The New Era of Ethics

Louis Baragona
lb699911@ohio.edu

Ethics are not black and white. The grey area of ethics is vast and hard to navigate. As journalists, what are our shared ethics? What are ethical rules unique to each individual journalist as we differ in style of writing and reporting? What are our shared limits? There are a lot of questions in creating an ethical moral compass and in an era of journalism in new places and through new mediums, journalists are having to learn to develop quick-thinking skills in defining their own ethical values.

The major popularity of the internet and the idea of the average citizen as a journalist has brought about questions of ethics. How are journalists to maintain an ethical code when citizens are able to easily report the news to an ever-broadening audience and infiltrate ethical values with their own beliefs? Citizens don't have the job titles or career motivations of journalists representing media conglomerates or networks. Citizens don't have the branding of PR professionals or the spin-to-win motivations of advertising workers. The idea of a new era of journalism, in which each individual has the ability to report the news at their own fingertips, raises many ethical dilemmas for journalists.

The internet has also raised questions about graphic content and exactly how much is too much. With the recent murder of James Foley, many online web sources were called out for posting graphic video, or screenshots from the video, of his execution. The internet provides a forum for uncensored reporting, an ethical dilemma on how much the public needs and should be shown. The internet has no established moral compass, just a bit of legal coverage in order to make sure things stay within the confines of the law, with plenty of loopholes and mishaps along the way. 

Reporting has also taken a new turn with a millennial culture obsessed with privacy- or lack thereof. TMZ, E! News, and US Weekly all employ writers and reporters that are, by definition, qualified journalists, but often deemed unethical in their execution. These sources of news, which focus on the lives of celebrities, intersect with the internet to create a perfect storm of ethical challenges. TMZ can easily obtain particularly unflattering materials, many of which could be deemed unethical in their release and reporting, with the help of the internet. A recent example could be made of Jennifer Lawrence, among others, whose private cell phone was hacked and the contents (including private, explicit pictures) were leaked in their entirety for full public view on the internet, by Perez Hilton on his blog PerezHilton.com. Hilton later removed the photos, claiming that what he had done was unethical and hurtful to Lawrence, but the damage had been done. These outlets of a celebrity-obsessed culture have led journalism to be viewed as completely unethical by celebrities pleading to the media to be left alone. Their existence, the stalker-ish discomfort of their reporting and content, is deemed by many to be a completely unethical practice.

There are two sides of to every story deemed unethical.

The idea of citizens being able to participate in coverage and live-report in real time is exciting and certainly sounds ethical in its execution. A college degree or high-level job do not a journalist make. In the expanses of the internet there have been pieces of citizen-type journalism that have done great things and spread crucial information for the public around us.

Being able to see uncensored content is at times necessary. A lot of the recent content out of Ferguson, MO has been deemed graphic, but at the same time has been also heralded as real news, as primary sources in the hopes of forging toward what's right. Journalism does have to be raw and can be unattractive and aesthetically difficult, but it's where to censor that is a grey area.

Celebrity journalism websites are statistically fascinating. They garner some of the greatest traffic on the internet and have helped expand many websites from startups to standard daily routine for the average person with even a slight interest in A-list culture. An interest in the lifestyles of the rich and famous is not unethical in its natural occurrence. Where journalists draw the line between public information and private exposures is a more difficult road to navigate.

As journalists we have a lot of questions and we face a lot of factors. We have reached a new era of the changing definitions of ethical values. We have a lot of additions to our craft from the outside world and we have new areas of journalism to scorn or embrace. As time expands journalism, our ability to create ethical standards has seemed to include even more grey area. My personal belief is that at our core, journalists are important and there are some values each of us must hold true to, but as we grow and change with the development of reporting and writing we are forced to explore what exactly journalism is and who exactly journalists are in order to search for a moral code or compass to guide us through the grey area. 

INTERNET SPAWNS ME-FIRST JOURNALISM

Matt Birt

mb499511@ohio.edu

Courtesy: Twitter

Twenty years ago, online news was a goofy, slow, newfangled notion that, figuratively speaking, still hadn’t been housebroken.  Television and print media were top dog as far as media goes and had been around for decades.  But since then, the internet has gotten itself together and has pushed aside the established industries, becoming the primary method for how people under the age of 50 to get their news.  It is not only supplanting both TV and printed publications in audience share, but it is causing a massive shift in the industry that is putting newspapers out of business and leaving news stations scrambling to reorganize.

The internet is a cheaper, easier way for individuals and companies to share news.  The instantaneous nature of it allows for constant updates unrestrained by time slots or printing schedules.  Platforms like Twitter and Facebook – social media sites that allow users to pick-and-choose what news they see – bring to-the-minute updates to followers on their computers, mobile phones, and tablets.  The biggest attraction these devices and sites have to many users is the customizable news feeds.  Rather than being fed the news that editors or producers felt was worthy enough to make the cut, users can choose what news to take in.  Media outlets like NBC, Cosmopolitan and the Huffington Post have multiple accounts on dedicated to more specific niches like the NFL or regions like the United Kingdom.

Individualized news is a relatively new concept.  Televised news and the stories they covered were up to producers, who could give any amount of time to whatever stories they deemed important.  Newspapers had similar restrictions with word counts and column space where only so much could be squeezed into an edition.  Outlets had to present themselves as generally unbiased onlookers merely passing along information to the general public.  What the internet has done for the news world is create a place with virtually no limits on coverage or content.  Not only can users find stories with angles more suited to themselves (e.g. a Republican following FOX News on Facebook), but people so inclined can actually create their own websites dedicated to what they see as important.

In the tumult of this shuffle, users have gained an increasing sense of self.  The new format –  which allows consumers to pick what they read, when they read it and with whom they share it with –  gives a newfound sense of liberty.  They are no longer shackled to a menu with limited course offerings.  The buffet is now open, and people want all they can get.

Social media users take this philosophy to the next level.  Sites like AOL Instant Messenger and MySpace paved the way for users to express themselves as individuals on services like Instagram and Pinterest.  Not only can members follow who and what they like, they can also generate content they want to fit their own desires.  Before this time, bylines and anchor positions were what people fought for in order share their thoughts with the world.  Now, people can be satisfied with a couple hundred likes on a few thousand followers to share their daily thoughts with. 

The newfound attitudes the public has developed in conjunction with the new technology have proven to be major obstacles for companies to adjust to.  Surveys have shown that news viewers and subscribers have an increasing distrust or dislike for the established media today.  They believe outlets are biased, or don’t do a good job being independent observers in stories anymore.  To some extent they may be right, but they also have different expectations for the journalists and reporters.  They want to hear the news they want, and with today’s oversaturated market of cable news networks and online websites that are constantly growing in number, they can find that.  Before the internet, that pacification didn’t exist and people had to accept it.  Now, they don’t have to accept it and can voice their displeasures with big media more readily.

A pioneer in the online news game is BuzzFeed.  It was created as a hub for viral content and is generally known for short, succinct “listicles”, but has flourished since 2006, becoming one of the biggest news generators online today.  The content offered by its staff range from political and international news articles to entertainment notes and even quizzes.  As of this hour, BuzzFeed’s primary Twitter account had 1,216,802 followers.  Comparably, The New York Times, one of the most well-known and vaunted newspapers in the world, has a daily circulation of 1,865,315 subscribers, 1,133,923 of whom have digital subscriptions.  If a 2006 start-up can attract just as many consumers to its site as an established journalistic icon, then it seems to reason that the age of mass communications as we knew it has morphed almost totally the opposite.  Instead of an industry dominated by businesses that told us what it thought was important, that same industry now depends on giving the consumers what they believe is important, no matter how arcane their expectations or definitions of journalism may seem.

As demographics continue to shift, the notion of a personalized news industry will only continue to take shape.  Journalists who have spent years or decades in the newspaper or television industry will have to adapt to using their employers’ websites to get their content out and utilize social media to continue to be relevant.  The need to be present on social media only reflects the demands of the consumers, who want to know and interact with their news sources rather than just being talked at by them.  It’s up to the journalists to adjust to the users’ demands, however unreasonable they may seem.  Me-first journalism is a new idea that the established industry must conform to, and a refusal to do so may result in the greatest extinction since the dinosaurs.

Ethics Makes the World Go Round

Sean Dicks
sd099211@ohio.edu

Ethics in the world of journalism have always remained the same. Determining what is right and wrong can sometimes be a tricky thing, but as journalists, we have a duty to report the facts in an unbiased way. 

Media critics and politicians love to bash the industry because they think that journalists write faulty news stories to make them look bad. These critics usually don't agree with what's being said because it doesn't follow what they believe in. The critics would rather talk about the news being presented than the actual matter at hand.

Are journalists the ones to blame?

Photo: Theonion.com

With the rise of the digital era, it is a lot easier to receive faulty information. Our generation is more likely to receive their news on the internet, as opposed to people from older generations, who get their news via the T.V, or even the newspaper. Whether it be from an actual news site, or social media sites such as facebook and twitter, people are able to access the News  in many different ways.

The main concern is whether or not the information that is being provided is actually news, or if it is just entertainment to gain ratings. Tabloid journalism has been around for a very long time, but due to the digital age, it is worse than ever. The ratings have gone up, and the advertising industry has gained millions of dollars, but the entertainment aspect of news is not what the public should be looking for.

People argue whether this type of journalism is right or wrong. It is true that in today’s age companies must strive to be more creative than the next, but this shouldn't allow for faulty journalism. It doesn't matter whether or not you are a professional, or just a student writing for a local paper, the facts must be true and should be presented in a professional way.

Urban legends expert David Emery talks about News Satire and how the internet is full of it these days. The news presented may be comical and entertaining, but it is false and it is often taken seriously.

Ethics: The name of the game hasn't changed

The issue of right or wrong stems all the way back to the Greeks, who presented the world with most of the philosophies that still remain today. 

Of course we have laws that we must abide by, and punishments for when we don't, but that doesn't mean that people don't make unethical decisions all the time. Law and ethics are two completely different areas, and although not everyone agrees, it is mostly universal on what is right and wrong. 

This short video describes the main differences between ethics and the law, and provides some examples of what it takes to be ethical in all the things you do: 

Video: Youtube.com

Certain religions say that we shouldn't always be ethical. They say that doing what is right can sometimes be wrong. Stealing bread for your family when they are hungry might seem like the right thing to do, but it's not ethical. Journalists should steer clear of these beliefs and bias's, and should follow what is universally accepted as professional and ethical news. 

It's hard to keep everyone happy

Bentham and Mill proposed the idea of Utilitarianism decades ago, yet it still remains a constant to this day. Like all things, there are critics of the philosophy, but the greatest good for the greatest amount of people is usually a positive thing. 

Journalists shouldn't report the news to make everyone happy, but if we report the correct information to the public, they will stay happy. People want to know what is going on in the world which is why journalism is so important.

Ethics may not make everyone happy, but it helps society function in a much smoother way. Imagine if there were no rules and people could do and say whatever they wanted. There would be no respect or trust in this world and no one would know what to believe, or who to listen to. 

We are the ones in control

As journalists, we need to make sure to provide factual information to the public to keep everyone happy and to shut down the idea that journalists are just entertainers biased by the public opinion.