How a Code of Ethics and Watchdog Journalism can Expose Fake News and Corruption

Casey George

cg918217@ohio.edu

                                        

Creator: Marek Uliasz | Credit: Marek - Fotolia

Source: The Compliance & Ethics Blog

The E.W. Scripps School of Journalism has taught me to be an ethical and curious journalist. I have been challenged to question systems, structures, and functions within societies. I have also learned about the responsibility journalists have to the truth and how that responsibility can come with high stakes and consequences. As mentioned in the readings this week, journalism is intrusive. It pushes boundaries and exposes nitty-gritty details of peoples' lives, which many oppose. However, intrusiveness isn't exactly a cause of the more recent distrust of journalism. Instead, the idea of fake news that has emerged over time can be attributed to the decline in trust. Yet, the basic principles of ethics haven't changed. Journalists have always had a responsibility to report accurately, fairly, and truthfully. I want to explore how a code of ethics and watchdog journalism can help expose fake news and corruption within newsrooms and digital society. 

Checks and Balances

In this week's readings, we learned that there are essentially no "checks and balances" in journalism. Newsroom staff must implement a code of ethics to ensure they are upholding their morals and values. Managers also have a responsibility to create a culture that encourages journalists to voice their conscience and constructively disagree with editors, owners, donors, and the public when necessary. 

When managers establish this kind of culture and follow a code of ethics, the newsroom's internal structure becomes more unified. From the bottom to the top, everyone will be more inclined to uphold the organization's values. 

Upholding a Code of Ethics

Journalism requires mental toughness. Tension can run high when journalists are chasing down stories and the truth can often be difficult to uncover. Establishing a code of ethics and studying other organizations' values can help journalists stay true to themselves while on the job. 

Studying SPJ's Code of Ethics has informed me of the basic principles every journalist should follow. According to SPJ's Code of Ethics, as ethical journalists, we should seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable and transparent. When these guidelines are followed, there is less chance corruption will occur. 

Watchdog Journalism

The Elements of Journalism discussed the outcome of a corrupt journalist who disregarded the truth and threw the code of ethics out the window. Jayson Blair was a fraud. He fabricated stories and plagiarized from other news outlets. Journalists like Blair add greatly to the distrust of journalism. 

After this incident, more media watchdogs were on the rise. Watchdogs are organizations or individuals that keep an eye on certain entities to ensure they aren't internally corrupt. These organizations look out for the public's best interest and the well-being of communities. 

The Digital Society 

The internet and social media are outlets for watchdogs because they make it possible for everything caught on film to be exposed to the world with the click of a button. Today, no organization or individual is safe from being exposed. Anyone can snap a photo or video and upload it to the internet, where it will be viewed by millions or even billions of people. But, with greater power comes greater responsibility. 

Today, individuals have many platforms to voice their opinions and share information, which has led to new discoveries, informative conversations, and knowledge sharing. However, it has also had serious impacts on the contribution of fake news and disinformation. It can be tricky for individuals to decipher which sources are credible and which are not. When participating in the digital society, individuals must have basic internet skills. Internet Skills and Why They Matter by Eszter Hargittai and Marina Micheli discusses the importance of finding and evaluating information and assessing the information's credibility to minimize the spread of fake news. 

Responsibility

When sharing information online, individuals must stay true to their code of ethics and ensure they are sharing credible sources. We all have a responsibility to the truth, whether we are a journalist reporting on current events or an individual contributing online. Following a code of ethics, evaluating sources, and staying curious can help stop the spread of fake news, expose corruption, and allow us to stay true to our morals and values. 

Journalistic Responsibility

Will Heflinger

wh617717@ohio.edu

There have been many instances where journalists have been irresponsible when publishing their stories. These journalists could plagiarize their stories from other news sources, or they could just flat out lie about what they are reporting on. No matter what they are doing, it is a practice that should not be tolerated.

In one instance of an irresponsible journalist, former USA Today writer, Jack Kelley, was caught plagiarizing and lying about multiple stories. Kelley would go as far as to hire friends to act as eyewitnesses or translators to verify his story. When word spreads about journalists, like Kelley, is it any wonder why people do not trust journalists?

Photo via C-SPAN

In a recent poll conducted by Gallup, adults from the United States were asked, "In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly?" When comparing the 2020 results to the 2019 results, there is an increase of adults who responded, "Not at all." Because of this, it is important that new and current journalists are taking responsibility in their reporting.

While there will be people who will never trust the mass media, there are people who are willing to trust the mass media, as long as there is a reason to. Being able to report accurately every time an article is published is one way to gain trust from the public. Another way is to fact check statements that are made before publishing. False statements that are easily disproven will make people distrust the mass media more and more.

The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) has a code of ethics that every journalist should follow. One of the main principles is that every journalist should be accountable and transparent. While being accountable for your work is important, no one is perfect. So, when mistakes are made, people should acknowledge their mistakes, take responsibility for the mistake, and make corrections as soon as possible.

In the case of Kelley, people began to notice that his stories were looking similar to other stories that were already published. To be responsible in a case like this, people should notify others, including the person who may be irresponsibly reporting, the possibility of unethical journalistic practices. 

When journalists begin taking responsibility for their work by fact checking statements, and reporting accurately, more and more people will begin to trust the mass media again. 

Journalism is not unethical, but journalists may be

Raaya Cummings
raaya.cummings@gmail.com

source: tumsasedgars/iStock

It can be argued that journalists lack ethical principles. As a result, they should not be trusted. However, where misunderstanding goes, misconception often follows. As critical thinkers try to define the lines of ethics many journalists cross them without any intention or prior knowledge of even doing so.

Without much consideration, some may agree that when discussing ethics, there are many basic absolutes in this world. If you steal you should be punished and if you take a life, even more so. On the contrary, when taking a moment to consider the circumstances of one's actions, others may disagree. What if what had been initially written off as a heinous deed was actually a feat of protection? Or, what if the altercation was at the fault of the victim? Suddenly, the road to determining what is right or wrong becomes a little longer.

Although on a typically smaller scale than theft or homicide, our everyday decisions are often based on ethical and moral principles. Throughout history, philosophers have been able to agree on the simple definition of ethics but not always on its implication. This is most at fault for the way our actions affect the world around us.

Reinhold Niebur, American theologian, stresses that moral behavior must be seen in the context of how our behavior affects others, the complex web of actions and interactions that make up human society (Moral Reasoning for Journalists E2). Many of us may find it easy to agree with Niebur concerning the relation of ethical reasoning and communal interactions. Yet, if every society is different, with their own evolving norms and general practices, do their ethical principles differ too?

This is the conversation between those who believe in ethical relativism (the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norm's of one's culture) and those who oppose. If true, there would be no moral standards to be applied universally, and every society would decide right or wrong for themselves. As a result of this dangerous scenario, the majority of ethicists do not actually agree with this theory and there are a few different reasons as to why.

Some argue that there is a distinction between general moral grounds and the interpretation of how they should be practiced. While others believe no one theory can be applied to every ethical decision. For example, doctors doing everything they can in order for their patients to feel better would be a moral principle upheld in every society. However, if assisted-suicide stops a patient from chronic suffering, then does that make it the moral decision?

The conversation of the boundaries of ethics could last decades, just as it already has. Sometimes, right and wrong are not always so clear and other times what's right for some is wrong for others. This is not to be an excuse for poor ethical tactics but rather a defense to the world of journalism as a whole. While some journalists may work in the shadows of bias or greed, it's important to understand that journalism within itself is not unethical and not all journalists who make the seemingly unethical decision did so with such intent. 

    

Where Does the History Lie Among Journalistic Ethics?

Marc Anthony Brown 

mb802117@ohio.edu

Navigating the internet becomes a minefield more and more with every passing year. While a lot of good has come from this online globalized community, there is a point to recognize problems that have sprung up as a result. 

With access to information at anyone's fingertips it has allowed opinions to be misinterpreted as facts. This issue can be seen most evident today within the attitude toward journalism and media as a whole. 

Trust in news and reporters has declined at an exponential rate with currently no end in sight based on current political attitudes among party lines. Among this discourse the ethical responsibility of journalists is argued as being non-existent however, an argument against those claims suggest that consumers of news and media do not properly understand journalistic integrity and the ethical responsibilities of a reporter. 

Instead of believing one side or another, as a true reporter would want to get down to the truth and truly understand where the misinformation lies. What has caused this virus of mistrust to flourish and can it be stopped? 

Source: Edelman; Chart; Axios Visual

In the current societal climate of the United States, Axios reports that in 2021 trust in traditional media has fallen to 46% over the last decade. Political contention in politics along party lines has accelerated this form of mistrust. 

Axios reports that 56% of Americans today believe news journalists are purposefully trying to misinform individuals. With 58% believing media stations are more concerned with supporting an ideology rather than telling the truth. Since the rise of 24 hour news broadcasting, political panels have been misinterpreted as a news outlet's entire position on facts and information of a topic. Calling into question the ethical responsibilities of journalists. 

Ethics is a word that is thrown around constantly within the conversation of journalism. A term that sprung up by the Greeks translating to the study of good. A well organized report on the truth helps fact and information to flourish. History has showcased the truth has bounced back and forth from being objective as control of church and state causes contention on what is true and what is not true. 

This mistrust in the media may be seen as an annoyance into today's climate - with individuals reflecting back to a time like Watergate where the truth was the only thing that mattered. However, an argument can be made that today we are in a new wave of Yellow Journalism - causing this calamity of miscommunication.

Healthline reports that in a recent survey that users who used Facebook as their main source of news were more likely to have vaccine hesitancy to fight off COVID-19. Many more young Americans are recognizing the problem Facebook has caused over the last several years with trust and information. Algorithms allow for niche groups to spring up and have their ideas supported no matter how correct those ideas may be. 

A debate on Yellow Journalism ethics is unnecessary due to the fact that it simply caused the news at the time to be exaggerated just for sales. And with this new algorithmic setting of news and information, many wonder if history can change or if it is destined to repeat forever? 

The weight of the situation indicate change could be held by political activism online. Pressure from the public through comments and posts can help keep media coverage objective and centered thanks to using algorithms to obtain viral status. But this fighting fire with fire situation can only remain for so long until a hard concrete solution can be created. 

Turning an ear towards the critics

 

Anna Birk

ab383718@ohio.edu

As journalism students, we are taught to question the integrity of the world around us. Raised as skeptics of humanity, we grow to view the world through that lens. What we often are unprepared for, however, is when the general public is skeptic of us. From day one, we are sat down and fed information about how the general public distrusts our profession. While, for many students and professionals, this is disheartening, it could be the perfect opportunity to learn from critics, so we may become better trusted in the future. It may not be surprising to find that the viewpoints of those who distrust the news media, may not be incredibly outlandish. 

Found in the, "Introduction to Ethical Thinking," chapter of, "Moral Reasoning for Journalists," written by Steven Knowlton and Bill Reader, is the important question: is the definition of, "good," the same throughout every interpretation, or does it change? While there are various ways of analyzing this question, the focal point for journalists lies within utilitarianism. 

Utilitarianism, in short, is deciding which outcome, in a given situation, will benefit the greatest amount of people – and then acting on that decision. Translated to the world of journalism ethics, this means: to report, or not to report? This ethical line becomes blurry, however, between various news organizations and reporters, thus impacting the public's trust of the news. Why bother trusting any news, when media outlets hold varying ethical codes, and report differently on the same events? 

The NPR code of ethics holds the line, "this handbook is intended not as a prescriptive list of do's and don'ts. Rather, it is a foundation upon which staff should consider these ... principals and exercise judgement in deciding how to ... serve our audiences with journalism they can trust." Looking from the eyes of someone with no reporting background, this line can seem as if reporters could have their own agenda: to deliberately con the reader. After all, if judgement is left to individual reporters, each could have their own idea of ethical. 

                     33% of U.S. adults say they have, "not too much," confidence that journalists

                act in the best interests of the public, according to a study by Pew Research Center. 

                                    

Michael Schudson, for the Columbia Journalism Review, counters that perhaps the core values of journalism should be more clear-cut for viewers. News consumers are often unaware of a code of ethics within organizations, or that the overarching goal is to seek the truth and hold accountability. Schudson makes an excellent point in that, news organizations need to communicate to their audience the difference between their writing departments, how news is gathered and the fact-checking process behind a story. 

The general public deserves not only to know the truth of what occurs in the world around, but also within their newsrooms. Rebuilding the public's trust of the news media should be one of our first goals as student journalists and as we enter our professions. 

The ethical dilemma of opinion writing

 Ashley Beach 

ab026319@ohio.edu 

Photo via engineering.dartmouth.edu

Journalism in itself is meant to be straightforward. All biases should be checked at the door and personal beliefs should not seep into a writer's work. Allowing personal opinions to be published in a media source can be problematic when looking at it from a philosophical standpoint. Yet, there are op-ed sections in almost all newspapers.

Op-ed, or opposite-the-editorial, articles are opinion pieces that can be found opposite the editorials page. They contain the ideas of an individual writer and are not to be associated with the newspaper or media source they are found in.

The Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics helps separate the opinionated from the non-opinionated. It calls for opinion writers to "distinguish between advocacy and news reporting" and "remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility." These guidelines put forth a precedent that those who enter the opinion side of journalism will remain independent in their work and ideas.   

Despite this, the question still looms: is opinion writing ethical in a philosophical sense?

Several issues arise when putting opinion writing under a philosophical lens. The theories of teleology, rationalism and utilitarianism can all be applied to the nature of the practice. Each one has a role in how the piece is developed and consumed no matter what platform it is found on. 

An opinion writer wants their work to reach its target audience. To do so, they elect to discuss a topic that is right for the majority of readers. Doing so unintentionally puts utilitarianism into practice because writers want to do what is morally right for the better half of the group. But, it forgets about the morals of the author.

Authors can lose themselves when pushing to write what the masses want — opening the door for teleology. 

Teleology is the part of philosophy that deals with reaching an end goal. All pieces are written with the intention to inform, however, opinion pieces carry extra weight in this region. The end goal of an opinion piece is to bring awareness to an idea while attempting to not tie a publication to it. This practice is tricky because opinion writers want to garner support for their topic but must remain unaffiliated with the idea.  

Publishing multiple opinions in a section calls for the reader to think rationally about what they choose to consume. Pieces with identifiable biases and affiliations often have skewed information in them. When a reader looks for facts rather than emotions in an article, they use rationalism.

Rationalism is a two-way street, though. It creates room for the idea that reason is more valuable than experience when deciding to trust a source. Readers may choose to believe the article of a columnist because of their ability to push an agenda rather than their experience with the topic. A recent example of this is the misinformation of COVID-19 that was spread among infographics on social media platforms.  Many consumers trusted what they saw simply because of the person who shared it.

Philosophically speaking, opinion writing is unethical as a whole. Personal biases stem in the creation and consumption of opinion pieces. Philosophy and journalism are both about seeking and publishing the truth — truth that must be verifiable. Op-eds are still biased even if there is research to prove the argument in the article simply because there is an argument in the article. The biases found in opinion writing may not be obvious to the reader, but they can still be found by closely examining the story.  

Is the distrust in the media only for journalists to fix?

Rebekah Bostick

rb442218@ohio.edu

Everyday, journalists are told that they are untrustworthy, that they did not do their job correctly and that they are in a dying profession. Yet, here we are in school to learn how to become journalists or work in public relations.

Source: New York Times

It seems that lately there have been many claims against journalists from both sides of the political spectrum that any news produced is extremely biased. These claims, however, aren't new, and have only gotten worse since the beginning of the 19th century. Recently, certain political leaders were throwing around phrases like "fake news" that people seemed to pick up without knowing what they necessarily meant.

The public isn't at fault for not having as much trust in the media as they once did. It is harder to differentiate between real hard news and different editorial and opinion pieces. There are many different news outlets, some better than other and not everyone has the same access to reliable news sources. Like we spoke about in class, there are also entertainment centers that disguise themselves as news stations. 

There are a few things that journalists could do to try and get trust to flow back to them. I'm aware that this issue shouldn't be completely on the journalists to try and overcome however it seems like the general public needs a push to start trusting the media again.

Journalists can emphasize the difference between editorial pieces and news pieces. There is some confusion about what an editorial piece is and how it is opinion based. While there may be some fact in it, it is not a news piece, even if it is in a newspaper.

Journalists could explain what the ethics are that they follow, to show that they do intend to go out and write a story based on their emotional connection to it. Journalists go out to write stories based on facts and newsworthiness.

Is it only the job of those working in media to gain the trust back, or should those who are having a hard time trusting do some work themselves? I feel like there are always going to be people that are skeptical of the media no matter the presidency. Being skeptical of news is healthy, you shouldn't believe everything that you read. There is a difference between being skeptical of the news you read and not wanting to believe something because it does not align with your opinions.