Would Joe Saltzman approve of the reporting methods described in the article "Did Spokane paper act properly?" Why or why not (draw on the assigned chapter for your answer)?
Your response is due Tuesday by 4 p.m. No exceptions.
Teaching Notes
You must become the flame on the candle. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is Media Ethics Education DOA?
It sounds like a joke Jay Leno would tell during his opening monologue on The Tonight Show. Hear about the graduate students at the prestigious journalism school? They got caught cheating on an ethics exam. Ha ha ha. Except that’s actually what happened at Columbia University
No one admitted cheating despite pressure from the school’s administrators and pleas from classmates, who feared the scandal would damage the market value of their degrees. Meanwhile, the teacher of the course, New York Times columnist Samuel G. Freedman, refused to comment. But if the disgruntled posts on RateMyProfessors.com are any indication, his students hadn’t exactly been soaking up knowledge. “Maybe he could e-mail his ‘speeches’ to the students instead of making everyone suffer through the most wasted class in j-school. . . ,” one read.
There’s an old cowboy saying that goes, “When your horse dies, get off.” Journalism ethics education is a dead horse. Or else those aren’t vultures circling in the sky.
No one admitted cheating despite pressure from the school’s administrators and pleas from classmates, who feared the scandal would damage the market value of their degrees. Meanwhile, the teacher of the course, New York Times columnist Samuel G. Freedman, refused to comment. But if the disgruntled posts on RateMyProfessors.com are any indication, his students hadn’t exactly been soaking up knowledge. “Maybe he could e-mail his ‘speeches’ to the students instead of making everyone suffer through the most wasted class in j-school. . . ,” one read.
There’s an old cowboy saying that goes, “When your horse dies, get off.” Journalism ethics education is a dead horse. Or else those aren’t vultures circling in the sky.
A Question for Socrates
The question of how ethics is learned, or even if it can be, is as old as Western philosophy. In Plato’s dialog Meno the title character asks, “Can you tell me, Socrates, whether virtue is acquired by teaching or by practice; or if neither by teaching nor practice, then whether it comes to man by nature, or in what other way?” Of course, Socrates, being Socrates, resists giving a definite answer. But we can’t. The sad fact is, students had better get an effective ethics education now or they may never.
Last summer I conducted an ethics workshop for some reporters and editors at the Poughkeepsie Journal, a small daily in upstate
But what I remember most is the air of defeat that clung to the staff as we sat on hard plastic chairs in the break room discussing the cases. I could hear in their voices the bitterness and cynicism of employees forced to follow corporate policies they despised. Recently, for example, the paper had started running display ads on the front page and section fronts, a much more grievous ethical lapse, their mumbled asides suggested, than anything the case studies might have to offer.
I don’t want my students to ever wear the gray, defeated expression I saw that day on the faces at the Journal. But given the downward direction in which the media are moving, and fast, how in the world can I prevent it from happening?
Teaching Media Ethics by Telling Stories
A friend of mine who teaches at a big Midwestern university recounts in class the events of her first week as a reporter for the Minneapolis Tribune. She was sent to Duluth to cover Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey on the campaign trail. When they were introduced, Humphrey vigorously shook her hand. “Oh yes, Susan,” he said, “I read your stuff all the time.” He couldn’t have read her stuff, though; she hadn’t written anything yet. “Just a few words,” she explains to her students, “but words that taught this fledging reporter a great lesson about pols and the little lies they tell.”
I usually find occasion during the semester to quote I. F. Stone’s dictum, “Every government is run by liars and thieves, and nothing they say should be believed,” to make the same point. But Susan’s story makes the point better. That’s because it has existential force. Her story vividly captures in a way a secondhand quote can’t the realities of a reporter’s life.
Some might think telling “war stories” is a waste of precious class time. I’ve a colleague who didn’t want to fall into the “trap” of regaling students with stories ad nauseam (“which, let’s face it, is easier than teaching or grading,” he said). So one semester he kept track. When he toted it all up at the end, he was surprised that he’d used less than an hour - out of 45 – talking about his newspaper experiences. And yet, he admitted, it was his stories that students seemed to remember most.
“Stories teach us how to live,” Daniel Taylor said in his essay, “The Ethical Implications of Storytelling.” What he meant was that stories preserve our experience for contemplation and evaluation. Although not all stories carry a heavy message, there’s an entire category of stories, so-called “exemplary tales,” that are told to convey a moral.
Our war stories are potentially just such tales. They can provide evidence, in ethicist John Barton’s words, of “how real human beings live through various crises and trials and remain human.” My colleague who kept tabs on his storytelling has described his stories as cautionary. Most, he said, deal with “screwups I learned from.”
But sometimes the storyteller and the audience can’t agree on what exactly the moral of a story is.
When Susan was a cub reporter on the Tribune, she interviewed the Beatles, who were on their second tour of the States. She got into their hotel room by dressing up as a waitress in an ugly, mustard-colored uniform and accompanying an actual room service waiter upstairs. Ringo took one look at her little plastic name tag – it read “Donna Brown” – and snorted, “What kind of name is that?” The waiter nudged her in the side. “Tell them what you real name is,” he urged. She did, as well as her reason for being there. Rather than throw her out, the Beatles politely answered her questions. They even let her phone for a photographer. The next day her story ran on the front page, with a photo of John sitting at a table and looking up at her and laughing as she poured coffee in his cup. She still has a glossy print of that photo somewhere.
Many of Susan’s students think she’s nuts for not having the photo hanging up in her office. They also think she’s nuts for saying she’d never participate in the same kind of stunt today. To her celebrity-struck students, disguising herself as a hotel waitress to get an interview with the Beatles seems soooo cool. They lose all sight of the fact that it wasn’t a story of vital public interest that demanded undercover methods.
Susan intends one lesson when she talks about her hard day’s night, but her students, living in a paparazzi-saturated culture, draw another. “It may be a lost cause,” she remarked to me.
Or maybe not. Negotiations over what the point of a story is can be part of the point of the story. In the process of negotiating, we test different interpretations, try out different themes. This is helpful. This is educational. Lawrence Kohlberg, the Harvard psychologist famous for his research on the stages of moral development, contended that “the teaching of virtue is the asking of questions. . . not the giving of answers.” Stories don’t necessarily have to yield clear moral rules to be of value. It’s enough sometimes if they just give us something to think about.
16 comments:
I have little doubt, mulling over his piece on the "Mr. Deeds" films, that Joe Saltzman would be a solid proponent of The Spokane Spokesman-Review's investigation. Saltzman concedes that this brand of undercover reporting is perhaps unjust in the more frivolous, minute of stories. He does, however, seem almost passionate about undercover work when it comes to the stories that do matter. To that point, Saltzman even expresses fearfulness over the dismantling of undercover reporting, given the often-negative sentiment that surrounds it. He seems to envision Hollywood and the media as the main culprits, painting undercover work in an obstrusive, nosy light, while, in reality, this brand of journalism has actually done ample good for the public. Ultimately, Saltzman's verdict on Spokane would depend upon the weight he believes the story carries. I can't fathom Saltzman would view the Mayor West scandal as something minor or unworthy of investigation, and, thus, I suspect he'd deem their actions wholly justified.
For what it's worth, I'm not sure I necessarily support the Spokane paper's initiative on this. Reading the article, I couldn't help but be reminded of those trashy "To Catch a Predator" Dateline programs, which, while perhaps entertaining in a sort of strange, voyeuristic fashion, have always struck me as little short of entrapment. While I'm glad this man was brought to justice for his heinous crimes, I'm not sure such couldn't have been done through other means. As Bill Babcock alludes to, why not, as investigative reporters, instead alert the authorities and allow them to perform the undercover work? In all fairness, I suspect I know the answer to that one. For as much as this paper wanted to see Mayor West brought to justice, they couldn't help but delight in the publicity and sales that would come from such a sensational investigation. Why alert the authorities when you, a newsroom reporter, can save the day for once?
Although Joe Saltzman has an appreciation for undercover reporting, and how it has “informed the public about wrongdoings by business or government,” I do not believe Saltzman would entirely approve of this story by Spokane. It is reporting methods like these that do bring about interesting information, but also raise ethical questions that would bother Saltzman. Don Hewett states that when it comes to stories involving the public interest, the end often justifies the means. The end result of undercover reporting brings the public what they want to hear, and also brings attention (positive and negative) to the publication. This also brings up the question that many journalists face, and that is the primary mission of a journalist to be honest and truthful to the audience. With undercover reporting, journalists often take personas and hide behind a mask, or in this case, hire an expert to lie for them. Although this gets the story and gets people talking, it undermines the primary mission that journalists hold so near and dear.
By taking it upon themselves to set up Mayor Jim West, I believe this was done for some of the right reasons but some of the wrong reasons. There was positive incentive here, as exposing a Mayor who potentially wanted to illicit sexual relations with a young boy, this is something of corruption in the office, especially if internships or “pay-offs” were involved. On more of the negative side of the story, I feel that the Spokane Spokesman-Review newspaper could have conducted this to spark interest in their paper, and potentially would have done so for the glamorization of the story, that would be exclusive to them and be spread throughout the nation through various media outlets. In a nutshell, this story would get people to purchase their paper. Was deception the best way to get this story? We may never know the answer. All we can conclude on was it was a major form of deception, and the end result’s were catastrophic for Mayor Jim West and his career. The final question we can debate is whether deceiving Jim West to get this story was an ethical decision. According to the handbook Doing Ethics in Journalism by the Society of Profound Journalists, I believe, and I think Salztman would believe, that printing this story may have not been the right thing to do, on ethical standings alone.
-Evan Brieff
Saltzman says the best reason for undercover reporting is to inform the public about wrongdoing by businesses or government. The Spokane Spokesman Review set out to reveal the mayor, a government official, was abusing his power by using his position to “develop sexual relationships with boys and young men.” Most people would argue that this is an issue the public needs to know. The Spokane paper used passive deception, the expert failed to identify himself but he didn’t initiate contact with the mayor, he let the mayor contact him and it was the mayor who also brought up sex. Saltzman says that this is when the reporter doesn’t deliberately tell a lie but has people assume who he is. Also, the story followed the guidelines set by the SPJ in deciding whether to use deception. The story was of public interest, and revealed a “system failure,” the story was pursued fully, the managing editor felt that the information revealed outweighed the harm caused, and the consequences were weighed in a two or three day debated conversation while the issue was set in an ethical checklist. There were no non-journalistic motives apparent while reading the article. It was not like the case with Mr. Deeds where the editor just wanted Deeds to look like a fool. In this situation the public had the right to know.
I believe Saltzman would have thought that the newspaper acted properly because they said they could not obtain the information in any other way. Though Saltzman stresses that deception can be used negatively he also notes that it is possible to use deception for good. The last statement he makes is, “the last hope for the public’s right to know, could fade if undercover journalism is rejected completely.”
Saltzman states, "...the last resort of the crusading journalist and the last hope for the public's right to know, could fade if undercover journalism is rejected completely." Saltzman endorses undercover reporting if there is a newsworthy issue that informs the public about wrongdoing by business or government. Therefore, I believe Saltzman would have approved some of the methods described in the article "Did Spokane paper act properly?"
In the article Spokane paper uses passive deception as they hired a computer expert to pose as an underaged boy to inform the public of Mayor Jim West who had been abusing his power to develop sexual relationships with young men. Spokane would've agreed that this was for the benefit of society to let them know the actions of the trusted mayor. However, the method that they used to bring this issue forth has room for debate.
The dilemma that is faced is whether the ends justify the means. Is deception acceptable as a small crime committed for the greater good? According to Bill Babcock, "good gumshoe reporting" could have accomplished the same result, so the deception wasn't justified. It is questionable whether Spokane used non journalistic and unethical moves for ulterior reasons such as money and fame. They might also have thought to be heroic as they exposed the "bad guy" in their story.
Saltzman would probably have accepted some of the methods used, however, he wouldn't have wholeheartedly embraced the other methods since he believes that undercover journalism should be done only when there is no other way to get the story or not at all. If Spokane tried to use other ethical ways, they probably could have gotten information without deception.
As Valerie Hyman states, If truth-telling is one of the values we hold dear as journalists, then we have to think awfully hard before we decide to be deceptive in our pursuit of telling the truth." Whether or not deception by a journalist is justified should observe both The SPJ guidelines and personal ethics.
I believe that Joe Saltzman would definitely approve of the reporting methods used in the article due to the fact that the story actually matters and is something the public would like to hear about. In fact, there are 2 major issues here that would definitely be of interest to the people, those being that the mayor was attempting inappropriate relations with a young boy and also that he was abusing his power as mayor, offering a job to the boy.
They used passive deception, in that they did not directly lie to the mayor, but rather had the mayor assume who they were. I think a big part of why this is acceptable is that they did not initiate the interaction. It's not as if they wanted to do a story and tried to essentially egg the mayor on and almost force him into saying things. The mayor initiated the interaction and the reporters merely allowed him to say what he wanted. This also clearly did not come out of nowhere, there had to have been previous suspicions about the mayors actions which acts as more justification for the reporting.
The decision to do the undercover reporting was made after "a two- or three- day conversation" and used the Poynter Institute's six-point checklist to determine if it was ethical. The newspaper clearly thought extensively to decide whether to do the report or not. There were also no other options to successfully and fully report the story to the public. If journalists prove to actually put a lot of thought into the decision, I think we need to trust them to a certain extent, although I know that is getting increasingly difficult.
The main point that makes this an ethical form of deception, as previously stated, is that this undercover reporting was done for the greater good. While Mayor West's privacy was perhaps technically invaded, it should have been. It's not as if he was privately partaking in something completely acceptable and the paper decided to invade that, he was doing things that were wrong and inappropriate that deserved to be told to the public to keep them rightfully informed.
Joe Saltzman would approve of the reporting methods described in the article "Did Spokane paper act properly?" In the chapter, Saltzman may not approve of all forms of undercover reporting, however Saltzman says that the best reason for undercover reporting is to reveal and injustice or wrong doing to the public.
In the article the reason for undercover reporting was to expose the mayor for abusing his power to have inappropriate sexual relations with boys and men. For something with this serious nature, Saltzman would agree that undercover reporting to uncover these terrible crimes would be justified. In my opinion something of this heinous nature needs to be exposed and stopped. Ethics is thrown out the window the second this type of acts occurs. To me it doesn't matter how the information is obtained, as long as these actions are stopped.
Throughout the reading, Joe Saltzman continuously gives readers the impression that undercover journalism and deception are acceptable when the ends justify the means. He also discusses how undercover journalism and deception can be unethical however can be appropriate when used to bring to light stories that are important to the public welfare that could not be unearthed or reported in any other manner. It is evident that Saltzman believes that undercover journalism and deception are appropriate forms of journalism in certain instances and I thoroughly believe that he would agree that the instance described in “Did Spokane paper act properly?” deserved undercover and deceptive journalism practices.
In attempting to reveal the Mayors sexual promiscuity with boys and young men as well as the possibility that the Mayor may have been abusing his power The Spokane Spokesman-Review employed journalistic tactics, such as undercover and deceptive journalism, that some believe to be unethical. I believe that since the newspaper acknowledged that all other alternatives had been exhausted as well as the fact that top editors at the newspaper had conducted “the Poynter Institute’s six-point checklist for ethical decisions” Saltzman would approve of the reporting methods described in the article. It is evident that the newspaper did all in their power to ascertain whether what they were doing was journalistically-ethical. Even though Saltzman states that deception in journalism can be bad he also states that deception can be acceptable when used for stories that are important to the public’s welfare such as this story, and I believe that Saltzman would agree with me on that point.
While its obviously hard to know exactly what Saltzman would say, I think he wouldn’t be onboard with this investigation – for the most part. If there was one problem with the entire scenario, I would have to say it would be the money involved. Saltzman would probably argue that the fact that the paper hired an outside specialist, and probably paid a pretty large sum of money, was slightly unethical. Essentially, they were paying to bring down a public official, and if they were willing to pay that sort of money, they must have known that there was an extremely good chance that the Mayor was going to cross the line. So if they had known that, why didn’t they just do research into the past, instead of setting up the future.
Just because it’s incredibly easy to create an alias on the internet doesn’t mean its an ethical means of reporting. And just because the Mayor should know that the internet has basically free-flow of information, doesn’t mean its okay to use trickery. Deception is deception is deception is deception. Newspapers shouldn’t be in the business of creating news, they should be in the business of reporting it. A world in which everyone is setting up traps for everyone else isn’t one I want to live in. It’s an almost Orwellian concept.
Now I’m sure others will say that it was in the interest of the public. We always talk about whether the end justifies the means, and this is sure as hell some ending. But it’s just way too easy to look over the means here. Holy shit, he does that with young boys? Take him down by any means! That is definitely in the public interest. And because of that great end, we assume that there was only one way of getting it. I think there were alternatives that could have been used, but the method of going undercover made for a better story, and created the same general end. Saltzman agreed that going undercover was acceptable in the interest of the general public, but he insisted on it as a last resort.
And no, I’m not sympathizing with a child molester. But take the high road, Spokane Spokesman (lame name). Don’t fight lying with lying.
After reading Saltzman's take on undercover journalism, I would have to say that he would not likely approve of the methods described in the article.
There has been much debate over whether the Spokane-Spokesman Review's practices of hiring an investigator to pose online as an under-aged boy is "Gotchya" journalism, and I believe Saltzman would likely point out that having someone pose as someone else is not entirely ethical in a journalistic sense.
Specifically, the Spokane paper could have done this for an attempt to sell papers and I would question if "every availiable option" has been exhausted before restorting to a "To Catch A Predetor"-like manner of reporting.
Saltzman says that journalists need to ask them selves if the ends justify the means when making the ethical decision to use deception for a story or not. It seems to me that the story is not important enough to the public welfare to justify the trap-like setup the journalist used.
While Saltzman is certainly a proponent of undercover journalism and would not be opposed to a story that is for the greater public knowledge, I believe the fact that the paper hired an outside person to be part of the investigation is what makes the whole situation off.
A journalist prides themselves at being the honest and objective link between the public and the news that happens. Hiring an outside person to entrap a public official should not be the way to find out this information.
If the mayor had a 25-year history of abusing his position to develop sexual relationships with young males then I'm sure a determined journalist could have found another way to break this story. Finding someone who has supposedly been in a situation with the mayor is not impossible and a story could break without the use of deception.
I believe that Joe Saltzman would be an advocate of The Spokane newspaper's article on Mayor Jim West. Saltzman is supportive of under-cover journalism that is conducted properly and has the public's interest as it's main concern.
According to the Society of Professional Journalist's guideline for "deciding when deception by a journalist is justified" the article on Mayor Jim West meets all the standards.
The mayor allegedly had a "25-year history of using positions of public trust to develop sexual relationships with young boys." Therefore, not only is this story of vital public interest, it involves wrong-doing by a high level politician, and profound harm to individuals, or in this case young boys.
When the article was released, the Spokane newspaper disclosed the "nature of the deception and the reason for it."
The newspaper also exhibited "time and funding" by hiring a forensic computer expert who had experience in the field. Spokane could have easily had a journalist talk to the mayor but they sought someone who was qualified to do so.
Furthermore the prevention of the sexual abuse of young boys far outweighs the privacy of a crooked mayor. So in this case, yes "deception outweighs the harm caused by the act of deception."
Lastly, the journalist involved debated at great length whether or not to publish the article, and referred to an "ethical checklist."
In the end they decide that to publish the story on West and Review-editor Steve Smith is "at peace" with their decision. I think that Joe Saltzman would agree that though the subject is debatable, they did in fact make the right choice.
After reading the chapter, “Deception and Undercover Journalism” it was kind of hard to understand exactly where Joe Saltzman draws the line on when undercover journalism is admirable and then when it is just unnecessary deceit. Generally it seemed that it all depended on the situation of what was being reported on and how important the information was to the safety and benefit of the public at large. In addition it also mattered how the actual deceit took place whether it was simply asking questions without the appearance of a journalist interview, or actually assuming a completely different identity and blatantly lying to everyone around them.
Basically there are two things to examine in the case of the Spokane Mayor Sex Scandal, which are why they saw the information to be some important in the first place and then how did they go about their investigation.
What they uncovered is that Mayor Jim West of Spokane, attempted bribing a 17 year old boy with the promise of an internship in the exchange of sexual favors. Now as a person of power in office this speaks multiple levels of the mayor's personality and disregard for the law. First of all he wished to engage in sexual relations with someone who was seventeen years old while he himself was way over that age. This in itself is an illegal action under the name of statutory rape. Next, in exchange for the sexual favors Mayor Jim West promised the seventeen year old that he would set him up with an internship at City Hall. This unique internship opportunity would most likely not be easy to come by in terms of any applicant especially under the age of eighteen. In addition to not everyone would be able to set up such an internship even as a friendly favor. It would be one thing if the mayor were doing a favor to this seventeen year old boy, but what he asks for in return is bribery in basically the form of prostitution. It's a pretty safe bet that anyone who would participate in such activities should not be left alone to do so, in addition should absolutely not be in office. Mayor Jim West has a position of power that was trusted to him by all of the voters of Spokane, and his abuse of it says enough about his character to the point where he should no longer have that power. If he would go as far as do something as use bribe an underage boy for sex whose to say what other disregards he may have for abusing his position of power. For these reasons I do believe that the Mayor's actions should be known to the public at large and ultimately would fall under the category of news that justifies the right of a journalist to go undercover and expose him and his actions.
Joe Saltzman it seems to me would be somewhat divided on the issue. However i think he would lean more on the side of the Spokane newspaper due to the grossness of the mayor's conduct and the general good that was achieved by such under-cover actions. Also that fact that an actual expert was used - despite being hired by the paper thus rendering it the sole responsibility of the said paper - does make it more 'acceptable'. Who knows what the police would have done with such allegations given that most police departments are controled and answers to the mayor and his office. A cover-up would be quite possible.
I think that the paper acted well. Dark deeds deserves and calls for drastic actions.Politicians are usually the ones that pass laws against such unlawful and immoral behavior and they too usually create the loop-holes in the laws to save their own necks and that of their colleaques.
Joe Saltzman would have both approved and not approved the way they handled exposing the mayor and the accusations against molesting underage boys. The journalist had stated that he had not been able to obtain the information any other way and that this was the best way to prove the mayors guilt. At one point he states that, “When the information obtained is of profound importance, it must be of vital public interest, such as revealing a great “system failure” at the top levels, or it must prevent profound harm to individuals.” The accusations about the mayor are of vital importance. He had a serious issue by using his current state of power to engage in relationships with boys and some had come forward and said that they were wronged. However the reporter could have handled the situation differently. They could have contacted the police and had someone who had the authority to “trick” the mayor into revealing his true self within the IM’s. On the other hand, he states one of the rules in which the SPJ do not approve of going after a story. This includes going undercover just because a person seems unethical. There were other ways, in my opinion, the reporter could have gained access to information without posing as something he was not.
I believe Saltzman ultimately would approve of the methods used by the Spokane Spokesman Review, though it seems his opinion would hinge on how important the revelations the Spokane paper's undercover tactics were in his mind. Although Saltzman points out that deceptive reporting - especially reporting that uses "active deception" - toes a thin line in regards to ethics, he also seems to adhere to the "if the ends justify the means" theory. As Saltzman says "some of the best investigative reporters in the history of journalism went undercover for the best of reasons - to inform the public about wrongdoings by business or government."
The real question is identified on page 70 of the text when Saltzman says "there should be, however, a place for undercover journalism in situations where the story is of importance to the public welfare". Whether or not exposing the mayor's questionable sexual conduct is of significant enough importance to justify the tactics used seems to be what the main issue is. I believe, because the mayor seems to have been using his position to persuade potentially young and naive boys into sexual activities, Saltzman would ultimately approve of the tactics used, but at the same time, I'm not sure the issue is of significance to the public's welfare on a larger scale. There's no doubt the mayor's behavior was immoral, and if going undercover was the best means of exposing it, than I have to believe Saltzman would approve (and so should we, as a public), but I also wonder if Saltzman might feel that undercover journalism is best reserved for cases of more severe public significance such as large-scale government corruption.
dey, i think the answer lies in that quote from Hillel we discussed last week -- that is, the institution of journalism (or PR or politics) may be pretty rotten, but the individual journalist (or PR practitioner) doesn't have to be. Of course, it takes courage to pursue such an option, and courage isn't exactly in great supply.
Post a Comment