Is a journalist ever justified to not seek and report the truth? How about PR professionals? Are either ever entitled to distort or lie - to deliberately skimp on the truth - by virtue of their jobs? Why or why not? In addition to Ehrlich's chapter in the text on Shattered Glass, please consult the links below.
Your response is due Monday, Sept. 9, by 4 p.m. No exceptions.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/03/21/mike_daisey_david_sedaris_david_foster_wallace_and_other_storytellers_who_can_make_stuff_up_.html?wpisrc=twitter_socialflow
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/jonah-lehrer-resigns-from-new-yorker-after-making-up-dylan-quotes-for-his-book/?hp
Teaching Notes
You must become the flame on the candle. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
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.
26 comments:
Weird sidenote to begin the post: the visual guide used a picture of David Foster Wallace smiling, which is really weird to see.
Onward: Leading with the case of Jonah Lehrer is problematic. Outside of Stephen Glass (who I think Lehrer should team up to write novels with), there has never been a more scandalous, almost hilarious example of journalistic bullspit. I mean, 'Imagine' was supposed to be the guy's redemption song, the thing that was going to prove to the reading public that he wasn't the Jose Canseco of modern investigatory literature. He had already, and fantastically, screwed up, been called out, marked, hung out to dry, and weaseled his way back into high-media press-box. And he blew it in the first couple thousand words. I hate to come back to baseball, but you know the phrase 'pick your spots?' If you've really, really got to fib - if Bob Dylan, a guy who has in some way probably said something about everything, can't give you a serviceable quote - at least set a low, low number of lies to tell and sprinkle them very coyly throughout the book.
We should never lie as journalists. I guess wiggle room should be afforded to those who take notes on pen and paper. They can't always get every quote perfect. But signing up for this gig comes along with some responsibilities, and not lying is one of them. If we're writing editorially, sure, a couple sins of omission to help your case aren't going to kill you, but if we're journalists, the onus is on us to keep our shit straight. And maybe, like, 5% of us hypercompetitive digital age, where there's more reporters than news, will understand that as scripture, maybe 15%. Which is really, really sad.
Note: This is in response to the New York Times article, "What Life Asks of Us," in lieu of the truth post.
I've often thought about how the profession a person chooses is tied to personality. I'll take journalism as an example, since I am a j-major. For many, journalism is a lifestyle, a life dedicating yourself to working late nights, of committing to the truth and fair coverage for everyone.
In some professions, this can be restricting. These institutional expectations can set you up for a boring life of rigidity (my accounting friends) or for a path you may not be cut out for. But to have the honor, too, of following those before you, of emulating great work, is a thing to be proud of.
I'm all for a liberal arts education, for individuality and a breadth of topics I can sink my teeth into. I think it balances the institutional qualities of traditional jobs and gives one the perspective needed to view a limited range of tasks (your job) with a limitless set of possibilities and opportunities to excel.
I can’t think of a situation as a journalist in which the truth should not be sought and reported. Deliberately skimping on the truth, distorting the facts, and/or blatantly lying would all be unethical and counter to a journalist’s first obligation—the truth. The reading affirms that journalism “is a ‘discipline of verification’ grounded in confirmed fact rather than emotion of hearsay.” “Seek Truth and Report It” is also the first principle of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.
The reasons for skimping on the truth always seem to come down to personal gain. In our current media system (that is set up to maximize profits, not create good journalism), the juicy, fabricated stories seem to draw the reader’s attention. This potential for economic success and career advancement attracts rising journalists. Many journalists (and other media producers) are called out for their lies (as in the Slate article). However, most of these media producers who fabricate the truth (even the journalists) are still successful and experience critical acclaim. This raises serious questions regarding the value of truth in American media. Usually a title indicates a certain public expectation for the validity of truth. Journalists are supposed to be held much more accountable for the truth (than, say, a song-writer) than they currently are in society. This “skimping” on the truth has costly ramifications on the media and society’s view of the media, including journalism.
I don't think that journalist ever have a right to not seek and report the whole truth as it is. It is the journalists' responsibility to inform the people as accurately as possible about anything that they chose to report. It is not acceptable for a journalist to withhold information for any reason even if it is to protect the company that they are reporting on.
On the other hand, a PR representative has one main goal when a company hires them. To make their company look good. While it would not be a good idea to lie about what a company is doing. It would be wise to leave out the information that would bring the company negative publicity. It is the journalists' job to seek the truth and inform the public where it is the PR representative's job to make the company look good.
The articles provided gave good insight on how it is not acceptable for a journalist to lie about anything in any way, even quotes. One article even goes on to say that if you make stuff up as a journalist you are considered a liar and makes a joke saying you won't even be allowed to be a lawyer. While this may be a joke, it still signifies the severity of lying as a journalist. It is something that should never be an option.
I don’t think there is ever a situation where a journalist could be justified to not seek and report the truth. The quest of a journalist is to seek the truth. Therefore, not doing so, in any shape or form, is unethical and dishonoring to the practice. In the reading, Kovach and Rosenstiel describe journalism as a “discipline of verification.” With regard to libertarianism, the first amendment states the press should present “truthful, comprehensive, and intelligent” news in a meaningful way.
In addition, I think PR professionals never should deliberately skimp on the truth and should be held to ethical guidelines, even though that may interfere with making a company look good. In fact the Public Relations Society of America explains on their website that “we adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing the interests of those we represent and in communicating with the public.”
I definitely agree that more often than not journalists and PR professionals get away with not adhering to said standards of ethics, but that doesn’t mean others should not strive to better entering the profession. Although the 24 hour news cycle and star quality of some journalists adds to the overlooking of the common good, I believe there is no excuse to not seek the truth, especially if it is in your job description.
In response to the New York Times Article, "What Life Asks of Us," I agree with Brooks in terms of the significance of institutional guidelines in a profession or craft. It is those who put their whole selves into their professions who get remembered. Though a liberal arts education is beneficial in that it promotes uniqueness of thought that can set a worker apart from others in his or her field, it does not necessarily breed professionals. A professional who comes from a liberal arts college must learn the in and outs of a particular discipline, generally his or her major, while being exposed to many disciplines. As students in a liberal arts college, we are often spread too thin, and must make a conscious effort to focus in on a particular field to avoid a watered-down education.
Those who choose to become a professional must jump through hoops to learn the profession's in an outs, and accept full responsibility for the work that they do. With that said, I do not think journalists can justifiably skimp on the truth, or fail to seek the truth, because that would break the profession's Code of Ethics and defeat journalism's main purpose. Since PR professionals are hired to be advocates, they often omit negative details or change phrasings to put their client in a more positive light. What's most important for a PR professional is to assume full responsibility for what has or has not been said. PR teaches ongoing communication and honesty, and the professionals who do not keep those habits often set themselves up for a PR disaster. For example, Exxon will now forever be used as an example of what not to do in PR as a result of poor crisis communication in the midst of their oil spill.
A journalist can fail at his or her job by omitting even one small piece of confirmed information, and a PR professional can fail at his or her job by not publicly responding to an issue immediately. Professional duties go beyond truth telling.
I have been confused about what we were supposed to get out of these articles since I read them, but I guess it's a bit more complicated than just who gets to lie. Mostly because, there isn't a clear cut answer to that question. Ethically, no one gets to lie unless it's for a greater good, or at least in my own idea of ethics. Why then, in a fairly civilized society would we persecute this crime so differently from case to case in journalism? Is there less at risk? I think the chart of liars illustrated that sometimes the less you are taken seriously, the less your lies are taken seriously and therefore your lies are better, or at least less bad, than the others. Louis CK lying about his private life did not effect the volume of opinions that Lehrer's misquotations did. Or did it? Louis CK has a HUGE circulation of fans. Who is to say that Louis lying about his life to millions is less damaging that misquoting Dylan in a novel? Frankly, I'm confused. I think part of the reason I want to go into PR is because I don't think bending the truth is such a bad thing, but I do think that slanderous lying is wrong. In the case of Louis CK, i don't think you can be slanderous against yourself. If Louis does tell lies about his life it's certainly not positive and considering his self-slander has made millions watch him, I'd say it's not hurting his reputation or career. However, for Leher, he was being slanderous against someone else, and that, to me, is inexcusable. If he had re-arranged the clauses of a sentence or something, I don't think I would have cared that much, but with no regard for the truth or respect for his subject, I think what he did was more of a crime than he was punished for. It's weird how little we do to people that lie and yet we treat truth tellers as enemies of the state. Maybe I shouldn't go into PR... I'd just be angry at people all the time for being liars.
I don't think any communications professional (journalist or PR) should ever lie to the public. The whole basis of journalism is to inform the public of the truths they may not know. However, the book makes a good point that I feel people forget about. Journalism is a job, meant to make money. It is also a field where fame and wealth can come if you publish enough captivating stories. With this being said, we go back to a classic case of competition and wanting to be the best and at the top of your field.
Has much as we can sit and point fingers at the big bad journalist who lied, such as Stephen Glass or Jonah Lehrer, we must look at them as young men trying to make a name for themselves in a difficult field. "... journalism industry" that "catapults reporters into the big leagues before they have learned the fundamentals of their craft" (pg24). Jonah Lehrer making up Bob Dylan quotes isn't quite as bad as all the lies told by Stephen Glass. However both men clearly had the same goal as most young professionals, to be respected and admired in their career and sometimes by any means necessary. It seems that Glass had deeper issues than just lying, going as far as making up fake websites to cover up his fake stories. The American Journalism Review sums up the pressures faced by journalists, "a 24 hour, multi-media news world of rampant downsizing" that "pushes reporters to dig up scoops and attention getting stories, write it all like the great American novel, and do it faster than seems humanly possible."
In my opinion I feel that journalists or PR professionals should not be justified to not seek and report the truth. As it is said in Ehrlich's chapter the first principle of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics is to "seek truth and report it." When it comes to reporting it is an obligation of a journalist to report the news and to ensure that all of their facts are accurate and never plagiarized. It is crazy to me that Jonah Lehrer wrote a highly sold Non-Fiction book and he made up most of the quotes are stole them from other resources. It was right for him to resign from The New Yorker. I personally believe that he did not fulfill his rights as a journalist. The only room for mistakes in a news story is if new information comes out right after your story is published and your news is old. Facts change as news spreads but misquoting someone or intentionally lying in an article is never justifiable. Society is going to question journalist's credibility more and more if falsified news is continued to be printed.
In Response to the New York Times article "What Life Asks of Us", I really felt that David Brooks was especially spot-on in stating that the rules and customs that we pick up within various institutions ultimately define us as people. Whether it was in high school marching band or at home with my parents, the rules that I worked under and the the values that were imparted to me (especially by my parents)ultimately shaped who I am as a person, and who I may eventually be.
What I'm not so sure about is if the entirety of the point Brooks made applies to the craft of journalism. While I do agree that the code of ethics that peers impart upon reporters on how to respect the craft, their sources, and do things the right way is the beginning, middle and end of every journalism entity worth its salt, I don't necessarily believe that a young reporter is beholden to uphold the legacy of each and every one of his peers, as if every one who has ever picked up a pen, sat at a typewriter or tweeted in the interest of reporting the news was sitting in the room with him, peering suspiciously at his work as he writes. It's especially problematic when one considers that not all journalists, from the days of the New York Globe up until the age of Twitter, have been on the ethical straight-and-narrow when it comes to the craft of their job. It might be too much for an up-and-comer to handle, writing for the journalism peanut gallery, as I'll call it, instead of being the best damn reporter they can be.
When it comes to the institution of journalism, I feel it's important to know which codes to follow, and which to disregard. Whatever helps a journalist to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, is a good place to start following.
As a college student in the Public Relations major one of the first things that we were taught was to NEVER LIE. This statement is true for all journalists. It is their job to seek truth and report it. It actually still shocks me that some journalists today believe that they can get away with lying. David Brooks wrote that institutions "...often save us from our weaknesses and give meaning to life." It is vital for all journalists to follow their institutions rules because journalists represent a company bigger than them, and represent a public that journalists are be devoted to. Stephen Glass and Jonah Lehrer both thought that it was ok to lie, and did so several times. Lehrer even went so far as to make up platforms with false information that looked like resources to where he found some of his information. It still shocks me that some journalists are caught lying.
As for PR professionals, they should follow similar guidelines. Perhaps someone in PR might not want to display types of information, (for instance of a publicist who has a client who is in the public eye struggling with a drug problem who was seeking help),but those instances are slim. In both professions it is so important to be honest.
Lastly, journalist need to be completely honest because they have a responsibility that is bigger than themselves. The public needs journalists to report the truth because it is journalists we all look to when we need information on government, finances, war, the environment, and almost everything else in our world that we don't understand or need to know about. David Brooks explains in his article "What Life Asks of US" that institutions "...often save us from our weaknesses and give meaning to life." This is not only true for the journalists working but for the greater public that rely on them.
Sure, there are situations where the information you choose to report is filtered based on importance and out of respect to certain parties (ex: certain things can and should be removed from print to avoid further victimizing afflicted persons), but deliberate fabrication of information or omission of an entire voice in a conversation is irresponsible and unethical.
PR professionals are in the business of making their clients look good and respectable, even if they are not. Omitting certain details, denying access to certain questions and running “damage control” are all part of their craft. I think the nature of their job requires them to shine light on the appealing parts of their clients and work to outshine the ugly parts.
I would say that the journalist’s fundamental job is to “seek and report truth.” Should they stop providing that service, they’re no longer creating works of journalism and should not still be classified using that term. That’s fairly easy to deal with, in terms of words, but I think the idea is that to be an ethical journalist practicing that particular craft, it’s imperative that you are working toward delivering truth. If that is not your goal, you’re doing something other than journalism.
So, examples like Wallace’s “A Supposedly Fun Thing…” essay, I wouldn’t say it’s journalism. Ethically, fabricating dialogue is not an okay thing to do. However, Wallace, as a novelist and essayist, doesn’t lose all integrity in my eyes the way journalists who completely fabricate stories, stage photos or telling outright lies would. Considering the dialogue was the not the backbone of the piece, it’s a disappointing thing, but not the end of the world.
Although it's a common practice, distorting the truth (or just straight making it up) is never justified as a journalist.
When I need some guidance in the primary goals and principles of Journalism, I go to the shared Statement of Purpose designed by the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ). The first principle stated is that a journalist's first obligation is to the truth. And I wholeheartedly agree. What the fuck are we doing here if it isn't telling the truth? What good is news to the public if it isn't truthful?! It seems so simple to me.
I understand monetary issues, and the need for the almighty dollar. But as journalists, we gave up our dreams on big bills and BMW's. Pretty much, if someone in the journalistic field is balling out that much, they've done something unethical.
A PR flack and a Journo can't be held to the same standards, because they are both playing for different teams. The line between ethics for a PR flack is a bit thicker than that of a journalist's. It's kind of like trying to hold Luke to the same moral standards as Darth Vader.
You ask if it is condoned through the nature of their jobs, which is often is. A person like Perez Hilton will happily run a story full of falsities if he knows that the number of magazines sold will still hold profit over the losses his publication will have to pay after being sued for defamation, or whatever the case may be. Through the nature of their jobs, it is definitely condoned. But is it justified? I think not.
There are so many answers to this question, all of them leading back to "you really shouldn't, you know?" But the more and more I think about truth and truthiness and everything that lies between, the more I think of situations where lying might not be a bad thing.
Now, here in middle class, 21st Century America there's little leeway for it. When I read of Stephen Glass' and Jonah Lehrer's fabrications I couldn't see what gain they would shoot for. The journalist works for the people, talks to the people, and empowers the people. Glass and Lehrer didn't seem to have the people on their minds.
But what if a person lied to the people to help them? To pull them from a brainwashed society, or topple a corrupt god-king? When we think of our country, was that not what the forefathers did to spur the colonies into action? Paul Revere grossly exaggerated the Boston Massacre, but we don't complain about that. That's because Revere exaggerated it for the people to see, not for personal notice (I'd hope.) Sometimes lying and exaggeration can be helpful, if it brings to light something that can't be told outright, or could be dismissed otherwise.
Truth and Lie are polar opposites; you can't have one without the other. In most cases, truth is absolute, as it should be. But there are some cases where lying can be used to bring about much needed change, or even save people. But the latter only occurs when the lie is done for the people, not the liar.
I truly appreciated the NYT article as it renders very true in regards to the post-graduation professional and adult life. I had the pleasure of taking Argumentation last semester, and the Professor was very passionate and adamant in the fact that he did not want us to view his course as 1.5 hours/week spent on learning terms, theories or textbooks – but in how to think, solve problems, and grow our minds into creative and active participants for our lives ahead. I never had thought about my Bachelor’s degree, or my education, in those terms before I had this Professor. Thinking about my time spent in his classroom, along with this week’s article; prove to me how very true it is. The goal in life should not be the grades we received, the amount of large words and theories we learned, or the books we read to prepare us for our careers and life, but more so, the way of thinking: in an honest, respectful and conscientious manner. As we are learning now in our Ethics course, this is vastly more important in the grand scheme of performing in the professional world, and navigating ourselves in a world that is heavily swayed by money, success or other personal gains over doing the correct thing. Obviously this is a lesson we can use towards not only journalism or public relations careers, but all careers and life in general.
In response to the question over whether or not it is ever justified to distort or lie, I would say that there is a professional responsibility to be held to an honest standard due to the effect and trust placed by the public. However, I believe it becomes a gray area in terms of “skimping” on the truth. As we discussed in class on Tuesday, possibly there are some details that are solely “want” to know, as opposed to “need to know.” Should these details be shared if not necessary? Sometimes, I don’t think the public has a necessity to know absolutely everything, and it is up to the journalist to have discretion in regards to what is placed in the media. While individuals such as Jonah Lehrer did something that was outright unprofessional and misleading, which was extremely inappropriate, I don’t think his offense should be compared or is comparable to a journalist who may withhold specific information, not unless we judge what the thought process was that lead that individual to think there was good reason to do so.
A journalist should always be seeking truth as close to the Platonic Ideal as possible. Seeking is one thing, reporting is another. There are often times that reporting the truth could harm others. This harkens back to the right/need/want to know. There are somethings that, while true, are not needed to know.
There is a whole other distinction that must be made as well. There is not being truthful and there is deliberately distorting the truth. I feel that this is where the line is drawn between journalists and PR workers. Most often, errors in journalism are errors of understanding that are later corrected. In PR, the truth is obfuscated, often to the benefit of the company or group employing the PR workers.
On a more general note, I do not see how a journalist can ever justify a lie if he or she commits one. As a journalist, I think it is his or her duty to report the truth as accurate as he or she can tell it. Matthew Ehrlich made an interesting point in his article by stating that "human existence is impossible without an overriding commitment" to the truth (p.21). What I believe he was trying to say was that being truthful is crucial towards appealing to the mass media. Once a journalist or other media outlet plagiarizes or lies to the public, he or she loses credibility. Look at Stephen Glass and Jonah Lehrer. Glass lost his job at The New Republic because he took headliner stories, like the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, and wrote lies about the actual event. Lehrer resigned from the New Yorker for making up Bob Dylan quotes for his new book. Surely since they moved away from the truth, figures like these two are not as highly accredited for their work.
When I first read the question we had to answer, my immediate response was, no. As we discussed in class, journalists' main job is to seek the truth and present it to the best of their ability. Same goes with PR professionals, sure they're not the same as a journalist, but that doesn't give them a reason to not tell the truth. If a journalist decides to distort their story leading up to lying, then they shouldn't even be a journalist to begin with.
While reading the Lehrer article I just kept asking myself, why? Why would you even consider making up things when you know what you're supposed to be doing. I guess some journalists might want to deliver a better story and sure it could very well do that but you'll also end up without a job. Lehrer should have just been honest with his editor/staff if he wasn't able to deliver the story as truthful as it could have been.
Now for the piece about who gets to distort the truth, I could understand how some people with other jobs such as a journalist or PR professional can get some leeway. For example, a fantasy writer doesn't have to deliver the same job as a journalist. Their job is to write about, well fantasy, something that is unreal but that maybe we'd like it to be real. In that sense, I can see how their job or title can decided whether they lie or not.
However, to answer the questions plain and simple, NO, a journalist or PR professional should NEVER distort or lie! That is not their job, their job is to seek the truth and report it.
I do not believe that it is ever acceptable for a journalist to lie or withhold information because their primary job is to inform the public with knowledge. Journalists are held to a certain standard to truthfully report news that we the public need to be informed on. When I read a newspaper, article or watch the news I am not expecting the reporters or journalists to give me false information because I am trusting in them to do their job correctly. When a journalists or reporter gives false news their credibility is immediately out the door in my opinion and I can imagine the same goes for a lot of other people.
PR professionals should not lie as well or give the public false information but the line is drawn differently in terms of what is lying compared to a journalist. The public is not necessarily looking to PR professionals to report news on war or things related to that. A PR professionals job is to make a certain person, brand or company look the best that they can, so withholding information from the public that does not necessarily affect the public would not be harmful.
Ethically is never right to lie or give false information but you cannot compare certain lies or reasons in different professions. The article "Can I Make This Stuff Up" shows how lying is a big no for a journalist but for a fantasy writer it is okay because it plays on the audience they are trying to target. When I read Harry Potter I am not expecting to be told the truth, but when I read a newspaper I am looking for the truth. There are different situations when it is okay to lie to the public and there are situations when it is not okay. As a reader or viewer you have to be aware that people do lie and you should not be so gullible to be believe everything you see and hear. That is something we are told from young. Everything we hear and read we should be advised that it might not always be true.
I think that journalists are never justified to not seek and report the truth. It is a journalist's job to inform their readers about the events taking place in society truthfully. A story should not be embellished or dramatized, it should be told as accurate as possible. I think that any journalist who has the nerve to try to pose lies as the truth does not fully accept the responsibility of their position and does not realize the amount of trust the public has in them while reading their stories. I believe this is true of Jonah Lehrer, who made up quotes for his non fiction book. Lehrer was quoted stating that he "understands the gravity of his position" after the truth was found out, but I think if he fully grasped the importance of being honest in his writing he would have never done that in the first place.
Journalists should always strive to be as truthful as possible to their readers. Readers who are reading journalism or any writing that is claimed to be non fiction should not have to pause at the end and wonder just how true the piece is.
The question of who can make things up and when is the basis for the first article. I found it humorous but also generally true. If you consider yourself a journalist then by nature you shouldn’t tell untruths. However, I don’t know if that is really how things happen in the world. Most journalists I read have some sort of bias in their writing. If that bias is written purposefully or not may not be important, because in my experience it is nearly always there. And how can it not be? When people write their voice comes out, and if you are any sort of real human, your voice should have the tendency to dictate meaning and evoke feelings in your words. I’m not saying this is a good thing in all cases like for instance reporters putting out a political agenda in favor of one candidate because they are being bribed or whatever the case may be. I am saying though that for the most part I think that writers should have a voice and shouldn’t sound like a textbook. That being said in the case of Jonah Lehrer that wasn’t him having his own voice it was just him fabricating quotes and of all people to misquote it was Bob Dylan so he should have seen that coming.
Ethically speaking a journalist or PR Professional is never justified to not seek and report the truth. We have all grown up with the idea that it is the social responsibility of individuals in these professions to always tell the truth. That if they lapse in judgement, their careers will be ruined. This is because journalist and PR professionals are opinion leaders, they give us material through outlets that allow us to believe these topics should be addressed. This is clearly not the case. The most high profile liars, have simply got a public shaming and diversion of their careers. Some have even profited from being caught.
In the case of Glass, Kelley and Lane have been depicted as heroes for ‘defending their honorable profession’. In my opinion, Kelley and Lane are just as guilty as Glass for their ethical lapse. It is the responsibility of editors to ensure publications are factual. Glass’ articles were pure FICTION. It is the responsibility of both professions to seek, report, and ensure the truth. PR professionals have a worse reputation in terms of ethics, compared to journalist. It seems as if society always crucifies journalists who lie, and accept PR professionals lie. Both professions hold a code of ethics based on honesty and integrity. I think it is important to realize that journalist and PR professionals are profiting from their work. From my point of view, failing to check the truth is equally horrendous as making up a lie and portraying it as ‘truth’.
On another note I thought the article, Can I Make Stuff Up raised an important question in terms of women. I think the female storytellers in the limelight are typically pretty broadcasters. I think it would be interesting to see if women have made up stories in order to ‘get a leg up’. This is a hard question to answer because this ‘“lack” of female “fact fudging” is a multidimensional question. Personally I feel this article didn't do that issue justice. I thought it was a sexist and insensitive point of view. To just grace upon the position of women in the profession is suggesting a few poor ideas: are women not in the limelight simply because they're women? Are women not liars, because they're simply women? The truth is an ethical lapse is wrong, and the sex of a person has nothing to do with it. This article chose men.
It's not ever acceptable for a journalist to not seek the truth. If a journalist reports the news, it should be a given that the story is factual. What's the point if journalists aren't held to that standard? Telling the truth and getting all the details correct is what sets journalists apart from those who write or communicate under a different title (public relations coordinator, novelist, etc.) People should be able to go to the news, and expect to hear the truth. It's a problem if we can't depend on journalists for the truth, because there are so many lies everywhere else. Granted, i don't care that comedians or playwrights, or my friend indulge in a few lies when telling a story. I know they're doing it to make a story that's based in truth a little bit funnier, or captivating. And that's fine. I don't care. I work under the assumption that sometimes people tend to be a little liberal with their facts, in plenty of settings. But journalism is the place i can go (at least i should be able to) to sort through everything, where i know i'm reading fact.
Post a Comment