In your opinion would Joe Saltzman approve or disapprove of the reporting methods Eric Lipton used? Explain why or why not. Your response is due Monday, Feb. 17, by midnight.
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/when-a-reporter-is-an-uninvited-guest/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
http://dlib.nyu.edu/undercover/
Teaching Notes
You must become the flame on the candle. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Sunday, February 9, 2014
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.
27 comments:
Joe Saltzman believed that undercover journalism should only be justified if the deception benefited the people's welfare. If journalists just use undercover journalism only for the purpose to expose the wicked without any other deeper motives, than how is that ethical?
At first, I believe that Eric Lipton wasn't following his own words. He writes about ethics, but was ready to throw it all out of the window for a story. I think when it comes to politicians, no matter what ethics reporters follow, it's suddenly forgotten because politicians are so mysterious. Politicians are use to dealing with the press on a daily basis. So when reporters go undercover they want to find out more information and that's what Lipton was trying to achieve.However, I think Eric Lipton figured out that although he might have eavesdropped, he realized that he couldn't keep pushing for information. His cover was blown and he left without another thought.
When reading Saltzman, I realize that not many journalists are like Lipton. Undercover journalists are ready to push through until they get what they want. If they have to step on people along the way they will do whatever it takes. I believe Saltzman would have applaud Lipton in some way. Lipton was merely trying to get information for the people. If Baucus was going to use money towards his campaigns, the people needed to know where their money was really going. Although Lipton was caught, he didn't push further like other reporters do when it comes to asylums or gang affiliations or anything that can cause them danger.
Joe Saltzman mainly weighs in on the circumstances when he feels undercover journalism is acceptable. Overall, I noticed a trend of straying away from this tactic in the reading. Saltzman describes it as essentially against the Journalistic value of truth. Although one is seeking the truth, they are going about it in a deceitful and contradicting manner with regard to the code of ethics. That being said, Saltzman also mentions the many factors that make the undercover element “justify the ends as a means.”
When the outcome of revealing the story is going to help the common good and reveal issues at a higher level within society, it seems a necessity. Saltzman describes reporters who’ve uncovered the wrong in these situations as heroes. The issues at hand were hidden and needed to be surfaced. Another deciding factor that Saltzman describes is the reporter’s motive. It goes without saying that selfish motive like money and fame are unethical reasons to deceit a source.
Saltzman describes three forms of undercover reporting: active deception, passive deception and masquerading. With the mentioned Eric Lipton case study, Lipton can be identified as passively deceiving the lobbyists at the meeting. His actions were legal and when asked his identity he told the truth.
Although Lipton did not necessarily deceive in the most blunt form (in comparison to the other two situations Saltzman describes), his story doesn’t seem of much significance. For a reporter who writes about ethics, it didn’t seem that his ethical insight weighed much concern to him with this story.
The way in which lobbyists conduct themselves amongst politicians is something that seems self-explanatory, in my opinion. Lipton deceived his sources for a story that doesn’t seem to have much of an effect. The quote that is mentioned:
“It allows us to scare off opponents,” Mr. Wilkins told the group, which included former Baucus aides turned lobbyists, at a Capitol Hill townhouse owned by Federal Express. “It is the basis of everything that we do. So thank you for your support and everything you have done for Senator Baucus.”
I don’t see the motivation for this story as fitting any of the factors that Saltzman would consider acceptable. Despite the fact that Lipton did not choose to go about his undercover reporting in the most deceitful form, I don’t think Saltzman would approve of his actions. Here, it seems Lipton has only succeeded in adding support against compliance with reporters. He has added to a perception of distrust.
Joe Saltzman admits that some of the best reporting’s have come from investigative reporters. While reading the chapter I couldn't help but feel that investigative reporting is totally necessary and despite having an ethical issue it feels kind of right. There were a couple examples given about certain reporters who have gone under cover representing the masquerading deception form that despite being ethically wrong allowed for many issues in the dark to be brought to light; going under cover to report 15 hour work days, horrible conditions in insane asylums, bad conduct of employees in hospitals etc. These types of issues should be known by the people because they affect us in some way. I think that even though the reporters lied the ends definitely justified the means. The people who are coordinating these terrible acts don’t care about the people they are doing it to so why should the reporter give them any mercy. I believe that Eric Lipton’s intentions were not unethical; he wanted to report what politicians personas were away from being in the spot light. Despite having deceived in the passive form, Lipton stopped when he was asked to and left without an argument. Yes, we can argue that he entered the meeting knowing he was not allowed but is that something we should really be focusing on? Was it really that big of a deal that he didn’t at first say he was a reporter when he was asked who he was? I agree with Brooke Kroeger when she says, “I would see this case far differently if a Times reporter had been eavesdropping on a private citizen for a salacious story or had illegally broken into a private home. That would be unacceptable — but it wasn't what happened.” Lipton followed the guidelines that Saltzman listed so I don’t see a reason why he would disapprove of his reporting methods.
In my opinion I believe Joe Saltzman would approve the reporting methods Eric Lipton Used. Eric Lipton was doing what journalists do; going out to the extreme to find out the accurate sources they need to get their stories and write their article. Most journalists do not think about their actions beforehand on whether they are being ethical or not. Joe Saltzman was not fully against undercover journalism. Joe Saltzman believed that undercover journalism should only be necessary if the deception benefited the welfare of the people. It is becoming more of a natural habit for politicians to deal with the annoyance of reporters. All reporters want to do is get exciting stories that they can use to sell. Reporters do not care whether they have to be humiliated or go to the upmost extreme to get what they want. When reporters go undercover like in the way Lipton did, that is just a method they use in order to get more facts and that was what Lipton was trying to achieve. However, I am not saying that Lipton’s technique was ethical or not, but Lipton tried to achieve his goal and after he got caught he respected that fact and did not try to disrespect and continue to report. He left and that was an ethical decision that I think Joe Saltzman would have approved.
I believe Joe Saltzman would have approved of the reporting methods used by Eric Lipton. Though Lipton used passive deception to enter a private political event, he did not outwardly lie about who he was and ultimately admitted to being from The Times. Because Lipton was striving to find information that would be beneficial to the public, Saltzman would have approved of Lipton’s plan of action. The ends justified the means, and no one was severely hurt by Lipton not announcing his full identity at first. I think Corbett said it best- “Mr. Lipton did not lie about who he was, left when asked to leave and, more important, was appropriately aggressive in pursuit of a story that matters to citizens.” In this instance, I agree with Saltzman and believe that Lipton was in the right with the way he approached this story.
According to Joe Saltzman, the author of our text this week, Eric Lipton practiced a form of passive deception in order to attend a meeting that was not publicly open to reporters or members of the public. Lipton initially identified as simply “Eric,” upon entering the private gathering of former aides to Senator Max Baucus and lobbyists, and when he was later asked again for identification, he was honest about his name and profession and was asked to leave. His defense was that politicians are, by default, very guarded and scripted with the ways in which they open up to the press, and that getting some unfiltered information about this particular senator would serve New York Times readers in an important way.
Logic would suggest that this reporter chooses to fight political deception with journalistic deception, as he is a reporter who writes about ethics yet still made the decision to enter this private meeting without disclosing his full identity and affiliation with The Times. As Saltzman said in the opening of the chapter, “...deceptive behavior is in direct conflict with the journalist’s obligation to be accurate and fair, to try to tell the truth as the facts dictate.” Perhaps Lipton felt that his goals were an exception to this rule.
Undercover reporting has its place. That place is with extreme cases of corruption and when there is absolutely no other alternative to obtaining a story of critical public interest than to be deceptive in one’s methods. Lipton seemed to take the issue of transparency into his own hands by entering the meeting under false pretenses. The Society of Professional Journalist’s code of ethics states that ‘believing that the subjects of the story are themselves unethical’ is not valid justification for deception and this is why Eric Lipton reported the way that he did. Had this been a specific issue of corruption that trickled into other areas of politics, business or society, Saltzman may excuse Lipton for his methods, but this was not a specific instance of political deception, but standard procedure.
Saltzman would not disprove of Lipton’s methods because his work caused harm, which it did not, (as this is a guideline undercover journalists need to carefully consider) but because it was not necessary for a particular story of vital public interest. Lipton’s article used 30 quoted words of an individual who spoke at the meeting. These were not ground-breaking quotes that cracked open any case. They were not enough to warrant deceptive journalism.
This kind of reporting for Lipton may seem trivial, but it is a lie of omission on the part of the reporter. If journalists will not abide by the guidelines set by the Society of Professional Journalists, they must set their own, and if they take these ethical grey areas for granted, there is a standard of quality that is challenged and a public trust that is tarnished.
In the text, Joe Saltzman discusses scenarios of undercover reporting and intentional deceitfulness. The tone and content of this text expresses his beliefs that undercover reporting can be unethical at times and should be strayed away from, but there are circumstances where these unethical actions result in a much greater good than that certain bad. The movie the text focuses on, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, is an example where undercover reporting completely misses any sort of positive point that it could reach. The information that Babe Bennett reports about, which is strictly gossip and entertainment issues, does not warrant the actions she goes through. In this case, the ends do not justify the means. It does not pay off for a reporter to lie, cheat, and steal just to pass on information regarding gossip news for scandalous magazines. Contrary to this, Saltzman believes that there comes a point where an undercover reporter MUST lie, cheat, and steal in order to really extract the information that would otherwise be unobtainable. This information would have to seriously be in the better welfare of a greater public to justify going through sneaky tactics.
Eric Lipton, I believe, did not act unethically. I agree with a quote from the author of the article which states “Given the buttoned-down, scrubbed-up way politicians present themselves, it’s challenging for reporters to get under the surface. And it’s important for citizens that they do”. Lipton himself did not intentionally break any sort of ethical guidelines that might cause critics to see him as the one in the wrong. Lipton left exactly when they told him to and fully expressed his identity when asked to. It is his duty to continue to dig and search for certain truth and continue to give the public a stream of news, and he felt that attending this meeting would be beneficial to gaining new information. The act of attending the meeting was in no way against any code of ethics one might bring up, as Lipton simply saw an opportunity to dive deeper into the well. Had he lied about who he was and then was allowed to stay for the duration of the meeting, this discussion would be different since he would have lied to gain more information. In that case, one would be able to argue: Was the new information enough to justify the lie?
Joe Saltzmans beliefs in undercover journalism essentially routes back to the welfare of the people or the greater good. Saltzman stated that undercover journalism could only be justified or looked at as ethically acceptable if its intentions were to benefit the greater good. In the case of Eric Lipton, I believe that Saltzman would approve of his tactics and not deem it as unethical. Lipton did exactly what Saltzman would have justified as benefiting the people. Times and Lipton alike agreed that politicians do not full disclose all information to the press the same way they do to other politicians and political figures. Thus for Lipton to truly get the best and most accurate story for the people, his best option was to throw himself in a situation where he was seen as an equal to the politicians and not as a journalist. Though some may disagree with this tactic, Lipton still acted as ethically as he could giving the situation. He did not lie about his identity and left upon when he was asked. Lipton easily could have lied about his identity and got more information out of the conference but, acting ethically, he spoke the truth, and left with the little information he was able to receive. I can see how undercover reporting can be a sensitive and debatable subject but, I share the opinion with Saltzman in that if the undercover reporting is done so tastefully and with the idea of benefiting the people in mind, then some times it must be done.
The entire philosophy behind investigative journalism is to expose truth to the public when they are being wronged. Joe Saltzman would have definitely approved of Eric Lipton’s methods to do just this. Reading through his theories and opinions, it is obvious that Saltzman isn't promoting to go undercover to humiliate someone, or to expose their personal issues; he was trying to say that society is so blind to what is really going on in our world whether it involves government or local issues. As a democratic society, it is our right to know what is going on, where our money is going etc… Eric Lipton was extremely courageous for not only exposing the truth, but for being honest and not an extremist. The reason Lipton even went to the meeting was to prove that there were ulterior motives from the members of active politicians. He showed no sign of deceptive behavior, he did not pose as anyone other than himself, and he told the truth. Saltzman stated that the world needs these courageous journalists because if our society continues to crumble under the hands of bad people, how will we ever know how to stop them?
It’s interesting how every week we are almost writing our own Journalistic Ethics “Preamble.” This week it seems we are covering “promote the general Welfare.” As for this topic, I think Saltzman would approve of Eric Lipton’s actions; as they are uncovering truths are not harmful to the persons involved. In fact, they may be helpful to the general public, even more of a reason for Saltzman to be in favor. The problem here, for me, is that my little PR light bulb goes off. Last week, we discussed how editing 2-3 words alter the meaning of an entire story. By having Lipton sneak into the meeting, he could hear the, “way political people talk when they don’t think the general public or the press is listening.” That frightens me. Even though he would be directly receiving and reporting factual information, 2-3 slips ups (in some cases) could accidentally destroy careers and beneficial messages. Like most of the stories we discuss, they are exceptions to the rule. I think Saltzman and Lipton have an “organic” approach to journalistic behavior, which is admirable. They are not afraid to go undercover in justifiable ways. As Times’ journalist, Sullivan, states about Lipton’s feelings, “…it was important to get beyond what politicians and their staff members were willing to say publicly.” That, for me, is just my own personal PR worst nightmare. I would love to hear PR vs Journalism students battle head-to-head over this idea!
Also, Maria Pianelli sent this to me and I thought it was worth sharing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/sports/olympics/nbc-pushes-too-far-in-bringing-bode-miller-to-tears.html?_r=0
I am not entirely sure which way Saltzman would sway in this scenario and honestly, I’m not entirely sure Saltzman knows which way he’d sway. He presents us with the various types of deceptions: Active, passive, and masquerading, in which passive appears to be the least “unethical” in terms of malicious motive and seems to the most applicable in this particular piece on Lipton. He also gives us the rules from the Doing Ethics in Journalism handbook, which essentially illustrate that the journalists doing the deceiving better be dedicated and have no other way of obtaining information that is undeniably beneficial to the public. Basically, the “ends justifying the means” Saltzman expresses is the underlying theme throughout his analysis of when it is ok to be deceitful, in which case this vague “putting the public first in severe cases of corruption” seems to be key. But Saltzman seems to have some sort of hesitation in putting all his eggs in this basket, and I don’t blame him. How are we supposed to know when the “ends justifies the means”? While the rules Saltzman provides us seem staunch in theory, applying them to real life scenarios seem only realistic in a case by case basis, i.e. this piece about Lipton. Saltzman seems contradictory to these rules even, opening up his arguments with “Some of the best investigative reporters in the history of journalism went undercover for the best of reasons – to inform the public about wrongdoing by business or government” and then ending with “The future of this kind of investigative reporting, 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.” What the eff do you want from us, Saltzman? While the rules he says indicate undercover journalism should only be used in extreme circumstances, he acts as if it is a necessity if anything good is to come of true journalism.
In this particular case I think Saltzman would understand the unethical views upon Lipton’s tactic. But as he says, “ more and more journalists now believe that undercover journalism has undermined a journalist’s primary mission: to be honest and truthful to the audience.” And if Saltzman were to respond to his own claim, he would say what I think he would say to the naysayers of Lipton’s: who is your audience – the people you are deceiving or the people who are being affected by the deception? Sure the few quotes he gathered weren’t ground breaking, but Lipton was attempting to unmask politicians who, as we all, are talking heads when in front of the press, in order to gain some actual insight. He didn’t lie about who he was or what he was doing, exemplifying passive deception. If having outsider ears in the meeting is such an issue, have better security. So while much of what Saltzman brought up appears to be against the possible unethical behavior of Lipton, Saltzman himself would probably just shrug and say that a revival of this sort of journalism is what the country needs.
I believe that Joe Saltzman would approve of the reporting methods of Eric Lipton. What I got from reading the article is that Lipton did exactly what he set out to do, he sought the truth out reported his findings. I can see how deception and poor unethical choices can be made but it was made with the best intentions and the truth was not sought out in an unruly manner.
The SPJ Code of Ethics states to, "Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story." Lipton had a motive to go and observe the meetings and believed that this is a subject matter that the general public(prospective voters) needs to know.
Although, the meeting with the lobbyists and former aides to Senator Baucus did call for no press or the public, there was a public's need to know in Lipton's opinion.
Undercover reporting can be justified if deception benefits the people because the people's need to know outweighs the deception itself. I also believe moral and ethical decision making have to come into play as well, that is when undercover reporter does it's best work. As long as no law is broken it is okay.
It is always difficult to get true and candid quotes from politicians. Politician’s jobs are to keep journalists from doing their own job. So under the circumstances of the ‘undercover’ reporting of Eric Lipton, I think Joe Saltzman would approve. Saltzman states it seems permissible in the movies to “lie,” cheat, distort, bribe, betray, or violate any ethical code as long as the journalist exposes corruption.
Lipton did not purposefully stage the political gathering to reveal wrongdoings. Saltzman might have said the fact that Lipton stated his first name when asked instead of revealing his identity was unethical, however when asked again, Lipton did not hide who he was.
Lipton did not deliberately tell a lie. Although this situation is really on the edge of the ethical line, Lipton did not pose as someone else in a deceptive way to the extent that Saltzman would disapprove. The political arena makes it a difficult task for journalists to obtain the truth when politicians spend their days practicing PR speeches for the press to gobble up. Since Lipton left when they asked him to and did not tell a lie as to who he was, yes, I think Saltzman would have approved given the circumstances.
In Joe Saltzman’s opinion, the use of deceptive reporting techniques is only justifiable when the story contains important information that the public needs or deserves to know. For instance, the information that Snowden leaked to the public would have been a justifiable story to use deceptive tactics. The New York Times’ story, however, reports trivial information that was not vital to the public’s knowledge. The Times reported in question, Eric Lipton, neglected to inform a staff member of his affiliation with the press to get into a gathering at Capitol Hill. Saltzman would classify this type of deception as passive meaning that instead of lying to the source, the reporter simply failed to identify himself. Although any act of deception breaks journalists’ ethical code, some reporters must act unethically to convey vital truth to the public. If this had been the case with Lipton, then the Times would not need to defend their employee with this article. However, Lipton’s use of deceptive reporting tactics was only to gain inside access to unsuspecting government officials. This type of undercover reporting, “serves no public interest, just gossip and entertainment public interest, just gossip and entertainment. (Good 1472). Lipton simply wanted to publish something that would give them an advantage over their competition. A reporter could justify unethical reporting to uncover the story that Snowden released as “an important public service by exposing corruption and dishonesty”(Good 1381). However, a story covering the unknown behaviors of public figures would be hard to classify as “need-to-know” information. For these reasons I think that Saltzman would disapprove of Lipton’s reporting methods and even question the integrity of The New York Times itself.
"Undercover reporting amounts to unethical behavior- deceiving people who think they can talk freely to you because you are not a reporter who will tattle on them. On the other hand, there are stories important to the public welfare that cannot be reported in any other way." (Saltzman, 69) The information that Mr.Lipton was trying to expose couldn't have been reached in any other way. Like Mr. Lipton stated, these lobbyists and politicians act and speak differently when in front of a reporter. The public needs to know who these people really are when they aren't in the spotlight. I think that Joe Saltzman would approve up Lipton's passive deception. He was not causing harm, and he exposed himself and left when asked. It would be one thing if Lipton kept on pushing for more information even after he was asked to leave, but he didn't. Valerie Hyman stated "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." Although Lipton was deceptive, it was for the greater good.
I believe that Joe Saltzman would have approved of the reporting methods done by Eric Lipton because Saltzman was doing what he believed was necessary in order to get accurate information, and report it to the public. Saltzman believed that undercover journalism was beneficial if it benefited the welfare of the people.
I think it’s important that if you are going to go undercover, you should be honest at the end like Lipton was. He listened to and obeyed every request that was asked of him. I think undercover journalism can be a useful tool if it’s done correctly. It allows the journalist to receive information that may not have initially been able to receive if they were not undercover. At the end of their reporting, they just must reveal what has taken place. Ultimately, undercover journalism should only take place if it is being used to benefit the people.
Saltzman seemed against undercover journalism because of the dishonesty involved in seeking the truth. This is a respectable opinion, since we wouldn't want all journalists using dishonesty to write stories. Integrity would go out of style quickly if we advocated journalists' lying.
In the case of Lipton, he lied by omission. He did not reveal that he was a member of the press when asked for identification. He then used information that was not meant for the public to hear in order to allow the public a view of honest political discourse. Despite this intention, I don't think Joe Saltzman would approve of the reporting.
The precedent this sets is that omission of one's occupation is tolerated when gathering information and even quotations. I think someone who has not permitted the use of their language in a private setting has a right to anonymity. I think Saltzman would agree with me. Lipton could have used the opportunity to talk to people as they left the hearing or requested entry under a privately arrangement by the politicians and lobbyists. We can't allow the press to disrespect privacy or privacy will cease to exist.
I think that Joe Saltzman would have approved of Eric Lipton’s reporting methods. Saltzman starts off the chapter by describing all of the beneficial things undercover reporting has provided. There have been so many situations where this style of reporting was necessary in order to get the real facts and details about what is going on. As long as the information obtained is of profound importance and for the greater good, it is acceptable to go undercover. Lipton would have been unable to attain the information he got in any other form of reporting. When discussing government officials Lipton stated, “what they tell me is so guarded and so vetted and so carefully calibrated that you want to listen to them speaking in a private setting as well.” The only way he could have gotten the real story is by going undercover.
Saltzman described 3 different forms of undercover journalism; active deception, passive deception, and masquerading. Lipton used the form of passive deception in that he did not state that he was a reporter from the start but when asked did not lie. When asked to leave he did without an argument. I see no legal issues here. He was seeking information that would benefit the greater good.
I think that Saltzman may not agree with Lipton's actions, but would not necessarily condemn them as unethical. Yes, he was deceitful, by not revealing that he was a news reporter, but it was in a harmless manner and when asked for his full identity he complied and left upon being asked.
I think that Saltzman would consider this to be passive deceit which is a much lesser offense than masquerading or active deceit. He did not pose as someone else, he just failed to mention that he was a journalist. In the article Phillip B. Corbett stated that “I didn’t think it violated our standards.” Continuing to say that Mr. Lipton did not lie about who he was, left when asked to leave and, more important, was appropriately aggressive in pursuit of a story that matters to citizens, therefore justifying the deceit by Saltzman's standards.
I think in the case of Eric Lipton that Saltzman would grant approval to his approach toward undercover journalism. When Lipton went to the gathering, early on it was asked who he was. He did not go to all lengths to be fully honest but he did not lie either. When he was asked a second time he fully identified himself and was asked to leave. As stated in the New York Times article, getting information unfiltered information from politicians is usually a hard thing to do as a journalist. I believe that Stalzman would agree with the use of the quote the Lipton went on to use in his article. Lipton was not publishing the quote out of malice, he was using the quote because he was able to gather some information at the meeting before he left and then publish it to inform the public.
I believe that Saltzman would have approved of Eric Lipton's reporting methods because Saltzman believed that it was sometimes necessary to remain anonymous for reporters to discover important information the public had a right to know. Saltzman believed that so long as the information gathered incognito benefited the public welfare uncover investigation was justified.
There are certainly scenarios where those with corporate or political power obstruct or conceal information from the public that might damage them or their associates. A reporter acting anonymously to reveal this information for the benefit of the public is sometimes the only avenue of discovery. However, this does not give a reporter free reign to act outside of certain restrictions. In Eric Lipton's case, he obeyed every request that was asked of him after officials became suspicious and he told them he was a reporter. In the end he remained honest on his doings and intentions. However, had Lipton been forthcoming he would have been unable to continue his reporting at the get go.
Saltzman seems to be generally apprehensive about using undercover reporting, but believes it is permissible when it benefits the public welfare. He seems to be saying that undercover journalism is unethical, but that in some situations it is necessary to serve an even higher need. It's a classical "the ends justify the means" argument---that minor ethics can be ignored for higher ones.
The issue I have with this stance is: shouldn't every story one reports benefit the public welfare? Isn't that what reporters are SUPPOSED to do? Moreover, and in a stricter sense of defining journalistic ethics, if there is information out there that the public doesn't know about, whatever it is, isn't it to the benefit of the public welfare to report it? I feel this also speaks to the Libertarian Theory of the Press, which hypothesizes that it is the press's duty to inform the public so that they might make informed decisions and therefore support a democratic society. Doesn't ALL information educate the public in some way? And if a newspaper decides what information will benefit the public welfare and what information will not, isn't it acting as a gatekeeper, both suppressing information and pretentiously assuming it knows what the public needs?
I guess my overall point is that any information benefits the public welfare, and, therefore, under Saltzman's own theory, undercover reporting is permissible in any circumstances. I am not saying that I necessarily believe this is the case, but that Saltzman saying that it is impermissible to report undercover in some circumstances doesn't make sense under his own theory.
I'm not sure if Saltzman would approve of Lipton's undercover reporting, though he probably wouldn't, seeing as Lipton's goals for attending the event uninvited were not well-defined. However, I believe that it is entirely permissible. The fact that the person arguing that it was not is a spokesperson for the man Lipton was trying got gather information about only buoys my opinion.
Joe Saltzman would probably look upon the actions of Eric Lipton and highly disapprove. Lipton's deception, while only passive infringed on the ethics of undercover journalism. Lipton, while initially dishonest does eventually come clean and reveal his identity. This honesty alone would not be enough to satisfy Saltzmans ethical standards. As raw and groundbreaking as undercover journalism is, it requires the investigator to knowingly deceive those around them. While Saltzman might agree with Lipton that the story had great potential, he takes a strong stance on the fact that journalists should not be allowed to walk away unpunished if they lie. Lipton was a witness to private political matters and recorded some of these encounters, and potentially having them be used out of context in the future. Saltzman would highly disapprove of Lipton's practices due to its infringement on his ethics.
I believe Eric Lipton may have tried to victimize himself a bit which made him be in the borderline of unethical moral and deception. He tried to victimize himself by saying that the politicians never give him enough information on what he is looking for. They give him half stories that lead him to try to find more. By saying this he is grabbing the audience attention and basically railing them in to his side of the story because he’s stating that the politicians are not saying the truth so he needed to go for himself and expose them. He was very smart about what he was doing and he knew exactly how to go about it, an example of this is him giving his first name only. When it comes to Joe Saltzman approval I believe he would have agreed with the method Lipton used and considered this deception because this fulfills the guidelines of deception being justified. Joe Saltzman weighs it out and determines whether undercover is acceptable in certain circumstances. I believe he would have supported this circumstance. He believed that its acceptable when it benefits the people, as long as it uncovers the bad. When a reporter is under cover, they will not leave or stop until they get the information they want and need, in Eric’s case, he did the same thing. He pushed it until he got some information then realized he was caught so he should not fight it. He should just leave, as he did, and use it to his advantage for deception. One question that popped up to my head was, is this ethical? Eric writes about ethics but he is doing something that under the code of ethics is unethical. Therefore, can you pick and choose when to be ethical and unethical? Joe Saltzman speaks about journalist forcing their way into getting their information, but Lipton didn’t do so, which justifies way he obtained the information. Overall, although Eric cover was blown, he explained why he took these matters and explained the importance of it which justified the deception move.
Post a Comment