Unstructured Ethics

     The role of journalism, in this day and age, is to provide citizens with the proper tools they need in order to sift through all of the new news of our period. Bill Kovach and Tom Rosensteil (“KR”), authors, journalists, and press critics, base their book, The Elements of Journalism: What News People Should Know and the Public Should Expect, on the conception of one concrete theory: when information is so abundant and available as it is today, virtually everywhere, a new relationship between the public and press needs to be formed. Experts say that information is the driving force that led to democracy; informed citizens were able to voice their opinions, giving rise to self-governance.

            When I was building a rough outline of my own structured code of ethics in practicing journalism, I reflected on my own experiences, personal bias, and ideological sense of self-governance as well as the latter of others. My code of ethics in practicing journalism, whether it is investigative work—undercover, unscripted, or interview—, print media, or reporting is far from traditional and anything but structured. I have learned a great deal through the text in class and the situations we have been confronted with and researched but, I feel that my code of ethics must be something I have been able to compile through experiment and experience. Through the time I have spent with my own thoughts, my desire to pursue and investigative career, and discussing with others how they may choose to go about compiling a simplified, politically correct outline for what they would expect from a working journalist, I have divided my code of ethics into three key sections: history, obligation, and religion.

            Lamartine, a French renaissance man, was once quoted, “History teaches everything including the future.” Throughout history each and every civilization, no matter how prosperous or unsuccessful they were in the end, has proven one theory about mankind time and time again: that we are fully capable of governing ourselves; this idea is more powerful than any other valid theory. Journalism is an extremely repressed theory that, in its validity, proves that we can uphold the ideology of self-governance. KR believes that “our freedom does not depend on returning to the past but, rather on not forgetting our past and the theory of news that it produced,” (KR 255).

            The Pentagon papers were a secret study of America’s involvement in Vietnam, written solely by the U.S. government. Reporter Neil Sheehan and the New York Times ran the story through interpretative journalism. Interpretative journalism is a form of journalism that reaches past the basic facts of any topic in order to provide deeper context, consequences, and analysis. I believe that this form of journalism is very important to disproving traditional ethical procedure because an interpretive journalist is required to be familiar with their work on a much deeper level; this type of practice incorporates picking up on patterns, unmasking motives, and a slight sense of transparency in order to explain themselves in order to be held accountable for their work. This form of journalism does not dispel the rumors of the past and it actually embraces every aspect of a subject in order to produce the best for the public.

            History is a journalists’ best friend and tool, at the same time. “Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government,” (Hugo Black quote; NY Times Co. v. United States). This is an opinionated quote from Hugo Black, an [alleged] democratic Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The Freedom of Information Act in 1966 was enacted to handle requests for government records in a manner consistent with the idea that citizens have every right to inquire about them and receive factual information. Of course, given the nature of some government information and the private interests of the public, there are many exemptions to the FOIA in order to counter any discrepancies that arise. These exemptions are as followed:

1.      “(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;

2.      related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency

3.      specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;

4.      trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;

5.      inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency;

6.      personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

7.      records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;

8.      contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or

9.      Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells,”

(See: ACLU Step-by-Step Guide to using the Freedom of Information Act; American Civil Liberties Union Foundation pamphlet written by Allan Robert Adler, pp. 3-5.)

This abundance of information, along with lessons learned through history, journalists have reached the ethical question: can we change history through changing archives? In Professor Rosemary Armao’s class, we discussed this matter for a brief period. When Professor Armao was working for a print company several years ago, a man had contacted the editor in order to file a grievance and potentially sue for libel over an article they had run about his past. This man had been accused of a crime and the paper ran a routine ‘crime blotter’ type article. A number of years later, this man applied for a job and was denied employment based on his criminal records despite never being convicted of said crime. Armao and the print staff were presented with this ethical dilemma; whether or not to change the archives in order to help this wrongly accused man. The staff agreed to alter the archives but, not erase the entry entirely. They placed an asterisk next to the file in the archives and updated the story; saying that the man had been accused, however, not convicted of the crime thus clearing his name and changing history itself.

I believe that journalists have the power to change history and, rightfully so, should make good use of that ability. As journalists, we open the public’s eyes to the world they live in by providing information that is, often times, otherwise inaccessible or just difficult to obtain. By increasing public awareness, we pave the way for public opinion through enhanced discourse. Mankind learns from its mistakes; that is why we are always moving forward. If it is possible to rectify the mistakes of the past, we should do everything in our power to try. This is in order to enforce every one of my three key obligations that a journalist has to their trade and that is: our dedication to the truth, personal accountability, and the public. 

Through these key examples of news media throughout history, I see journalism as a paradox in motion. As mankind moves forward, so should the information of our times. What I mean by a ‘paradox in motion’ is that journalists are providing information to the citizens, thereby delivering a rightfully deserved sense of self-governance; while these self-governed citizens are in a constant battle to precipitate change, journalism is required to keep up every step of the way. In a simplified sense: Journalism is forced to change by its own hand.

This paradox is the sole reason that a concrete code of ethics does not do well to fulfill a journalists obligations the public. I feel that a journalist must fulfill a handful of obligations to their trade. These main obligations are their dedication to the truth, their duty to remain accountable, and, above all, their loyalty to citizens.

            For example, during the early twentieth century, the term “muckraker” was coined to refer to journalists associate with the press covering the reform. This press was primarily magazine print. Other news media and government affiliated organizations used a plethora of underhanded tricks and techniques disguised as patriotism to put an end to this traditional investigative reporting. Muckrakers, in this sense, continued to be very influential in the public opinion up until World War I and the Progressive Era movement. After WWI, the term came back to represent any writer who investigates and publishes truthful reports otherwise hidden from the public eye in order to spark revolution, reform, and change.

            Muckrakers are, more often than not, very misunderstood. They are trapped in between two different extremes, of which only their colleagues and very well informed citizens can look beyond. On one side, we have the general public who still believes that the term muckraker is derogatory towards journalists and acts as a synonym for someone who produces lies or propaganda. These are the people who are easily swayed by the voice of political opposition in journalism; those who tend to believe what they hear, despite what they have yet to see for themselves. Meanwhile, many working journalists may applaud these so called muckrakers—maybe not their methods—for the type of quality work they are able to produce. Muckrakers are, without a doubt, on the extremist side of the investigative journalism spectrum which is exactly what makes their work so useful, when done the proper way. Traditional muckrakers have an intense desire for the truth, in all forms. They have produced the truth on many historical occasions, such as Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, by any means necessary. This is the only way that a journalist may honestly make any claim to fulfill their duty to the people; by obtaining the truth by any means necessary.

            “Privacy hysteria” is the fear an individual has that he or she is being watched by the media or government. In unveiling the truth at any cost, I believe that privacy is a journalist’s primary ethical dilemma, as we discussed in Professor Armao’s class. Constitutional amendments and bills such as the FOIA and others make privacy hysteria more real than ever. For example, gun ownership records can be requested at any local town or city hall for anyone with a cause or general interest in them. No matter how much we try to protect those things close to us, privacy is often times our most prized possession and our most powerful tool.

 John Rawls and Dr. Charles W. Mills believe that good ethical decisions come from good reporting; I disagree wholeheartedly. We know that it is not ethical to break into a sources house and search for validity behind any information they have shared with us but, if the need arises and the situation warrants it—after meeting a list of requirements—, it is one of my three key obligations to obtain the facts.

            Following this example, breaking and entering; it is necessary to use any information gathered in this manner because of my dedication to the truth. I will discuss this will my editor and make sure that the information reaches the top of the food chain so that I may know that I fulfilled my obligation to the best of my abilities. I would first speak to my source and try my best to obtain the truth in a more traditional manner but, if there is no other way, I will do what I must provided: 1) my source is withholding information and/or lying, 2) I have reached a dead end when it comes to leads after attempting to seek further aid in the progression of my investigation, and 3) I do not take anything that does not belong to myself or the public without permission of the owner. If these conditions are met, I plan to provide my editor with any and all information obtained in any way, shape, or form.

             The next key obligation in an ethical approach to journalism is to protect your accountability. Accountability is not something you acquire; it is something you earn. It is the readiness to accept responsibility for your actions and to be willing to be held responsible should these actions cause harm. The key vocabulary word in any discussion on ethics is accountability. Ethics are all in decision making; accountability is being ready to accept the path that those decisions lead you down, consequences and rewards alike.

            If you publish an article with incorrect spelling, be prepared to take the blame. If you run out of leads, be prepared to take the blame. If you print a piece with false information from a bad source, be prepared to take the blame. The media is often attacked for appointing a scapegoat in times of public unrest but, the truth is, no entity is attacked or put on a pedestal like the news media. When a story has any ounce of false information or when there is a small bit of skepticism surrounding a subject—especially politics—the news media is hounded; deservedly. The organizations and multi-billion dollar corporations that are bringing the public their news on a daily basis cannot afford to miss a beat. Journalism has been around since the beginning of civilization; it has been the driving force behind mankind’s progression since progress has been made.

John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher and economist, was a colonialist who believed that the colonies had an acquired right to occupy foreign lands. Mill believed that non-Western civilizations were intellectually backwards which did not make them capable of self-governance. Since I have established the theory that self-governance was built on a foundation laid by journalism, it should be clear that I believe Mill’s main definition of “intellectually backward” is a civilization with no real form of self-governance and a public sphere for discourse. I do not agree with Mill in his assessment of non-Western civilizations but, I do understand where he was coming from and, according to Mill himself, in order to understand someone’s argument, you must take on their views and try to defend them. While I am able to see it from his point of view, I do not agree with his entire assessment; primarily in saying that the colonies had a given right to occupy their land.

I like to think of the citizens as the man who organizes the bank robbery and journalists as the team of experts, all hand chosen to operate under specific circumstances. The citizens can not pull of the heist (self-govern) on their own without the help and advice of an entire team of specialists. If it was a one man job, the man organizing the robbery would not need his team because he would own the bank as an emperor or dictator.

            The point being: citizens need journalists; despite how often they use them as a scapegoat when the system falls apart. Sometimes the citizens are to be held accountable; for instance, journalists may only provide the public with the information they need, we cannot force them to make good use of it. Inversely, journalists need the citizens because, without them, we would never see the reform we work to create.

            The next key obligation that I feel a journalist must look at when attempting to make an ethical decision is that they remain loyal to the citizens. KR says that this is a journalist’s number one loyalty. This obligation is cut and dry, so to speak. No matter how you word it: always stay loyal to the general population. Much of news print has become monopolized while television and radio news is controlled by almost one entity entirely. Through everything, journalists have an ethical obligation to remain loyal to those who they work to inform.

            The third key component I considered in formulating my code of ethics was religion. Since the day I was born and my mother was able to travel independently, I have been a member of the Baptist-Christian Church of God. This takes me to my final and strongest ethical belief: stop waiting for perfect conditions.

The Bible says, “He who observes the wind will not sow,” Ecc 11:4 New King James Version of the Bible. Too many people wait for everything to be absolutely perfect for them to begin their plans. We cannot waste time being hesitant; waiting for the proper inspiration, the rightful reassurance, waiting for people to change, nor permission or a clear set of instructions. When we wait, we get comfortable and when people are comfortable, they are complacent. Complacency, along with ignorance, is the worst enemy of great journalism. Throughout my life, I have lived by these words, spoken in congregation from Pastor Tom and Sister Elaine: stop waiting for the perfect conditions.

Heb 11:27 of the New Living Translation Bible reads, “He kept his eyes on the one who is invisible.” Following the same motif, there is a strong, undeniable relationship between our movement toward our dreams and the resources we need being readily available to us. In most cases, we are not ready to move on until we see the resources in front of us but, when we do that, we have nothing; neither the resources or the progress. Vision does not follow resources, it happens the other way around. Countless times in Scripture, God sent people on missions with what seemed like inadequate resources but, when they go to where God wanted them to be, the resources needed to get the job done were already waiting for them.

My code of ethics is far from structured and not what some may call traditional in the typical sense of the word. But, tradition is one of the foundations of my view on ethics. The history of civilization and journalism has led me to see that there must always be room for change in order to make progress. My three key obligations to producing credible work in my trade are a checklist to maintaining accountability and public trust, above all else. And while I know not everyone will agree with my religious teachings or upbringing, I am certain that anyone will agree that, in order to make it through this life, you cannot always wait for the perfect conditions. Irish poet Oscar Wilde was once quoted, “Any fool can make history but, it takes a genius to write it.”

BJ Holmes.