When stuff like that happens you should confiscate their camera, claim its a new rule. Then pawn it off and split the money. I think thats legal anywais.
**
I would imagine that sabotaging the car of a competing paper’s reporter so he can’t drive to a story would hurt that paper and help yours move more newspapers or ads.
**
Glad you think ethics are important. But it sounds like you don’t want a code of ethics that might inconvenience you in the slightest on the way to moving more newspapers or ads. It sounds like you just like the idea of ethics.
**
And if I don’t agree with any tactic used, slimy or not, then I’m being weak or naive? Fine, I’m weak. I’m naive.
**
You make it sound depressingly rare.
I’m a journalist, too. I haven’t been doing it as long as you, but I’ve been around a few years, and good enough to attain the rank of sports editor at a 30,000-circulation paper. I have been thinking about getting out, and if it turns out that your hyper-cynical vision of the business is the truth of the matter, I know I want out.
You think that’s not done? At a trade show last year I know that a pub competing with the sponsoring pub paid several homeless men to hand out their pub at the entrance. The publisher of the sponsoring publication paid the same homeless men $50 and a bottle each to turn the magazines over to him.
Boy, it’s fun to be misinterpreted. As I said, it’s not that I lack ethics. I just have mine straight. My over riding ethic is to my employers. I was not (when doing coverage) and am not (while Director of Marketing) paid to produce ‘truth’ or ‘be responsible to the people’. I am accepting money to enable my employers to generate more money. Or, more succinctly: If they pay me X amount of dollars they are justified in expecting that my work will enable them to generate X+20% (or whatever).
**
I’m not saying you’re weak. Naive, maybe a bit (and it’s a naivete shared by a great many in the biusiness). Of course you have the right to disagree with any tactic your publishing house might use. But when an ad guy tells you to write a specific article from a particular slant so he can sell some space you better be prepared to pack up your desk if you say ‘no’.
**
In my experience that situation IS rare. There is always going to be a tug-of-war between the sales people and the editorial people, there’s no way around that. The controlling force is your publisher. If your publisher comes out of editorial then you have a decent chance to keep the ad guys reigned in. If your publisher comes out of marketing/circulation then they’re almost certain to be technocrats. But God help you if your publisher comes out of ad sales.
I’m hoping neither or us is arguing that that’s right.
**
Well, what ARE your ethics, then? I mean, you did come off pretty “ends justify the means” in your earlier post.
Jonathan Chance, if your overriding ethic is to your employer, do you have ANY obligation whatsoever to print an investigated truth at all, or does printing rumors, so long as they sell papers, suffice for a journalist? Furthermore, were the producers/reporters/investigators for 20/20 acting ethically when they rigged trucks with rockets when doing crash tests so that they exploded? It helped get ratings, and so far as I know, didn’t hurt business too much.
My ethics are pretty straightforward. When it comes to professional ethics I try to give my employers whatever it is they want. If they insist that I do something I think is wrong I give them the option to can me. In one extreme case I simply quit. No notice, no nothing. Just stood up and left.
I suppose that I’m really trying to say two things here.
First, there is a massive difference between personal and professional ethics.
Second, the entire concept of ‘journalistic ethics’ is largely a self-justification for persons wanting to elevate a job into some sort of mythic thing.
As for this:
You tell me who’s right. One publication lays out big bucks to get an exclusive sponsorship to a trade show. A competing pub pays homeless guys to pass out their pub at the door (thus violating the pubs exclusivity contract AND the trade shows right to control what pubs are in circulation) and the publisher of the first pub pays those same guys money to dump the second pubs copies.
Aside from the questionable ethics of the homeless guys (RE: employer loyalty) I think the main offender is the second pub. They didn’t contract with the trade show for the exposure there. They just decided to invade. I think the publisher of the second pub did the right thing. Sure, he could have gone to court but that wouldn’t have gotten him his exclusivity back now, would it?
Now on to this:
I want to be able to say this right so bear with me.
You have no professional obligation to tell the truth, other than legally. If rumors sell then you are free to print them. If cheating on lab tests moves ads then you are free to do so if you don’t violate any laws.
Whether or not you feel a personal responsibility to go beyond that is between you and your employers.
That said:
Distorting the facts CAN land you in trouble on two fronts. The first is legal, of course, and many a bad thing can happen to a reporter or a pub that plays fast and loose with the truth. Secondly, you can lose credibility with the public. That can hurt ratings/circulation and depress ad sales. A single incident usually won’t kill a pub, though. It’s a continuing noticable habit that gets pubs in trouble.
Hell, and sometimes the rumormongers pay off. Look at the way the National Enquirer broke the Jesse Jackson story two weeks ago.
But whether you want to participate in that type of writing is entirely your personal decision. But if you accept employment you have to be ready for what comes with that check. The corporate types aren’t going to care (well, some will) about your ethics when they want to push a story.
Although you can always view it as doing what you need to in order to attain a position of power so you can do things right!
So I’m not saying, ‘The Ends Justify The Means’. But remember what the overall goal of your employer is. If it’s to make money, then lookout!
And for the record, from my experience, here are the rules:
- Don’t lie. Your credibility is your only shield.
- If you must choose sides, be subtle. Note: this rule doesn’t apply to the tabloids of NYC or London.
- Hi Opal! (Wow! I finally got to do that!)
- Destroy all hypocrites equally, even if their politics agrees with your own. Never be caught hiding something for someone you agree with and exposing the same offense from someone you disagree with.
- Never, EVER violate a source. But if that source lied to you for their own ends…feed them to the wolves.
- Remember, fluff it out! The news is frequently one sentence long. But you’ve got 20 column-inches to fill. For example, on the front page of the Washington Post today: “Panel Votes In Favor Of Ashcroft”. That’s the entirety of the news. The rest of the article (and it’s a good size) is fluff and filler. The real ‘news’ per se, is in the headline.
Get what I’m saying?
To help me understand the premise of a reporter’s responsibility is not to The Truth, but to their employer, allow me to pose a hypothetical situation.
[hypothetical follows]
Bill Gates is tired of the uncertain, and ever more expensive, electricity situation of West Coast, USA. He decides to move to a closed military base in a city of about a million in NE Florida. (it could happen) Meetings with local officials are ultra secret. BG issues an ultimate gag order - if any word of this leaks out before Big Announcement in 2 weeks, I’m not coming. And this threat is 100% certain. Intrepid business reporter of one TV station in highly competitive, 2-station market finds out. This reporter is the only person outside the deal to know about it. [/hypothetical]
Does Ms. Intrepid report? Early “leak” news would generate short term ratings. Holding story would allow BG to come to town, increasing viewer base, and advertising base, of Eyewitless News. What does the station manager do?
Good question. But you really ask two. In the first paragraph you ask:
But at the end you say:
And that’s the crux of the biscuit. It is most CERTAINLY not the decision of the reporter involved whether or not the story should break. But it is the responsibility of the station manager (read that: employer) (who should sure as shootin’ check with the station owner). Just as, in the world of newspapers, it’s the responsibility of the Managing Editor (and ultimately the publisher).
Although cynically I’d say that if we’re dealing with a mid-size market (3 or 4 TV stations, 1 daily paper and possibly two smaller weekly papers) then that story is going to break. King Canute couldn’t hold back the tide and Bill Gates ain’t gonna be able to hold that one.
So it’s the decision of the employer to break the story or not. And that decision will come down to which is most advantageous for the outlet in question. Even if they decided to hold the story there should be a call to city hall with the standard ‘confirm or deny’ request. The mayor denies, your Station Manager says, “bllsht” and holds them up for a promise of exclusive early coverage and some face time with the mayor and BG together. Blackmail is such an ugly word, but it can be useful as hell in getting the story.
Thank you JChance, I hadn’t even noticed asking 2 questions. To put this back on the reporter …
Since you were the Station Manager, and held the story of BG coming to town, but used it to (extort is such a nasty word) a future story out of the Mayor… But Ms. Intrepid (the reporter who found out) doesn’t want to wait. As you surmised, there are a couple weekly papers in town. One of them has the excellent taste to run The Straight Dope, so our erstwhile reporter is thinking … Should I take this to The Weekly That Runs TSD? Mr. Chance, the Boss, doesn’t know (at least I don’t think he knows) that I am the only reporter who knows. Anyway, someone in on the negotiations could leak it, too. I won’t be found out (I hope).
So, what is ethical here?