If I was any citizen with information about a presidential candidate, I would consider the relevance of the behavior to the office of presidency, the applicability of the people’s true need for knowledge of a candidate, and the very disturbing association between the candidate, and the “senior aide” engaged in an attempt to practice censorship on behalf of his candidate. Of the entire bunch, the aide is the major problem, for me. I want him publicly denounced, and driven far out of politics, however any other issue gets resolved.
I don’t think the party of the candidate is relevant to the ethics of the issue, despite the fact that I heartily agree we need new government. What we need is new levels of ethical conduct by our government, not new politics.
Wouldn’t the nation have been better off without the pre-election coverups of Bush’s drunk-driving arrest, his cocaine use, and his (suspected) cocaine conviction? Of course.
The media’s job is to verify and report the facts, not filter them.
This is an interesting topic - and I don’t think it can just be brushed away by referring to specific stories or vaunted journalistic ethics. The fact is that most Americans hate and distrust the press at least to some degree - and the notion that a story matters more than other things is probably the one thing driving that contempt.
Frontline did a whole show about this some time back - and they linked to some supplementary material that referenced an earlier PBS program that exposed these divisions between reporters and the rest of us:
I have argued on these boards before that withholding certain information from the American public is ethical if it allows for victory on the battlefield or saves the lives of our personnel in a war zone. If journalistic ethics, such as they are, are constructed in such a way so that they are more concerned with getting stories out than these concerns, then these ethics are at odds with the broader ethics of our society, and ought to be recast.
The reaction of Jennings and Wallace in the example above is illustrative. Jennings had the right answer at first, and was embarrassed into a different position by Wallace. And both of these men were then seen as pariahs by the soldiers they were having a conversation with.
The press right now is similarly a pariah as a whole.
One reporter has alleged that during the 1980s, while doing a story on homelessness, he was told by his editor not to show homeless African-American men during the film clips accompanying his story; the purpose of the story would be undermined if he did. He and his cameraman were told to keep looking until they found white families, despite the fact that the majority of homeless in the area they were filming were, in fact, African American men. According to the editor (or, more accurately, according to the reporter’s account of the editor’s instructions) the idea was to portary homelessness as something that could happen to anyone, and so it was necessary to show white familes in the plight to drive that point home to (presumably) the mostly white viewing audience.
This is a good example, I think. I agree with you that a candidate’s homosexual experimentation decades ago has sweet fuck all to do with his/her ability to be president. However, that’s just what you and I think, there is a not inconsequential number of voters out there for whom this WOULD be a big deal, and might very well be a “deal-breaker” in terms of voting for a particular candidate. You are a reporter, even though you personally believe that this prior homosexual relationship is irrelevant, do you not have the duty to report the news and let the individual voters decide it’s relevance?
I guess it depends on hat you mean by “Valid.” As long as what’s being photographed is real and not staged, it’s “valid” in the sense that it’s truthful. If it’s that selective and biased, though, it goes beyond objective reporting and becomes editorializing, or even propaganda. That stuff can still be ethical if everything reported or shown is factually accurate and truthful, but I wouldn’t call it objective journalism.
I willl say that real reporting should have no greater “purpose” other than to show reality as objectively as possible.
I think true objectivity in reporting is an ideal wgich is difficult, if not imposible to achieve, though. I think that some kind of bias or subjectivity is bound to creep in, no matter how scrupulously the reporter tries to detach himself. The most ethical reporter is a camera lens.
As a lawyer, there is a code of ethics that required me to do things that others would find outright wrong - vigorous advocacy for a person who is factually guilty of some horrendous crime. People might say, “You have a higher duty, as a human being, to act differently.”
But I understand the system of justice we’ve adopted requires such advocacy, so I’m comfortable (or was, anyway) with the role.
Journalism purports to have a similar set of ethical standards, and a similar lofty purpose. So a journalist could argue that, just like a criminal defense attorney, he’s acting in a way that’s true to his ethical duties when he simply films the ambush as a neutral reporter of facts.
That doesn’t sit right with me, and I think it’s for at least two reasons: journalists do not have a rigorous, defined ethical code or a system to enforce compliance. If a lawyer breaches his ethical duty, he may be sanctioned, by reprimand, suspension, or dismissal. A journalist may be fired by his employer, of course, but that’s not remotely the same thing.
But I’d love to read more debate on this point to help clarify my thinking here.
It’s not that hard to understand. Someone who values honor, integrity and personal responsibility will agree with Jennings; people who instead worship at the shrine of expediency, moral relativism and personal glory will favor Wallace’s view.
I’ve never in my life ever heard anybody espouse a belief in moral relatavism. What a ridiculous, mythical strawman. I am a moral absolutist, dude. Right is always right and wrong is always wrong.
My position on journalistic ethos has nothing to do with expediency or glory either (and neither did Wallace’s). Wallace’s position would actually get in the way of those things.
The ethical goal of a journalist is objectivity. It is unethical for a journalist to take sides in a war. His job is to record reality as objectively as possible, not to influence it or lie about it. It’s a prime directive thing. You don’t interfere.
Only if you’re arguing for a right to complete knowledge of every aspect of a politician’s life. Otherwise, there’ll always be some section that’s private, and I’m arguing that a reporter in his capacity as a private citizen has as much right to make that call as a political party. I don’t buy into any notions of either special responsibilities or privileges for the Press, BTW. They are not public servants and shouldn’t be treated as such (unless they are a public funded broadcaster or paper, where you have those). They should be treated like any other business, and the ethics of their agents should be the ethics of the private citizen.
If it’s that simple, where do you stand on the lawyer laboring earnestly for the rapist or the child molestor’s freedom? What is the meaningful distinction, if any, between the two situations?
The distinction is that the reporter is acting not only as advocate, but as judge and jury. The reporter controls the outcome (whether or not the story gets out) with no check on the outcome. The judge determines to what extent the advocacy protects the rights of the accused, and there is an advocate on the other side to represent the other set of interests.
There is no such offsetting voice in the reporter’s case, He decides absolutely what the rights and wrongs of the case might be.
Judges and prosecutors (and, ultimately, the law) are subject to the will of the public. Journalists are not. And it really isn’t enough to say “just don’t buy the newspaper or listen to the broadcast”. That’s like saying, “if someone slanders you, just don’t listen”.
If a reporter is acting as a partisan, that is one thing. If he is acting “objectively”, that is another. If he is claiming to be “objective” but slanting his coverage to favor his own personal biases, that is another still.
The scenario of the OP is based on the assumption that the electorate is too stupid to know what is important, and requires direction. Therefore the vote is based on (deliberately) incomplete information. This represents a shift in power, away from the electorate and self-governance, and towards an unacknowledged veto by the unelected.
I’m sorry, but I’m going to ask for a cite to back up your assertion.
I’ve been looking at the ethics guidelines of numerous newspapers - all are pretty scrupulous in saying that reporters shouldn’t take sides in political controversies. That’s a far way from saying that reporters shouldn’t help American soldiers in a war zone - yet that’s the extreme Wallace would take his supposed obligation. I would say he’s taking it to an absurd level - one he’s not obligated to take.
Wallace would take his obligation for objectivity and turn it into a fetish where no judgment calls are legitimate - and then would turn around and wonder why Americans of all political stripes are disgusted by the behavior of the press.
As I’ve noted before in these sorts of discussions, objectivity is not a rational standard to which to hold reporters. The only objective journalists are dead. The proper standard is fairness - recognizing that there will be a point of view on many if not most occasions, and expecting that multiple sides will nevertheless be given weight.
I am comfortable with the idea that present-day journalists and lawyers share equally lofty ethical standards.
No. that’s pretty much exactly the same. A war is a political conflict. Reporters are not combatants. Reporters have no “side.”
“Fetish?”
Objectivty is objectivity. You can’t be objective and make judgement calls. Your assertion that Americans are “disgusted by the behavior of the press” (nice broad brush, by the way) is a little confusing to me. I thought the reason you righties hated the media was because you thought it was too liberally biased. Are you now saying you hate it because it’s too objective? Make up your mind.
Given your knee jerk repetition of “Cite? Cite? Cite?” in the Obama/Wright threads (and then ignoring them when they are given) you don’t get to wave your hands. Pony up. You made an assertion.
