Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Journalistic Malpractice: the press should not have
the freedom to lie.
Katie Kuntzman Bucknell University
The Stakeholder Organization
May 11th, 2016
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary Page 3 Introduction Page 4 Current Policies Page 5 The First Amendment Page 5
Defamation Law Page 5
Shield Laws Page 5
Sunshine Laws & the Freedom of Information Act Page 6
The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics Page 6
Journalistic Failures Page 7 Mike Daisey on This American Life Page 8
Rolling Stone’s “A Rape on Campus” Page 9
The Debate Page 10 Protect the Journalists Page 10
Control the Journalists Page 11
Recommendations Page 12 Peer Review Board Page 12
Public Editor Page 13
Conclusion Page 14
Works Cited Page 15
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Citizens rely on the press to inform them, and it is a journalist’s job to provide the public with the most
factual information. The First Amendment protects the press’ right to free speech, and this has set the tone for
the rest of journalistic history in America. While this freedom does allow for reporters to unveil the truth and
spread awareness to its readership or viewership, it is not entirely unflawed.
This paper will delve into the current policies within American journalism today, and it will look at
where these policies have failed the public. Through two specific examples of journalistic failure, this paper will
explore the less ineffectual practices across the journalism industry today. The journalism industry is rapidly
changing, especially with the increase of, and reliance on, digital media. By utilizing the Internet, news sources
have begun to put more of an importance on getting the news out quickly, rather than making sure that all of
the facts are straight. As the news is surrounding us more and more, people are left wondering which sources are
valuable, and which are spreading falsified information.
Truthful news has such a critical value to society, and when untrue information is published it not only
hinders the journalism industry, but it hinders society as a whole. By spreading lies, society is forced to question
what news sources, if any, are reliable. In order to combat these new issues in the journalism industry, whilst still
keeping true to the Code of Ethics set forth for journalists, new rules and regulations must be established. While
rules and regulations for journalists risk compatibility issues with the First Amendment, this paper will propose
several recommendations for moving forward that accommodate the freedom of the press in tandem with
producing credible news for the public.
4
INTRODUCTION The United States has a unique
dedication to protecting the press, which is
exemplified through the First Amendment,
amongst other laws and procedures throughout
American history. While American citizens are
lucky to live in a country where censorship does
not exist, that does not mean that all of the news
that is produced, by even the most reputable of
sources, has not been falsified in some way,
shape, or form.
Journalism in America has changed
drastically throughout the years; as Downie and
Schudson, professors of journalism, put it,
“American journalism is at a transformational
moment, in which the era of dominant
newspapers and influential network news
divisions is rapidly giving way to one in which
the gathering and distribution of news is more
widely dispersed” (Downie). Now, the title of
“the press,” or even the moniker “journalist,”
casts a wide net across many different
individuals and institutions. What was once just
writers and reporters for newspapers has now
become everything from tweeters to bloggers to
vloggers, and everything in between. This comes
from a transition to digital media, as well as a
decrease in dependence on traditional print
media. With more and more traditional
journalists being laid off, it is no wonder that
these individuals are resorting to less traditional
forms of media, most of which are found in the
digital sphere.
In the digital day in age where one can
receive news updates from hundreds of sources
simultaneously, it is becoming increasingly more
difficult to decipher what sources are giving its
audience reliable and factual information. This
also comes from a newfound dedication to
getting news out as quickly as possible. The US
is seeing less and less articles meticulously
combed through by fact checkers, and more
articles that are hot off the press ten minutes
after the event even happened; fact checking is
now often happening after articles are
published.
In addition, the increasing dependence
on the commercial side of journalism is entirely
counteracting what is at the core of journalism,
which is simply to tell the truth. While a
reporter once had a simple task, this task has
now become clouded with weight from
institutions, advertisers, and a multitude of
outside forces.
Pure journalistic integrity is not as easy
to come by today. With the rise of social media,
people are beginning to believe less and less of
the news, and in this current environment every
one needs to be informed. More importantly,
this information needs to be factual.
5
CURRENT POLICIES Currently, there is no formal set of laws
and regulations, nor any specific, official
governing body, for journalists. Instead,
journalists are supposed to follow the laws set in
force by the United States government, as well
as the Code of Ethics set force by the Society of
Professional Journalists.
The First Amendment
The First Amendment is at the root of
the American press. To specify, the First
Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances” (First Amendment). This
Amendment protects the press’ right to speak
and write freely, and it is a cornerstone of life as
an American citizen.
Defamation Law
In addition to the First Amendment,
journalists must also abide by the United States
defamation law. Defamation is “a statement that
injures a third party's reputation;” included in
the tort of defamation is slander, or oral
defamation, and libel, which is “defamation
expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs,
effigies, or any communication embodied in
physical form that is injurious to a person's
reputation, exposes a person to public hatred,
contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in
his/her business or profession” (Defamation
Law) (Slander) (Libel). This law affects
journalists in scenarios where they have attacked
specific people, however journalists tend to be
protected under the First Amendment in
defamation cases. In order for a plaintiff to win
a defamation case, they must show four things:
“a false statement purporting to be fact;
publication or communication of that statement
to a third person; fault; and damages, or some
harm caused to the person or entity who is the
subject of the statement” (Defamation Law).
Under United States law, members of the press
tend to have almost unlimited freedom in their
work, and courts tend to not hold up defamation
cases.
Shield Laws
While there are no laws governing
journalistic processes, there are other laws in
place to protect journalists in addition to the
First Amendment. Currently, forty-eight states,
excluding Wyoming and Hawaii, and the
District of Columbia, have granted journalists
“reporter’s privilege” (Raise the Shield!). This
“privilege” grants protection to reporters so they
do not have to reveal confidential information if
they have been subpoenaed by a state
government. Allowing reporters this sort of
amnesty from revealing confidential information
6
can help reinforce their integrity as journalists.
While these state laws are helpful in protecting
journalists, there is currently no federal law in
place to protect them from this particular issue.
The Society of Professional Journalists is
heatedly pursuing federal legislature on this
issue to more greatly protect professional
journalists.
Sunshine Laws and the Freedom of
Information Act
In the 1970’s, Sunshine Laws were put
into action to “shine light” on the interior of the
state and federal governments. From these laws,
government officials were mandated to disclose
records and decisions from regulatory body
meetings (Legal). This means that individuals
and journalists, alike, can gain closer access to
the government’s internal practices. In addition,
in 1966, the Freedom of Information Act was
created to “disclose records not specifically and
reasonably exempt to any individuals --
including journalists -- upon written request,
with the right of access enforceable in court”
(Legal). This act applies to most branches and
departments of the United States government,
aside from the president, Congress, and the
courts. While gaining access to this information
proves to take ample patience from reporters, it
is still a major access point for journalistic
endeavors, protected by US law.
The Society of Professional Journalists
Code of Ethics
Under current policies, journalists are
encouraged to adhere to the Code of Ethics set
forth by the Society of Professional Journalists.
Founded in 1909, the SPJ’s mission is:
• To promote this flow of information.
• To maintain constant vigilance in
protection of the First Amendment
guarantees of freedom of speech and of
the press.
• To stimulate high standards and ethical
behavior in the practice of journalism.
• To foster excellence among journalists.
• To inspire successive generations of
talented individuals to become dedicated
journalists.
• To encourage diversity in journalism.
• To be the pre-eminent, broad-based
membership organization for journalists.
• To encourage a climate in which
journalism can be practiced freely (Our
Mission).
The Code of Ethics that the SPJ has set forth
is merely a set of guidelines, and according to
the SPJ, “it is not, nor can it be under the First
Amendment, legally enforceable” (SPJ Code of
Ethics). The Code is constructed on the
foundation of four main principles: Seek Truth
7
and Report It, Minimize Harm, Act
Independently, and Be Accountable and
Transparent (SPJ Code of Ethics).
Seek Truth and Report It
This section focuses on accuracy and honesty;
journalists should always verify their work,
which includes reaching out to each source
mentioned in the publication.
Minimize Harm
This portion discusses the importance of
respecting all individuals involved in story, and
it states that a journalist should “use heightened
sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims
of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are
inexperienced or unable to give consent.”
Act Independently
These particular lines focus on the idea that “the
highest and primary obligation of ethical
journalism is to serve the public.” This not only
means that all journalists should avoid conflicts
of interest, but also they should always
“distinguish news from advertising,” which is a
growing issue in the current media milieu.
Be Accountable and Transparent
This final section of the Code of Ethics states
that journalists should take responsibility for
their work, and they should be able to
acknowledge their own mistakes, as well as
uncover and expose any unethical conduct by
other journalists.
JOURNALISTIC FAILURES While the methods put in place seem to
be fairly all encompassing, there have still been
many errors throughout American journalism
history. Especially in this new age of media,
journalism malpractice has been rampant, and
these failures have had lasting effects on society.
The SPJ Code of Ethics is a statement of abiding principles supported by additional explanations and position papers (at spj.org) that address changing journalistic practices. It is not a set of rules, rather a guide that encourages all who engage in journalism to take responsibility for the information they provide, regardless of medium. The code should be read as a whole; individual principles should not be taken out of context. It is not, nor can it be under the First Amendment, legally enforceable.
SEEK TRUTH AND REPORT IT Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Journalists should:
u Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.
u Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.u Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in
promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.u Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.u Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.u Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as pos-
sible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.u Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for
sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
u Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criti-cism or allegations of wrongdoing.
u Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
u Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.
u Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.u Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and
government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.
u Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.u Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience.
Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.u Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and
experiences may shape their reporting.u Label advocacy and commentary.u Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information.
Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.u Never plagiarize. Always attribute.
MINIMIZE HARMEthical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.
Journalists should:
u Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.
u Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.
u Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justifica-tion to publish or broadcast.
u Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.
u Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.u Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider
the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.u Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of
publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.
ACT INDEPENDENTLYThe highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public.
Journalists should:
u Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.u Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid politi-
cal and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.
u Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; do not pay for access to news. Identify content provided by outside sources, whether paid or not.
u Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.
u Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.
BE ACCOUNTABLE AND TRANSPARENTEthical journalism means taking responsibility for one's work and explaining one’s decisions to the public.
Journalists should:
u Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news content.
u Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.u Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain
corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.u Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.u Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.
PREAMBLEMembers of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity.
The Society declares these four principles as the foundation of ethical journalism and encourages their use in its practice by all people in all media.
Figure 1: SPJ Code of Ethics
8
“Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory” on
NPR’s This American Life
In 2012, Mike Daisey, an American
monologist, author, and actor, performed on
National Public Radio’s This American Life (454:
Mr. Daisey). NPR, and This American Life in
particular, is known for a being reputable source
of culture. This American Life, hosted by Ira Glass,
mostly showcases non-fiction stories, so it was
assumed that Mike Daisey’s monologue would
be a non-fiction story of the like. Daisey’s
performance was an adaptation of his
monologue “The Agony and the Ecstacy of
Steve Jobs,” a monologue that he wrote about
his trip to China to visit Apple’s factories (454:
Mr Daisey). The monologue details specific
events that he saw during his factory visits, as
well as conversations and meetings with factory
workers and his translator, Kathy (454: Mr.
Daisey). He talks about the gruesome workdays,
terrible conditions, disfiguring chemicals,
underage workers, and, of course, the suicide
epidemic that had been occurring at the
Foxconn Plant, one of Apple’s factories. His
monologue was intriguing, riveting, detailed,
and, as Ira Glass would come to find out,
falsified.
Two months after the original
monologue aired on NPR, Ira Glass issued a
retraction and dedicated his show to discussing
the falsified information in Mike Daisey’s
monologue (460: Retraction). While This
American Life did proceed in fact checking
methodology, the show did not account for the
fact that Mike Daisey was lying about some of
the facts. TAL should have triangulated the
information in order to make sure all of the
information was correct, and if it were not able
to do so it should have not aired the showed, or
it should have aired the show with a disclaimer
of creative licensing, stating that the message
was slightly fictionalized.
While Mike Daisey did fabricate some
facts, it does not mean that his entire message
was false, nor does it mean that what he lied
about was not actually true. He should not have
lied about his story, nor should TAL have
allowed him to do so, because now listeners
think that everything he said was a lie. Foxconn
really did have a suicide epidemic; there are
terrible working conditions in these Chinese
factories and countless accounts of underage
workers in these factories – yet now everyone
believes these are all lies. The lapse in judgment
of both Ira Glass and Mike Daisey as journalists
not only produced lies for the public, but also
they covered up important truths that listeners
needed to know about.
9
Rolling Stone Magazine’s: “A Rape on
Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle
for Justice at UVA”
Rolling Stone’s “A Rape on Campus”
article exemplifies journalistic failure in a more
traditional form of journalism: online and print
magazine. On November 19th, 2014, Rolling
Stone shocked its audience with an article
entitled: “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault
and Struggle for Justice at UVA” (Erdely).
Sabrina Rubin Erdely, who at the time had
been writing at Rolling Stone for six years, wrote
the article under the guidance and support of
her editorial team. “A Rape on Campus”
followed one main source: Jackie, a female
student from the University of Virginia. In the
article, Jackie shared her disturbing and heart-
wrenching story of being raped during her
freshman year at the university, and the article
uses Jackie’s story as a microcosm for the rape
culture and corrupt university practices not only
at UVA, but also at universities across the
country. In addition to Jackie’s alarming
firsthand account of rape, the article also
included snippets of stories from various rape
victims, all students at the University of Virginia
at some point in time.
Throughout the writing process, Erdely
never learned the name of Jackie’s rapist, who
was given the pseudo name Drew, nor did she
delve deeply into finding out this key bit of
information. In fact, Erdely never actually
contacted a vast majority of the individuals
written about in the article. Finally, right after
the date of publication, Erdely tried one last
time to elicit the name from Jackie. At this
point, Jackie decided to reveal the name; only,
she could not remember how to spell his last
name (Coronel). As soon as Jackie could not
remember the spelling, Erdely knew something
was wrong, at which point it was too late.
Within days of publication, Erdely’s
article began attracting vast media attention.
The fraternity mentioned in the article, UVA
administration, Jackie’s defamed friends – every
person cited in the article was enraged. Weeks
passed, various peer newspaper articles were
produced, and finally on April 5th, 2015, just five
months after the article was published, Rolling
Stone retracted “A Rape on Campus” (Coronel).
In its place the magazine posted “Rolling Stone
and UVA: The Columbia University Graduate
School of Journalism Report.” This report,
written by the Columbia University Graduate
School of Journalism, detailed each error that
Erdely, and the entire Rolling Stone staff, made
throughout the journalistic process of producing
“A Rape on Campus.” Jackie did indeed lie
about her rape, but had Erdely and the Rolling
Stone staff done their proper jobs as journalists,
none of this falsified information would have hit
the press.
10
The aftermath of this journalistic failure
is immense and tragic. Not only were various
people and institutions wrongly libeled, but also
the wrongdoings of this article reinforced this
widely, and wrongly, held belief that many
proclaimed rape victims are actually lying.
Studies show that between two and ten
percent of rapes are falsely claimed, which is far
less than much of society has been lead to
believe. Erdely’s decision to continue working
with Jackie, instead of following the procedures
set forth by the SPJ Code of Ethics, has
hindered society’s view of rape culture. This
journalistic failure had real repercussions for
society, and specifically for rape victims, yet
Erdely is still a writer at Rolling Stone, and the
magazine received no repercussions aside from a
little bad public relations for a brief stint of time.
THE DEBATE The debate at hand is over what sort of controls
there should be in the journalism industry. It has
been debated by many stakeholders, including
journalists, politicians, every day citizens, media
organizations, and even the Inter-American
Council on Human Rights (Licensing of Media
Workers). Are things okay the way they are,
should journalists have more protection from
the government, or should journalists have more
regulation?
Protect the Journalists
The journalists themselves are the main
stakeholder on this side of the argument. As
mentioned above, there is a strong push from
the journalism industry for the federal
government to impose a shield law for
protection (Raise the Shield!). In addition to this
sort of protection, journalists on this side of the
debate feel as if any sort of licensing system
would be “used as a political tool for
governments to suppress alternative, critical or
diverse voices” (Licensing of Media Workers).
Journalists are appalled by the desire of
some to enforce more rules on this vibrantly
expanding industry. In 2012, Alan Greenblatt, a
writer for NPR, wrote about how he has been
increasingly asked for identification, for example
some sort of press badge, when interviewing
Figure 2: The Truth about a Viral Graphic on Rape Statistic
11
people, specifically in the government
(Greenblatt). In response, a journalist from Ad
Week wrote, “you simply do not need a degree
in journalism to prove you know how to ask
who, what, when, where, why and how, and
then write it up accurately. Plenty of good
reporters didn’t learn those skills in the
classroom. And plenty of bad reporters have a
degree but still didn’t learn to apply those skills
well” (Adams). Enforcing a stringent licensing
system would limit the possibilities for non-
traditional journalists, as traditional media
outlets are not offering the number of jobs as
they have in the past. There are more and more
bloggers on the journalism scene today, and
creating a government mandated certification
system would be difficult to enforce due to this
expansion. Allowing the government to police
journalists risks major infringements on the First
Amendment, as government and the press are
supposed to stay as two separate entities.
Control the Journalists
On the other side of this argument is a
strong front of individuals, institutions, and
mostly members of the Republic party who
believe that journalists should have more
regulations. In 2010, the State of Michigan was
proposing a law to register journalists, and in
2016 a South Carolina senator, relating
journalists to guns, proposed a registry system
(Jackson) (Winter). Senator Bruce Patterson,
who introduced the Michigan bill, said “the
general public is being overwhelmed by an
increasing number of media outlets --
traditional, online and citizen generated -- and
an even greater amount of misinformation”
(Winter). The proposed legislation, as well as
many of its kind, have the intention of
legitimizing the media in this digital age where
news is constantly around us from a countless
number of sources. This bill is not alone; as
Kelly McBride, a media ethics expert from at
the Poynter Institute states, “governments often
try to control journalists through a credentialing
process -- and these attempts are usually deemed
unconstitutional” (Winter). Despite the fact that
“legitimate media sources are critically
important to our government,” enforcing
government-mandated rules on journalists
leaves great room for politics in the press,
something that the First Amendment fervently
stands against (Winter).
Figure 3: Free Speech
12
RECOMMENDATIONS While everyone can agree that some
boundaries must exist even in profession as
stringently protected by the First Amendment,
the argument becomes on where these
boundaries should lie. The Society of Professional Journalist’s
Code of Ethics is all encompassing and well
rounded, however a Code of Ethics does not
seem to be enough to solve greater issues with
journalistic malpractice. This Society, however,
can be of assistance in a more tactile way in the
future than it has been to date. Instead of the
government imposing reform on journalists, this
new reform should come from peers; journalists
should be reviewing and policing each other.
This can be done in a few ways, mostly through
the use of a Peer Review Board and a Public
Editor.
Peer Review Board
While licensing for journalists should not
come from the government, some sort of
accreditation system should be put in place.
Instead of this coming from a higher power, it
should come from a peer review board, such as
the Society of Professional Journalists. This
would simply make the existing Code of Ethics
into a more binding set of rules and regulations.
The board would be responsible for reviewing
journalists and their work, making sure that it is
up to the high standards of the Society of
Professional Journalists. If a journalist does not
follow the Code of Ethics, they will lose their
accreditation, and thus they will lose their
integrity amongst the journalism community,
and in the news world.
This is not a radical idea; peer review
boards exist in other industries, such as the
American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants’ peer review system of accountants.
The peer review also system already exists in
journalism, most frequently in scholarly
journalism. However, it is not as commonly seen
or known, and it needs to become a more
legitimized practice.
The Peer Review Board would be made
up of a journalist society, such as the Society of
Professional Journalists, and they would be in
charge of policing other journalists. Becoming a
member of this society would require journalists
to submit previous work to prove that they are
ethical writers who know, and work using, the
Code of Ethics set forth by the board. There
should be no age requirement, nor any formal
education requirement, as journalists have
clearly expressed that these characterizes are
irrelevant to making good journalists. The true
test of whether or not someone should gain a
certification is if their work has shown diligence
to the ethical responsibilities of journalists.
This is not an overnight change by any
means, but it is a change that needs to occur.
13
Advertising and truly making this change known
is going to be the factor most critical to success.
There will need to be a campaign to explain this
change to the public, and there will need to be a
campaign to make journalists get on board to
protect their industry. As soon as people become
aware of this system, they should only want to
read articles written by journalists who have
been accredited by the SPJ.
Public Editor
A public editor, or someone who works
outside of the institution for which they are
editing, would be a great way to enforce more
stringent rules on journalists, while leaving the
government out of the press sphere (The Public
Editor). Public Editors, also referred to as
ombudsmen, are commonly found across the
globe, but they are not as population, nor as
publicized, as they could be in the United
States. The job of a Public Editor is to “receive
and investigate complaints from newspaper
readers or listeners or viewers of radio and
television stations about accuracy, fairness,
balance and good taste in news coverage. He or
she recommends appropriate remedies or
responses to correct or clarify news reports”
(About).
The New York Times is currently in the process
of hiring its sixth Public Editor. The New York
Times, a famously credible news source, hired its
first Public Editor in 2003, after a plagiarism
scandal. The Times has used a Public Editor ever
since, which has brought back its critical
credibility. The Times’ Public Editor’s job is to
“write about the Times and its journalism in a
frequent blog – the Public Editor’s Journal —
and in a twice-monthly print column in the
Sunday Review section. The public editor’s
office also handles questions and comments
from readers and investigates matters of
journalistic integrity. The public editor works
independently, outside of the reporting and
editing structure of the newspaper; her opinions
are her own” (About the Public Editor). All
media outlets should adopt this method, and
they should be more forced to publicize it to
their audiences. By allowing an outside source to
continuously audit the work done within the
organization, it is clear that none of the
information published will be falsified. This idea
is similar to what Rolling Stone did after the “A
Rape on Campus” scandal (Coronel). By
allowing the Columbia University Graduate
School of Journalism to report on their paper,
all of the journalistic flaws were unveiled. If
Rolling Stone had contracted this review prior to
publishing its article, society would have been
better off.
14
CONCLUSION In this day in age where journalism is
becoming increasingly commercialized, a more
formal set of rules and regulations would benefit
journalists, and society as a whole. It would
allow legitimate, ethical journalists to set
themselves apart from those who are not as
dedicated to their craft, and it would allow
readers to know when they are being given the
correct, authentic information. Solving these
issues is critical to the vitality of the American
press. In no way should regulation impose on
First Amendment rights, nor should the
government have any input on these
regulations. The only goal of these regulations is
to make sure that all news is factual for the
greater good of the American people.
The press has been set up to enlighten
the public on important news. Instead of
shedding light on critical issues within society,
over the years the press has become too
consumed with selling papers and getting hits,
which has forced true journalistic standards to
be put on the backburner. Not only has this
improper focus resulted in the press falsifying
stories, but also what is worse is that these lies it
has spread have actually covered up important
truths, as evidenced through the Rolling Stone
article and the NPR show. The cornerstone of
news and the press is integrity, and without
integrity how are readers, listeners, and viewers
supposed to trust any news outlet?
This paper does not focus on the issue of
biased news sources; bias is not the issue, but
instead the issue is lying. Lying to the public
through producing falsified stories and passing
them off as the truth should not be condoned, as
it is misinforming society, and these accounts of
misinformation could be covering up real issues
that society must tackle. By utilizing a Peer
Review Board, as well as a Public Editor,
journalists will be allowed to police themselves,
which keeps true to the ideals of the First
Amendment, whilst still legitimizing and
verifying that news is bringing its audience true,
factual information.
15
WORKS CITED
"About." Organization of News Ombudsmen. Web. 09 May 2016. "About The Public Editor." The Public Editors Journal. The New York Times. Web. 09 May 2016. Adams, Meranda. "How Do You (And Should You Need To) Prove You’re A Journalist?" FishbowlNY.
Ad Week, 11 Apr. 2012. Web. 11 May 2016. Coronel, Shiela, Steve Collier, and Derek Kravitz. "Rolling Stone and UVA: The Columbia University
Graduate School of Journalism Report." Rolling Stone. 05 Apr. 2015. Web. 15 Apr. 2016. "Defamation." Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. Web. 08 May 2016. Downie, Leonard, Jr., and Michael Schudson. The Reconstruction of American Journalism. Rep. 20 Oct.
2009. Web. 08 May 2016. Erdely, Sabrina Rubin. "A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA." Rolling
Stone. 19 Nov. 2014. Web. 16 Apr. 2016. "First Amendment." Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. Web. 08 May 2016. Fisher, Marc. "Who Cares If It's True?" Columbia Journalism Review. Web. 09 May 2016. Glass, Ira. "454: Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory Transcript." This American Life, 6 Jan. 2012. Web.
04 May 2016. Glass, Ira. "460: Retraction Transcript." This American Life. 2012. Web. 05 May 2016. Greenblatt, Alan. "Increasingly, Reporters Must First Answer Some Questions." The Two-Way.
National Public Radio, 10 Apr. 2012. Web. 10 May 2016. Jackson, Gavin, and Schuyler Kropf. "Republican Lawmaker Says Journalists Should Face a Registry
to Work in South Carolina." Post and Courier. 19 Jan. 2016. Web. 11 May 2016. Khurana, Rakesh, and Nitin Nohria. "It’s Time to Make Management a True Profession." Harvard
Business Review (2008). Web.
16
Lee, Michelle Ye Hee. "The Truth about a Viral Graphic on Rape Statistics." Washington Post. The
Washington Post, 9 Dec. 2014. Web. 11 May 2016. "Legal." Ethics, Law & Good Practice. NYU Journalism Handbook for Students, 31 Aug. 2007. Web. 9
May 2016. "Libel." Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. Web. 08 May 2016. "Licensing of Media Workers." Article 19. Web. 11 May 2016. "A New Understanding: What Makes People Trust and Rely on News?" American Press Institute. 17 Apr.
2016. Web. 08 May 2016. “Our Mission.” Society of Professional Journalists. Web. 11 May 2016.
"The Public Editor." The New York Times. Web. 09 May 2016. "Raise the Shield!" Society of Professional Journalists. Web. 11 May 2016. Rolling Stone. "A Note to Our Readers." Rolling Stone. 05 Dec. 2014. Web. 19 Apr. 2016. Shelton, Mike. Free Speech. Digital image. The Franklin Center. Blue Grass Bulletin. Web. 11 May 2016.
"Slander." Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. Web. 08 May 2016. "SPJ Code of Ethics." Society of Professional Journalists. Web. 07 May 2016. Uberti, David. "The Worst Journalism of 2014." Columbia Journalism Review. 22 Dec. 2014. Web. 11
May 2016. Winter, Jana. "Michigan Considers Law to Register Journalists." Fox News. FOX News Network, 28
May 2010. Web. 11 May 2016.