Who's Watching the Watchdog?

Ethics Resource Center 2005
Knight Kiplinger

Media Ethics in a Competitive, Commercial World
(A contemporary survey and retrospective analysis)

If misery loves company, corporate America can take some small solace in the fact that it is not alone in facing some severe ethical challenges today.

Every occupation in America—even professions with well-defined codes of ethics—has been tainted by troubling lapses of integrity, however unrepresentative of the broader state of ethics in their field.

In academe and scientific research, there have been cases of plagiarism, as well as falsifying of lab results to support dramatic hypotheses. A pharmacist was found to have diluted life-saving drugs to fatten his profits. Nurses have been convicted of performing euthanasia without any authority from patients or their families. Lawyers have been disciplined for jury tampering and embezzling escrowed client funds.  Physicians have sold prescription painkillers to black-market drug dealers. Teachers and school principals have falsified student test scores to help their schools meet minimum state standards.

Society relies upon a free, independent press corps to expose wrongdoings in politics, business and the professions, but the press—this feisty watchdog—is not immune from ethical problems itself. The last few years have seen steady progression of journalists, publishers and broadcasters grappling with ethical issues: made-up quotes, made-up sources, entire fabricated stories, political bias, advertiser influence over editorial content, and commercial messages masquerading as news.

Most recently, we’ve seen the discrediting of CBS’s story about George W. Bush’s national guard service and the recent Newsweek retraction about alleged desecration of the Koran by U.S. military personnel.  These and other accuracy problems highlight the press’ increasing difficulty in verifying information from anonymous sources, who often have an ulterior motive in planting a story with the press.

No uniform, enforceable ethical code

While journalism likes to think of itself as a profession, it doesn’t share the most common characteristics of the other true professions, such as law and medicine. There is no standard educational program to prepare journalists; entry to the occupation is open to anyone with education in any field (or little education at all, which was quite common two generations ago, when few journalists were college educated).  Aspiring journalists are typically not tested on any body of substantive knowledge (history, economics, government), even by their hiring employer.

There is no accreditation or licensing requirement, either by their own professional societies or by government.  (Governmental licensing of the press, required in some less-developed and authoritarian nations, would be anathema in the U.S., given America’s First Amendment safeguard of press freedom).

While a set of ethical standards has evolved informally over the years, there is no one canon that everyone in journalism agrees to.  And there are no adjudicatory bodies, such as state bar associations or medical societies, to which ethical violations in journalism and publishing can be reported for investigation.  Finally, there are no disciplinary powers residing in press organizations.

In practice, therefore, ethical standards vary greatly from publisher to publisher.  A practice that might be common in the newsroom of a supermarket tabloid--such as paying for an exclusive interview--would be verboten in mainstream press organizations.  A reporter who might be just placed on suspension for a certain violation at one paper would be fired by another.

One example of variations in standards: Some press organizations, such as The Washington Post Company and Kiplinger, do not permit their editorial employees to accept fees for speeches before any kind of audience.  But other news organizations, especially broadcast companies, permit such speaking fees in some cases; indeed, many celebrity TV journalists derive significant personal income (in fees of $20,000 or so per appearance) from addressing audiences at business conventions.

A healthful trend in press accountability has been the sprouting of ombudsmen at news organizations around America—seasoned journalists who serve as internal ethics watchdogs.  They receive inquiries and complaints from readers about fairness, conflicts of interest and other concerns.  They conduct internal investigations and report on their findings in published stories, usually on the editorial or op-ed pages of the paper.  They sometimes agree with the complaint, but sometimes they defend the paper’s original handling of the story.   

There are many professional associations in the press world, and while they do not have licensing or disciplinary powers over their members, most of them have codes of ethics particular to their realm.

The broadest professional organization, the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), has a thoughtful, comprehensive ethical code that covers such subjects as conflicts of interest, respecting the public’s right of privacy, and accountability for journalistic errors.  Their first code of ethics was borrowed from the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1926, and it wrote its own code in 1973, with several revisions in the years since.

Even SPJ’s ethical code, as sweeping as it is, recognizes the wide differences of opinion within the news business, as well as special circumstances that might require some ethical leeway.  There are relatively few iron-clad prohibitions ("never”), but plenty of phrases like "be wary of…”,  "be cautious about…”, and "be judicious about.”

The clearest, least-controversial rules relate to conflicts of interest by journalists.  While it was once common for editorial personnel to accept entertainment, meals, travel and gifts from news sources representing commercial interests, this is taboo today at virtually all major media organizations.  Today journalists and their sources split the luncheon tab, going "Dutch treat.”  And reporters are required to inform their editors if any potential conflict of interest—whether familial relationship, ownership of an asset, or strongly held belief—might preclude their fair coverage of a story.

An Internet without ethical standards

The Internet has raised new ethical challenges for the journalism profession.  Quasi-journalistic Web logs, or blogs, operate without the ethical standards and constraints of traditional journalism.  They are often one-man shows. They typically do no fact-checking, and there are no seasoned, skeptical editors to question the accuracy or fairness of what they publish on line. Some readily disseminate unsubstantiated gossip. They are free to shill for commercial interests, hype penny stocks or manipulate markets, and it’s difficult for anyone to prove it.

Blogs can put a flimsy story into play with the speed of electrons whizzing around the world.  And then the mainstream press is faced with the dilemma of whether to match what the blogs have written, with or without substantiation, or ignore the story as long as they can. Regrettably, many reputable news organizations are choosing to rush similar stories into print, often prematurely.  It would be preferable if more editors ignored the gossip or waited until they firmed up a real story, having the courage to say to their readers, in effect, "Not all news is fit to print” (to paraphrase the classic slogan of The New York Times).            

More violations, or just higher standards?

As in many other fields, what may seem like a surge in unethical behavior in journalism might simply be the redefining of once-accepted practices as improper in a climate of heightened awareness and higher standards today.

For example, it was very common in decades past for political reporters to simply not report on inappropriate behavior by public officials they covered—excessive drinking or emotional problems that affected performance, sexual harassment of employees, etc. Today such behavior is deemed highly newsworthy, and it would be unethical of reporters to look the other way.

Among journalists who write "human interest” columns in newspapers, some say that embellishing such features with paraphrased or invented quotes and composite characters—for which a few columnists have been disciplined or fired recently—had long been a common practice, and editors knew it and didn’t care.  While this would be unacceptable in hard-news stories, they say, it was deemed okay in the colorful world of column writing.

But we can’t attribute the greater number of journalistic ethics problems today simply to higher standards. In some cases, it’s a matter of lower professional standards.

The dilemma of anonymous sources

Take the issue of publishing news stories derived entirely from sources who are never identified in the stories.  Until the early 1970s, most reputable news organizations would not publish a story unless at least some of the sources were willing to be cited or quoted "on the record,” within the story.  Anonymous sources could be used as basis for the initial tip, but their information had to be confirmed by identified sources too.

The only legitimate grounds for granting anonymity to a source was the reporter’s belief (and his editor’s) that the source would be at grave personal risk—for example, of bodily harm--if his or her identity were revealed.  Such risks were often very real in crime investigations, where witnesses and others with knowledge of a crime were clearly in danger if identified.

The Watergate exposes of The Washington Post and other news organizations--stories based largely on unnamed sources--made the use of anonymous sources much more respectable and prevalent in the news business.  Over time, the standard for granting confidentiality to a source was progressively lowered.  Even though newly enacted "whistle-blower” laws shielded both public and private-sector employees from retribution, reporters would routinely grant anonymity to sources for exposing wrongdoing by their employers.

Eventually, most reporters would promise anonymity to virtually any source, simply on the grounds that the source might be embarrassed or inconvenienced by being identified in a news story.  This gave sources virtually free rein to say anything they wanted, and it gave rise to the risk that unscrupulous sources could use trusting reporters to further their personal agendas and even spread false information.  The most careful news organizations tried to prevent this by requiring corroboration from multiple anonymous sources, but some didn’t go to such lengths.

There has long been confusion in the news business about what "source confidentiality" really entails.  Some reporters believe that they have a right to shield the identity of their news sources not just from the public, but also from their editors, who would just have to trust that the reporter’s source really existed and was telling the truth.  But most news organizations, having seen their peers burned by unreliable anonymous sources, take the position today that reporters must reveal source identities to their immediate superiors. While many news organizations assert that they have a First Amendment right not to reveal their sources to law enforcement officials, not all courts agree with this blanket privilege, and have subpoenaed reporters to cooperate in investigations.

The pendulum of reliance on anonymous sources swung too far for many years, but now it seems to be moving back towards a middle ground of tougher standards for granting confidentiality, and more reluctance to publish stories based largely on unnamed sources.

Ethics in the media business

The journalism profession is not synonymous with the business of publishing, broadcasting and entertainment. In fact, the professional ethics of the creative people who write and produce media "content”—editorial material, TV programming, movies and music--have long been at odds with the commercial interests of the business people who own and manage media enterprises.

There is an old (and cynical) saying that "freedom of the press belongs to those who own one,” meaning that the owners of media properties, not their editorial employees, have the final say on what goes into their newspapers, magazines and broadcast programming.  If they intrude on the independence of their editorial staffs, the journalists are free to object or quit in protest, but the publisher or station owner will prevail, because they literally "own the press.” But  they exercise this power at the risk of damaging the reputation of their company for integrity.

At small, less financially secure media companies, publishers and station owners sometimes pressure the news staff to go easy on big advertisers, or even find ways to mention them favorably in articles. The editorial staff finds this unethical and repugnant, but they often go along out of fear of being fired, or because they feel the survival of their publication (and their jobs) requires this.  In some entire categories of magazine publishing—for example, women’s fashion magazines—there has long been a high and unseemly correlation between their advertiser list and the products (clothing, cosmetics, jewelry) that are positively featured in the editorial content.

But at the most ethical media businesses today, the independence of the editorial and creative staff is respected, and there is a firewall that prevents advertising relationships from influencing the content of the editorial product.  That means that the automobile editor is free to pan the new cars of a particular automaker, even if the company is a big advertiser in the magazine or newspaper.  And personal-finance journalists are free to criticize the performance of a mutual fund that might be a regular advertiser in their magazine.

Different rules in the entertainment media

The taint of undue commercial influence is common in all entertainment media today, where ethical standards are generally lower than in the news business. Fifty years after the first "payola” scandals in radio music—when supposedly independent disc jockeys were bribed to play the new releases of record companies—it is likely that radio play lists are still being influenced by the lavish entertaining, gifts and under-the-table payments of the major music labels.

And producers of TV shows and movies, hungry for additional revenue, routinely sell script mentions and visual placements of commercial products—soft drinks, candy bars, automobiles, etc.—to the highest bidder.  Screen writers and directors find this to be a distasteful intrusion on their creative freedom, but they usually do as they are told.  And the viewing audience is never told about the deal.

Sometimes TV news directors and producers have been unwitting pawns of commercial interests who duped them into unethical behavior.  For example, several talks shows during the 2004 Christmas season booked a guest who was purportedly an authority on wholesome, non-violent children’s toys.  The producers didn’t learn until later that the "expert” was being paid by toymakers to recommend their products.  

These practices, seemingly new over the last 15 or so years, are actually a throwback to the early days of radio (in the 1930s and ’40s) and television (in the '50s), when sponsors had a lot influence over the content of programming, often insisting on product plugs within the show.  In the early '50s, the pioneering TV journalists who served as news anchors were sometimes required to do the sponsors’ commercials themselves during the live broadcast, on a set adjacent to the anchor’s desk.  It took a determined ethical protest by the broadcast news labor union to finally end the practice.

An evolving ethical landscape

Examples like these above show that ethics in journalism and the media industry are not a constant or an absolute, but an ever-evolving situation that shifts with social mores, economic pressures, technology and the shifting balance of power between editorial and commercial interests.  High ethical standards, in business and the professions, are easier to uphold in times of prosperity than when the bottom line is under pressure.

Overall, journalistic ethics today are probably higher than in many earlier periods of American history. The "culture wars” and partisan strife of today can’t hold a candle to the acrimony in the press of the Federalist period, when journalists variously supporting Jefferson, Adams and Hamilton had no compunction about spreading vicious rumors and lies about their opponents. And the low point of an ethical, independent press was probably the "yellow journalism” era of the 1890s, when the reporters of feuding newspaper barons like Hearst and Pulitzer whipped their readers into frenzies to sell papers.

Having said that, recent lapses in journalistic integrity have plunged today’s press into a crisis of confidence­their own sagging self-confidence and society’s confidence in the press’ credibility. It will take a concerted effort of soul-searching and tougher self-policing by the press to restore the public’s faith in the news profession.

The effort, of course, is vitally important, because an independent press of high integrity is a keystone of democracy, not just in the U.S. but especially in emerging democracies around the world. The world is watching the American media, and it must continue to be an institution worthy of global emulation.