When bad things happen in good newsrooms, we usually zero in on the journalist. What did the individual do — or not do? That becomes the first in a series of questions aimed at highlighting the individual, the act, and what went wrong.
Did he deceive someone? Should he have done so? Did she plagiarize? Why did she do it? Did he make up that quote? Why? We probe, push, and prod. We believe in holding ourselves accountable as individuals. And we should.
But an ethical, or unethical, act doesn’t occur in a vacuum. It happens in the midst of a wide range of activity. Sometimes we remain unaware until someone brings it to our attention. Other times we suspect something, but fail to alert anyone.
How we react, and what we do, usually depends on the environment we work in and how it’s structured to handle ethical questions. The institution, as well as the individual, plays a role in the outcome.
I was reminded of that when I read a recent article about the media by Edward Wasserman, who holds the Knight Chair in Journalism at Washington and Lee University. Wasserman examines the resignation of reporter Jack Kelley from USA Today. Kelley’s departure followed his admission that he had misled his editors in their investigation of accusations that his stories included fabrications and plagiarism.
…an ethical, or unethical, act doesn’t occur in a vacuum. It happens in the midst of a wide range of activity.Wasserman points out that other reporters at USA Today were aware of the allegations for years. Some wondered about Kelley’s ability to come up with the quotes and information that appeared in his stories. Others attributed such questions to professional jealousy.
Regardless of what Kelley’s colleagues knew, their concerns apparently failed to reach the ears of editors who might have acted upon them sooner. And that, in part, resulted from the way newsrooms operate, Wasserman asserts:
…(T)he ability to root out journalistic wrongdoing is hobbled by the way news organizations are run. The people with the keenest understanding of what’s wrong with a reporter’s work may well be other reporters. But they typically have scant opportunity to review and comment on coverage, as well as little institutional role in newsroom management. Editors meet regularly; reporters rarely.
He goes on to chronicle the ways that the newsroom hierarchy inhibits communication from the lower levels. He also notes out that reporters “get paid to focus on their own stories, not on the quality and integrity of the organization they serve.” And that prompts them to complain anonymously, he adds.
Wasserman’s view of how news people see their ethical responsibilities, and the ways they carry them out, spotlights the need for a re-evaluation of our roles. His piece prompted me to wonder what organizations could do to encourage journalists up and down the chain of command to communicate more effectively about critical issues of ethics and credibility.
Remind everyone who works on news that credibility undergirds everything they do. Without credibility, they have nothing of value to offer.If we want our readers, viewers, listeners, and users to trust us as journalists, and as journalistic enterprises, we need to see our ethical decision-making in a more complete way. We need to embrace the idea that ethics involves individual and institutional initiatives.
So, what can individuals -– staffers as well as bosses — do to put the entire organization to work in pursuit of more ethical journalism?
Here are some suggestions, which many of you may already be doing or considering:
- Call so much attention to your ethical principles that your staff and the public is aware of them. For most newsrooms, this will mean doing something quite new.
- Make sure that every new staffer, and every veteran, knows the principles you abide by, why you abide by them, and how essential they are to their credibility. Not to mention the good health of the enterprise.
- Sponsor or support ethical discussions in-house, encouraging examination of ethical issues that concern your staff or cases that have emerged elsewhere.
- Establish procedures that enable people to voice concerns in ways that demonstrate their interest in maintaining the integrity of the story as opposed to challenging the integrity of the individual.
- Create opportunities for reporters, producers, photojournalists, visual journalists, and editors to talk together openly, and productively, about what they can do to enhance their credibility.
- Prosecute the story, not the individual.
- Remind everyone who works on news that credibility undergirds everything they do. Without credibility, they have nothing of value to offer.
I offer these ideas not as final answers but as discussion starters. I welcome your ideas to help news organizations get better at preventing and spotting the bad things afflicting good newsrooms.
