Ethics Assignment

Ethical arguments and dilemmas involved in accurately reporting the news is by no means a new concept. For example, it's not illegal to include a rape victims name in coverage of a story, but it is frowned upon by most journalists. The New York Times has made it a practice not to include the names of rape victims in stories, but they've been guilty of that offense themselves. When William Kennedy Smith was charged with rape, the New York Times identified the women who was accusing him. Their reasoning stated that the woman's name was already in circulation, but that didn't keep journalists for the New York Times from protesting the papers decision. By any moral standard, the decision is a tricky one, and just one instance out of many in which ethical issues were present in a professional setting.

The three articles we were asked to read all pose similar moral issues, although the subject matter is arguably less sensitive. Of the three, the ethical issue I find most troubling is the one involving Gannet Newspapers in New Jersey. The Society of Professional Journalists had a field day with this decision, and rightfully so. Eric Marin is an employee of the New Jersey Devils who writes blogs for the teams official website. As such, he is a paid employee working for that organization, not of Gannet Newspapers.

The sports world has collided with the world of professional journalism before. ESPN the Magazine has an annual tradition where an athlete becomes the guest editor for a particular issue. And according to an article found on stinkyjournalism.org titled "SPJ Dismayed", the Hartford Courant allowed the daughter of Geno Auriemma, Conneticut's Women's basketball coach, the opportunity to be a celebrity blogger. How is this OK?

Morally speaking, allowing someone who could potentially have inside information about a sports team, turn around and cover that organization is absurd. The Society of Professional Journalists urges writers to "avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived." But isn't this exactly what Gannet Newspapers is allowing? Adding a disclaimer to the byline that Marin is not a paid employee of the Asbury Park Press is commendable, but having to explain that a writer is not a staff member should ring some alarms right? If journalism is still considered a "fourth estate," how can we hand over the responsibility of reporting fair and accurately about a sports team to an individual who works for that team? The newspaper is essentially allowing the New Jersey Devils the opportunity to cover itself, as opposed to using investigative and unbiased reporting standards. I'm not saying Marin would intentionally report about the Devils in a biased fashion, but couldn't he do it subconsciously without even realizing he's playing favorites? The Devils may not be urging him on from a promotional standpoint, but it certainly can't hurt the team in terms of recognition. I think both Gannet Newspapers and the New Jersey Devils organization need to realize that this poses a conflict of interest, and reporter on Gannet's pay roll should be the ones assigned to cover a local sports team.

The ProPublica article was also interesting. I think most people will be concerned with how Serri Fink is able to live off of a non-profit journalism career. Considering she has a doctorate and a medical degree, I think she'll be just fine. What I'm more concerned with is an industry leader such as the New York Times helping to support a non-profit newsroom. Sure, it's common for newspapers to run stories "off the wire," but ProPublica is not the AP. I know it's not just the Times. In fact, ProPublica has a growing list of newspaper and magazine legacies. But no one is batting an eye over the fact that a staunchly liberal philanthropist is building a news organization with practically no boundaries? Again, shouldn't we be concerned with fair and accurate reporting.

Lastly, we have David Gregory. I was actually surprised in myself after reading this article. Perhaps it's because I've never in my life watched an episode of Meet the Press, but this didn't bother me as much. If an anchor is mediating a discussion between political figures, and is asking them questions about certain issues, why is it his responsibility, or that of the show, to fact check their answers? They're not reporting the responses as absolute fact, they're simply asking the questions. Debating whether or not the questions are the right ones is another argument, and I applaud Jake Tapper for ensuring that the information being broadcast on This Week is checked. But while this appears to be another case of fair and accurate reporting on its head, I'd have to disagree. Allowing political pundits a platform on which to relay their messages isn't considered reporting in my opinion. David Gregory isn't reporting their answers as fact, he's allowing them to tell their story. If the viewer has doubts about the accuracy of a statement, they can research that information. If Gregory was writing an article in the Washington Post every week, reporting on what his guests said and labeling it as the truth, that could be an issue. This, however, doesn't bother me.