The Ethical Evolution of Journalism

In a contemporary society like the modern United States, people tend to be confronted with issues and debates that divide constituencies among a plethora of opinions. Journalism and its various methods of distributing information has proven to be one of the more prominent battle grounds for various ethical debates in recent decades. Corrupt morals and deceptive motives are what drive the controversies that surround the public’s “right to know” information as well as “want to know” and “need to know”. The evolution of these three forms of information has been even more striking over the course of recent decades in terms of immorality. This progression has contributed to the overall increase of conflicting ethical reporting techniques in addition to a lack of specificity in guidelines that journalists can refer to. Dr. Christopher Hanson has seen this evolution first hand. He worked for 20 years as a reporter and is now a professor at the University of Maryland’s Philip Merrill College of Journalism. Hanson argues that coming up with solutions to ethical dilemmas in journalism is far from a simple task.

Ethical guidelines in journalism comprise the largest grey area in the field.

The constant evolution of reporting makes it nearly impossible to impose a specific list of rules for journalists to abide by. Hanson points out that governing principles have been used to replace specific rules that journalists may refer to. While it may seem sensible to offer a less precise approach, especially considering how vast the field of journalism truly is, this can lead to a great deal of controversy. Putting the art of interpretation in the hands of journalists in order to decide how to go about delivering the news is a method that has and will undoubtedly always lead to debate. This is due to the ambiguity that is associated with personal interpretation. There is always a possibility that a journalist will make a wrong decision in analyzing certain information, which can lead to a dispute among the topic.

The varying levels of rights and accessibility associated with the three forms of information may be surprising to many.

In the land of the free, one can only assume that such a level of freedom will correspond positively with information distribution, especially when considering “right to know” information. Everyone has his or her own perceptions of how the right to gain knowledge of certain information should be enforced. Adam Weiner, Sophomore Computer Science major at the University of Maryland, has a pretty common opinion on the topic. However, these rights are far different in reality. “Right to know” information only assures the ability to obtain government documents such as court transcripts and open records. The ways in which this information may be ethically violated have become increasingly prevalent. One of these violations may occur by falsely labeling a person’s image for personal advantage. “Want to know” information is cited by Hanson as the least important form of information distribution. On the other hand, it is the most common. As the form that is least ethically defensible, it comes as no surprise that “want to know” is of the least importance to society, as it can lead to abuse in desire of financial gain. In this particular form, it is the audience who decides what is important and what is not. This only ensures that a great variety of personal interests are taken into account without knowledge of what is genuinely significant to the general population. Lastly, “need to know” is what is widely accepted as the most meaningful form of information. It is the foundation for the most vital news that must be conveyed for the wellbeing of the general public. Hanson agrees that “need to know” belongs at the top of the list regarding purpose and importance.

In order to understand the current trends in the world of journalism, one must analyze the historic trends of the three forms of information distribution.

Hanson claims that historically growing pressure on news outlets in addition to a seemingly unquenchable thirst from the public for information tailored to individual interests have led to a growing prominence of “want to know” information. This trend is seen as disturbing to many, as it shows a pattern that portrays the news drifting away from what really matters. The overwhelming presence of this form of information has not only negatively impacted the amount of “need to know” information that is circulated, but also it has correlated negatively with “right to know” information. The pressures that have led to this spike in less important news are the same pressures that have limited the amount of federal information that is released, therefore toying with the public’s rights that are emphasized through the “right to know”.

Clearly, this is a focal point in the ethical debate of journalism as society continues to absorb information that is only becoming less meaningful as time passes. Perhaps Professor Hanson believes that rules are the only real chance there is to save the journalism world. Until then, one must not expect these ongoing trends to slow down any time soon.

Media Ethics: An Interview with Christopher Hanson

Question 1: Many feel, quite justifiably, that rules are not the answers to the ethical issues we face in the contemporary world of journalism. If rules such as the ethical guidelines provided by the Society of Professional Journalism cannot solve these issues, what do you think the answer may be, if there even is one?

Question 2: Which form of information distribution (right to know, want to know, need to know) do you think is the most beneficial for our society?

Question 3: You were a reporter for 20 years. Through your first hand experience, how have the concepts of right to know, want to know, and need to know evolved ethically over time? Has one changes more than the others?

Adam talks about the public's right to know and it's limitations

listen to ‘Adam talks about the public's right to know and it's limitations’ on Audioboo

Zach talks ethics in journalism

listen to ‘Zach talks ethics in journalism ’ on Audioboo

The Evolution of Ethics in Journalism

            The application of ethics to journalism is a unique and varying factor. In some cases, ethics are followed just as laws are. However, in all too many instances, ethics may be abused for personal and financial gain. This is a huge factor in the battle of “want to know” vs. “right to know” information. Surprisingly, the public’s right to know is not as free as one might think it is. This information is usually associated with legal rights and examples of these rights include court transcripts and open records. On the other hand, the so-called “right to privacy” has gradually been less obeyed in recent decades. One of these violations is falsely labeling a person’s image for personal advantage.

            The most common information distribution strategy falls under the category of want to know. This information is less ethically driven and is typically motivated by factors such as financial gain, rather than a desire for quality news and media. In addition, there is the public’s “need to know”, which is not as promising as it may sound. Information that is in this category maybe be subject to a decision regarding what version of the truth the public should actually know.

            Evidently, there are ethical loopholes and strategies all over the world of journalism. The manner in which news is conveyed has come to a point where it is sometimes difficult to figure out what is truthful and what is a lie. This must be addressed before the news becomes responsible for all of the world’s disarray.

Questions I would ask my expert:

1. Many feel, quite justifiably, that rules are not the answer to these ethical issues we face in the contemporary world of journalism. If rules cannot solve these issues, what do you think the answer may be?

2. Which form of information distribution (right to know, need to know, or want to know), in its current state, do you think is the most beneficial for our society?

Terpstock

listen to ‘Terpstock’ on Audioboo

To Trust, or Not to Trust: Athletes and Social Media

            In addition to completely reinventing the way information is exchanged through an entirely new medium, social media has brought the connected world closer together than ever before. Not only can we interact with those who are already close to us personally, but also we can reach out to those who are on a different level than ourselves. This includes the countless celebrities and icons that rely on social media to virtually stay connected with their fan bases. Although fans do not typically have the most direct opportunities to express opinions with their idols, there is still a greater sense of connection in the network on social media. Many role models and celebrities in the world of sports fall into this portion of people with fan bases in the world of social media.  They are reinventing how sports fans get the information they desire. Opinions and updates for individual athletes have never been more readily available to the public since the creation of ESPN. Nowadays it seems that when every athletic superstar isn’t playing the game itself, they are updating Facebook and Twitter pages nonstop. However, self-reported tweets and posts by players should never be mistaken for true pro sports journalism.

It is true that social networks bring athletes closer to their fans and the ones who care about them the most.

            But naturally, these accounts can provide a medium for their opinions and ultimately their biases. This is not to say that it is necessarily a bad thing for athletes to be able to go public with their thoughts on a particular subject, but it can cause issues as their followings can very easily pick up those very same perspectives and mistake them for facts. This was very evident during the recent NHL lockout that carried into early 2013. The lockout was an overall conflict between the National Hockey League and the National Hockey League Players Association (NHLPA). For the excessive duration of the lockout, the players were nonstop posting hateful and disapproving tweets and posts against the NHL, claiming they were doing their fans a disservice by gradually canceling more and more games of the season. Personally, I am a huge hockey fan and I must admit to succumbing to players’ opinions, which I still do side with to this day. However, they all resulted in close-minded responses from fans (like myself), and not understanding that the NHL was in a very tough spot that at least deserved the slightest bit of recognition. Those opinions have certainly lingered. While us fans are more than content to have our beloved sport back in action, there is still a reasonable amount of animosity towards Gary Bettman, the commissioner of the NHL. This is a prime example of Twitter opinions shaping the collective and overall opinion of a fan base.

There are times when one can tell a lot about an athlete and his/her personality through the use of social media. 


            Clearly, some athletes are better sports than others. In other words, while many athletes project a favorable and generous self to the worlds of Twitter and Facebook, there are certainly others who fall under the spectrum of “sore losers” and bad sportsmanship. An example of this occurred this past week on the popular sports talk show “First Take”. The topic of discussion for this episode was Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman’s Twitter feud with Jets cornerback Darrelle Revis. The two got into an extremely heated public argument on Twitter over who was a better cornerback, calling each other names and referring to the other as “irrelevant”. Revis has been a known cornerback who established himself during several seasons with leading statistics while Sherman, after only playing two seasons, has put up stellar numbers. The feud led to many interviews for Sherman and finally, an appearance on ESPN’s “First Take” which is hosted by two of the most critical sports personalities in media, Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith. When Bayless questioned the motives behind Sherman’s Twitter argument, Sherman returned by directly attacking Bayless as a person and journalist, criticizing his work and personality. The overall result of the appearance revealed a great deal about Richard Sherman and his inability to recognize facts that do not appear in his favor. This ultimately demonstrates how social media can lead to a greater deal of knowledge about professional athletes than the athletes themselves intend to reveal. It is yet another chapter in the world of social media that proves how truly prevalent it has become in our society and culture.