Today, anyone can break a story and publish it to the world instantly. That doesn't mean they should nor does it mean their methods or their content mean anything. For those that still try to "practice" journalism and do so responsibly and ethically, this blog if for them.
Follow me on Twitter: DavidRNorton
Journalethix
July 20, 2009- The Daily Show doesn’t pretend to be high brow when it comes to comedy; in fact, host Jon Stewart opened the show by making a quip about his male anatomy. But while The Daily Show’s delivery might be the ilk of the court jester, the subject matter is no laughing matter. Stewart is on a crusade to keep journalism accountable—even when it means haraunging the most beloved of TV newsanchors as he did July 20th when he took NBC Nightly News Anchor Brian Willams to task over the issue of “seducing” high profile subjects like disgraced S.C. Governor Mark Sanford with promises of essentially going easy on them in exclusive interviews.
Email after email after email, including one from Williams’s own NBC colleague David Gregory of Meet the Press showed that mainstream newsmen and women affiliated with the most reputable programs were shameless in their pursuit of the Sanford “get” to the point where it was obvious that they were sacrificing their independence for an exclusive.
While Williams clearly came on the show in a light hearted spirit and was ready to play the jokester—he’s hilariously funny and even under pressure went jab for jab with Stewart in the joke department—, when Stewart wouldn’t drop the issue, Williams, clearly irked, quipped, “What way do you want to go tonight, Jon?”, and the meeting, while civil, turned immediately adversarial. Stewart was so relentless, in fact, that it prompted a seasoned veteran like Williams known for his coolness to abruptly and awkwardly change the subject to Walter Cronkite, the “most trusted [news]man in America” who died last week at the age of 92. When Williams remarked, somberly, that Cronkite was who he aspired to be when he was young, Stewart chided, “So how does it feel to fall so short?” immediately bringing the conversation back to the shortfalls of modern journalism.
Williams eventually admitted that Cronkite was disapointed in the [sensationalist] trend toward which the current media was going, but defended major media policies to the end. But it begs the question: Williams and his colleagues at CBS, ABC, FOX, CNN and other serious news venues might be in the serious news business, but why is Stewart, in a number of publications and even some cartoons, the one continually inheriting Cronkite’s hallowed title as “The Most Trusted Man In America”?
Copyright David R. Norton 2009
Governor Mark Sanford (SC-R) is a public figure. He violated a public trust. He broke his marriage vows. His story needs to be reported. South Carolina constituents and the members of the socially conservative Republican party need to know about this hypocrisy. That is not up for debate. However, the release of personal emails between Sandford and his Argentinean lover is beyond abhorrent. Here’s why the letters should not be published.
- The content of the emails doesn’t make the affair and better or any worse. All the public needs to know is that an affair took place. Releasing those letters doesn’t change any of the facts. An affair is an affair. He admitted it. What kind of acts they engaged in or how he felt about her body is beside the point. (Did we really need to know that Clinton engaged specifically in oral sex? Either way he broke his vows and exploited his position with an intern.) The act of the affair is public, and the public has a need to know that their governor breaks promises. They don’t need to know the level of feeling he had toward this woman. That is between Sanford, his lover and his wife (who does need to know all details as she decides the fate of their marriage, which is not up to the public). Need to know: the affair occurred. The rest follows under prurient voyeurism. Want to know strictly.
- The Emails were stolen. Someone hacked into these accounts. Documents and evidence not given due process will not hold up in a court of law-they shouldn’t be admissible to the court of public opinion unless due process is followed. Sanford’s emails will come under scrutiny as this case unfolds and state officials look into whether Sanford used state funds or resources to facilitate his affair, something he has denied. When the emails are appropriately obtained, then they can be released, but with discretion. The sundry details of his affections for his lover is harmful to his wife and family and not of any value to the public other than to satisfy their voyeuristic needs.
Journalism gets a bad wrap for being smarmy and slimy for reasons such as this. I hope eventually we will get to a place where we don’t just print anything that comes to us unless there is a compelling news reason to do so and the ethics surrounding their receipt were noble. And I’m not thinking of Sanford here. I don’t think we owe him anything. I’m thinking of his family, and any precedents stemming from just printing emails just because we can.
Copyright David R. Norton 2009
