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
The irony of this post, which is partly critical of blogs, is that it is disseminated through, yes, a blog. Blogs and other forms of “citizen journalism” can be wonderful if used correctly. However, in a recent post on her blog for NPR entitled “When Blogging News Can Go Wrong” NPR Ombudsman Alicia C. Shepard bemoans the fact that bloggers are giving journalists a bad name by routinely printing rumors or not adhering to other ethical codes. Responses to her posts acknowledge the disastrous effects that rumor mongering can have—such as when posts on TechCrunch and Gawker about Apple buying Twitter (untrue) affected stocks that day.
But now, blogs and social networks are in the forefront of the news again, this time for their role in disseminating truth (we hope) in the Iranian election controversy. As government news outlets are shut down, the power of the Internet and citizen journalism is keeping this story and this important revolution alive.
For as much damage as poorly thought out blogs can cause, we should be thankful for the technology in cases like Iran; 20 years ago, this election would have been opened and closed in the same day. Now, there is at least hope that a democratic process will prevail.
Copyright David R. Norton 2009
National Public Radio’s Ombusdman Alicia C. Shepard defended NPR’s decision this week not to name the names of members of Congress who are the subject of a soon to be released documentary, Outrage, which chronicles allegations that members of Congress opposed to pro-gay initiatives are themselves engaging in homosexual affairs. The complete text of Shepard’s opinion can be accessed here.
As Shepard put it, it was a “classic journalism debate between privacy and the public’s right to know.” Shepard also cited NPR’s policy “not to publish or air rumors, allegations or reports about private lives of anyone unless there is a compelling news reason to do so.”
I would argue that misconduct (not that consensual sex, homesexual or otherwise, is always misconduct) or hypocrisy on the part of public officials is a compelling news reason, and there are times when names should be named. After all, these politicians are not mere private citizens; their votes on the Hill determine the course of millions of lives. If my congressperson is going to vote against offshore back accounts and yet secretly keeps one himself, I would feel entitled to know about it, since his vote determines my rights.
However, public figures do have personal lives, and those should be left untouched a strong majority of the time. Barack Obama’s refusal to address the Palin pregnancy story during his campaign spoke to an unspoken rule that family issues should be left as merely that: family issues. A simple test would be to apply Kant’s theory of duty ethics to the situation revolving around Outrage. Would it be justified for anyone to out anyone’s personal life? No, it would not. However, given utilitarian principles, perhaps in this case, such a an article might determine an increase in civil rights for untold numbers of Americans.
The major problem with this story, and where NPR exercised prudence, is that the allegations in Outrage are merely a case of “he said he said”. None of it (according to the trailer) is provable even if it is likely true. Sadly, like many allegations of rape, much of this wouldn’t hold up in court or in a hearing without physical or other material evidence. And if journalists started to just print allegations willy nilly, the integrity of the profession would be long lost.
To have printed the names on such soft evidence would have been irresponsible. To that end, NPR acted correctly.
Copyright David R. Norton 2009
