Journalethix

The reigning government in Iran recently just upped the anti as Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran’s highest ruler, condemned the election protests, declared Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner, and accused the U.S. and other western states of “meddling” in Iran’s affairs.  However, the U.S., in an official sense, has done no such thing.  The U.S. media, on the otherhand, has definitely taken a stand in the developments in Iran, and it appears, a side.  While the media has entertained the possibility that the election might be legitimate, the overwhelming majority of coverage has been toward the protests and the assumption that the results were rigged.  Even social networking sites, such as Twitter , which have been the focus of media coverage, have by proxy of user generated apps allowed users to voice support for the protests by a myriad of means, even turning icons and avatars green.  The Obama Administration, on the other hand, has only expressed “concerns” that violence is not demonstrated toward “peaceful protesters”, which says nothing about support one way or the other for either presidential candidate.

One of the hallmarks of journalism is its commitment to strive to eliminate bias wherever possible.  However, as CNN Chief International Correspondant Christiane Amanpour said of objectivity in response to her coverage of the Bosnian crisis in the 1990s: “objectivity doesn’t mean treating all sides equally.  It means giving each side a hearing.”  In some cases, where voter disenfranchisement has been all but confirmed (and judging by the outcry in Iran and the evidence on social networking sites, it is obvious that something has gone awry), it is the job of the journalist to pursue truth and cry foul when the available evidence points to the obvious.  And often that means “meddling” or simply telling the story and getting the facts.  Journalists have given both sides a hearing here-covering Ayatollah Kohmeini’s stance on the issue as well as broadcasting Hossein Mousavi’s statements in addition to the statements and views of the protetors.  And I would argue the ratio of incumbant coverage to protest coverage is directly proportional to the willingness of each side of the issue to talk; and the public, through Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, have clearly voiced which side they are on.

Far from meddling, U.S. journalists are merely doing their job, reporting what they know from the people willing to talk to them.  And even if they were being proactive in espousing one side over the other (and U.S. newspapers do it all the time by endorsing candidates in our own elections), sometimes the ethical thing is to take a side when the subject is of unusual and often global importance.  And espousing democracy over a dictatorship is the ethical thing to do.

Copyright David R. Norton 2009