According to Barney R. D. (2003), starting in the 1920s, news organizations sought to self regulate themselves by drafting ethical codes. These codes were enacted to ensure that journalism would become a notable profession much like that of a doctor or lawyer. These professions already had such ethical codes in place which protected the clients and patients as well as the professionals themselves. However, journalistic ethical codes have not always been easy for news organizations to abide by. During their careers, journalists are often pressured in to breaking their codes of ethics and conduct due to a number of reasons but it is usually a result of the pressure of competition. Ethical issues resulting from the pressure to compete are common in news rooms. However, violations of ethical codes can have severe consequences for news organizations, journalists, and the community which news organizations and journalists serve.
A common ethical issue faced by Gasparoli T. (2010) was whether or not to run or story that may create unwarranted hysteria. Gasparoli was faced with the decision of whether or not to run a story about a deceased invasive surgery doctor who was infected with the AIDS virus. The competition had already covered the story and the journalist was under pressure to match the competing news organizations story on the issue. However, the journalist eventually came to the conclusion that the story was not worth running. The journalist came to this conclusion due to the fact that the news organization that they worked for had already run an informative piece on surgical doctors with AIDS. Any further coverage of yet another incident of a surgical doctor with the AIDS virus would have just caused unwarranted hysteria and would not have informed the public about anything that they would have already known.
I agree with the journalist’s decision to not run the story of the surgical doctor with AIDS because I agree that this would have just caused unwarranted hysteria. As someone who keeps track of the news on his way to work, I do not appreciate having to worry about something that is in actuality unimportant and not worth worrying about. There is too much bad news in the world today as it is and more bad news only contributes to stress and anxiety. When news organizations run stories that only add to the stress of people’s lives, they are not acting in the public’s best interests but rather their own best interests. Thus, news organizations should choose stories carefully, even when they are under pressure to release a story to maintain status among competition and make profits for their news organizations.
The effect of the journalist’s decision to not run the story about the surgical doctor who had AIDS was that the journalist had lost the story even though they had put a great deal of work in to producing it. The time that the journalist put in to the story was wasted and the news organization was unable to profit from the story. However, the decision to ditch the story had the effect of not causing unwarranted hysteria in the community which outweighed the need for any short term profits or competitive gain. The journalist did great a service to the community by deciding not to run the story. If the journalist had chosen to go ahead with airing the story, the journalist would have not lost the story and their time would have not been wasted. The story would have likely given the news organization an upper hand over their competition as well as an initial monetary gain. However, the story would have also caused unwarranted hysteria in the community. The journalist would have done a disservice to the community if the journalist would have gone ahead and aired the story. The need to stay competitive and remain financially stable would have been placed over any ethical considerations and there would have been consequences that would have likely not been worth the airing of the story.
According to Rendall S. (2009), news organizations can potentially gain huge profits from airing stories that insight fear from the public and they often do air such stories out of fear of being left behind competitively or losing profits. However, these types of stories can have severe consequences for not only the news organizations but also the journalists and the community which they serve. The journalistic show Predator, which followed police operations as they tracked down and arrested online child predators, was often criticized for creating news to garner fear among the population rather than reporting on any hard facts. The show brought huge ratings for the network that carried it and was at first a financial success. However, the network ignored the criticism that was being brought up against the show until one of the assailants who was followed by the show’s production staff and a police unit killed himself in his home. The network ended up paying an out of court settlement for the incident but could have had a lengthy court battle on their hands. The show was finally scraped after it was revealed that many of the cases that were presented on the show were thrown out of court due to the operations of the show interfering with police evidence. Willfully causing unwarranted fear among the community may be profitable for journalists during a short while, but over the long run this practice does not pay out from both an ethical and a monetary standpoint. The effort that a news network may put in to fear mongering should instead be put in to informing the public with facts and rigorously following journalistic codes of ethics in order to retain professionalism and not be embarrassed by incidents such as these.
There may have also been another complication to airing the story. The fact of whether or not the surgical doctor had performed surgery while he was infected with the AIDS virus was unknown and an interview seemed to indicate that the surgical doctor was not infected with the AIDS virus while he was still performing surgeries. According to Vivian J. C. (2009), the news organization could have been subject to being sued for libel if the story had been aired. Writing false or negative things about an individual makes an individual or company who wrote and published the false and negative things responsible for any damages that were incurred by the victim as a result of the false or negative writings.
According to Baron S. S. (2000), libel lawsuits against news organization more often than not end in lengthy court battles and expensive damage awards. The law is not meant to protect public figures whose works are subject to criticism. However, the law would cover a medical doctor whose practice puts him in relative public scrutiny but otherwise is a private individual. If the doctor were alive, the story about his AIDS infection could have hurt his business, and he would likely have sued. Since he is not alive, the decision to sue would be on the hands of the still remaining hospital where the doctor performed surgery since the news would likely hurt the hospital’s reputation. The decision to not run the story of the surgical doctor who was infected with AIDS was not affected by libel law. However, the news organization would have been subject to being sued if the story had aired. In other words, the news organization would have likely been sued, and the journalist would have likely lost their job as a result of the suit.
Journalistic codes of ethics and conduct were put in place to distinguish journalism as a professional career in much the same way medical ethical codes distinguish doctors as being in a professional career. When journalistic ethical codes are broken, they can tarnish the reputation of a news organization and have severe consequences that can affect the news organization, journalists, and the community. The pressure for journalists to break their ethical codes is greater than ever with continued competition among news organizations and the demand for news organizations to break a story first or match the competition’s story. However, in order for journalism to remain a notable profession in the public’s eye, journalists must abide by their code of ethics and hold true to their own ethical values. Breaking journalistic ethical codes may be profitable at first, but the long term damage that breaking ethical codes can cause does not pay out over time.
References
Barney, R., D. (2003). Journalistic Codes Of Ethics And Conduct. Elsevier Science. Retrieved September 1, 2010, from Credo Reference database.
Rendall, S. (2009). The Online Predator Scare: Profiting From Panic. Counterpoise. 13(1/2). 39-40. Retrieved September 1, 2010, from ProQuest database.
Vivian, J., C. (2009). The Media Of Mass Communication (9th Ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Baron, S., S. (2000). Law, The Media &...Libel: Old Concerns Renewed. Columbia Journalism Review. 39(3). 55-56. Retrieved September 1, 2010, from ProQuest database.
No comments:
Post a Comment