| Chapter 6
Journalism
Ethics
By
David Krajicek
Point of View
Journalism with integrity need not be milquetoast.
Joseph Pulitzer, who as a publisher relentlessly crusaded on behalf
of pet causes, said, "The highest mission of the press is to
render public service." He was a master of point of view –
both inside and outside the news columns.
Today, many news operations have pet causes, often tied to civic
betterment or public health. Cheerleading in a news context can
induce cringes. Point of view has its place, generally outside the
news columns or the top of the broadcast.
SPJ suggests the media:
- Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise
integrity or damage credibility.
- Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests
and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
Personal Relationships
Bill Kovach, a longtime newspaper editor, says, "The whole relationship
with a source – you have to be transparent and pure. If you
can't describe the conditions under which you are relating to a source
– if you can't describe that in a story – then you've
got no business doing it."
He was referring to the 2002 firing of Chicago Tribune columnist
Bob Greene, who years ago had sexual relations with a journalism
student who then became a subject of his column.
The Tribune's ethics policy forbids employees to "write
about, photograph, edit or make news judgments about any individual
related by blood or marriage or others with whom they have a close
personal or financial relationship."
In other words, intimate relations with sources or subjects are
verboten.
But what about shmoozing? Isn't there a bit of psychology seduction
in every source relationship?
The journalist and author Janet Malcolm wrote about the phenomenon
in her book The Journalist and the Murderer:
"Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of
himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally
indefensible. He is a kind of confidence man, preying on people's
vanity, ignorance or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying
them without remorse."
Libel
"Libel is injury to reputation. Words, pictures or cartoons
that expose a person to public hatred, shame, disgrace or ridicule,
or induce an ill opinion of a person are libelous. Actions for civil
libel result mainly from news stories that allege crime, fraud,
dishonesty, immoral or dishonorable conduct, or stories that defame
the subject professionally, causing financial loss either personally
or to a business." – Associated Press Libel Manual
A disproportionate number of libel allegations against the media
spring from the crime and court beats – nine of every 10 cases,
by one estimate.
The AP says, "Problems can arise in stories about crime and
in identifying a suspect where there has been no arrest or where
no charge has been made. Don't be deluded into thinking a safe approach
is to eliminate the subject's name. If the description – physical
or otherwise – readily identifies him to those in his immediate
area, the story has, in effect, named him."
Libel generally concerns written statements, while slander concerns
verbal statements and gestures. Libel or slander must be proven
defamatory – harmful to a reputation, not merely insulting
or offensive. Living persons, corporations, businesses, associations
and unions can claim defamation. Governments cannot make libel claims,
but government officials can.
Lawsuits alleging libel or slander generally ask for financial
damages. They are filed in state civil court, although half of all
states have rarely-used criminal defamation laws. In recent years,
juries have awarded considerable financial damages in successful
media libel suits.
They include a $223 million award against the Wall Street Journal,
$58 million against The Dallas Morning News, $34 million
against The Philadelphia Inquirer, $29 million against Harte-Hanks,
$18 million against Capital Cities, $16 million against a California
weekly and $13.5 million against The Cleveland Plain Dealer
and $10 million against ABC News.
Each amount was later reduced either by a judge or through negotiation.
The exception was the California paper, which went bankrupt. In
any case, even "winning" a libel verdict can have vast
consequences, including monumental legal fees, damage to reputation
and loss of jobs for journalists.
Causes of Libel
The AP says, "The chief causes of libel suits are carelessness,
misunderstanding of the law of libel, limitations of the defense
of privilege (including the First Amendment privilege) and the extent
to which developments may be reported in arrests."
Libel standards vary from state to state. But in general public
figures (elected officials, celebrities, prominent individuals)
must prove actual malice, or reckless disregard for the truth, while
private figures need merely prove negligence, or acting without
due care. Consult a specialist about the laws in your state. One
good resource is the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
(http://www.rcfp.org).
Lawsuits rarely result from the reporting of allegations made in
court or taken directly from a criminal or civil complaint. However,
many libel suits hinge on comments from secondary sources sought
out by the media – and even investigators or prosecutors commenting
outside of court.
Most defenses against libel take one of two tacks:
– The statements were true or were expressed as opinion, not
fact.
– The statements were privileged.
Reporter Privilege
Journalists can argue that some reporting is protected by First
Amendment privilege – that our right to inform the public
unimpeded outweighs consideration for the reputation of the subject
of the report.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, based in Arlington,
Va., is a leading resource for issues of reporter privilege and
protection of confidential sources. The organization was founded
in 1970 by prominent American journalists to combat a wave of government
subpoenas asking reporters to reveal confidential sources.
The nonprofit group has a telephone hot line (800-336-4243) for
free speech issues. Its website (http://www.rcfp.org)
offers a state-by-state guide of libel and sunshine laws and reporter
privilege. RCFP also publishes a guide to libel, invasion of privacy,
surreptitious recording, confidential sources, prior restraint,
gag orders, access to courts and other places, Freedom of Information
and copyright.
Internet Libel
This is a developing subject with many unresolved fundamental issues,
including court jurisdiction and liability of Internet service providers
or websites that give forums to defamatory material.
Use caution in picking up material from untested sources, whether
online or off. A concept known as "repetition of libel"
may come to bear on news organizations that report unverified material
pulled from irreputable sources.
Corrections
While news organizations do a better job of correcting mistakes
than they did 25 years ago, some editors say current libel law discourages
correction of potentially defamatory information.
"News organizations routinely are advised against making a
correction because if they admit the error they increase the plaintiff's
chance of proving the claim in a subsequent libel trial," writes
Edward Seaton, editor of the Manhattan (Kan.) Mercury. "
While most of us correct quickly in a black-and-white case of defamation,
it is the gray cases where we are advised to consider that the correction
may seriously hurt us in court."
Seaton is a former president of the American Society of Newspaper
Editors, which supports a national initiative to urge state legislatures
to approve the Uniform Correction or Clarification of Defamation
Act.
The act sets a limit of 90 days from date of original publication
for correction requests and requires the complainer to provide any
material proof of the error he might have. Papers then have 45 days
to publish a correction.
About 30 states have retraction statutes, and more than half of
those limit financial sanctions to actual damages (expenses and
loss of reputation) when there is no proof of malice.
The Uniform Act would further limit damages to "provable economic
loss" if a newspaper follows the correction provisions, even
if malice is proven. The initiative is expected to greatly reduce
the hundreds of defamation cases filed annually in the United States.
Devised as a "good-government" measure by the National
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, the Uniform Act
has been endorsed by the editors group and the American Bar Association.
The Uniform Correction Act has been adopted by North Dakota and
has been or is being considered by others.
<<< Return
to the previous page in "Chapter 6: Journalism Ethics"
|
