Journalism: When do dangers cross the ethical line?
We are pleased to celebrate Evan Gershkovich’s return home. All who believe in a free press were horrified by his arrest and subsequent conviction on made-up charges concocted by a regime that is interested in neither a free press nor the rule of law. Several in the FASPE community are friends and colleagues of Evan; we join them in their joy and relief.
It is perhaps obvious, yet important, to remind ourselves of a timeless ethical issue within journalism: how might we weigh the potential ethical costs of placing journalists in harm’s way in pursuit of their reporting? When is the risk too great? Whose decision is it–the media institution’s or the reporter’s? How is risk measured or anticipated? Who decides (and how) what falls into the category of daily risk, those dangers inherent in one’s life or work, as opposed to unjustifiable risk?
Apart from these more “traditional” questions, let’s discuss three others that are particularly complicated today:
- We can understand the obvious types of risks:
- Reporting from an acknowledged and clear “war zone.” Even if the reporter is clothed in “Press” outerwear, not every bullet ends up at its intended location; not every war is fought within the Rules of the Marquess of Queensberry (or of Geneva). And, what of dangers in areas that are not warzones but that are nonetheless filled with potential risks? How can journalists, editors, and others weigh such uncertain danger?
- Reporting in the midst of natural (or man-made) conflagrations and catastrophes, such as raging wildfires and hurricanes. The danger is clear and present, if unpredictable from moment to moment.
- Reporting from a country that does not respect the press, let alone a free press. Or, worse, reporting from a situation in which journalists are the actual targets. In either case, there are no reliable safeguards. These risks are all too obvious and the consequences all too familiar.
But what of a fourth type of risk: the risk to reputation and sanity caused by a dishonest, deceptive, or manipulative source or subject of the story. And, the related risk of compromise to the journalist’s personal (and journalistic) integrity depending on how she reacts to that source or subject?
Read More
There are legitimate-ish politicians who traffic in lies, though not 100% of the time; there are conspiracy theorists who happen upon a real conspiracy now and then; there are those who impose opaque conditions of access on the consumer. We live in a world of rampant and intentional disinformation (though one may question how to define “intentional” in the hands of, for instance, a psychopathic liar) amplified ever more by social media. We should acknowledge that these realities also put the responsible journalist in harm’s way; even the most responsible can be manipulated, putting her reputation at risk.
So, what should the responsible journalist do when facing a known manipulator? Even reporting the risk serves to amplify the underlying story. Such a tack plays right into the hands of the ill-intentioned.
- The confluence of the failing economics of the traditional news industry and the predominance of social media often means that individual journalists become the sole decision-makers in adjudicating risk and reward, thus (i) eliminating the judgment of the more dispassionate editor, and (ii) exacerbating the need for taking risks in order to break the story and electrify the audience. We all can imagine the starving reporter putting herself in harm’s way when all data would suggest she make a different decision. Put differently, after Evan Gershkovich’s arrest, a number of the traditional media companies withdrew all of their reporters from Russia; did the starving reporter have that luxury? How can that risk be regulated? How can we (or should we care to) protect the desperate journalist from himself? Does the profession have that responsibility?
- What of the journalists who truly are part of the story, who become parties to, or otherwise involved in, harm? Perhaps we should care less about them; they went in with eyes wide open. But, then, aren’t they doing damage to the legitimacy of the profession itself? Yes, most may dismiss Tucker Carlson as an unserious entertainer in a journalist’s uniform; but is that clear to all? And, what of the not so public or not so obvious; how many so-called journalists are mere instruments of autocratic states or terrorist non-states even if their outerwear screams Press?
My conclusion? As the world becomes more complicated–by technology, by what seems to be a pandemic of lying (or psychopathic) politicians, by the availability of and our demand for speed, by the charlatans within all professions–we have two calls to action:
To coin a play on a phrase, journalists, heal thyselves. Find ways to regulate yourselves; have the courage to call out those who jeopardize journalistic integrity–both from within and from without.
For the rest of us: put our faith in the hands of the true professionals, those who lead ethically. At the same time, we must become literate and vigilant as consumers of journalism and reject the non-journalists.
"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter. Click here to sign up for future newsletters.
Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts. Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.