If there is any service that is being greatly taken for granted, it is the service that journalists provide for citizens. Many belittle the service with attitudes and comments such as “this is so easy, even I could do it”.
The service is even more damaged by acts of people like Jayson Blair who rapidly climbed up the success ladder as a journalist by plagiarizing and fabricating stories. Too add the icing on the cake, his own editors, who job it is to seek truth and report it, failed seek the truth of the many accusations of Blair, punish him and report it an effort to be transparent. Instead all of their actions were reactive to the situation.
Like in any profession or any area of life, there are people committing wrong acts that give their organization a bad name. Journalists report countless stories of doctors treating patients wrong or even killing them. I work at the U.S. Attorney’s Office and we are always learning of lawyers across the nation who are getting disbarred from practices. However, you don’t hear of the medical field or the law field having to forfeit their rights to be called a profession.
A quote that professor has quoted on occasion in her class explains why the journalist field cannot escape the ever careful eye of scrutiny. Generally speaking, the quote is the difference between journalists and other professions is that when doctors make mistakes, they put them in the grave. When lawyers make mistakes, they put them in jail. When journalists make mistakes, they put them on the front page.
To answer the question of the debate of whether or not journalism should be a profession, yes it should be, and the journalists that practice it should be regarded as professionals as well.
Journalism should be considered as a profession because while although journalists don’t agree on the specific, they do share transcending values in which they hold themselves accountable too. They are trained to regard, analyze and disseminate phenomena (Weaver, Reader 199).
These transcending values are to seek the truth and report it truthfully and objectively so that citizens can have verifiable information about their world and to keep government accountable, to be independent and fair, and provide a public forum. Journalists are also committed to free expression as well (Gade, Reader 263)
In Beam’s reading, it lists various characteristics of a profession. Journalisms meets the following listed characteristics: an occupation organized around a body of knowledge or specialized technique, members are willing to put public service ahead of economic gain, has an established professional culture that generally promotes the value of journalists, and the occupation socializes its members through education and training (Beam, Reader 227).
Some would argue that journalism could not be considered as a profession because it is a profession that is not based on strict educational requirements and licensing (Weaver, Reader 199). And a great majority would also argue that the development of citizen-based journalism is indeed proving that anyone can do journalism so journalism is far from being a profession. I would counter argue that that’s the beauty of the profession. In professor Gade’s chapter entitled “Reshaping the Journalistic Culture”, he describes the journalism profession as a “semi-profession” due to journalism’s rejection of formal definitions but its consideration of the traits, attributes and functions of the cohort, and because the profession is not legally mandated.
The journalism field is a special field because it has major factors constantly changing it. Some of these factors are identified as technology, economic and the duality purpose of journalism, which is to serve both as journalistic and commercial enterprises (Gade, Reader 263). While I believe that educational requirements are indeed necessary, I also believe that strict educational requirements would be a waste of time. I believe balancing these factors while trying to survive the credibility of the paper comes from trained experience. The profession of journalism would not able to rapidly change as various factors require it too if it had to adhere to licensing. Not only that, the profession of journalism would not be able to provide information critical of the government or big businesses if it had to adhere to licensing laws. We saw evidence of this in the 1700s and 1800s with the seditious laws that constricted the growth of journalism.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Journalism as a profession
The debate over journalism as a profession is one that has come up multiple times in several of my journalism classes. Many journalists (and journalism students) would probably like to think of themselves as professionals practicing a professional craft. Many could argue that journalists have a core set of values, are trained and have personal autonomy and therefore are professionals (Weaver, 131.) However, unlike law or medicine, anyone can practice journalism. In fact, more and more people are publishing written and broadcast stories today than ever before. Some bloggers or other Internet publishers do their own reporting and write in ways similar to real news organizations. Are they professionals? I assert that these bloggers/internet publishers and their news organization counterparts are not professionals. Weaver et al back up this claim in a discussion of their survey: “Others responded that if a profession is an autonomous practice of work based on strict educational requirements and licensing then journalism is far from a profession” (Weaver, 131.) No strict educational requirements or mandatory licensing currently exist in journalism.
Based on all of this week’s reading, it is clear that journalists do not, for the most part, even agree on any given set of core values. The surveys and reports indicated several types of journalists, several different primary “functions” of journalism and varying levels of support for some ethical practices. Role conceptions among journalists included what Weaver et al defined as interpretive, adversarial, disseminator and populist mobilizer (Weaver, 138.) Journalism just doesn’t have the clear-cut and simplistic objectives of true professions.
On the other hand, journalism does fit into some of Beam et al’s list of professional attributes. For example, the list includes “have considerable autonomy,” “socializes its members through education and training” and “this occupation is usually lifelong and terminal” (Beam, 279.) Journalism generally fits these criteria.
Still, I think journalists can hold professional standards and fit certain professional criteria without belonging to a true profession like medicine, law or accounting. Until some form of board certification is required for journalists to enter the field, I don’t think it can be considered a true profession. Even if this were to happen, it would be impossible to prevent independent publishers who need only a computer from doing reporting and writing and reaching an audience. It would, in essence, be a waste of time and money to attempt to professionalize journalism in today’s world of extremely open access to information and information sharing. Would anyone really care whether a story came from a “certified” journalist or a Twitter update? I think this answer is no.
In conclusion, I do think journalists can hold professional values (albeit very different based on Weaver’s surveys) and use them as a guide. Journalists can conduct themselves in a professional manner and hold high ethical standards. But this is a personal decision, not one sanctioned by an overarching professional journalism organization. There is too much freedom in journalism for this, and I don’t think this is a negative thing. I agree most with Gade’s conclusion, “Journalists see their professional values as anchors that provide stability, distinguish them from others in the public sphere and give them a sense of purpose in today’s shifting seas” (Gade, 267.)
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
‘Journalism is a matter of faith’
The portrayal of truth is one of the core principles of media and communication ethics, especially in our society. (Merrill, 2006) But “the truth” is not always universally understood between groups of people, let alone different media entities.
“It is fair to say that the most common ethical perspective seems to be truth-telling. Truth, of course, means many things to different media.” (Merrill, p. 95)
Pursuing and attempting to report on what journalists see as the truth can often become problematic in itself. “Truth can be dangerous, and not only that, it can be ‘unethical’ in some cases. But it persists as a foundation stone of ethics.” (Merrill, p.92)
Merrill writes that the media piece together different parts of truth to concoct a version of truth that is specific to which media entity is creating it.
“The metaphysical truth cannot be told, so the media need not worry about that. The kind of truth they are concerned with comprise bits and pieces of the truth they select from the wide-world of truth, the selected and communicated truth. Not the whole truth, of course; that is impossible. So, what this means is that the media’s version of the truth is their truth. And since various media provide differing versions of ‘the truth,’ the people never really know exactly what to believe. Journalism is a matter of faith.” (Merrill, p. 95)
When viewing truth in this way, as Merrill is identifying it, the truth will always be relative. And a media entity’s version of the truth will always be incomplete.
“People believe something of the hodge-podge of material they access from the media and from a few private conversations. One’s synthesis of the varieties of media-produced information is about the only truth he or she will get.” (Merrill, p. 95)
So maybe the population has a right to be skeptical of the validity of media reports, especially in an era of 24-hour Michael Jackson coverage and the riveting saga that was “Balloon Boy.” Their skepticism should motivate journalists to try harder to be more accurate and thorough in their reporting, and to report on more important and meaningful issues. While we cannot know the full truth, journalists should make an attempt to paint the most accurate and informative picture of the truth.
“The truth with a capital ‘T’—Transcendental Truth—of course, we will never know. But some of the big-T truth falls into the potential level of reality where we can get at it. The dedicated journalist, then, selects as much of this potential truth as possible for the report. And from this selected truth, the story is written or produced. Of course it is not ‘truthful’ in the sense of matching reality, just as a map does not match the territory it depicts. But there are better and worse map-makers and there are better and worse reporters.” (Merrill, p. 110)
The Ethical Journalist
In a newsroom Journalist deal with ethical decisions every day. Depending on how you view the world your ethics might be different compared to the next person. Ethics affects how journalists carry themselves when choosing, writing and presenting stories. In class this afternoon and in the reader we talked about different principles of ethics: deontological and teleological. We also talked about Merrill beliefs on journalism ethics, all have different ideologies and foundations and one does not stand out above the others. These different ethical ideologies affect every journalist in a different way and it is up to you and only you to decide what your journalism ethics are.
Nobody can tell you what to believe and how you should go about getting a story that is our choice as journalists.
Deontological is better described as duty bound ethics. Immanuel Kant, the poster boy for the deontological ethicist, thought that only an action taken out of self-imposed duty could be ethical and that consideration of an action’s consequences, either to self or to others, wipe out any moral significance such an action might have. (Kant, 192) This meaning that what is ethical for a journalist to do is what that journalist would want everybody to do. It is closely related to the golden rule: do on to others… Kant, and many professors have taught us this way of thinking in our college careers, and while I see the point of treating everyone with respect sometimes as journalist we must step on people’s toes and rub people the wrong way to get information we need to fully tell a story. We must tell the truth even when the truth hurts.
On the other side of the road is the belief in teleological ethics formed by John Stuart Mill. Mill believed that journalists should report on the greatest good to the greatest number of people. This means reporting on a story that is going to have the most impact on the greatest population, something that a nightly newscast does on a regular basis. The teleological theory also states that it wants to always consider the consequences before you act and to minimize harm. This is an issue for journalist simply because almost every story we publish will in some way shape or form have a negative effect on someone, the real issue is journalist will never see the negative effect in advance, instead they will see it after the point making it very hard for journalist who believe in this theory to really branch out and write stories that have the potential to be controversial. Personally I feel that this theory is what professors teach us the most. Constantly we are given assignments and told to pick a story idea and when we present our ideas the first question we are asked is who does this effect? And most of the time if it is not a large population of people we are asked to choose another topic or change the angle to grasp more people. While it is smart to report on the greatest good to the greatest number of people journalist should not forget about the little guy, even though they are not part of the big picture they are still part of the picture none the less.
Finally, there is Merrill’s belief in ethics which is different from both the deontological and teleological beliefs. Merrill’s ethics are based off the certain pragmatic goals; he feels that journalist should not worry about the consequences of a story. Merrill feels that you should do what you have to do to get the outcome you want. In relation to a real world situation, if an editor tells you to get the story, you get it by any means necessary. Rather that is by being polite and courteous or being crude and rude to get the information needed.
It seems that most people believe that this is unethical and is something that professors tell their students to shy away from. However, I feel that Merrill is speaking from real world experience. Most of us know that once we get in a real newsroom that most of the things we were taught in school are going to be thrown out the window and that to move up in both the newsroom and on the payroll we are going to have to report stories that are going to make people unhappy. It is harsh reality but then again so is the real world.
I personally cannot categorize myself in any single ideology; I feel that I am a mixture of all of them. Most journalists might feel the same way, these are the extremes of journalism ethics and not everyone is going to lean to one side or the other, however it is still our job to take parts from all of these ideologies and form them into our own journalism ethics code by which we live by.
Nobody can tell you what to believe and how you should go about getting a story that is our choice as journalists.
Deontological is better described as duty bound ethics. Immanuel Kant, the poster boy for the deontological ethicist, thought that only an action taken out of self-imposed duty could be ethical and that consideration of an action’s consequences, either to self or to others, wipe out any moral significance such an action might have. (Kant, 192) This meaning that what is ethical for a journalist to do is what that journalist would want everybody to do. It is closely related to the golden rule: do on to others… Kant, and many professors have taught us this way of thinking in our college careers, and while I see the point of treating everyone with respect sometimes as journalist we must step on people’s toes and rub people the wrong way to get information we need to fully tell a story. We must tell the truth even when the truth hurts.
On the other side of the road is the belief in teleological ethics formed by John Stuart Mill. Mill believed that journalists should report on the greatest good to the greatest number of people. This means reporting on a story that is going to have the most impact on the greatest population, something that a nightly newscast does on a regular basis. The teleological theory also states that it wants to always consider the consequences before you act and to minimize harm. This is an issue for journalist simply because almost every story we publish will in some way shape or form have a negative effect on someone, the real issue is journalist will never see the negative effect in advance, instead they will see it after the point making it very hard for journalist who believe in this theory to really branch out and write stories that have the potential to be controversial. Personally I feel that this theory is what professors teach us the most. Constantly we are given assignments and told to pick a story idea and when we present our ideas the first question we are asked is who does this effect? And most of the time if it is not a large population of people we are asked to choose another topic or change the angle to grasp more people. While it is smart to report on the greatest good to the greatest number of people journalist should not forget about the little guy, even though they are not part of the big picture they are still part of the picture none the less.
Finally, there is Merrill’s belief in ethics which is different from both the deontological and teleological beliefs. Merrill’s ethics are based off the certain pragmatic goals; he feels that journalist should not worry about the consequences of a story. Merrill feels that you should do what you have to do to get the outcome you want. In relation to a real world situation, if an editor tells you to get the story, you get it by any means necessary. Rather that is by being polite and courteous or being crude and rude to get the information needed.
It seems that most people believe that this is unethical and is something that professors tell their students to shy away from. However, I feel that Merrill is speaking from real world experience. Most of us know that once we get in a real newsroom that most of the things we were taught in school are going to be thrown out the window and that to move up in both the newsroom and on the payroll we are going to have to report stories that are going to make people unhappy. It is harsh reality but then again so is the real world.
I personally cannot categorize myself in any single ideology; I feel that I am a mixture of all of them. Most journalists might feel the same way, these are the extremes of journalism ethics and not everyone is going to lean to one side or the other, however it is still our job to take parts from all of these ideologies and form them into our own journalism ethics code by which we live by.
The Ethical Journalists
Journalists today deal with various kinds of ethical problems. These problems occur in the media, and the most common struggle that journalists face is writing stories that are comprehensive to all the readers of news. Nowadays, it is apparent that less people are watching the news. This is due to the fact that the media presents too much entertainment or news stories that are too complicated for many minorities to understand.
Like Kovach and Rosenstiel mentions in The Elements of Journalism, today, stories in news are too long, sophisticated, and often require college degrees to follow. The stories in the news have become longer and more abundant, which makes it appear as if it is aimed toward only a few segments of the population. Often times the media leaves out certain communities, which tend to create big problems and ethical issues. This leads to the problem of audiences being poorly informed, which also causes them to make poor decisions about contemporary trends that directly affect their needs (Kovach and Rosenstiel P. 168).
I think that this idea of complicated news, which only a few can comprehend, is one of the many reasons why citizens find the news so difficult to understand. Those minorities of people who find news difficult to follow are not interested in reading these news stories and are ultimately not being informed. It is a journalists’ role to continually find ways to serve the diverse communities and let the majority know what they are trying to communicate to the public.
I believe that although there are many ways to inform the whole community, it is the sole responsibility of the journalist to come up with good ways to make the citizens come together, help them understand, and become engaged with the news stories they read. When this is achieved, I believe the public will be more willing to listen to them and ultimately appreciate the information they draw from those stories.
As Kovach and Rosenstiel mentions, journalism is storytelling with a purpose. And the main purpose is providing citizens with the information they need to educate themselves about living in this world. This tends to be challenging to journalists and, as a result, common ethical problems occur. It is important to provide information at the same time in a way that ensures that people will be willing to listen. So storytelling with a purpose is about finding the information that people need in their lives in order for them to live, as well as making these stories meaningful, relevant, and engaging to the citizens at the same time (Kovach Rosenstiel P. 149).
To sum up, there are many challenges in performing this good journalism especially concerning ethical issues. To solve those challenges, when writing or reporting for a story, we should always be thinking about writing interesting and detailed context stories, which inform the public about the truthful facts together. Like Merrill mentions, we can ethically assume that the media will be honest, fair, balanced and truthful in their efforts (Merrill, P. 94). These types of stories will hopefully engage the citizens and overcome some of the challenges the media faces in balancing those that are presented.
Like Kovach and Rosenstiel mentions in The Elements of Journalism, today, stories in news are too long, sophisticated, and often require college degrees to follow. The stories in the news have become longer and more abundant, which makes it appear as if it is aimed toward only a few segments of the population. Often times the media leaves out certain communities, which tend to create big problems and ethical issues. This leads to the problem of audiences being poorly informed, which also causes them to make poor decisions about contemporary trends that directly affect their needs (Kovach and Rosenstiel P. 168).
I think that this idea of complicated news, which only a few can comprehend, is one of the many reasons why citizens find the news so difficult to understand. Those minorities of people who find news difficult to follow are not interested in reading these news stories and are ultimately not being informed. It is a journalists’ role to continually find ways to serve the diverse communities and let the majority know what they are trying to communicate to the public.
I believe that although there are many ways to inform the whole community, it is the sole responsibility of the journalist to come up with good ways to make the citizens come together, help them understand, and become engaged with the news stories they read. When this is achieved, I believe the public will be more willing to listen to them and ultimately appreciate the information they draw from those stories.
As Kovach and Rosenstiel mentions, journalism is storytelling with a purpose. And the main purpose is providing citizens with the information they need to educate themselves about living in this world. This tends to be challenging to journalists and, as a result, common ethical problems occur. It is important to provide information at the same time in a way that ensures that people will be willing to listen. So storytelling with a purpose is about finding the information that people need in their lives in order for them to live, as well as making these stories meaningful, relevant, and engaging to the citizens at the same time (Kovach Rosenstiel P. 149).
To sum up, there are many challenges in performing this good journalism especially concerning ethical issues. To solve those challenges, when writing or reporting for a story, we should always be thinking about writing interesting and detailed context stories, which inform the public about the truthful facts together. Like Merrill mentions, we can ethically assume that the media will be honest, fair, balanced and truthful in their efforts (Merrill, P. 94). These types of stories will hopefully engage the citizens and overcome some of the challenges the media faces in balancing those that are presented.
Monday, November 2, 2009
An Ethical Dilemma
Ethics in journalism, like morality in our personal lives, are created through a complex formula of equal parts philosophy, religion, social conditioning and experience.
Considering the vast possibilities for differences in each of these parts, it’s easy to see why any attempt to impose a single ethical standard to all journalists would be tricky at best.
Although there are no hard and fast rules, one general standard emerges.
“After looking at ethical codes around the world, the most common ethical imperative seems to be truth-telling.” (Merrill, p. 95)
In an ideal world, the public should be able to expect the media to be honest, fair, balanced and truthful in their efforts-but we know that such an assumption is unrealistic. (Merrill, p. 94)
“Some of the ethical challenges the media face today largely deal with such things as fabrication, plagiarism, invasions of privacy, and the concealment of the names of sources.” (Merrill, p. 103)
But, as Merrill points out, other issues include quoting out of context, imprecise paraphrasing, incorrect quotations, misidentifications, biased news and propaganda, conflicts of interest, sensationalism and negativism, etc. (p. 104)
Merrill’s Utopian view of ethics in mass media is that “journalists of their own accord will forge a dedicated and committed league of ethicists and freedom-fighters embracing a combination of freedom and responsibility, wisdom and virtue.” (p. 107)
But, responsibility includes more than getting the facts straight and presenting stories in a balanced way.
In its fundamental obligation to inform the public about the events of the day, journalism creates a map for citizens to navigate society. (Kovach & Rosenstiel, p. 208)
The map should include news of all our communities, not just those with attractive demographics or strong appeal to advertisers. (p. 209)
Starting in the early 1900s, newspapers became more middle class and literary. The shift left holes in coverage for entire communities and newspapers did not make much investment in the youngest Americans.
“Those who were unable to navigate where they lived gave it up. The newscasts and newspapers that ignored whole communities also created problems for those it did serve. It left its audiences poorly informed because so much was left out. This made citizens vulnerable to making poor decisions about contemporary trends and about their needs.” (Kovach & Rosenstiel, p. 211)
As news becomes more niche and consumers continue the trend of searching out the news they want to read, or the news they identify with most, ensuring news includes coverage of all demographics will become more challenging.
Considering the vast possibilities for differences in each of these parts, it’s easy to see why any attempt to impose a single ethical standard to all journalists would be tricky at best.
Although there are no hard and fast rules, one general standard emerges.
“After looking at ethical codes around the world, the most common ethical imperative seems to be truth-telling.” (Merrill, p. 95)
In an ideal world, the public should be able to expect the media to be honest, fair, balanced and truthful in their efforts-but we know that such an assumption is unrealistic. (Merrill, p. 94)
“Some of the ethical challenges the media face today largely deal with such things as fabrication, plagiarism, invasions of privacy, and the concealment of the names of sources.” (Merrill, p. 103)
But, as Merrill points out, other issues include quoting out of context, imprecise paraphrasing, incorrect quotations, misidentifications, biased news and propaganda, conflicts of interest, sensationalism and negativism, etc. (p. 104)
Merrill’s Utopian view of ethics in mass media is that “journalists of their own accord will forge a dedicated and committed league of ethicists and freedom-fighters embracing a combination of freedom and responsibility, wisdom and virtue.” (p. 107)
But, responsibility includes more than getting the facts straight and presenting stories in a balanced way.
In its fundamental obligation to inform the public about the events of the day, journalism creates a map for citizens to navigate society. (Kovach & Rosenstiel, p. 208)
The map should include news of all our communities, not just those with attractive demographics or strong appeal to advertisers. (p. 209)
Starting in the early 1900s, newspapers became more middle class and literary. The shift left holes in coverage for entire communities and newspapers did not make much investment in the youngest Americans.
“Those who were unable to navigate where they lived gave it up. The newscasts and newspapers that ignored whole communities also created problems for those it did serve. It left its audiences poorly informed because so much was left out. This made citizens vulnerable to making poor decisions about contemporary trends and about their needs.” (Kovach & Rosenstiel, p. 211)
As news becomes more niche and consumers continue the trend of searching out the news they want to read, or the news they identify with most, ensuring news includes coverage of all demographics will become more challenging.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Ethics: The Struggle that Never Ends
Ethics: the driving force between moral and reality. What seem to be easy concepts at first are not so much once one dives into them and tries to make sense of them. For journalists, we struggle with these concepts in the workplace, out in the field, and even in our own work. Ethics are what we “should” do. We struggle with the ethics of doing what is right when it comes to being assigned to a story and the boss tells us to do something that goes beyond what our own ethics call for. We don’t want to lose a job over it but the question becomes then how would one handle his/herself if the person when through with it?
There is the struggle mentioned in Kovach and Rosenstiel of making stories relevant and engaging without fabricating and sensationalizing the information. Unfortunately, this has become so-called “normal” practice amongst the media today. Where is the ethics in that? Kovach and Rosenstiel mention that “if one feeds people trivia and entertainment, one withers the appetite and expectations of some people for anything else.” This destroys the media’s authority to deliver serious news and drives audience members away. So, where do ethics come in? It comes in when journalists stick to what they have researched and know what it the truth of the story. Merrill mentions the dialectic struggle journalists have when it comes to telling the story and to separate the emotional from the rational so that the audience gets the truth that the journalist wants them to see and hear. In hindsight, journalists should tell the story but keep the news comprehensive in proportion to what is being told.
Why does this sound so easy but it isn’t? One thing that journalists have to keep in mind is for one to continue to be vigilant. Being vigilant means sticking to one’s guns and knows that it is truth that the audience wants, not fluff or trivial stuff. One wants to have a great story but ethically needs to recognize what is right in writing the story and what is wrong in terms of sensationalizing. There are too many examples of that type of media such as "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" that do the sensationalizing for us. Journalists don’t want to struggle and fall into the category of infotainment because that not what they do or work for. They work for their audience and getting the truth they need. The struggle with ethics isn’t going to go away but having a better understanding of what is right and wrong journalistically might make things a little easier.
There is the struggle mentioned in Kovach and Rosenstiel of making stories relevant and engaging without fabricating and sensationalizing the information. Unfortunately, this has become so-called “normal” practice amongst the media today. Where is the ethics in that? Kovach and Rosenstiel mention that “if one feeds people trivia and entertainment, one withers the appetite and expectations of some people for anything else.” This destroys the media’s authority to deliver serious news and drives audience members away. So, where do ethics come in? It comes in when journalists stick to what they have researched and know what it the truth of the story. Merrill mentions the dialectic struggle journalists have when it comes to telling the story and to separate the emotional from the rational so that the audience gets the truth that the journalist wants them to see and hear. In hindsight, journalists should tell the story but keep the news comprehensive in proportion to what is being told.
Why does this sound so easy but it isn’t? One thing that journalists have to keep in mind is for one to continue to be vigilant. Being vigilant means sticking to one’s guns and knows that it is truth that the audience wants, not fluff or trivial stuff. One wants to have a great story but ethically needs to recognize what is right in writing the story and what is wrong in terms of sensationalizing. There are too many examples of that type of media such as "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" that do the sensationalizing for us. Journalists don’t want to struggle and fall into the category of infotainment because that not what they do or work for. They work for their audience and getting the truth they need. The struggle with ethics isn’t going to go away but having a better understanding of what is right and wrong journalistically might make things a little easier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)