How Journalists Invented Ethics
And why they still struggle to get it right.
- The Invention of Journalism Ethics
- McGill-Queen's University Press (2004)
- Bookstore Finder
Two local journalism professors have produced guidebooks on Canadian journalism ethics that offer some hope to scribes toiling in the trenches of big media and the audiences enduring the daily drivel they produce.
Stephen Ward's The Invention of Journalism Ethics: The Path to Objectivity and Beyond and Nick Russell's Morals and the Media: Ethics in Canadian Journalism (2nd edition) remind us that the standards of today's newspaper barons are not the ones writers should aspire to, or the standards readers should tolerate. Together the books provide an eye-opener for all ink-stained wretches, but particularly those who skipped J-skool and learned their techniques from editors who often confuse "ethical" with "expedient."
But as good as these books are in different ways, some of the concerns, particularly in Russell's book, seem almost quaint. Reading about how to do more ethical journalism is a little like reading about how to be a better blacksmith -- why perfect a skill for which there is no market?
Ward, a former Canadian Press reporter who teaches in UBC's Master of Journalism program, has produced an essential book on the evolution of the widely misunderstood concept of objectivity. Ward traces its origins in the philosophy of science, then he applies his philosopher's training and an experienced reporter's understanding of best practices to develop a sophisticated model for journalists that he calls "pragmatic objectivity."
Since even reporters misunderstand the much-maligned concept, Ward opens with a history of objectivity, which emerged in science as a technique for overcoming human fallibility. The goal was to find a way to test research and distinguish knowledge from assumptions and beliefs. Part of that involved researchers stepping back and questioning themselves.
Ethics depends on who's buying
By the mid 19th century, publishers had figured out that the money was in selling ads, not selling subscriptions, so they applied a pop culture version of objectivity to newswriting to produce copy that wouldn't offend any of the readers (or advertisers, or politicians, or others with power and something to sell) they were all so anxious to reach.
Ward says that in traditional objectivity's heyday -- the 1920s to the 1950s -- reporters were expected to be, essentially, stenographers who recorded facts without giving them context. They dutifully transcribed every opinion as if it were equal to every other opinion, something that is often seen today. He points out that, not only did it serve readers badly, it is impossible to remove the human element -- someone chooses which facts to print in which order, so a value judgment has to be made.
"We have simplified objectivity to the point that is indefensible," Ward told The Tyee. Originally, the concept involved scientists challenging and questioning their own findings to ensure they weren't blinded by their enthusiasm. "It was about [scientific investigators] caring so much about the truth, that put a restraining force on their passion. They knew anyone can be biased; they balanced that with objectivity," Ward said in an interview.
Ward believes the solution for more meaningful journalism -- not to mention more interesting stories -- is for writers to take a scientific inquirer's role, testing and challenging the information they gather before publishing it. "The future of journalism is investigative, interpretive journalism," he says. "I'm interested in preserving some kind of solid investigative journalism."
The kind of journalism Ward advocates is nothing new, but he notes that journalists tend to ignore their own history. In the 1920s investigative journalists were known as "muckrakers" and "new journalists" exposing corruption in a variety of industries including newspapers. Upton Sinclair's 1920 book The Brass Check: The Study of American Journalism, coined the titular term that still exists -- Morals and the Media, defines as "brass cheque" as an advertiser agreeing to buy ads in exchange for a favourable mention in the news columns.
Objective, fair, or neutral?
In the late '50s and early '60s there was another wave of new journalists: Truman Capote, Tom Wolfe, and a host of others. Jessica Mitford's 1963 book The American Way of Death, about corruption in the funeral trade, prompted changes in legislation all over North America. However, some, such as Hunter S. Thompson, applied literary techniques to reporting facts in a way that was suspect.
Over the years there have been endless challenges to the concept of objectivity in favour of terms like "fairness" and "neutrality." "New journalism" cropped up so often that, lately, the term "new, new journalism" as been bandied about.
Creative writing programs have been turning out practitioners of "creative non-fiction," although the term makes many journalists cringe. The Georgia Straight's senior editor, Martin Dunphy, is legendary among investigative reporters for his attention to detail and accuracy. He notes wryly that: "The problem is that too often there is too much 'creative' and not enough "'non-fiction.' Too many young writers, especially, are a little too loosey-goosey with the term -- if it's non-fiction it has to be strictly truthful."
And therein lies the problem that continues to plague journalism -- how to remain factually accurate while providing enough context to allow readers to understand what is going on.
Ward's idea of pragmatic objectivity addresses the concerns of journalists like Dunphy, in that he would have reporters act more like scientific investigators -- testing and checking what politicians and PR people say, rather than merely reporting it. While some publications are embracing this technique, recognizing that it is more accurate than just an inverted pyramid of facts, other newsrooms still dismiss it as putting too much stock in the reporter's opinion.
But a point of view appears to be exactly what readers want. Ward notes opinion blogs are increasingly popular, probably because readers are trying to make sense of the flood of information. Ward suggests that because of that, there is an even greater need for journalists who are trained to separate knowledge from opinion and news from spin.
"If people want to rant and rave, may a thousand voices bloom," Ward says. "But we still need professionals trained to provide responsible journalism."
Pay doesn't justify excessive training
If Ward's book is one every journalist ought to read, more than once, Nick Russell's book is the one that should be shoved into the hands of novices as they set foot in newsrooms. Officially, Russell is retired from his post as a journalism professor at the University of Regina, but he still teaches at the University of Victoria and he's best known in B.C. as the man who developed Langara College's fledgling journalism program into a successful, practical training course (1968 to 1983). He thinks now, as he did then, that the low salaries in journalism can't justify the cost of masters' degrees and his book reflects his practical approach to preparing rookies for life on the beat.
The book is broken down into The Framework (theory and ideals), The Pressures (the problems of flaks, advertisers, con artists, and the law) The Pitfalls (reporting violence, sex, and other morally charged situations) and Renewal (codes of conduct, press councils, and other reassurances for the public).
Morals and the Media is a clear and easy read, reflecting Russell's own skill as a journalist. He doesn't offer a rulebook; instead he explores real incidents and how they were handled, introducing wannabe scribes to the ways in which different journalists -- or different media -- handle potential ethical disasters.
For example, he recounts the 1990 incident in which it appeared that CKVU-TV reporter Margot Sinclair was suspected of having a personal relationship with then Attorney-General Bud Smith. Russell records that different columnists came down on different sides of the issue, and some simply discussed the difficulties for reporters in the legislature's hothouse environment.
While he doesn't tell readers what to think, there's little doubt, in most cases, of the best course of action -- or perhaps that's just the reporter in me talking. Russell's list of ethical dilemmas at the end of every chapter – the "Tough Calls" – are obviously designed to trigger class discussions and, again, there's little doubt of the right conclusion.
That is actually the book's strength. In the era when the philosophy of self-serving moral relativists is so popular, Russell's book offers something of a life raft to writers drowning in a sea of incoherent thinking. While Ward's book demands some understanding of logic and how to define knowledge, Russell's book is the Everyhack's guide to ethical thinking.
Journalism ethics an oxymoron?
Although the preservation of knowledge is admirable, in an abstract way, hasn't concentration of ownership turned journalism ethics into -- as J-skool students have always joked – an oxymoron?
Russell dismisses the question as cynical. Despite accounts of journalists faced with corporate bosses who pressure them to write puff pieces (fake journalism that promotes something or someone, often an advertiser) or who kill stories that will not please the owner, Russell believes that reporters still make a lot of ethical decisions and they need guidelines apart from those set by (possibly venal) employers.
"Proprietors don't make a lot of every day decisions," he says. It's because of conflict of interest and pack journalism that working journalists need a personal code of conduct. "And management should develop [an institutional] code of their own," Russell says.
He also points out that institutional standards are much higher than they once were -- partly because the public has demanded it. "When I got into journalism [at the Vancouver Sun], it was standard policy not to run corrections."
Still, it's fair to wonder if a book like Russell's isn't more likely to get a green reporter fired at a lot of outlets -- that is if he's lucky enough to get a job in this shrinking market.
I recounted the story of a newly minted journalism grad at a local magazine whose article was rewritten to include complimentary bumf about an advertiser -- the classic brass cheque. He refused to put his byline on it. The publisher insisted. "I'd rather have my name associated with pornography, than that," the naïf told the proprietor, with predictable results.
Russell allows that magazines have long been "compromised," but he points out that his guide is useful because it prepares writers for the pitfalls of journalism. "It's a way of alerting them long before they get into trouble -- it gets their antennae up."
As for the notion of ethical journalists as this generation's answer to blacksmiths, Russell chuckles and points out that the question says more about my place in the long tradition of reporters who revel in their role as cynics than it says about his book.
"History shows that many things are better in newsrooms than they were 100 years ago," he says, with a smile in his voice. "For example, there are women reporters and editors now."
Well, touché. But women have written for newspapers since the 19th-century owners discovered women's pages were good for selling ads. Was it a good bargain to get so little -- the illusion of a more diverse newsroom -- in exchange for so little diversity in the news stories?
I'd say no, but for novices and optimists who believe improving their own skills will have some impact on the quality of newspapers, these two books are must-reads.
Shannon Rupp is a regular contributor to The Tyee who recently wrote about celebrity in Born unto Brangelina, a Sign! and the new puritanism in The 'TV Is Evil' Industry. A year and a day ago, she wrote about Journalism's Chronic Illness. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
- 'The Kids Are All Right'
- 'Leave Your Shoes On'
- Glaciers, BC Hydro's Melting 'Batteries'
- Frankie Rose Makes Life Tougher for Journalists
- Too Much Energy Used to Mine, Move Bitumen Says BC Firm
- Becoming the Ethical Hunter
- Shadow Workers of the World, Revolt!
- Three Ryan Gosling Pickup Techniques that Don't Work in Real Life
- Could SOPA Pervade Canadian Copyright Law?
- Would You Buy a Used Car from These Libs?
- Shadow Workers of the World, Revolt!
- Economist Calls Gateway Pipeline an Inflationary 'Threat'
- Bill Rees' Last Lecture
- Too Much Energy Used to Mine, Move Bitumen Says BC Firm
- Is Canada Ignoring Signs of a Coming Economic Collapse?
- Harper in China
- How First Nations Are Gearing Up for Legal Battle Against Gateway
- Eleven Oily Questions for Every MP
- Remembering Lloyd Dykk's Wit, Generosity and Superb Prose
- BC Child Care Advocates in Geneva to Complain to UN
- BC, You Love You
- Shadow Workers of the World, Revolt!
- Who Pays Huge Power Bills for Clark's Gas Plants?
- Make It the Canadian Webcasting Corporation
- Harper in China
- When the Prize Is a Chance to Toil on BC's Farms
- Three Ryan Gosling Pickup Techniques that Don't Work in Real Life
- Would You Buy a Used Car from These Libs?
- Time to Zip John Baird's Loose Lips
- Foreign Trade Zones Eyed for Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Prince George
19
Login or register to post comments
gaulois
5 years ago
Comments on "How Journalists Invented Ethics"
Mr. Ward as well as Ms. Rupp both seem to underestimate the value brought in by readers when they start engaging on a story, "test it" and "challenge it". I often find as much value in reading the comments from the readers as reading the insights from the author. Could there be a blind spot amongst our journalism elites here? The world of media is changing dramatically and perhaps journalists have not quite figured out how the ethics challenges will alter the profession. Is it possible that old crusty journalism is still standing in the way of citizens fully engaging in a participatory democracy? Would a journalist actually be capable of doing investigative journalism on this matter?
Thanks to the Tyee for publishing this review article and letting its readers engage on it.
Steve P
5 years ago
Good article, terribly misleading title.
"How Journalists Invented Ethics" implies there were no ethics prior to journalists, and this is certainly not the case.
The title of the book is far more appropriate: "The Invention of Journalism Ethics".
Charles Campbell
5 years ago
As the author of the title, I debated in my own mind whether it was misleading, and whether to hew more closely to the title of the book. I decided Tyee readers are smart enough to fill in the blank.
Truman Green
5 years ago
I thought the title was not in the least misleading because it's pretty obvious that journalists didn't actually invent ethics--and so a little hyperbole worked just fine. I sorta filled in the blanks, SteveP, and when I saw the title, "How Journalists Invented Ethics," I immediately understood what was going on, and it got my interest, which is what a title is supposed to do. Not bragging though. Well, okay, I'm bragging.
kurt
5 years ago
Good piece, and I shall seek out the books.
For an interesting take on the developent of "muckrakers" try reading some Damon Runyon and HL Mencken.
Shannon Rupp
5 years ago
Since we're talking about journalism ethics, let me point out that Charles Campbell's note, above, is just one of the reasons Jian Gomeshi referred to him as the "legendary editor" Charles Campbell on CBC radio's Sounds Like Canada a couple of weeks ago.
Aside from his superb news judgment and ability to shape stories, he has integrity, which is all too rare in journalism. A lot of journos claim to champion ethics, but they forget to mention they put "flexible" in front of the word.
Campbell's note is entirely out-of-fashion. Editors rarely take the heat for what is published, despite there being a growing trend in the industry to hiring incompetent editors who actually insert errors. There was one who did it so often that he coined a term for it: the erroneous fact. As in, "Sorry about that erroneous fact I added to your story."
On the plus side, he apologized. Most are silent. A few argue they're right, until faced with reference books and research. And then there are the ones for whom we've reserved a special ring of hell: the liars. They insist it's not their fault and then they whine about reporters beating up on them. (We wish.)
No one but Campbell volunteers that he is responsible for something that a reader complains about. Or that he made an error which, truth be told, he seldom does -- I was one of Campbell's contributing editors at the Gerogia Straight, for 10 years, and his screw-ups were so few and far-between, we treasured them. And rubbed them in.
I once thanked him for something ethical he did on the job. "Don't try the suck-y stuff," he growled. "It doesn't work on me."
Since I despise the ass-kissers myself -- they're always lousy at the job, that's why they have to compensate by browning their noses -- I did as I was told.
But as Campbell no longer has any power whatsoever over me, I thought it was worth pointing out to Tyee readers just why "legendary" is so often attached to his name. It isn't just because he pulled the Straight back from the edge of bankruptcy and turned it into an ad-fat award-winner. It's because he did that, and every editing gig, with so much attention to the best journalism practices -- including respect for his reporters.
At least when he wasn't growling at us.
Steve P
5 years ago
"I decided Tyee readers are smart enough to fill in the blank."
Fair enough -- as a writer myself, I'm a stickler ... =^)
I was stimulated by your article nonetheless.
Steve P
5 years ago
Sorry, Shannon -- I meant YOUR article =^)
(I guess I need an editor)
Truman Green
5 years ago
That said, I was just, a few minutes ago, lured into an article in Scientific American entitled, "Why We Sleep," by Jerome Siegel, in which the titlist promises everything but delivers virtually nothing. Keeriste, I thought, upon glancing at the title, How did I miss this? You mean they actually know why we sleep?
So anyways, 5000 or so words later (which I could have spent on the existence or non-existence of specific hiv proteins and the molecular weight of "core" antigens), after hypotheses about the relationship between the self-sufficiency of newborns and the amount of sleep needed; the size of the critter and the amount of sleep needed; rapid eye movement versus non rapid eye movement sleep as a determinant of vividness of dreams; the effectiveness of selective seratonin reuptake inhibitors in inducing sleep; various correlations between metabolic rates of small versus large animals, blah blah blah--it finally dawned on me that these bastards still don't have a clue why we need sleep.
In fact the article ends thusly: "...Researchers are confident that progress in identifying brain regions that control rem and non-rem seep will lead to a more comprehensive and satisfying understanding of sleep and its functions.
And: "...as we further... study blah blah blah."
In other words the title was a pile of crap. But Charles' title is really much more respectable than this--merely asking the reader to use his/her brain.
freebear
5 years ago
Speaking about editors and erroneus facts, the Vancouver Sun ran a story today (I suppose the reporter was also at fault) that described the reception the Minister of Indian & Northern Affairs recieved at the Assembly of First Nations Annual General Assembly/Meeting. But the Header of the story and the caption for the photo stated that he was the federal Minister of Fisheries!
So I sent the Vancouver Sun a news tip: That he is actually the Minister of Indian & Northern Affairs!
Ethics, they can not even get their facts right sometimes!
Ethics, I recall Keith Baldry during the last election referring to a candidate as a really good guy. What has that got to do with a political platform? Would reporting on this candidate then be biased, as he is a really good guy?
IAMC
5 years ago
Dan Rather was interviewed by Larry King on Wednesday. He kept saying over and over that he reads the news as HE sees it. Shouldn't news be simply reported as it is ? This guy is a twit. And to think of his liberal bias being rammed down Americans throat every night on CBS News. It's scary to think the the main player in Rathergate went unchallenged all those years.
freebear
5 years ago
Darn, I thought this strangely coloured posting area was free of I am Clueless!
freebear
5 years ago
Hey IAMC looking forward to entrepreneuring your way out of high, and getting higher in the short term and long term, oil prices!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
IAMC
5 years ago
It's all good freebore, higher gas prices results in conservation. You must be for conservation,right??
Besides, it's good for Canada as we are an energy superpower. It's money in the bank my friend.
Working Memory
5 years ago
Regarding ethics and journalism, here is what is happening in real time in your back yard;
Newspapers sell billions of dollars of advertising to the real estate industry. When the Olympics come to town it temporarily boosts everyone's confidence and they go on buying sprees fueled by real estate sharks who know the window is narrow. Artificially inflating real estate values is unconscionable. I have no problem with newspapers selling as much space as they possibly can to developers and real estate firms, but in order to maintain journalistic integrity, it is also necessary for said media to also disperse an equal amount of information that clearly describes what happens when the market is artificially inflated. Staying silent, as media has for the most part up until recently is unethical. For every ad that Bob Rennie bought over-hyping the big "W", media should have presented an alternative view relating how ad campaigns supported by advertorials, and in conjunction with compliance selling techniques, undermine the social fabric of our community, but they didn't, for obvious reasons - money. Media won't tell a balanced story because if they do, developers won't buy ads from them.
It's now interesting to see on the front page of The Sun (06/06/06), a headline that reads, "B.C. real estate boom could cost us" (It's due to equalization shares being dropped.) What did developers, realtors, the media and the premier think was going to happen? It certainly seems to be a free lunch for anyone in the real estate and media industries, but now that the Feds want to punish us for obscenely high property values, the premier is surprised. I'm not, and you shouldn't be either. It happens in almost all Olympic regions. The average home in B.C. now costs almost twice as much as in Quebec. Please explain how this is a good thing in a province that is struggling to grow.
Every developer, realtor, and news company who over-hyped property values in B.C. over the last three years should be held accountable for the government's recent announcement. Maybe they can make up the difference.
The Vancouver Sun flip flops all over the place. One day they run six inch headlines on the front page blaring that 22,000 B.C. homeowners are now millionaires on paper -- like it was a good thing, and a short while later they tell us, oops, that boom we were hyping last month, well, "it could cost us." Thanks. Thanks a bunch.
More info;
http://www.olyblog.com/06/BickeringS06052006.shtml
Local Media Experiment
http://www.olyblog.com/06/MediaS06052006.shtml
Working Memory
5 years ago
A well know local Vancouver journalist recently sent me the following note:
"My mandate as a reporter isn't to "reduce Olympic spending", be a "part of the problem" or even be a part of the solution. It's not in any handbook I've ever read. Maybe it's in yours, but my job is to write about the Olympics, fully and fairly."
Philby's statement referencing "journalistic integrity" is noble, except that the last three words, as they relate specifically to Philby's news company are false. Philby's news company does not, as a result of either ignorance, design, or both, report fully or fairly regarding the Olympics. Their actions over the last two years very strongly indicate that they report primarily to further their prospect of economic gain. The sophistication of their news company leads us to believe they are doing this purposefully, and that they are not naïve. Philby also wrote above that it is not in Philby's mandate to be a "part of the problem," yet that is exactly what Philby's news company is doing. Half-truths contribute to the problem.
Absolutely all news companies in Olympic regions stand to make a fortune as a direct result of the Games, some more than others. In fact, recent history has proven that the news company that tells the Olympic story in a manner that aligns most favorably with Olympic organizations stands to profit the most, and as we all know after watching what happened in Salt Lake City ($1.2 billion deficit - recently reported by CBC), Athens ($12 billion deficit - common knowledge) and Turin (still counting), news media's gain, by default, is always on the back of the community.
Read more here:
http://www.olyblog.com/06/ObjectivityS06162006.shtml
-30-
5 years ago
Before Vancouver knew it had the Olympic Games the local organizers attended a Province news meeting to inform various editors of their plans and hopes for the games. At the end of their presentation the editor in chief at the time, Vivienne Sosnowski, stood up and asked the committee members, how can we help you?
Her question was considered appalling by the newsroom staff but I'm sure it was applauded by the marketing people of The Province who were at the time, and probably still are, usually at news meetings to help co-ordinate news with entertainment promotions in the paper.
The newsroom shouldn't have been appalled as this is a long standing tradition in Vancouver newspapers and newspapers everywhere. Vivienne's question was not much different from what Irwin Swangaard would have said in the 1950's when he was managing editor at the Vancouver Sun and used his might at the newspaper to campaign for the British Empire Games and the building of Empire Stadium.
writerdave
5 years ago
There are two old sayings that I believe still stand the test of time when it comes to journalism:
"Tell 'em what you know and tell 'em how you know it."
"The role of a newspaper man is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."
Note: The seond quote was obviously written in an age when gender wasn't an issue in writing.
peefer
5 years ago
And now with The Sun - Michael Campbell in particular - pushing the Company line that global warming is a myth, we can add crimes against humanity or (at the very least) criminal negligence to the list of crimes issuing from that den of journalistic non-integrity that is Canwest/Global.