Subscribe to my Feed
« Should “New Yorker” magazine apologize to the Obamas? | Home | How will the next President handle reconstruction in Iraq? »
How ethical is “gotcha” journalism?
By Lauren | July 16, 2008
The late Edward R. Murrow, one of America’s most legendary journalists, once said, “we cannot make good news out of bad practice.” Lately, I find myself wondering what Murrow would think of the “gotcha” game that passes so often for news in America. We all know the drill: it started with Watergate. Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein got an anonymous tip that then-President Richard Nixon, facing reelection, had authorized his staff to break into his opponent’s campaign office in the Watergate Hotel. Their investigative reporting led to a torrent of ugly revelations about Nixon (whom many people really didn’t like much anyway, even if they had voted for him). Facing impeachment, Nixon resigned from office in disgrace, the Post reporters became instant celebrities, and the feeding frenzy began.
Woodward and Bernstein deserved the kudos they received for their thoughtful, professional investigative reporting into the fact that the sitting President of the United States authorized his subordinates to break the law. (The President is the head of the branch of the federal government that enforces the law, so if a President participates in illegal activity, that’s a pretty big deal.) What Woodward and Bernstein couldn’t have anticipated, however, was that bringing down public figures would become the “next big thing” as wannabee reporters searched for opportunities to build their own reputations by tarnishing the good names of famous people.
If a President breaks the law, that’s news. But if a person who’s become famous gains weight, gets divorced, receives a speeding ticket or says something tasteless, does that person’s slip-up really warrant national attention? For example, when Mel Gibson got picked up for drunk driving and said some really appalling things to the arresting officers, I was as turned off as everyone else. But my understanding of world events wasn’t enhanced, the story didn’t refine my opinions about drunk driving – nothing in the “story” was particularly enlightening. I just learned that Mel Gibson is a flawed human being like everyone else. No news there.
Freedom of the press is essential to our American liberties, but with freedom comes responsibility. I think it’s time for journalists to take a step back and ask themselves if it’s ethical to broadcast people’s bad habits and sad moments across the world. One of the essential elements of ethics is to refrain from doing unnecessary harm to someone else. I think it’s unethical for journalists to attack the human foibles of public figures just to enhance their own fame and fortune. Instead of asking, “is it juicy?” I hope journalists would instead ask, “is it news?”
Topics: Business Ethics, Social Ethics, business communications, corporate responsibility, ethics |
July 16th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
[...] Lauren wrote an interesting post today on How ethical is “gotcha” journalism?. Here’s a quick excerpt: [...]
July 18th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Lauren,
Unfortunately, the practice you have described is endemic throughout the media.
A former South Australian journalist once described journalism as an industry where “they’ll knife you for two dollars.”
The most disgraceful example which I am aware of were pictures of glamour model Katie Price’s disabled five year old son Harvey, which were featured in Heat Magazine last year.
(Kate Price is better known as ‘Jordan’)
The five year old boy suffers from a condition called septo-optic dysplasia, which causes visual impairment and hormonal deficiencies. He is unusually fat as a result of the disease.
Last year, Heat magazine decided to publicly mock him, producing a sticker of him with the phrase “Harvey wants to eat me.”
Personal attacks on high profile individuals are bad enough, but ridiculing a disabled five year old boy is simply appalling.
The magazine did apologize, but even in their apology, their conduct was very poor.
According to the editor, the magazine did not intend to cause any offense. What an insult - they deliberately subject a five year old disabled boy to humiliation and then they expect the general public to believe that no offense was
intended.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Hi Andrew,
Wow - that is just about as awful as it’s possible to get. Here’s hoping the American media doesn’t decide to pick up on it.
Lauren