Subscribe to my Feed
« It’s a great day to take the Business Ethics Pledge | Home | How effective is your company’s ethics training? »
How ethical is the press coverage of the Presidential campaign?
By Lauren | October 10, 2008
For the past several weeks, I’ve devoted each Friday’s post to ethical issues facing the next President. This week, however, I want to focus on the ethics behind the press coverage they’ve received … or lack thereof.
Let’s start from the premise that voters are about to elect the next President of the United States, not a next-door neighbor, high school debating champ, fashion plate or movie star. The next President needs to be intelligent, thoughtful, principled, and well-equipped to represent our country to the rest of the world. The President must be capable enough to serve as Commander in Chief and head of the Executive Branch of the federal government. Assuming that Senators Obama and McCain both have the basic credentials to do the job – and their respective Parties certainly think that they do – the next question should be how each of them addresses various problems facing the nation. Voters need to know what the candidates think so they can decide whether they approve or disapprove of the direction each candidate wants to take the country.
So, why is it that we have to hunt through media reports for descriptions of the candidates’ positions on the issues, but every slip of the tongue, social stumble, ugly rumor, or attack ad becomes front-page news? The election is less than a month away, but we’ve heard more about polling trends and Saturday Night Live sketches (they’re hilarious, but are they relevant?) than we have about the candidates’ views on the economy, the war, education, Social Security or foreign affairs. And as for the self-righteous “fact checking” that reporters love to use, far too many of their “gotcha” moments emerge from situations where both campaigns have had to oversimplify to fit their points into the nanosecond sound bites that reporters demanded in the first place.
It’s undoubtedly a whole lot easier to cover the Presidential campaign like a cross between a horse race and a beauty pageant than it is to provide clear, thoughtful analysis of the candidates’ records and positions. But as journalism giant Edward R. Murrow once said, “difficulty is the excuse history never accepts.” Maybe scandal sells, but spreading nasty stories is a pretty unethical way to make a buck. How ethical is it for journalists to distract voters from the issues by focusing on trivial missteps and ugly rumors? Is it ethical to sidestep the hard issues and, in the process, encourage voters to select candidates for all the wrong reasons? You decide.
Topics: Business Ethics, Presidential Campaign, Social Ethics, ethics |
October 10th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
[...] How ethical is the press coverage of the Presidential campaign? By Lauren It?s undoubtedly a whole lot easier to cover the Presidential campaign like a cross between a horse race and a beauty pageant than it is to provide clear, thoughtful analysis of the candidates? records and positions. … The Business Ethics Blog - http://www.thebusinessethicsblog.com [...]
October 10th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Interesting take on ethics. I hadn’t thought too much about the responsibility the news organizations have. I’m sure their argment is that they are providing what the viewers want.
Do you see a difference between news networks, newspapers, radio, network TV and other sources? I’m not a cable subscriber, and abstain from network TV news, so I get most of my news from NPR, newspapers and the web (including the news networks websites). I know there is egregious pandering, but I think I miss the lion’s share of it by how I choose to consume news.
October 13th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I think Chris’s comment raises an interesting point - the quality our news consumption does depend to a significant degree upon the manner in which each of us chooses to consume news.
Personally, the majority of what I have read about the election in your country has been via The Economist, which, fortunately, has spared its readers from the type of frivolous details described above.
It is most unfortunate that the mainstream media serve up what sells, not what people really need to know in order to make informed decisions.
One issue in particular which I find frustrating is how such journalists try to assume the moral high ground, when comparing themselves to bloggers - talking about ‘quality reporting,’ and the ‘professionalism’ of journalists.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
[...] presents How ethical is the press coverage of the Presidential campaign? posted at The Business Ethics Blog, saying, “The focus on rumors, scandals and sound bites [...]