Hi Franklin and classmates,
Franklin, the scenarios you suggest here are very different from the Frontline piece we saw on Mayor Jim West. I felt the editor of the Spokesman Review acted unethically in the West story because he went to great lengths to “trap” him, even hiring someone to act like an interested lover. The goal of the newspaper in the story certainly was not to prove that West abused his office by notifying his lover of an internship at City Hall, but instead was to try to connect West’s sexuality to pedophilia. (Despite that there was no legitimate evidence to tie him to the earlier abuses). Their paper’s motives were clearly and ethically wrong. They also failed in areas of accuracy and transparency and never gave consideration to holding off on publication.
The scenario you presented about Gary Hart was of Hart’s own doing. He invited reporters to trail him. John Edward’s extra-marital affair directly contradicts his pure political reputation. In these cases there was no witch-hunt by the press.
For better or worse, voters make decisions based on the political and private life of the candidate. Assuming truth, accuracy and confirmation all pass grade, the next consideration is context setting. In the 1960’s President Kennedy’s infidelities were not reported by a press corp that knew about his extra-marital affairs. Times have changed and today the public demands to know all. Any contemporary daily newspaper not reporting a Gary Hart or John Edwards story will certainly lose readers.
Personally, I‘d like to see less celebrity news and more real news. Recently, I was dismayed to see the Kayne West/Taylor Swift story on page 1 of the New York Times, but it was what people were talking about and wanted to read that day. It may not qualify as journalism but it was “news” and for newspapers that are barely keeping their head above water it needs to be front and center.
2 comments:
Good point about the entrapment; that was a major ethical mistake on the part of the newspapers that was not included in the other scenarios. As soon as the paper's online persona turned 18, they clearly overstepped the ethical line.
Hi Franklin,
I may be overstating the obvious here, but these scenarios all boil down to the question of "What differentiates a piece of juicy gossip from being vital piece of information that brings value to the lives of those who read about it?". Each example you bring up is scandalous to some degree, and certainly sells papers. However, are the people that read these stories any better off for having done so? I question that notion, considering that each story is intended to a.) sell a newspaper, and b.) shape an opinion about the target of the story. Additionally, if I remember correctly, some of these stories broke around crucial times for those individuals(e.g. election times), which brings the newspaper publisher's intentions for publishing the story into question. If a professional newspaper is going to publish a story, it has a responsibility to print something that adds value to the lives of its readers (Gary Hart is a secret Nazi and should not be president vs. John Edwards couldn't keep his pants up on the campaign trail). However, sex and politics will never cease to exist, and papers will continue to publish those stories because sex sells. What is needed is a shift in focus from simply reporting these incidents to acting as a forum on the issue of sex and the public figure. The public is obviously drawn to it, so why not examine why we are so drawn to it, and why we feel this need to know about the sex lives of those in the public spotlight. In doing so, maybe stories worthy of water cooler gossip can be transformed into constructive dialogue on our society's approach to moral issues.
(Stepping off soapbox)
-Eric
Post a Comment