The Greater Good:
“You do need to be careful of people’s privacy. However, there are times when legitimate public interest trumps that privacy—not salacious interest, just something for the good of others. When it comes down to it, you are not working for a paper, you are working for a democracy.”
—Diana B. Henriques, journalist, The New York Times, at the Foster Conference of Distinguished Writers, Penn State, 2007 (Thanks to alert WORDster Susan Crowell)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What a self-serving load this is. No one anointed Ms. Henriques as a champion of democracy; she elected her herself, and thus is free to function under self-created rules -- rules that permit the sort of gross invasions of privacy practiced not only by exploitive tabloids, but even the mainstream media. Rules that, even when they exist, are observed about as often in the breach as in the adherence.
ReplyDeleteWhen journalists choose to bind themselves by a canon of ethics, as do lawyers, doctors, engineers, architects, air conditioning repairmen and exterminators, then -- and only then -- will such self-soothing verbal ointments have some weight.
In fact, Your Hughness, journalists do subscribe to a code of ethics--for example, Google SPJ Code of Ethics.
ReplyDeleteThe preamble of SPJ's code reads: "Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice."
The rest is worth a read--for both journalists and civilians.
Maybe His Hughness considers this more "self-soothing verbal ointments," and to be sure not all journalists either follow the SPJ precepts, or even remember them. But most journalists actually do subscribe to these principles.
TP
Please note that all of the occupations I cited -- and there are many more -- must abide by a legally enforceable code which, in many instances, actually carries criminal penalties and always has the potential for stripping the violator of his right to practice the profession in which he offended. The journalists canons -- a joke when you consider the abuses wreaked by publications such as People Magazine in the mainstream press and the National Enquirer in the most irresponsible segment of the press -- are many, and all unenforceable.
ReplyDeleteThe most punitive result that can befall a journalist who violates any of the various canons, including those imposed by individual media outlets, is loss of a job. In which case he or she takes a job elsewhere.
The profession does not even have an internally created ethics panel to enforce its paper canon.
Whoa, Hughness! Let's remember that the press--unlike medicos, plumbers engineers and the rest--are governed under the constitution and the First Amendment, rather than under civil law. The Founders and subsequent Supreme Courts decided, rightly, that exacting penalties (and for what, exactly--bad news?) would have a chilling effect on free expression, which would be an unacceptable price to pay in a free society.
ReplyDelete