Does the proliferation of bloggers make ethical demands for news journalists redundant?

Some of this information came from an essay I did for Joe Atkinson's Political Content of Television paper. The discussion is based around the idea that with the increase of news sources, in particular blogging, has there become less of a need for journalists to be ethical and impartial?

Throughout much of history people would get their news from few sources, a nightly news show, the radio or daily newspaper. With the arrival of Web 2.0, people are increasingly 'logging on' and utilising the massive potential of the internet. A big part of this has been the explosion of online new media. What were originally only email and messenger services have blossomed to include social networking sites, wikis, weblogs, podcasts, online newspaper content and search engines. Old news sources such as daily newspapers and broadcast news face declining readerships/ viewers worldwide yet some blog sites are getting up to 100 hits a second[1]
What was once a small group of devotees has grown into a massive industry where anyone in the world, provided they have web access, can have their voice heard by millions.

Blogging has seen a massive increase even in the last few years as more people are going online. Some of them anonymous, some journalists, some societal commentators and even just interested parties all espousing their views over the internet. A study in 2005 showed that some 50 million US internet users visited blogs in the first quarter of 2005.

New media definately has some advantages, information can be uploaded with immediacy giving news a more up-to-date quality. People can instantly search through google to find information and there sometimes hundreds of websites devoted to a topic. Behind the safety and anonymity of a computer screen keyboard warriors the world over are changing the way we view the media.

Traditional mainstream news has long held as a major tenet the fairness and accuracy of its reporting. Joe Atkinson said "journalists are said to identify more readily with their profession than with the organisation to which they belong". Journalistic integrity and freedom of the press is one of the basic building blocks of any liberal democracy. Most people in society do not have the time or inclination to research everything around them so it is the requirement of journalists and the media to do this for them. This has given the profession some fundamental guidelines in how to operate in the interests of a free and informed society. Journalists are required to act as public watchdogs and there Joe Atkinson outlined a set of ideological values self-imposed upon the profession.

• the public service aspect; acting as watchdogs in the public interest
• providing objectivity to their reporting; giving impartial, balanced views
• maintaining autonomy; that journalists act as independence and are not beholden to any groups
• immediacy; that the news they report is current and up to date.
• ethics; that journalists retain their personal integrity

If journalists are caught making up lies or supplying incorrect information they are censured and can lose their jobs, this is not the case with blogging. A weblog, as discussed, can be a completely anonymous medium; the intentions of a blogger are not automatically clear. A blog will generally be written with a particular intention, as this one is, otherwise there would be little point in doing it. Objectivity and impartiality are big issues within the blogosphere. If your reason for discussing an issue is from being directly affected by it notions of fairness and impartiality are nulled. What blogs can do well is give opinion, but they cannot prove to give impartial reporting. There is a marked decline in traditional media. The likelihood of the blogging world adopting journalistic values is slight. So what will happen to the values?

Paul McLeary of the Columbia Journalism Review has advocated a two-tier system:

"where the big news organisations deliver the goods in the form of hard news and investigative pieces whose production requires the kind of investment in time and money that most Web sites and blogs can't match, while the blogosphere takes the lead in opinion writing and analysis"[2]

On this I think McLeary has it right, a two tier system would enable journalists to focus solely on what is important; reporting the news. so opinion and editorial pieces would not be required. This would mean that issues of bias and impartiality would not be as hotly debated as the bloggers would be the ones controlling the opinion side of the news.

Mainstream news still has a requirement to report news factually and correctly, invoking the five ideological values of Atkinson. There is still far too much unaccountability in the blogging world and too many agendas to ever say they can satisfy all the criteria of a completely free press. They can certainly be a major part of the media moving forward, especially with the attraction the youth have to the internet. What is required though, is that mainstream traditional television news retains the ideals it has long held.

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/jul/20/news.newmedia.
[2] www.cjr.org/

Bryers' brothel brouhaha

Bryers’ brothel brouhaha.

When the Herald on Sunday published a story on disgraced businessman, Mark Bryers, the focus of the piece was not on his dodgy business practices but rather his fondness for visiting prostitutes, and the decadent manner in which he lived.

The piece ran March 9, 2008 and was part of a series on the fall of property investment company, Blue Chip, and the millions of dollars owed to investors.

Mark Bryers was one of the founders of Blue Chip and lived a lavish lifestyle from its success. When the tide turned, however, he became a target for attack.

The media sometimes has a perverse obsession with airing peoples’ dirty laundry under the guise of public interest.

In reporting an individual’s lifestyle there are ethical considerations involved. Information that could damn a person should be in the public interest and not just gossip.

A private life should remain private, providing the behaviour is not affecting the business.
The story exposing Mark Bryers fondness for brothels shows that information not relevant to a case can still be published if it is seen as being timely or topical.

The Herald on Sunday story, by journalist Jane Phare, regarding Bryers brothel trips said “the revelations come as thousands of distressed Blue Chip investors are still waiting to hear if they will see any of the millions of dollars owed on deals involving 2000 properties after the liquidation of 20 companies”.

The public has a right to know exactly how and why Mark Bryers could get into the position where investor’s life-savings were lost but if his dalliances with prostitutes had nothing to do with the failure of Blue Chip then why is it in the public interest?

Phare’s story also said, “Mr Bryers lives in a $3 million home in Remuera and drives a silver Mercedes. He is a member of the Remuera Golf Club (with a 10 handicap) and plays the occasional game at Gulf Harbour where he has plans to build a five-star luxury resort”.
It seems that the purpose of this article is to portray Bryers as nefarious and Machiavellian, living a life of luxury while the ‘mum and dad’ investors suffer. Where is the ethics in pushing this line?

An attempt at objectivity in journalism is noble. Objectivity is an attempt at neutrality and highlighting issues without an obvious partisan leaning. If journalists can accomplish this, it goes a long way towards publishing the truth, and not just an individual’s truth.
In news articles there should not be implications of low moral fibre or acting outside socially contrived norms, the purpose of the news is to report facts. The media should act in a watchdog role but not as moral compass.

Objectivity is controversial as many believe that inherent biases are impossible to ignore and will affect the types of stories that are written and the angles that are taken; that any attempt at charting a middle road will only highlight the bias of journalists.
But, journalists should intend to be virtuous in their reporting, if objectivity is too difficult to achieve then they need to attempt to portray accuracy, balance and fairness. A fair presentation of diverse views and alternative viewpoints is necessary because that is how journalists will portray truth the best.

When contacted by Te Waha Nui, Phare said that due to legal issues she would be unable to speak specifically regarding the Mark Bryers story but that she “pared down the story” until what ran was what had been okayed by lawyers and the editorial team. Phare said, a lot of money is spent on legal fees to ensure what is reported isn’t defamation.
But if all that was available was a story of limited public relevance why was anything run?
Phare said stories are weighed up individually for topicality and how much information there is available.

She said when weighing up the stories, timeliness is a big part. Information that might not run in a years’ time would be run while a story was hot.
Miriyana Alexander, assistant editor of the Sunday Star Times, said, “It can often be frustrating for journalists not being able to publish a full story once lawyers have got hold of it.”
Alexander said, “It comes down to a judgement call in balancing when it is worth publishing a story even after it has been watered down”.

Journalists’ judgement may be affected if they have a story that is particular exciting and could make them lose sight of their ethical considerations.

The New Zealand Press Council website says that “there is no more important principle than freedom of expression. In a democratically governed society the public has a right to be informed.” This information naturally comes mostly from the media.

It goes on to say, however, that “individuals also have rights and sometimes they must be balanced against competing interests such as the public's right to know”.

Because of the un-publishable information in the Bryers case what may have been interesting to the public is not necessarily in the public interest. Bryers business practice was not under scrutiny in that particular piece so why attack his lifestyle?

The public’s right to know is perhaps viewed more strongly for journalists who see their view as watchdog and whistle-blower, they may believe the public needs to know information that is outside of the public interest.

As Phare says, “there is no hard and fast rulebook on journalism ethics” so it is generally up to the integrity of the journalist and caution of the legal team as to what is and is not ethical.
A problem in reporting on the lifestyle of a person is not that they will be affected but rather those around them. There is potential for Bryers’ family to suffer because of the exposure of private information in the public domain. This is one of the big worries about this type of reporting.

An individual may be left relatively unharmed by the exposure of salacious news but their family could be targeted for something they had no involvement in.
Max Mosley is another who has faced the wrath of the media, being targeted for allegedly being involved in ‘Nazi sex games’.

Mosley, chairman of the FIA, was filmed having a five prostitute orgy. He was a controversial character and had enemies in Formula 1 but when the media targeted him they should have focussed on his business practice, not his private business.
Mosley has faced criticism all his life as the son of British fascist Oswald Mosley so being negatively portrayed by the media is nothing new to him but, the story is not about Mosley acting improperly in his position but rather his after-hours activities, which has only little relevance to the public.

Journalists must retain ethical standards so they are contributing meaningfully to the public sphere. There should be an avoidance of sensationalism and an attempt at reporting factually and impartially. Yellow journalism should have ended with William Randolph Hearst but perhaps sometimes the need for a scoop outweighs an individual’s rights.