Over the Fourth of July weekend I took a trip to the media’s shrine to itself in downtown Washington D.C., known as the Newseum, and was troubled by the fact that the exhibit on journalistic ethics took up less space in the seven floor building than the gift shop. Given the $20 admission fee, one might expect a little more attention paid to journalist principles than to souvenirs like Newseum boxer shorts.
The exhibit featured various interactive computer displays that challenged visitors to test their judgement of real life ethical scenarios by choosing between different options of how to report a story. After answering, a screen would appear, showing percentages of how the general public answered versus how journalists responded.
In general, journalists tended to be more willing to take the questionable ethical course of action. However, one scenario was particularly disturbing. A picture was shown of an infant child in Africa lying on the ground starving, with a vulture a few feet away. The question was do you just report the story or do you try to help the child? About 70% of the general public responded by saying they would help the child, the same number of journalists, about 70%, said they would report the story without intervening.
While the Newseum deserves credit for a moving exhibit giving tribute to September 11 and one commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall, the lack of representation given to journalistic ethics definitely detracted from the overall experience. Though the front of the museum proudly displays the First Amendment etched in stone, it would do well to remember the responsibility that comes with that freedom.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
For journalists, not
July 7, 2008 - 15:18 ET by zhombreFor journalists, not interfering with the vulture is a matter of professional courtesy.
By vulture, I thought he meant the journalist
July 7, 2008 - 15:23 ET by SPCOlympicsBy vulture, I thought he meant the journalist
Insulting
July 7, 2008 - 19:04 ET by Copperhead RidgeThat's insulting to vultures!
Bravo. McNotObama '08
July 7, 2008 - 15:23 ET by Chris NormanBravo.
McNotObama '08
i had to laugh...
July 7, 2008 - 22:25 ET by i was just thinking"McNotObama '08" ... I'm still laughing over that one! Outstanding!
They needed the extra room
July 7, 2008 - 15:23 ET by HermanoThey needed the extra room in the Newseum for the Obama campagn t-shirts and buttons. Had to cut out something.
This "huge" event goes to
July 7, 2008 - 15:49 ET by kgThis "huge" event goes to show that there is very little ethics in journalism.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
We need Reporters
July 7, 2008 - 15:30 ET by richb313This only makes me sad. We need more reporters and a lot less Journalists. Ask anyone who is currently enrolled in a journalism course and ask them why they want to be a Journalist and they will probably tell you that they want to change the world. Well that is not thier job. If they want to change the world do something else. Their job is to report the world, nothing else. Also it is so stupid to believe that helping someone is going to somehow bias the story. The story is already biased just by witnessing the events.
Speaking of bias just listen to how many times the word narrative is used in what passes for todays news. The word narrative is shorthand for the story is already written and the facts that support that narrative are used and all else is discarded and ignored or just plain lied about. They teach they 5 w's in journalism school (Who, What When Where and Why), the last one shoud be discarded as to try and answer that question is pointless at best and dishonest at worst. Everytime I hear the word narrative I cringe. We must demand less story and more facts.
From the example given
July 7, 2008 - 15:37 ET by BuffNBoneFrom the example given about the child, it sounds like the MSM is following its own version of the Prime Directive.
"As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Star Fleet personnel may interfere with the healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes the introduction of superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Star Fleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation."
Substitute MSM for Star Fleet and the part about sacrificing their own pink little bodies and/or ship and it fits them to a "T".
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
The Vulture
July 7, 2008 - 18:07 ET by jaywlWith a $20 fee on top of the rather specialized subject matter in the Newseum I would have to assume most visitors are at least of average intelligence and probably more interested in human affairs than most people. That, if true, makes me wonder what that 30% have wrong with them. Would they really not move a child out of the way or shoo the buzzard away? Are they trying to guess what a journalist would do (or say)? I can't believe they would watch the buzzard have a dinner of live human child. The same is true of journalists, but I have fewer doubts about their responses.
Chasten me for my simplistic worldview if you must...
July 7, 2008 - 18:36 ET by Mike Bratton...but this "vulture" business is a pretty simple call, isn't it?
Allowing a vulture to dine upon a child is evil. Purely and simply. There is no "nuance" here.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
Ehtics
July 7, 2008 - 19:28 ET by nkviking75The ethics exhibit is smaller than the gift shop? Given the current state of journalism, an exhibit on their ethics could fit in a shoebox.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Mike Wallace
July 7, 2008 - 23:48 ET by Rush FanA perfect example of a journalist who would not intervene is 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace. Remember the PBS series Ethics in America where a variety of prominent people discussed ethical issues of the day? Mike Wallace and Peter Jennings were both on a panel in a 1987 episode titled "Under Orders, Under Fire.” Wallace and Jennings were given this ethical scenario: they are both traveling with the enemy (North Kosanese) documenting alleged atrocities by U.S. troops. The enemy encounters U.S. troops and is planning to ambush them. Would Wallace or Jennings, as Americans, warn our U.S. soldiers of this ambush? Initially Jennings said he would warn the U.S. troops of the ambush, for he felt he was an American first and a journalist second (he later backtracked on this initial response). Mike Wallace had a different opinion: He would not warn the American troops. His comment: "I think some other reporters would have a different reaction," he said, obviously referring to himself. "They would regard it simply as a story they were there to cover."
You can read the full story of this PBS episode by James Fellows titled Why We Hate the Media.
http://www.pbs.org/w...
NewsBusters Brent Baker also documented this PBS episode in a 2006 blog post titled Mike Wallace: Journalist First, American Second (with Vintage Video) http://newsbusters.o...
It appears that liberal journalist have remained ethically challenged over the years and have not learned anything since Mike Wallace’s shameful response to a hypothetical case. But can we expect anything more from a liberal?
------------------------------------------------------
I'm voting for Barack Obama now that an AP poll shows people would rather barbecue burgers with Barack Obama than with John McCain. http://news.yahoo.co...
Katrina
July 8, 2008 - 10:05 ET by taylork...about 70%, said they would report the story without intervening...
Do you expect anything less from the same group of people that flocked down to New Orleans in their huge vans and reported on thee tragedy of the Superdome while helping no one leave?