Is Ethics in Journalism, Dead or Has it Just Changed With Our Society?

Ethics is an important topic worthy of an in-depth. For reporters and media outlets, ethical journalism is critical to their credibility with the general population. At the same time, many positions indeed pose specific ethical standards, journalism has unique ethical challenges. Challenges like should I accept tickets for a game? Should I accept the food provided by coaches, players, managers, or event locations?

There is always drama within sports, whether within a game between two coaches or between players on the field. Is reporting on an abuse scandal between coaches and players something that serves the betterment of the public? Social issues have been thrust into the spotlight by players using their fame and public position. An example is the social issue of racism and its connection to police brutality on People of Color. Colin Kaepernick's choice to kneel during the National Anthem to protest police brutality in 2016 was a brave move. Mr. Kaepernick used his status and visibility to raise awareness of police brutality and racism experienced in America's Black communities. Being an ethical sports journalist means that you report on these incidences without taking sides with issues and reporting the facts. It means you write on the story and don't incorporate your own bias; at least that is the theory. But is it asking too much for journalists to be a neutral party, especially when it is such a big issue that hits so close to home for so many journalists (e.g., racism in America and the connection that racism has with police brutality)? Then more questions arise, should journalists show their outward support for such an issue? If the journalist takes sides on a problem such as racism, sexism, climate change, LGBTQAI+ matters, does that hurt or help their credibility with their readers? Will they be isolating other readers? For instance, would merely being a neutral party and reporting facts about racism and its connection to police brutality be seen as a quiet show of support in favor of discrimination? Many younger reporters seem to agree that it is practically impossible to remain total neutral to issues that affect the journalist's life.

An article in Teen Vogue entitled "Journalistic Objectivity Isn't Realistic, Young Reporters Say" has an interesting perspective from younger journalists. Are journalistic standards changing? Are reporters pushing the boundaries in journalistic ethics more now than earlier generations, or is this part of being a journalist in an ever-changing field? The article highlights how younger reporters report on social issues and their duty as someone with a voice and platform to call attention to ethical injustices: veteran journalist and New York Time's White House correspondent Peter Baker clashes with this journalism approach. The reporters are between the age of 20 and 30-years-old, therefore, fall within the Millennial and Zoomer generations. The article interviews several reporters that say that neutral journalism is unrealistic within the real world because reporters are human beings directly affected by the same social issues. As one reporter points out, some topics are inherently biased in some people's minds, like climate change (Li, 2020).

Is it impossible to remain neutral while reporting on climate change? While writing an article, does the public expect the person to be completely unbiased when dealing with an issue that affects the journalist? Isn't the fact that the journalist agreed to cover the subject acknowledgment of the existence of climate change and therefore shown to be in support of believing in climate change? Can we and should we expect a person of color to report on racism without showing bias? Wouldn't this come down to only allowing a privileged – white cisgender male – be allowed to write on racism? That doesn't seem fair. Why, because it perpetuates the doctrine that white cisgender males be the gatekeepers of what information becomes available to the public. A white cisgender male journalist may not see much value in reporting on racism or sexism, therefore, downplaying the number of incidences within the context of the real world. Don't we benefit, as a society, from being the most informed about an issue? Don't we gain unique perspectives from viewing such issues from the eyes of many, especially when those people give such personal and unique viewpoints from within a movement or issue?

Conclusion

Technology and globalization have made significant impacts on every aspect of our culture and society. Isn't not having an opinion on one or more topics assigned to you as a journalist; unrealistic in 21st century America. Perhaps, it would have been easier pre-1960s. Still, with America's diverse population and emphasis on being a more inclusive society, every journalist will have an opinion on topics they are assigned to write. Technology has also given visibility to everyone's career and personal social media accounts. We log in to these platforms and share our views on current events, news, politics, daily lives, etc. Having and being active on more than one social media platform is a requirement for most professions. Employers like to see the proficiency of modern technology used in professional and personal spaces. Knowledgeable career professionals proficient with digital media platforms will have opinions about issues.

Do we expect journalists not to have a personal life? Can we trust a journalist who gives one opinion on their personal account but writes a neutral article in the media? I think that is unreasonable in today's highly visible globalized, technology-driven society. Instead, I believe this gives us an even more nuanced view of a journalist's opinions on a given subject. This change within journalism is a positive kind of change as long as we use neutrality wherever appropriate and be aware of our transparency when reporting on a subject that prevents us from being completely neutral. Visuality is a good thing. I'm reminded of The Washington Post's slogan "Democracy Dies in Darkness," which was adapted from federal Judge Damon Keith, who was quoted to say while ruling on a significant case on immigration after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Keith wrote, "Democracy dies in the dark" (DeVito, 2019). I think the trend we should be keeping track of is misinformation and how today's journalists can report on these incidences without contributing to the spread of this misinformation. I've seen many ethically inclined journalists report on a topic that included misinformation by stating that the information has been "debunked by fact-checkers" or something along those lines. While this preface is warranted and needed, should journalists give visibility and a voice to misinformation statements? Let me know what you think in the comments below.

DeVito, L. (2019, April 28). Detroit Judge Damon Keith who coined ‘Democracy dies in the dark,’ dead at 96. Retrieved on Jan. 26, 2012 from https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2019/04/28/detroit-judge-damon-keith-who-coined-democracy-dies-in-the-dark-dead-at-96

Li, S. (2020, March 6). These Young Journalists Say Neutrality Isn't an Option for Them. Retrieved on Jan. 25, 2021 from https://www.teenvogue.com/story/objectivity-neutrality-not-option-some-journalists.