Loyalty and Journalism

You'd think this would be a no brainer type of question, the fact of whether or not journalists should be loyal to their employer, or to their audience. Here's the thing. I thought it was a no brainer type of question, until our class discussion. I'm still split on my decision, although learning more in a certain direction. See if you can tell as I describe the pros and cons.

Loyalty to an employer:

OK. I totally understand why this is absolutely essential. If your boss tells you to write a story, or say a certain thing and you don't say it, guess what. You've lost your job. There are plenty of struggling journalists in today's society that you are easily replaceable. I hate hearing that. But really, to think you're easily replaceable? I will always try my best to make sure I am someone who is NOT easily replaceable for this reason.

Here's the question though. Is writing or saying something because your job is on the line...ethical? To lie, or fabricate something so that you don't lose your job? The principle of Utilitarianism comes into play here. Tough one huh?

Pros: You'll have a boss that loves you if you decide to do what they say. You won't have to worry about walking into work and being on edge about a story if its exactly what they wanted. You might even get that big bonus, or promotion. Chances are too that you'll be the employee they choose to rely on; to give the big projects to.

Cons: You'll have to live with the guilt of posting false information. You'll be lying to America, not just yourself. Chances are, you'll get caught. Your employer will do one of two things: back you up, or rat you out and fire you. If they told you to do the piece, I'd hope they would stay loyal to you like you did to them and have your back through the turmoil of having America find out that not all of the facts posted were exactly true.

A student in our class made up a good point. Here's his blog. His big phrase was "Don't bite the hand that feeds you". Its true. You shouldn't. But when is enough, enough, you know? 

Loyalty to the public:

It's best to make the people who help contribute to your pay roll happy. Hence the above post about being loyal to an employer. But, guess who pays your employer? Your audience! If you make them unhappy, they will stop reading, and your audience will slowly dwindle, along with your company's income. Lets say that you find out some dirt on a big issue, something that might make your company look bad as well. What do you do? Do you choose to tell the truth to your readers, and put your company in the bad light? Or do you lie or twist the information so the public is only getting half of the truth? Is THAT ethical? I like what Mark Doremus has to say here. It's not such a clean cut answer.

Pros: People see journalists as a source of information. That's our job, to inform the public. If you make them happy, you're on the right track. People will trust what you have to say, and once that trust is gained, you have a set of faithful readers. You'll have the respect of the public for doing the right thing by informing them of all of the facts, not just what an employer thinks should be told.

Cons: Once you decide to tell the whole truth, there is no taking it back. An employer can fire you just like that, and you're out on the streets without a home and support for your family. Most businesses are unlikely to hire you for remaining unloyal to your company, and you're left to sit at home and hope your blog makes it big.

So what's a journalist to do?

It's a tough one. In chapter three of our book, it states that a journalist's first loyalty should be to the public. I'm going to have to agree. If I were to ever be put in a tough situation like that, I'd have to go with the principle of Utilitarianism again and help the greater number of people. Plus, I'd never want a guilty conscience. After all, its just a job. I'd prefer to keep my integrity instead.

Example:

Look at Marc Stein's article about Jerry Sloan's resignation. Deron Williams called him out on how he fabricated his entire story of what happened, all so he could get a story. This is exactly what I don't want to be as a reporter. ESPN obviously supports Stein. He's one of their biggest sports reporters. However, how he goes about getting his stories makes me sick. He twists information to get readers to follow him. He has a reputation for being an unreliable source. He stays loyal to his company--and is doing just fine. People still read his stuff. He still has a job. But for me, I'd rather have my audience trust me. I'd rather not have the people I write about say that I lie. I want to keep good sources, not destroy them. But that's just me. I'd rather have my integrity, rather than a good story and a high paying job. Just saying.

-kim