Ethics: You're Doing It Wrong

There is a lot of trust in journalism. Actually, I should say there is a great need for trust in journalism. Reporters are trusted to get the facts straight and make their deadlines. Sources are trusted to provide information and refrain from outright lies. Readers trust news organizations to be accurate and transparent in their work. These bonds of trust are why so many in the industry were dismayed to see reporting and editing functions outsourced as media sought to reduce their operating expenses. Shouldn't goodwill with the audience outweigh the financial benefits of assigning duties outside the newsroom?

My first reaction to the issue of outsourcing in journalism was that it is bad for business; it could diminish audience trust, compromise ethics, and blur the line between legitimate journalists and writers who lack the talent, objectivity and discipline needed to be a successful reporter. Those concerns were put to the test last quarter when I (and a group of my classmates) was assigned the task of arguing in favor outsourcing; specifically, we were asked to debate in written and oral arguments that the financial benefits of outsourcing outweighed the risk to the audience. For the purposes of the argument, we defined outsourcing in journalism as: “ … the conscious decision by editors, news directors and managers to compensate outside organizations and/or writers for professional content at a price that is less expensive than creating or producing the same content in house.”

Our three arguments were:
1. There is a financial benefit to news organizations;
2. Niche, nonprofit and start-up groups fulfill a need that cannot be met by established news organizations; and
3. The audience benefits from the diversity of ideas generated from outsourced material.

We focused much of our argument on operations such as ProPublica, GlobalPost, Politico and the Chicago News Cooperative. By the end of the weeks-long project, I was convinced that the well-managed and limited use of outsourcing would be the future of journalism.

Imagine my disappointment when I woke up Monday to read The New York Times piece on Gannett’s coverage of the New Jersey Devils. Who is the reporter tasked to write about the hockey team? Eric Marin, a Devils employee. The paper’s editor told The Times, “As long as it served our readers and we told them where that content was coming from, the readers were fine with it.” Ok, but at what point were readers told that the journalism they were consuming was in fact produced by a compromised writer? In stories published April 5 and 12, Marin was identified as “Special to the Asbury Park Press.” Three days later his byline read “correspondent.” That is not forthright. That is not transparent.

The editor, Hollis Towns, went on to say, “I think journalists get hung up on certain lines of what’s ethical more than the readers.” Yeah, what a drag. It’s sort of the same way doctors get hung up on the ethical line when patients want Vicodin prescriptions for recreational purposes. Or how the secretary of state should get hung up on the ethical line that prevents driver’s licenses from being issued in exchange for bribes.

Reporters carry the burden of maintaining trust with the audience. We are only as good as our words. Anything short of utter commitment to that trust is failure.