Incredible Journalism

by Bruce Schimmel

How did newspapers lose their integrity? In much the same way they're going broke: at first, slowly, and now very quickly.

OK, sure, have a laugh. Ethics and journalism? As in, we should trust the media for quality news?

No way, not now, said a majority of Americans in a Harris Poll last year. When it comes to news media credibility, it's buyer beware.

No wonder. With the Internet expanding, with the good stuff it's brought (like Wikipedia) has come an explosion of disinformation. It seems that bullshit and lies, as we learned from Fox and the Bushites, is now an acceptable norm.

That's very bad. And I fear that journalism's credibility will continue to disappear, as newspapers morph from paper into ether.

Because if the ethics that guided good journalism do not survive the virtual transition, junk news will smother the infosphere like digital kudzu.

As a journalist for almost 30 years, I can tell you it's hard to do good work in a climate of contempt. What's worse, as everyone knows, that contempt is justifiable. As a news user, it's tough to find stuff that's not tainted by consumerism. 

For sure, the consumer culture — in the form of a newspaper's advertisers — has always had some say over how news was covered.

Still, the best newspapers have always been directed by their journalism. The reporters drove the bus, and basically ignored the clamoring of advertisers in back.

But now, the nimble technologies of digital media have put marketing in the driver's seat, shoving journalism to the rear.

Integrity, it seems, was easier in the analog age.

Take, for example, Philly.com's new reader-tracker feature at the bottom of each news story. Sure, I'm glad to know that people who read about judicial screwups are also interested in abandoned kids.

But when Philly.com links specific news stories to specific consumer goods — saying that readers bought this diamond or that computer — I believe that a bright ethical line has been crossed.

For starters, treating readers like consumers further inflames their contempt. What's worse is how an onslaught of instant feedback will erode a news organization's integrity.

Here's how it works in the real world: Let's say that an editor must choose between two news stories. One would attract people who'd buy, say, Lexus cars. The other story might attract people who buy gardening supplies.

Bet you can guess what a pressured editor might choose.

It used to be that good journalism could find some rich soil in the messy demographics of the analog world. But now with individual news stories being rated like TV shows, editors are learning to jump for gold instead of serving the common good. As dailies transition to the Internet, we've seen how the commercial market has corrupted our marketplace of ideas.

Which is why, more than ever, anyone who blogs, writes, talks or sends smoke signals in the name of journalism needs to be inoculated with a big dose of ethics.

Fortunately the rules of the game are relatively simple. The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) offers guidance, useful to both amateur and professional alike.

According to SPJ, good journalists: 1) seek truth and report it, 2) minimize the harm that their stories could create, 3) act independently of commercial and other concerns, and 4) are accountable for what they say. (For more details, go to spj.org/ethicscode.asp.)

These are good ethical guidelines, which most people know almost intuitively. We feel them in our gut when we're sickened by flimflam reporting. And we feel them in our heart, when as bloggers, reporters and journalists, we do right by our readers.

(bruce@schimmel.com)