Leopold's job as journalist well done, despite ethical questions

What is ethics?

Throughout the course of ones education in the Missouri school of journalism, numerous courses have devoted time towards attempting to establish what is considered to be ethical and unethical. Truth be told, many students still aren’t sure, and as the journalism world continues to change and evolve the lines that once divided the ethical decisions from the unethical are blurring.

Jason Leopold’s News Junkie had great examples of ethical debate throughout its pages, and yet there can still be heated arguments over many of the events that shaped the journalism career of Leopold.

For instance, one might come to the conclusion that it was completely unethical of Leopold to lie on his resume about graduating from NYU with a degree in journalism. Sure lying is never a practice of good ethics, yet in today’s journalism world what was really the harm in this falsification? Another major topic of conversation in a number of the classes being offered to journalism majors concerns the growth of citizen journalism. If people all around the country are pretending to be journalists without a journalism degree, what difference does it make if Leopold lied about his education?

If Leopold wanted to pursue a career in journalism without the degree, it would have been nearly impossible to get hired by the Times or Dow Jones. Say he still wants to write and dig up breaking news, and decides to start publishing a blog; then, major newspapers and wire services would have a major problem with the fact that they aren’t landing the stories and some blogger was. Was it unethical to lie on his resume? Sure. But not nearly to the extent one might think.

Leopold’s methods of gathering information by playing two sources against one another, turning on sources or using anonymous sources in his stories leaves plenty to be desired and is clearly unethical. However, considering the crises he was covering with the California energy situation and Enron, it was extremely ethical to gather important information and fill the public in regarding the ways in which they were being deceived and screwed out of money and electricity.

Great journalists are the gatekeepers to the people and organizations within the industry pride themselves on being the first to release a breaking news story. They can’t have it both ways though. It would be nearly impossible to break any real important news by being completely ethical about it. Very few sources are willing to just spill their guts and go on record about an important or controversial topic. On one hand, Leopold’s decision to use anonymous sources is a terrible practice for any journalist. Heck, the Columbia Missourian wouldn’t allow any of his stories to run. On the other hand, Leopold and his editors should be applauded for deciding that the information be released regardless of how the information was acquired.

The only thing certain about ethics is that it is a matter of opinion, not fact. One unethical decision could be viewed as ethical by some and vice versa. That same unethical decision could lead to an ethical one down the road involving the exact same topic or story. Questions surrounding ethics will continue to be asked in journalism classes around the country and pondered by young, aspiring journalists everywhere throughout their entire life.

Unbridled Passion

With three weeks left during my semester reporting for the Missourian, the last thing I wanted (or had the energy) to deal with was a big scoop. But news doesn’t have a schedule, and the Missourian got a scoop that we couldn’t ignore, about Bruce Brotzman, then principal of Rock Bridge High School. My friend and roommate was the lead reporter and I was helping out since I had interviewed Brotzman earlier in the year for a brief about his leaving Rock Bridge for another job. The principal and involved community member had been banned from Ellis Library for sexual misconduct. The incident conveniently coincided with Brotzman’s departure from the school, and the Missourian was looking for links between the two events. Eventually, a series of stories revealed that the two events were connected and that the school district appeared to be covering it up. Consequently, Brotzman lost the job he was leaving for as a school administrator in Ohio. But there’s one story about Brotzman that was never told, although it was arguably the most compelling, because it was based on an anonymous source. The source (and the source’s father) told us that Brotzman had forced his son into certain sexual acts, while the son was working at Rock Bridge as a janitor. Given that he was a public figure, entrusted to care for and guide young adults, it was really difficult not to hit the keyboard and produce a shocking story that would shake-up the neatly woven tapestry of the school district, who had tried to cover-up Brotzman’s misconduct. Ultimately though, we all knew this was a decision for Tom Warhover since it dealt with an anonymous source. We didn’t run the story, with the rationale that the potential fallout outweighed any gain (the man had already been fired from his new job, what more did we want?) and that was the end of it.

Jason Leopold’s opposing perspective on using anonymous sources is what shocked me most about him as a journalist, and I suspect it has something to do with his obviously unbridled passion for the industry. I found it hard to understand, while reading his book, how he could be so unquestioning when it came to not naming sources and usually not involving his editor. I also found it shocking when he responded in class that his editors (for the most part) didn’t have a problem with this. At MU, we’re always preached to about proceeding with caution when it comes to anonymous sources, but we’re dealing with a much smaller news outlet and, most likely, editors that are more involved, every step of the way.

Leopold, on the other hand, was working for wire services or larger newspapers that required tighter deadlines and less one-on-one time with an editor. He expressed both in his book and in class that he got a buzz from publishing a story or putting it on the wire, and in a way, journalists are programmed to feel that way. Or, at least, modern media organizations are structured in a way that supports such a mindset. While in the moment, quick-as-you-can journalism might seem like a good idea, especially for newspapers who may be battling it out with other online sources, it’s also an opportunity to introduce error and for poor news judgment. In a column for the American Journalism Review, President Thomas Kunkel, also a dean at University of Maryland’s journalism school, discussed the potential danger in producing news at an increasingly faster pace.

“One could argue that the faster we produce journalism, the more time we should be thinking about journalism, but of course the reality is just the reverse. Our breakneck, 24-7 media environment simply allows no time to contemplate what we do, or why it matters, or how to do it better. There's only time to keep shoveling--which has grave repercussions, which we should be thinking about, but there's no time…” (Kunkel, American Journalism Review, January/February 2003, What is Journalism Education?).

This reiterates, regardless of how soon your deadline is approaching, the idea that everyone involved in a story should be held accountable along the way. That’s not just Leopold and his editor, but copy editors, the copy chief, designers, etc. Of course, this isn’t to shift the duty of the reporter, but everyone should share a bit of the burden.
Bill Kirtz, a professor at Northeastern University, offered advice on developing better reporting techniques from Deborah Nelson, a Los Angeles Times editor, in an ethics story for Poynter.org. “…[the] ‘no surprises at the end’ technique helps ‘bullet-proof’ stories from irate subjects and lawyers. Another is meticulous fact-checking. [Nelson] makes reporters verify every fact against their source notes, documents, including ‘names that you think you know. Double-checking saves your credibility,’” (Kirtz, Poynter.org, May 22, 2006, Unleash the Watchdogs).

Another key issue Leopold discussed was passion, which comes across in his work, but can be shaky ground to stand on. In fact, it seems like passion is what often got him into trouble. Should journalists have a love for what they do, and realize that their basic objective is informing the public? Yes. But there’s a certain element of checks and balances that need to be present. Leopold said he thrived on “the immediate gratification of getting a story out, or reporting a rumor.” That’s not responsible journalism. That’s an ego, yearning to be inflated. Just the phrase “reporting a rumor,” says a lot about his ethics as a journalist. He claims his goal has always been to report the truth, but the truth is nebulous if it can’t be backed up with sources. He seemed to think – maybe he thinks differently now—that readers would believe him simply because he was a journalist. That may be true to an extent, but it doesn’t necessarily yield an enduring track record.

Jill Geisler, a Leadership and Management Group Leader at the Poynter Institute, addressed the problems passion can bring about in a story based on a survey of the leadership of Poynter’s high-ups. She found that having passion often translated into being a poor communicator, having a “bad temper” or being “impatient,” (Geisler, Poynter.org, July 9, 2001, A Problem with Passion).

The consensus after Leopold spoke with us in class seemed to be that he was a nice guy. Sure, he’s a nice guy, but he also contributed to the camp that makes our jobs much more challenging. We are entering the world of journalism during a period of rapid change, with citizen journalism, new media, celebrification of the news and shaky credibility. And while it’s great that a journalist could be so candid in a book about how his personal life affected his professional career, I still find his story unnerving because it means I have to work even harder to reverse the damage he, and similar people, have done.

Uncertain future has America's watchdogs concerned

Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G Kaiser discuss the present state of journalism and its future throughout The News About the News, but sum it up best by saying:

Journalism can make a palpable difference in the community, sometimes in the entire country or even the world. The best such journalism is often produced by reporters and editors who have the luxury of pursuing topics they think are important without having to worry excessively about how much it may cost to report a story, or whom the story may offend. Those journalists work for news organizations that still have a mission of public service, which has long been the role of America’s best newspapers. But that mission, and the future of journalism that really makes a difference, is in peril (p. 62).

Journalism, specifically newspapers, is enduring trying times right now. The Internet, with its quick updates and easy access are causing problems for daily newspapers as statistics show that readership continues to go down. The new trend of large corporations purchasing daily newspapers hasn’t helped the cause either. Newspapers are slowly beginning to focus more on entertainment than on reporting the actual news, and good investigative reporting continues to become a thing of the past.
Yet, make no mistake about it, the newspaper sales of September 12, 2001 proved there is still a pressing need for good journalism in this country. People still want to be informed. The ultimate responsibility of a good journalist is to be gatekeepers. Journalists have to keep the people informed and present unbiased views of events and actions so citizens can make the best decisions to lead their everyday life. Whether people are getting their information via the Internet, radio, TV or newspapers; as long as they are informed then journalists should be happy.
The key for newspapers now, as Robert Rivard of the San Antonio Express-News states, is for good newspapers to “give them something that they can’t get anywhere else, that’s vital, that makes readers think ‘I’ve got to have it’” (p. 102).
So, the real question becomes how, exactly, do newspapers accomplish this goal without compromising their integrity or alienating adults, currently the largest age demographic of readers?
While the role of the journalist must stay the same, their writing styles must change. Straightforward stories, written much like wire copy from The Associated Press, isn’t going to draw many readers. The writing must become more entertaining. No, this doesn’t mean it has to turn into infotainment only, but the writing needs to be able to hold the readers’ attention passed the lead.
One of the biggest obstacles that must be overcome is the new element of citizen journalism. Between blogs, youtube.com and even the basic forum sections of numerous web sites, everyone is doing a form of journalism whether they realize it or not. They are writing or recording their stories, often considered news worthy.
Instead of being so concerned when a common citizen files a story that he did on investigated on his or her own, journalists must accept this as new form of tip. As technology has grown in leaps and bounds, the old form of a tip by phone call from an anonymous source is over. New era tips come from video recordings or blogs that are already on the web for the public to see. Now, the journalists job changes. They should find these compelling stories each day and run with them. Look deeper into them and use their superior writing skills to provide a more in-depth and intriguing aspect for their readers.
While combining new and old media resources and technologies to create to create something bigger, better and more profitable than the component parts hasn’t taken off yet, this idea of synergy seems like an ideal solution (p. 200). While it hasn’t worked particularly well because the newspaper reporters are having trouble fitting in, the public can get all the information they want when a site has headlines, video and audio clips. In order to incorporate newspaper reporters, these sites need to expand to include good investigative reporting stories or editorial pieces that are entertaining to its audience. Begin with a link to the basic AP story, especially for breaking news. As soon as a news story breaks, reporters need to quickly begin working and writing and their work can be posted in a short period of time right alongside the wire copy.
While the Internet is making things hard on newspapers, “at least in its infancy, the internet has disappointed those who predicted it would become a significant new source for original journalism,” (p. 218).
It is hard to say exactly what needs to happen and what the future holds for the journalism industry. As new technology continues to develop their will undoubtedly be drastic changes in the not-too-distant future. The role of a journalist remains the same; they are responsible for providing information to the public. However, at any given time a journalist must embrace other roles such as informer, educator, provocateur and entertainer as well.
“Newspapers must get better, not worse, to retain the loyalty of readers, and thus the dollars of advertisers. If they fail to get better, newspapers will continue to shrink—in size, in quality, in importance. This would be tragic, because no other news medium can fill the role that good newspapers play in informing the country,” (p. 110).
Now, journalists and specifically newspapers need the country to inform them. What is it that you want? What will make you happy? What will make you read?

Are We There Yet?

For years, society has been moving towards globalization. With the development of wireless communication it is easier now than ever before to relay information to a person anywhere in the world. Not only is information globalized, but the media that is used to communicate the information (newspapers, television, email, etc.) has developed to be more global as well. Any well-respected news outlet not only has an international component, but can be translated—at least in the online version—in several different languages. However in recent years, there seems to be a trend of “information overload.” Because news outlets are looking to communicate so much information, readers and viewers are not clear on how to filter the information. They are interested in something in particular, but can not access it because it is hidden by so much other information. So now the move is toward segmented globalization, especially with news. Because of this journalists have to find a way to give their audiences what they want.
With the segmented globalization, people are turning to news sources that have a narrow focus. In turn, they get only the news they want. It is similar to looking for the right cold medicine. In any typical American pharmacy there are tons of choices for cold medicine. On top of that, each medicine treats a different set of symptoms. But if a person only has a few of the symptoms he/she has to take the medicine for everything just to treat his/her one ailment. The analogy applies to the news industry as well; people have to watch or read all of the news just to get the piece they want. That is why people are turning to outlets like MTV for entertainment news and Sports Illustrated for sports analysis, rather than the nightly newscast or daily newspaper.
Sources like these allow for more in-depth reporting. Now, instead of getting the overview of a story, journalists have time and space to expand their story because they do not have to share time and space with other types of stories. This is what the audience is looking for. Though society is still globalized, audiences are looking for information pertaining to their particular interests. So the newsstand may be covered with magazines and newspapers that cover every different topic, but not every topic is in every single publication. The same trend is happening in television news as well. For example Headline News, a franchise of CNN, has a primetime lineup each night. Now as a package, the primetime lineup covers all of the current events, but each show has it’s own focus. There is an entertainment show, a news analysis show, and a viewer call-in show. Now viewers only have to watch the show that fits their preferences. In other words, journalists have the responsibility to give the audience the news, but package it in a way that is familiar and relative to each person.
Though this move has advantages for both the journalist and the audience, there are several drawbacks as well. One of the major concerns is that the audience is not getting the information that it needs. According to Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in their book The Elements of Journalism, “The primary purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing,” (17). This is not only their belief, but that of many journalists. The idea behind this definition is that journalists are gatekeepers. As gatekeepers, there is full access to information, but the decision has to be made about what information is pertinent enough to pass on to the general public. So, the audience may not know what they need to know and it is the journalist’s responsibility to give it to them. This shift in journalism takes the opposite approach. Instead of beginning with the information, journalists now begin with the audience and format the information to their personal interests.
Although journalism has already moved in this direction there are several steps that journalists still must take in order to make this new trend effective. The first step is conducting more audience research. Just like a company that wants to sell a new product, a focus group should be developed. They should be asked about the way in which they consume the news. Not only is it important to find the medium the majority of the people use, but what type of information they are looking for in the news. While this trend is in its “fundamental” stages, it is the responsibility of every journalist to engage in this type of activity. If each journalist could specialize in one segment of news, any news outlet could adequately provide the audience with their information without hiding it behind other information. The next step is to embrace the move to the online world. The internet permeates much of the common person’s life, however people know little about its capabilities. If journalists could show people its capabilities through this type of segmentation, it would also appeal to the audience in great numbers. Though it may not be the empirical role, today’s journalist has a responsibility to provide the public with the information they want to incorporate into their lives.