Guarding credibility

It’s almost hard to imagine a world where we couldn’t have information at our fingertips. If I don’t know something I google it and instantly find an answer. While these search engines, news sites and information mills can be very helpful, this need for immediate response and constant information can also be dangerous. The need to know quickly has overtaken the need for accuracy. Journalists have been willing to sacrifice their credibility—the most important thing they can hold onto—to hold the coveted title of “first” out of the gate.

In Elements of Journalism, John Seeley Brown, former director of Xerox PARC, says how he thinks changing technology has affected journalist’s role: “What we need in the new economy and the new communications culture is sense making. We have a desperate need to get some stable points in an increasingly crazy world.”

But, for some, the new age of technology has not caused journalists to make sense of the crazy world, but rather jump right into the frenetic pace. In News Junkie, Jason Leopold’s case may seem extreme at first. His journalistic ethics seem to become nearly nonexistent in his quest to win the news game. But his example may not be as isolated and obscure as what it seems. Everyday journalists are faced with ethical questions and dilemmas they never had years ago. Should I publish the story right now even though we aren’t sure just to make sure we’re first? Can I insert this information in my story from wikipedia? I can’t find it anywhere else, but I’m pretty sure it’s true.

Although the internet can be a significant help in finding information it can also be detrimental when reporters rely solely upon it without checking facts. The paper I worked at this summer recently ran a story that said the person would not return phone calls but a Google search had revealed certain information. It’s sad when reporters are relying on Google to get information they once got through hard work. Newfound technology not only has the capability for reporters to sacrifice accuracy for timeliness, like Jason Leopold, but also, to become lazy and simply sit on their computer and publish whatever information they find on the internet without ensuring its reliability.

So why is it that a little bit of copying and pasting, not quite checking all the facts to be quick and getting some information from your story from Wikipedia can be so harmful to journalism? The answer is simple. Journalism’s cornerstone—its legitimacy—rest in one thing—credibility.
In The Elements of Journalism, Kovach and Rosensteil say, “Since there are no laws of journalism, no regulations, no licensing and no formal self-policing, and since journalism by its nature can be exploitative, a heavy burden rests on the ethics and judgment of the individual journalist and the individual organization where he or she works.”

Ultimately, it’s up to you and me. We are the ones that will be faced with ethical dilemmas where we are forced to decide if it’s okay to bend the truth or cross the line to get the story. One of the most concerning things I heard from Jason Leopold was not in his book but when he spoke to us in class and basically said journalists have special rights. Although he negated later that he meant journalists were above the law, I think that’s an attitude many journalists can easily adopt. It’s okay if I bend these rules, if this information isn’t quite right, because the people need to know.

Whenever journalists forget their responsibility to the people that they are serving they are potentially not only sacrificing their own credibility, but the credibility of journalists everywhere. While technology serves many good purposes, it is also important to guard against it corrupting the soul of journalism.