Heads or Tails?

Technology is a two-sided coin for journalists. Any one of them will tell you that technology has helped him or her in ways that would have been unimaginable 30 years ago. But on the flip side, several will also tell you they have come across a matter of ethics when dealing with some form of technology. Overall, I think a journalist should take advantage of the advances in technology, but at the same time be aware of the unethical means of gathering and publishing.

Obviously, technology has some perk for journalists, which can and has improved our ability to work ethically. Fact checking for errors is easier and takes much less time than it used to. Ethically, it is of major importance to do everything we can to publish accurate information, which improves credibility in the long run. Instead of chasing information with phone calls to verify the facts, tons of information is at our fingertips. Google is nearly a necessity to reporters and editors when it comes to checking and rechecking the reporter’s work. Since everyone has a cell phone at his or her disposal, it is easier than ever to contact a source. I know I have given at least a few phone interviews while the person is driving down the road. It also helps when a quote or fact needs to be checked for accuracy.

But on the other hand, journalists are faced with deeper ethical questions when dealing with information obtained through some sort of technology. It has become incredibly easy for anyone to publish work on the Internet, whether it is true or false, fact or opinion. It is our jobs as journalists to sift through it all and report the true facts. Publications must set ethical standards on what they are allowed to use from Web sites and which sites to trust.

Technology can also create lazy reporting. The wealth of on-line information allows reporters to research an entire story from in front of a computer. It is the easier route, but it limits great reporting. In this way, technology has the potential to bind reporters to their chairs and stop in-your-face reporting.

In terms of ethics, journalists have more options open to them in the wake of technology. Anyone can plagiarize in a cinch with cut and paste, and photos can be altered with ease in Photoshop. Journalists sometimes find themselves tempted to be unethical in these ways. They may also have to decide whether to use information that wasn’t obtained in the most ethical way. For example, hackers may get into Web sites and grab the data, but actually publishing it is up to the reporter. And if reporters include it in stories, it’s also up to them whether or not to inform their editors of the situation and let them make the decision.

Technology gives newspapers an edge since stories can be posted on the publication’s Web site. This creates competition, making it a race to see which writer can be the first one out of the gate with breaking news. For example, in Jason Leopold’s book, he described the addiction and satisfaction with being the first one to break a story. In fact, he said the rush took the place of his coccaine addiction. But since he was caught cutting corners on verifying facts, he says he is more careful and doesn’t feel the need to be the first one to publish a story if it means lacking accuracy. Once again, journalists must make this ethical choice: Is it more important to be the first one out of the gate or to wait and make sure all the facts are straight and complete?

The bottom line is that journalists can’t be naïve. Reporters must search until they find credible truths, and editors much question them and their means of finding those truths. In the end, wise journalists will come to a rational and hopefully ethical decision about how to handle questionable situations.