How technology is like Jelly Belly ™

Some jellybeans are known to be tasty. Most of the pure colors and a few of the more neon-oriented kind are usually safe choices. But the more ambiguous beans, such as the ones with brownish-green tints, some of those might bring one to retch over his or her keyboard. Technology, for journalists at least, is in many ways like those sugary drops of goodness.

There are some technologies that almost always increase a journalist’s credibility. Well-researched books and scholarly journals are a great place to get information. Most of our modern technologies, such as cell phones, the Internet, television, etc. can be used to greatly increase credibility as well. But a gateway to ethical problems has also been opened with the vast power of instant access and immediate publishing that is a byproduct of our technological age. In many ways, the multiplicity of options and sources to draw information from has the function of equally fostering and degrading ethical journalism.

On the positive side, editors have the same access to information that reporters do. Facts that seem ambiguous can be “Googled,” or crosschecked via instant messenger. Sources usually can be reached by email and their information verified within hours. Technology has also sped up the processing of news, giving reporters perhaps a little more time to consider the ethical implications of their work.

But there is also a bad side to technology. These days it is manifesting itself in the form of blogs, sometimes emails, and often Web sites that are quite a bit less credible than we would like to believe. All of these share a common source: the Internet. I imagine now more than ever the temptation for a reporter to use no other sources is pretty grand. Regardless of what you are reporting, investigating or demonstrating to the public, there are usually thousands of Web sites to glean information from. If you need an example, a search for “Chihuahua axe murder trial” brought 24,300 results.

This great cacophony of information presents reporters and editors with a couple ethical dilemmas. First and foremost is the question of credibility. With few (if any) gatekeepers to publishing on the Internet, a reporter must treat any information gathered on it with great care. If they don’t, they should expect lawsuits. Another issue brought by the Internet is the impediment of reporting itself. I think editors will be facing an increasingly lazy newsroom staff; one that would rather instant message with a senator than get in his face to ask him questions.

So, as with everything, with this increased power comes increased responsibility. Technology is improving exponentially. It will be up to the individual how it is used. It can be a great tool, but it can also be a trap that will ultimately lead to the degradation of society itself. Will we pick the lemon lime, or the depressing artificiality of buttered popcorn? Only time will tell.