Journalistic integrity

BradS · May 25, 2006

Andy K said:
I will second that. Living in Britain I would not trust a journalist as far as I could spit. Integrity is something that disappeared from journalism a long time ago in this country.

I think one must separate those "journalists" who are employed by the big corporate media from those who are, essentially independent. Independents, working in the underground, still tell something resembling the truth - at least much more frequently than the corporate news media.

All we get from the corporate news media is what the government want us to get. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no truth on profit and loss.

BradS · May 25, 2006

George Papantoniou said:
Well, all I know about "journalistic integrity" is that when I was writing tech articles about photography in a magazine, there was huge pressure from the importers (camera, other) to the Editor so that he would take care not to show their products to be "bad" in the tests. I was a good guy, though and things happened with my articles, sometimes. Like the once I did the test for Hasselblad's H-1 and wrote that it's an OK camera, but too pricey (compared it to the other 6x4,5s and to the Rollei 6008 that also takes a 6x4,5 back)... The importer wanted to kill me and stopped giving ads to the magazine for a long time... Well, as you can imagine the magazine kissed good-bye the journalistic integrity and I stopped (by my own free will) writing camera tests.

You gave your opinion. That has nothing to do with truth.

BWGirl · May 25, 2006

blansky said:
...
Journalism is the reporting of events by people with a point of view, because everyone has a point of view.

It is distributed by people with a point of view to a group of people with a point of view.

There is no truth because in all things human there is rarely "truth".

Michael

I think Michael has nailed it right here...we are all influenced by the way we look at things, and interpret them. While I agree that there is rarely, if ever 'truth' in all things human, I believe there are facts... even though pinpointing a fact is like solving a calculus limits problem...you may never actually get the number, but you can get close enough for all practical purposes.

So it may be more practical to define Journalistic Integrity not as a reporting of 'truth' but as a reporting of facts without undo influence of personal point of view. "A red car approached the STOP sign, but did not come to a complete stop before entering the intersection." That is a fact, uninhibited by personal influence. It has more journalistic integrity than "A red car driven by an inattentive kid (who was probably talking on his cell phone) just blew right through the STOP sign." Now that last statement might have been a lot closer to the facts of the situation, but our ability to trust the integrity of the last report is diminished by things that can not be proven.

So... to make a short story long what I am trying to say is that our perception of journalistic integrity is actually our ability to trust what the writer says. Phew!

DBP · May 25, 2006

Going on 2000 years, and still no one has answered Pilate's question. I guess that's progress in the human condition.

Claire Senft · May 25, 2006

Perhaps he needs a Pilate light.

SuzanneR · May 25, 2006

BWGirl said:
I think Michael has nailed it right here...we are all influenced by the way we look at things, and interpret them. While I agree that there is rarely, if ever 'truth' in all things human, I believe there are facts... even though pinpointing a fact is like solving a calculus limits problem...you may never actually get the number, but you can get close enough for all practical purposes.

So it may be more practical to define Journalistic Integrity not as a reporting of 'truth' but as a reporting of facts without undo influence of personal point of view. "A red car approached the STOP sign, but did not come to a complete stop before entering the intersection." That is a fact, uninhibited by personal influence. It has more journalistic integrity than "A red car driven by an inattentive kid (who was probably talking on his cell phone) just blew right through the STOP sign." Now that last statement might have been a lot closer to the facts of the situation, but our ability to trust the integrity of the last report is diminished by things that can not be proven.

So... to make a short story long what I am trying to say is that our perception of journalistic integrity is actually our ability to trust what the writer says. Phew!

Credibilty is very important to any news gathering organization. You as a reader have to decide... is your local paper credible, are the national papers (NYTimes, WSJ, USAToday) credible, are the national newsmagazines (Time, Newsweek, U.S.News) credible? If they have to rely on a lot of photo manipulation, then perhaps not. And, as a former photography editor at one of those magazines... writers can always be a little out of focus, but not the photographers. Those guys worked very hard. I had enormous respect for them.

Probably best to read all three thoroughly, supplement with some independant outlets... and IGNORE tv news!!

bob01721 · May 25, 2006

Suzanne Revy said:
"... Probably best to read all three thoroughly, supplement with some independant outlets... and IGNORE tv news...!"

You've got that right! TV news? Now there's an oxymoron! But this isn't really journalistic integrity. This is editorial integrity. And I think it's a much bigger issue.

I haven't owned a TV for decades, and when I do watch it (usually at a friend's), I'm flabbergasted at what passes for "news." I continually ask myself, "Why did they choose to report this particular story?" "Who decided we should be informed of that event?" "Why should we care what that lunatic thinks and says?" Is it simply because he/she called a press conference? The simple act of reporting what some nut job thinks and says... gives the jerk credibility!

Conversely... which stories did they decide were not "newsworthy?" That is to say, which stories don't they want to inform us about. If they tell us about it... it happened. If we don't know about it... it didn't happen. In other words, the media create the news by choosing what to report or not report. So, to get a more complete picture, I find I have to listen to NPR/BBC and Rush Limbaugh. Same event -- completely different stories. Can't believe either one entirely. Each gives me only half a story and between them I try to figger out what's really happening.

George Papantoniou · May 26, 2006

Claire Senft said:
As far as non journalistic integrity is concerned, how about the large format maven that uses an avatar with one of those nicely constructed cameras that make postage stamp sized negatives?

From Wikipedia:

A maven (also mavin or mayvin) is an expert in a particular field, usually one who is self-appointed and who seeks to pass his knowledge on to others.

In network and social theory, a maven is someone who has a disproportionate influence on other members of the network. The role of mavens in propagating knowledge and preferences has been established in various domains, from politics to social trends.

???????????????????????? am I a maven ??????????

George Papantoniou · May 26, 2006

BradS said:
You gave your opinion. That has nothing to do with truth.

Yes, but journalistic integrity is also about telling what you REALLY think (you true opinion) about something, isn't it ? In "critique" articles (art critique, for instance) there is no single truth, but there are sincere and not-so-sincere "opinions". I often read film reviews and I am sure I can tell which ones are influenced by the film distributor's pressure to the Editor (and the critic) and which are not.

Andy K · May 26, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
And did anyone ever trust journalists? When was this golden age when journalists told the truth and were universally believed and admired?

I think they did. I used to collect old newspapers. I have several going back to the 1900s. When you read them the big difference is that, with the exception of wartime papers, they report what happened without any political slant or opinionising on the part of the journalist. Just straightforward stories. The only political opinions in those papers are on the editorial page.

Roger Hicks · May 26, 2006

George has an important point here. Part of a journalist's job is to make his work interesting. A cynic, indeed, might say it's the only part. Few readers (and no editors) would pay for a camera review which recited only the bare facts -- the shutter speed range, the lens aperture, the weight, etc. -- as these are available from the manufacturer. They want to know what it's 'really like', as it, "The new Matzoflex is huge and butt-ugly, and the controls move with all the smoothness of a crowbar through a bucket of rusty bolts," or "This is one of those cameras that just fits naturally into your hands, with all the controls where you expect them and operating with a buttery smoothness."

Tell me which of these statements are opinions, and which are facts.

As for Jeanette's well-observed post, it's dead easy to introduce exactly the same bias while retaining the illusion of 'facts' for the uncritical reader. "John Smith, who saw the event, said "I was just about to cross. The driver was on his cell-phone and didn't even slow down. Another two seconds and..." Then "Police confirmed that the driver, Fred Bloggs, is 18 and only passed his driving test three weeks ago, and estimated his speed at 55 miles an hour in a 30 zone."

Another question is for those who distrust journalists. Whom do you trust, universally and as a group? Politicians? Policemen? Priests? Software designers? Enron executives?If I were generalizing at all -- which I hesitate to do in this situation -- I think I'd put journalists as a group slightly above average in the trustworthiness stakes, because they seldom have as much to gain from distorting the truth.

Cheers,

Roger

Jim_in_Kyiv · May 26, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
Another question is for those who distrust journalists. Whom do you trust, universally and as a group? Politicians? Policemen? Priests? Software designers? Enron executives?If I were generalizing at all -- which I hesitate to do in this situation -- I think I'd put journalists as a group slightly above average in the trustworthiness stakes, because they seldom have as much to gain from distorting the truth.

Cheers,

Roger

Sometimes they have alot to gain from distorting the truth, or more often alot to fear from not distorting it. A little noteriety for someone who aims low, both in goals and kicks, feeds petty scribblers well enough.

Funny enough, one of my articles recently was on the banking system in Lithuania (yes, they have a banking industry in Lithuania). One point emphasized by every banker I met was that the banking regulator, the National Bank of Lithuania, has a higher level of trust in nationwide public polls than churches there. Maybe there's alot of athiests, maybe the central bank has managed to maintain its integrity before the public.

This was a fact that I reported, but a fact of an opinion. Or is it a statistic, and then worse than a damn lie? Aaagh! Time for a beer.

One last point, though, is a tendency to lionise reporters in the past. Since nobody told me how old the term 'yellow journalism' is, here's something from Wikipedia:

"the yellow press increased circulation and readership heavily throughout the 19th century, especially in the United States. Early practitioners, such as Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, seem to have equated the sensational reporting of murders, gory accidents, and the like, with the need of the democratic common man to be entertained by subjects beyond dry politics."

So let's try going back earlier to find a time free of crap journos. Oh, and it wasn't only in the US - the entry has a cartoon from 'Punch' complaining about sensationalism in the British press - dated 1888.

Mr. Bagehot's The Economist is a cut above because there is and was something to be above.

David H. Bebbington · May 26, 2006

One point strikes me - the ever-widening gulf between print journalism and TV journalism. Print journalism was traditionally scrutinised by an eagle-eyed and very severe editor, who would mercilessly trim copy down to the minimum and completely reject any story deemed unworthy of inclusion in the paper in question.

TV journalism, on the other hand, more and more consists of filling allotted slots even when you have nothing to say. How many times have you seen TV news when a studio anchor interviews a field reporter who says, in effect: "I have no information as yet, it's too soon to tell, it could be yes, it could be no, we'll just have to wait and see" and is given 2 minutes or more of air time for this.

Add to this the endless vox pop interviews along the lines of "Yes, there was a big bang. No, I couldn't see anything. Yes, I think it's terrible. People who do this should be locked up" and for good measure add an interview of a politician by the "attack dog" type of interviewer so popular in Britain (Jeremy Paxman, etc.), where the interviewer constantly interrupts the interviewee, who nonetheless attempts to continue talking (as he/she has been trained to do by media coaches) and to put over ONLY what he/she wants to say regardless of what questions are asked. I sometimes watch a 30-minute news broadcast and feel that it actually had no substance at all!

Claire Senft · May 26, 2006

George, are you assuming for yourself the role of maven?

Roger Hicks · May 26, 2006

Dear Andy,

'With the exception of wartime papers' -- as a Swiss friend pointed out, the English are so belligerent that it's hard to find a time in the last 200 years when they HAVEN'T been involved in a war somewhere, sometime during the year. This may be one reason why Hitler never wanted to fight the British.

See also Jim's comments on the yellow/gutter press. The oldest papers/magazines I have are for 1739 and I can see plenty of bias there: "Whipped at the tail of a cart for being Egyptians" -- or 'gypsies' or maybe 'asylum seekers' as the current UK press has it.

Cheers,

Roger

Andy K · May 26, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
as a Swiss friend pointed out, the English are so belligerent that it's hard to find a time in the last 200 years when they HAVEN'T been involved in a war somewhere, sometime during the year.

Show me the 'English' government that got into all those wars. Of all the people of Britain, only England has no representation. The people of England are ruled by the British government in Westminster (which is little better than a Scottish Raj). Read G K Chesterton's The Secret People.

Curt · May 26, 2006

The US went out a couple of times last century to do a bale out. Then when the French Foreign Legion got kicked out of Vietnam the US went right in and Fucked up for the longest war in it's history. What were they thinking? I went, no choice, what a joke. Was I preserving our way of life, I don't think so.
Wasn't it Walter Cronkite that cased Nixon to say, "If we lost Cronkite we lost the war"?

"There are no weapons of mass destruction"

Bush and Blair GOD bless them and tiny tim too. They had a press conference yesterday here at a time of broadcast of midnight in London. They sure do stay up late there for new don't they?

The World is in a mess and the Journalists are right in there helping to mess it up even more.

The "fourth estate" is in bankruptcy.

Roger Hicks · May 26, 2006

Dear Andy,

I'd heartily agree that there's never been a socialist government elected by the English -- the Scots and Welsh are the ones who get the socialists in, and in Cornwall we tend to favour Liberals -- but I'd also suggest that when it comes to looking for a war, the English have only lately been surpassed by the Americans. Why else would they have invaded and occupied Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall...?

To say that the English have 'no representation' is something of an exaggeration, seeing that there are roughly eight times as many voters inside the borders of England as in the Celtic Fringe.

If the English don't vote, they have only themselves to blame, and if they do, they get something slightly better than the government they deserve because their hysteria is tempered by the other nations. I am not aware of National Front successes in local elections outside England (note to foreigners -- the National Front are not fascists but you sometimes need a good light to tell the difference).

If you don't think the English are hysterical, try defending the current 'knife amnesty', the Dangerous Dogs Act, the ban on hand guns, Ken's attitude to photography in London (surely an English city), Ian Blair's regime (quite apart from Tony's) and the behaviour of any Home Secretary in the last few decades.

Cheers,

Roger

Andy K · May 26, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
Dear Andy,

I'd heartily agree that there's never been a socialist government elected by the English -- the Scots and Welsh are the ones who get the socialists in, and in Cornwall we tend to favour Liberals -- but I'd also suggest that when it comes to looking for a war, the English have only lately been surpassed by the Americans. Why else would they have invaded and occupied Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall...?

To say that the English have 'no representation' is something of an exaggeration, seeing that there are roughly eight times as many voters inside the borders of England as in the Celtic Fringe.

If the English don't vote, they have only themselves to blame, and if they do, they get something slightly better than the government they deserve because their hysteria is tempered by the other nations. I am not aware of National Front successes in local elections outside England (note to foreigners -- the National Front are not fascists but you sometimes need a good light to tell the difference).

If you don't think the English are hysterical, try defending the current 'knife amnesty', the Dangerous Dogs Act, the ban on hand guns, Ken's attitude to photography in London (surely an English city), Ian Blair's regime (quite apart from Tony's) and the behaviour of any Home Secretary in the last few decades.

You misunderstood my point. There is a Welsh Assembly to deal with Welsh matters, there is a Scottish Parliament to deal with Scottish matters, there is an on/off assembly for Northern Ireland, but there is NO English Parliament. And it has been publicly stated by Blair, and his bosom buddy Lord Falconer, that the British government will never allow an English parliament. Note thats an English parliament for the people of England to decide on matters relating to England. The people of England, not just 'the English'.

Oh, and by the way, the BRITISH government, populated mostly by Celts, takes this country into war on a regular basis, not the English. Blair - Scottish, Cameron - Scottish, Menzies Campbell - Scottish.

The knife amnesty is a product of the BRITISH government. The dangerous dogs act, brought in by the BRITISH government.

You blame the English for these things. Don't you know the difference between British and English?

<edit> Usually any suggestion of an English Parliament is shouted down with hysterical accusations of racism. Pretty much as you have just done. I said 'the people of England have no representation', not the 'English'.

Roger Hicks · May 26, 2006

Dear Andy,

Not, I think, a serious misunderstanding. When one faction outweighs the others by a factor of 4 to 1, and there is a parliament for the entire Union, how much protection and special consideration does the 4:1 majority need?

Don't get me wrong. I hold no brief for Blair, and I have even less time for Falconer. But given the enthusiastic rejection of a regional assembly Oop Noorth in England, at least some English people agree with me that the English need less protection from other Britons (and the British parliament) than other Britons need from them.

I'd be delighted to see a lot more 'Balkanization' in Europe, but I fear that the biggest losers would be the English who look to me (and many other Europeans) to be out of step with almost the whole of the rest of the continent, whether you look at current countries (eg UK, France, Germany) or older ones (Scotland, Bretagne, Bayern, Catalunya...)

Incidentally, I'd like to say thanks for your debating this rationally (well, you know what I mean...) rather than resorting to immediate name-calling. A refreshing change from many forums.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger Hicks · May 26, 2006

Dear Andy,

Yes, I do blame the English for these things, because they are in such an overwhelming majority in the electorate.

I'd agree without hesitation that there are disproportionately many Scots in New Labour and therefore the government. Well, the remedy is in the hands of the English with their 4:1 majority. Vote in some competent English politicians! Like, um, Michael Howard. Whoops, sorry. Or Hague, then...

Cheers,

Roger

Andy K · May 26, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
Dear Andy,

Yes, I do blame the English for these things, because they are in such an overwhelming majority in the electorate.

I'd agree without hesitation that there are disproportionately many Scots in New Labour and therefore the government. Well, the remedy is in the hands of the English with their 4:1 majority. Vote in some competent English politicians! Like, um, Michael Howard. Whoops, sorry. Or Hague, then...

Cheers,

Roger

Throughout history there have been a disproportionate amount of Scots in the British parliament. That is why they are so terrified of the idea of an English Pariament. As soon as the people of England have their own say in their own country, the cash cow of Britain is over, and the 'celtic fringe' will have to look elsewhere for their handouts.
But then why does any of this matter to you, I seem to recall you don't even live in Britain.

Roger Hicks · May 26, 2006

Dear Andy,

Why do you think I left?

Cheers,

Roger

Dave Miller · May 26, 2006

You must forgive Andy K; he's from Essex, and they had to contend with the Vikings, it left it's mark.

Dave Miller · May 26, 2006

I forgot to add "journalistic integrity" is dead.

Journalistic integrity

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency