• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Lack of Ethics in Journalism and Local Examples

This post is a bit more serious than many and is likely to generate a variety of comments. But it is getting to be election season.

An investigative reporter for MSNBC wrote an interesting column last week about TV, radio, and print journalists who contribute and openly support political causes: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/

The reporter listed 143 journalists who, according to public records, gave money to candidates or political causes, and some also had photos taken with candidates and openly endorsed them. Open political involvement and financial contributions are a violation of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics. Although it doesn't matter which party or cause was supported, it was noted by the reporter that nearly 90% of the contributions were made to Democratic or liberal causes.

One of the journalists on the list was Steve Bodinet of KTVK who contributed $400 to the Kerry campaign during the last major election.

This investigation only covered federal election contributions and not state candidates or PACs so local journalists like KNXV's news anchor Katie Raml weren't included this time. As we've noted before, Raml was caught during the last major election cycle leading political fundraising events and as the CJR put it, "using her professional credentials to support her personal politics" for a PAC that supports and endorses Republican pro-abortion women candidates: http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2004/4/dartslaurels.asp
Raml also posed for publicity photos with candidates, which were featured on the PAC's website until the CJR investigation. Later it was posted on the web that Arizona public records showed that she had also contributed money to this political group and listed her KNXV affiliation. The key members of this PAC and their election funding recipients included Raml's own Scottsdale state senate and house representatives, and, according to an earlier Repulsive article, Raml has a history of political activism for her party.

Since the MSNBC article last week, a number of the journalists listed have been fired by their employers. This includes a TV reporter in Omaha who, like Raml, had a photo taken with a congressional candidate which was posted on the web and also contributed money. The SPJ has issued a response to the MSNBC investigative report, http://www.spj.org/news.asp?REF=682#682 , urging journalists to expose these unethical practices by some journalists and other members of the news media. They also mention it is "disturbing to see that so many journalists don't see the problem here."

Of course unethical political behavior has always been a problem in journalism, but is it getting worse? Have J-schools like ASU's Cronkite School dropped professional ethics content from their required courses?
 
Teddyo said:
Of course unethical political behavior has always been a problem in journalism, but is it getting worse? Have J-schools like ASU's Cronkite School dropped professional ethics content from their required courses?

As you state, the behavior problem has always been there, but is it getting worse? Not in my opinion. Rather, I think we're just paying closer attention. The public now has other sources for news, such as the Internet, which weren't available before, so because of competition, biases become even more glaring.
 
dhett said:
The public now has other sources for news, such as the Internet, which weren't available before, so because of competition, biases become even more glaring.

Absolutely -- I agree. The Internet has changed mainstream media forever, and for the better in my opinion. No more "Voice of God" pretense.

Regardless, the traditional media needs to get its house in order if they want to maintain any shred of credibility with the public. Don't they rank even lower in opinion polls than Congress (which ranks below Bush)?
 
Teddyo said:
Of course unethical political behavior has always been a problem in journalism, but is it getting worse? Have J-schools like ASU's Cronkite School dropped professional ethics content from their required courses?

A more relevant question is: Were any of these reporters actual Journalism majors??? That may be the real problem. It doesn't take a journalism major to sit down, look cute/handsome, and read the news everyday.

We had a chief meteorologist in San Antonio who thought that is was okay to plagarize his weekly newspaper column.
 
While you have a point that they might not actually be journalism majors, Teddyo's question about J-schools is still relevant. As bad as the TV and radio stations might be, the Repugnant is actually worse, driving their political agenda over the news every day.
 
dhett said:
While you have a point that they might not actually be journalism majors, Teddyo's question about J-schools is still relevant. As bad as the TV and radio stations might be, the Repugnant is actually worse, driving their political agenda over the news every day.

Newspapers' political views driving news coverage has been part of American journalism since Colonial days.

But as far as TV news goes, blame Walter Cronkite. His ill-advised commentary on the Tet Offensive during his newscast in 1967 opened up this Pandora's Box. Cronkite certainly was qualified to give his opinion of the Vietnam War, having been a field reporter during WW2, but such views should have been saved for Face the Nation or other such opinion/interview show. It didn't belong on the CBS Evening News.

Anchors and reporters should stick to reading and reporting events exactly how they happen. I'm not interested in what they think about these events unless they appear on a show that focuses on opinion and they are asked. I think most of us can differentiate between the two so long as the newsperson keeps his/her views silent during a newscast.
 
dhett said:
While you have a point that they might not actually be journalism majors, Teddyo's question about J-schools is still relevant. As bad as the TV and radio stations might be, the Repugnant is actually worse, driving their political agenda over the news every day.

Well, at least, the Arizona Republic balances out over the years. I remember back in the 70's and 80's when it was ULTRA conservative. I was actually surprised when I moved to AZ a few years ago and found a left-of-center newspaper. The pendulum swings both ways. ;)

KeithE4 said:
Anchors and reporters should stick to reading and reporting events exactly how they happen. I'm not interested in what they think about these events unless they appear on a show that focuses on opinion and they are asked. I think most of us can differentiate between the two so long as the newsperson keeps his/her views silent during a newscast.

We seem to have more and more trouble drawing this line. For example, suppose there is a tragic story such as the father leaving the child in the car in 110 degree weather. The anchors have a very concerned facial expression and verbal cues. They might also have a somber exchange at the end of the story, shaking their heads in disbelief that a father could do this. In essence, they are giving an opinion at this point. Is it correct to do so because it seems so incredible that someone could forget their child on such a blazingly hot day???
 
formeraa said:
We seem to have more and more trouble drawing this line. For example, suppose there is a tragic story such as the father leaving the child in the car in 110 degree weather. The anchors have a very concerned facial expression and verbal cues. They might also have a somber exchange at the end of the story, shaking their heads in disbelief that a father could do this. In essence, they are giving an opinion at this point. Is it correct to do so because it seems so incredible that someone could forget their child on such a blazingly hot day???

No. It's their job to keep their composure even when covering a story that tragic.
 
KeithE4 said:
formeraa said:
We seem to have more and more trouble drawing this line. For example, suppose there is a tragic story such as the father leaving the child in the car in 110 degree weather. The anchors have a very concerned facial expression and verbal cues. They might also have a somber exchange at the end of the story, shaking their heads in disbelief that a father could do this. In essence, they are giving an opinion at this point. Is it correct to do so because it seems so incredible that someone could forget their child on such a blazingly hot day???

No. It's their job to keep their composure even when covering a story that tragic.

I agree.
 
Re: Lack of Ethics, etc. -- CJR Link to ABC15 and Raml Dart

???
I've gotten some feedback that the Columbia Journalism Review link that I included in my original post re their 2004 Dart to ABC15/KNXV and their news anchor Katie Raml has somehow suddenly gone dead in the past day. Hmmm...

Well, without necessarily implying anything underhanded here (maybe just a weird coincidence?), I've included the CJR's text below if you weren't able to read it and have an interest.

The best/most disgusting part is Katie Raml's LOL response to the CJR that she didn't know the events she led were political. Uh-huh.

Let's see -- The WISH List PAC has "Your Partner in Politics" as part of its logo, Raml was featured on their advance promo flyers along with prominent Scottsdale and East Valley politicians, they called the event a "Campaign Victory" celebration, Raml posed for photos with candidates, and Raml evidently filled out Election Laws paperwork in order to make her donation. Oh yeah, and she had worked with, and for, many of these politicos for years as an activist.

Now there's a great example of professional ethics and news anchor credibility. Yep, what a wonderful role model for other journalists.

Columbia Journalism Review, Issue 4, July/August 2004

Darts & Laurels

(Dart) KNXV-TV, the ABC affiliate in Phoenix, for handing out party favors. As the station’s main news anchor, Katie Raml is seen as a “big role model,” according to her former teacher at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University. At least that’s what he was quoted as telling The Arizona Republic in a local-girl-makes-good piece that traced the development of Raml’s career from its early beginnings in nearby Scottsdale’s public schools, where she was a member of the Teenage Republicans Society. One can only assume that the good professor (as well as The Arizona Republic) was unaware of how Raml has been using her professional credentials to support her personal politics. Last fall, for example, she introduced the speaker at the “graduation ceremonies” at the Republicans’ WISH List Campaign College, described on its Web site as offering “high-caliber instruction” in “how to raise money” and “build effective media relationships.” This spring, the “professional interviewer and TV anchor” was helping her party again, moderating a discussion and posing for pictures at a WISH List fundraiser. (Raml claims she was unaware of the political nature of those events; KNXV says it has tightened its rules on outside appearances; Raml’s name and photos have disappeared from the WISH List Web site.)
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom