Who do you believe? Blogs or News Media

We are hearing more and more that readers believe the information contained in Blogs is more reliable than the print news media. (I don't think a direct comparison between the electronic media and Blogs makes much sense, so my comparison is direct: written material vs. written material.) While I find this shift in 'believability' to be somewhat surprising, I must admit that I don't think I personally know anybody that reads the newspaper without a nagging suspicion and a bit of doubt. Even more, I continue to be amazed at the growing number of people I know that do not even bother to read the newspaper.

Well, how does this relate to the subject of ethics?

I recently had the opportunity to speak with a person who serves on a national group that investigates allegations of breach of conduct by the news media. As a professor of journalism, it was clear to me that he wants the profession to uphold the highest standards. When does a misquote become more than a minor issue? How about reporters that leave out details because they don't understand them or don't believe their readers could understand them? Or, editors that cut out segments of a reporter's story and completely lose the intent? And, headline writers that mislead the readers by sensationalizing the story? Worse still, how about reporters who know that their information and their sources are tainted? Do these issues rise to the level of an ethical breach?

While I am very new to blogging (and admit some consternation about putting my thoughts into writing for the world to see), I am extremely fascinated that blogs offer the opportunity to say whatever you want -- in your own words -- without any opportunity for misquotes, editing, media bias, etc. This is what our First Amendment rights are all about. I know of one elected official that has launched a blog for the purpose of making sure his positions on issues are not taken out of context, twisted, turned -- or, even, unreported -- by the news media. This is a very interesting approach! If the media wants his input on an issue, he plans to post their question and his answer.

Perhaps the question remains: what does the print media need to do to regain the public trust and perform consistently in an ethical manner?

Like most complex issues, I believe trust and ethics are directly related to the quality of the individual and his or her commitment to excellence in their professional life. Thirty years ago, I was a corporate media spokesperson at a frighteningly young age. I took the time to get to know the reporters, rely on them for guidance, explain the subject in great detail; similarly, the reporters took the time to understand the issue and double-check facts and figures. Interestingly, I was never misquoted. Never. Not once. I considered these individuals to be seasoned professionals, mentors, and true professionals. No, their reporting was not always to my liking, but the manner in which they performed their job was beyond reproach.

But, that was then and this is now. What has changed? Everything.

I will offer one perspective on the issue of blogs vs. newspapers. A blogger, like me, is taking the time to write about an issue that I want to write about and that I feel passionately about. Question: so, what about the subject of ethics? Answer: I do not have a deadline, I have no editor that is biased, and I even get to write my own headline!

If we were to agree (for the sake of argument) to remove any allegation of intentional breach of ethics by the media, I would say that today's journalist does not have the same commitment to the profession as their predecessors. They seem to be in too big of a hurry, they don't take the time to get all the facts and double-check them, they are not well-versed in what is going on in their community and therefore have no context, institutional knowledge, or historical perspective. They very quickly make a public impression of themselves as either a credible reporter -- or, one that ought to find another line of work...

Poor reporting, just like anything else, becomes a behavior that the public ultimately recognizes -- and then the public reacts accordingly. For example, if the editorial page editor is extremely liberal, the public picks up on that, and filters (and, maybe, even ignores), the columns written by that individual (or his or her editorial team). Likewise, if a news reporter consistently 'gets it wrong' the public will pick up on that as well and tend to discount (or at least question) whatever that reporter writes. Once the public trust is lost, the situation spins further out of control because sources of information to the reporter become less and less willing to waste time with them; and, reporters, not knowing anything about the story they are required to write by their editor (to be fair), continue to turn out a work product (in this case, a 'story') that would be considered inferior by the standards of any other industry.

In the end, just like with any other job or relationship, you can forever lose your ethics in just a brief moment of lapse in judgment. Weirdly, this critical issue does not seem to apply to reporters -- or maybe reporters just think they can say whatever they want to say without consequence or accountability -- but, in reality, they are ultimately personally responsible (although not liable) for conducting themselves in an ethical manner.

As for me, I think the opportunity to say what I want to say about whatever issue is of importance to me tends to indicate blogging is the best source of information available to the thoughtful individual, both today and in the foreseeable future.

Disillusioned Ethics

Friends,

I have come to a new level of concern on the entire issue of ethics. There is no longer any question in my mind that our society is embracing a vision of 'selected ethics' -- which, in my opinion, means that folks justify their own behaviors at the same time as they condemn the behaviors of others -- only, sadly, they apply virtually no standards to themselves and are quick to criticize even the most honest mistakes by others. From my vantage point, this is not what 'ethics' (as a doctrine, a set of principles, a way of life) is intended to be all about. So, I believe quite a few folks are practicing "disillusioned ethics" and we need to start pointing out their flawed thinking, albeit in a nice and productive way.

What is the Benchmark? Local politicians veering off course on silly things like misplaced campaign ads, unkept campain promises, or poor personal decisions that intentionally harm others and benefit themselves? State politicians who are unaccountable for short term decisions that have obvious long-term negative effects? Federal politicians who cannot even bring themselves to discuss (let alone address) SERIOUS issues like Social Security, Health Care, Immigration, or Energy Policy?

The benchmark, I would suggest, does not lie within the Elected Officials; instead, I believe our failings come at the individual level where the ballots that are cast (hanging chads and all!) seem to decrease more and more with every election cycle. Just a little while ago, I learned of an acquaintance with an extremely keen mind and a previously important executive position in my community that has decided to take a long vacation, leave the country, and avoid the entire presidential campaign charade. This is unbelievable.

We have to wonder at what point the public will rise to the occassion and start taking its right to vote and be heard very seriously. Hopefully, prayerfully, it will be much sooner than later.

[Tomorrow's blog will focus on how hard the media has worked to lose our trust -- a truly spectacular achievement! -- and the ever-growing opinon that blogs are dramatically more believable than the media.]

So, You Think You Are an Ethical Person?

As you can imagine, ethical issues are very high on our list of priorities. Today, I spent 4 hours reviewing numerous articles and videos on the subject of ethics. And, if this is a subject you are seriously tracking, you will note the same thing that has crossed my mind: so 'close' (common sense?) and yet so 'far' (how confusing can we make it?). One of the Great Thinkers of our time (still alive) describes 'ethics' as just doing the right thing. More specifically, he believes that every single person on this earth deserves the right to happiness and well-being. Simply put: anything that you do (or don't do) to assist all others in attaining this right to happiness is 'ethical' -- conversely, anything you do (or don't do) to interfere with the right of others to enjoy happiness is 'un-ethical' -- how much more simple does it need to get? While it is enjoyable for some of us to delve into specific cases, one by one, and analyze 'who did what to whom and why' it is really unnecessary. Make today a great day -- be ethical -- "first, do no harm." You, too, will find that the definition is not nearly as important as the action.

[Tomorrow, I will write on the issue of 'Disillusioned Ethics' -- a far too common malady.]