The First Amendment; Roger Callaie

The First Amendment and the Free People Weekly examination of civil liberties in the media in the 1970s produced by WGBH radio Boston in cooperation with the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University. The host of the program is the institute's director Dr. Bernard Rubin. What are the ethical problems that day by day Vicks editors and people in television and radio. The problems that cause them to think about ethics as a very practical problem that interferes with their work or makes their work possible to discuss this question with me I have Professor Roger colony of Boston University whose specialty is mass communications. And interestingly enough he has studied both theology and Mass Communication majoring in both at different times of his life. So I think he will be a good commentator on this subject. The question of media ethics also has interested the Institute of democratic communication which has just published a book called questioning media ethics

published by Praeger publishers division of Holt Rinehart in New York. Roger when I ask why is it that ethics are such a problem. What is the main reason that editors fear to face an ethical question as if it is so impractical. Well I think. One of the problems that editors have is that they believe in the First Amendment. I do not this is a problem they believe in the First Amendment that they should have sort of free reign to publish their publication or produce their film or movie or television show or whatever. What they dont want is somebody second guessing them and I think a lot of editors feel that when you start talking about ethics and codified ethics that it becomes a serious problem. For me I think the whole questions of ethics in media boils down to two general areas one the

practice of communication what do reporters and editors and writers and filmmakers do. Well theyre producing their media. The other side of it is the content itself or the media what what. Things are said in the media either explicitly or implicitly that have ethical implications. And I think as a matter of fact I think editors overreact to people that question their ethics or want to talk about it. And I think it's it's sort of a fear that if you start questioning their ethics here that pretty soon you will be dictating what the content of their media will be. Well before we get into cases let's take a look at the American Society of Newspaper Editors Statement of Principles of 975. They have some of the canons of the press listed there. First they say they must be responsible. Second they say there must be freedom of the press. Then there must be independence. Let me just read a little of that. Now ask

you for your comment under Article Three independent journalists must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety as well as any conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict. They should neither accept anything nor pursue any activity that might compromise or seem to compromise their integrity in that category. That's end of quote in that category the so-called freebie comes in which is an ethical issue. What is a freebie. Well a freebie. It is when specifically a reporter usually is given something free like a ticket to a movie or a free trip to a foreign country and usually this is given with no visible strings attached and I think one of the things that editors in the last 10 years especially And I think this as any guideline here is is something fairly new is that editors now are saying it's pretty

difficult to have completely no strings attached for instance if I remember one of the classic cases was Otto Preminger flying the whole cadre of film critics from newspapers all over the country to Germany to review Judgment at Nuremberg. Now it would be difficult I would think for a critic to out and out pen a movie that he has been given a free trip to Germany to see and anything that he says good about it. And I think this is the real heart of the way as any guideline the real heart of it is that when the reader reads that this person has gone on a trip to Germany he really suspects even if that if the critic is able to maintain his objectivity I would suspect that somehow. He's not being objective. He has been twisted by this so I think what reporters are now saying is many of them will say Sure you can you can take a freebie especially if it's something simple like a ticket to see a movie. You can go there. Review the film and feel

free to pan it. The other people are saying well why should we even give the impression that that we are part of this whole subtle freebie system that we should pay our own way and many newspapers have adopted that no new york times for newspapers broadcasting stations and so on networks have more or less taken the view that they pay their way for everything. Because if you accept a ticket there may be a slight indication that you should be favorable or that you might be favorable or that it might come out later that you were favorable and you might have liked the production or you might have liked the activity going on. Reporters also are very leery outside of the area freebies of associations that are not that are a little cloudy for example if they're music critics. Many of them stay away from music associations in their hometowns don't support the local symphony. You can carry this too far but the

sensitivity. On these ethical points or the need to have the appearance of the highest possible moral standard for your profession is very very great even to the case of carrying it to the extremes would you agree. Yes and I think one of the reasons that journalism specifically has moved in this direction of trying to even avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest is that there is more and more hard reporting going on and it's quite obvious to the public that if they broil a politician for an appearance of indecency or a conflict of interest that the journalist had better have his or her house in order before he makes these allegations against a politician. Let's take a look at Article 4 of the American Society of Newspaper Editors 975 statement of principles. Quoting you know truth and accuracy good faith with the reader is the foundation of good journalism. Every effort must be made to assure that the news content is accurate and

free from bias and in context and that all sides are presented fairly editorials analytical articles and commentary should be held to the same standards of accuracy with respect to facts as news reports. End quote. Roger Callie what's the ethical issue there in in the question of truth and accuracy. Why do people say that that truth is an ethical question when they read a story. Why do they question the ethical values of the story. Well truth has been one of the I think most problematical areas in ethics I think an absolute position would have to. I mean if you're going to be absolute you would have to say that it is not not possible to have complete truth in any representation of reality be it in pictures or words but you can make your own truth can't you.

Yes and I think what what a good journalist strives for is not necessarily truth but objectivity in other words letting the various facets of a story be represented in the story. And this does not mean that there is no concern about the truth they want to make sure that every fact is verifiable. But I think if you get too hung up on just the notion of truth and forget about the objectivity I think that's a very grave danger too. Let me give a couple of examples. For example let's just take the story of the boat people in Southeast Asia. I picked up a recent issue of Perry match which a very fine French news magazine and they had a long story with lots of pictures of the boat people living in terrible terrible conditions on this boat 5000 of them on the boat and they had. Captions and stories running with the pictures. I haven't seen pictures like that in the American press now maybe they exist maybe there. Maybe there are magazines that have 6 or 7 or doesn't. Pictures taken inside the boat.

But it seems to me that the ethical values in journalism are reduced when people talk so much about boat people without ever presenting the true story of what actually goes on in one of those places. Those tiny creaky vintage ships barely kept afloat with people hanging literally from the the rails trying to stand or sleep practically on their feet and unable to land anywhere in this world. Well I think that points up one of the problems with truth that even if your facts are correct you may be gravely distorting the truth simply by reporting only selectively certain things. The standard editors cop out on stories like this and I think a good deal is mentioned in the in the book Questioning media ethics about the problems of reporting away from the United States. One of the problems at the editor would tell you is that my readers are not interested in what

goes on inside one of these boats that in a way is true readership studies do show that international news. It is not as well-read as other news but on the other hand I think. The question I think you're raising is that should not the journalist endeavor to make foreign news interesting to the American public so that the truth can be seen so that we don't just think that there are one or two people trying to escape Vietnam in rowboats under fairly good conditions and that all it all's well that ends well. Well let's take another story on the domestic scene the Son of Sam killers and the treatment of it by Rupert Murdoch's New York Post. Now many people have criticized what they call sensational sensationalism in the press as being in their view. Less then the kind of ethical standard that they personally approve of. Whereas many others

say that you cannot sensationalize a story like that that it's part of the freedom of the press to paint that in various colorations according to the artist. What's the difficulty with that kind of a story when somebody is talking about ethics and another fellow says I don't see your point. Well I think what Murdoch has done is deliberately appealed to what people are interested in reading. And while we may not like the fact that people like sex and blood and gore the fact of the matter is they do enjoy reading that they find it pleasurable and it sells newspapers. One of the big ethical questions is where where do you draw the line. If you decide that you want to eliminate violence from the press or violence from television who is going to make that final determination. And I think what a lot of editors are saying is that we agree that there were excesses with the Son of Sam coverage there

were probably excesses with the Guyana coverage. But that it would be better to have excesses here and again rather than to lay down some very rigid rule about how much how far you can go. I think things have improved I think. The Son of Sam coverage while it was not ideal was better than the Sam Shepard coverage of a generation ago. And I think slowly but surely as the free press fair trial issue is debated back and forth between journalists and lawyers I think some accommodations are being made to the privacy and legal necessity so that I would hate to see it get to a point where judges would routinely shut off all press coverage of a story simply because it was gory or it titillated people. And on the other hand you wonder about people in charge of the mass media who paint the picture in such a weight as to

attract. The baser instincts of mankind. I always have trouble with this I remember Barry Goldwater said it was of the 964 convention. Something to the effect of extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice but a virtue in a third of the audience at the convention booed and two thirds of them who Rod. Let's take a look at the next article 5 of the S&P code American Society of Newspaper Editors which is impartiality quote to be impartial does not require the press to be unquestioning or to refrain from editorial expression sound practice however demands a clear distinction for the reader between news reports and o pinion articles that contain opinion or personal interpretation should be clearly identified. Let's end of quote. Let's take a look at this statement. Impartiality on impartiality. Most often

when the press is criticized it is because there is already a controversial subject that is being discussed such as race relations in the United States or an article on any racial situation be it affirmative action or a race riot whatever it might be. People on either side or one of the many sides of a stories have a tendency to say the story was unfair. Some of them even say it was an ethical is that natural Roger Cali. Well I think you know the whole question of impartiality gets back to I think the McCarthy era. That was the era where the press prided itself on being impartial that they would never allow editorial opinion to creep into the news pages. What happened was that McCarthy identified this as sort of an Achilles heel in the press and he could say anything knowing that the press would do to flee quote him without comment in the news pages no they made blast him all over the place in the editorial pages.

But people read the front page a lot more frequently than they read the editorial pages. I think we've come to see especially and then we went through a period in the 60s where there was advocacy journalism where it was very popular to take a frontal attack of the evils of the Vietnam War whatever. The problem with that as communication there is point out is that very often you are seen as a paper with a certain axe to grind and people just don't take you seriously except for people that believe very strongly what you do. So I think the accommodation that's made now is that as long as when you are reporting the facts you do try to be. Impartial or objective. But that you could also have comment and that you should have come it to get at the truth that if McCarthy is saying one thing you report what he says. But you also report that to the best of your knowledge it's a lie.

I remember the New York Times when it got braver toward the end of the McCarthy period used to have some of the articles start this way or something like this. Senator McCarthy yesterday charged. Now we're talking about Joseph R. McCarthy I must not Eugene McCarthy Senator McCarthy yesterday charged and then went on to say in the next sentence the facts are or what actually happened was and this was a devastating approach. Roger the standard of ethics in the subject that we've been discussing seems a very personal one. It's what we're reading from a code and you know and analyzing this American Society of Newspaper Editor code I think you can never rise higher than your own personal standard can it. I mean you can follow the code. But in each case where there is a story in front of you you're probably going to have to figure out what the code means in that story all by yourself. Well I think some newspapers have taken the these guidelines which are.

Done by Newspaper Association of Newspaper Editors. These are very general and I think what each newspaper would have to do is take a rule like independence and decide whether they're going to accept movie passes or whether they're going to pay their way to the movie whether they're going to the travel editor will stay in hotels and take trips or whether the newspaper will pay that so I I think you're right I think if you just had this very vague general thing you are depending entirely upon the ethical values of an individual. And I don't I think most people would say that that probably is not going to be effective because there will always be some unscrupulous people who will say they are above the law and will do anything to get a story. In fact a number of reporters have said this and I don't think at least from my perspective that this is acceptable ethical behavior. Well the next article in this code is is twinned to impartiality then

demands after impartiality fair play. And I'll read just one or two sentences quote journalists should respect the rights of people involved in the news. Observe the common standards of decency and stand accountable to the public for the fairness and accuracy of the news reports. Persons publicly accused should be given the earliest opportunity to respond end quote although not the end of that particular section of the code. Can you be fair. And at the same time be impartial. Or does impartiality mean that you are struggling for fairness. These are not just woods these are wrestling matches aren't they. Yes I think you can be impartial and fair. And as a matter of fact I think that's the best form of journalism. I think one of the first lessons when I'm teaching young writers in the classroom one of the first lessons I give them is that whatever story you're covering cover not

both sides but all sides or maybe more than two sides that will do a couple things that will keep people from accusing you of being impartial or unfair and it will also make a better story. You're giving a more complete story. It is a copout for a newspaper just to say such and such cannot be reached for comment. Occasionally that will have to happen because something breaks in the last minute. But I think. A newspaper or television reporter owes it to let everybody have their say on a story that I think is better journalism in the world or a reporter of my acquaintance worked for a wire service and was in his younger days. Asked to follow up on stories where there had been murders in the family or a child was killed by a railroad train or some some terrible story and he was told to call the mother up or call the father up and say you have just heard that your son has been killed by a railroad train.

What are your feelings or do you have a statement to make. And he told me that he always told his editor the wire service office that he had done that and he never did it. He said he couldn't fight with the editor and didn't want to lose his job but he felt that it was such an unethical thing to do that he just never did it. And he told the editor that the person was unavailable for comment or the line was busy or they could not reach him. What's your feeling about what he did. Well I think I'll tell you what I did as a reporter. I was I've been in that situation and my the way I rationalize my way around it is that I would raise the issue. I would make the telephone call if the people did not want to respond. That was their business and I would not push them to it. But I think I found as distasteful as that situation is I found that a lot of times people wanted to talk about it.

They wanted to kind of vent their feelings in the public because this you know whatever it happened to them was very important. I think the reporter was being dishonest with his editor. Now it's but was he being honest with the people. I don't know if like I said the way I justified it in my mind was that if the people didn't want to respond they would. I would not badger somebody. There are reporters that will do that they'll thrust a microphone in somebody's face or follow them around. The kind of paparazzi approach to journalism that I I would not do that and I don't think that's ethical. But I don't think it's unethical per se to ask a question to someone who is has just suffered some sort of trauma. If I were to say to you that we all share a common moral code in the western world and edit isn't journalist for radio and television and other people like that know that code and generally abide by it. We're not so much worried about that except in the breach of that code.

What we're worried about in terms of media ethics is scruples is a good substitute word for ethics scruples or is a substitute phrase for scruples. Professional Standards. You know I think there are two levels. My immediate reaction when he said that there is a basic ethical standard in the western world was hogwash. I'm not so sure that the basics of the Western world. No I I'm not sure that there is that unanimity on ethical standards. I do see a difference between ethics as stated on paper in the abstract as the as any guidelines are that we just read and what is actually applied. And you know I think the question that newspapers have to wrestle with right now is how far do you codified these things how how far do you write them down and insist that they be enforced. You know when when does the writing down of this

crimp your journalistic style and when does it crimp your ethical style. I think and I don't think there's a hard and fast answer for that. I think it has to vary from newspaper to newspaper and I would hope that on every newspaper somebody is struggling with that issue. I'm afraid that in many cases nobody is nobody is. And one of the things that I think is going to affect the ethics of journalism in the years to come. The cover story in this month's issue of the quill which is the Society of Professional journalist magazine is on the whole question of newspaper made up police newspapers own by corporations where the basic motive is profit. Where do ethics fit into all this. Are newspapers going to stop doing the digging and hard reporting that they would because they may lose every ties years and that that's an ethical question too.

If you're a women's libber or if you are an anti women's libber you would have depending upon the story about women all sorts of ethical values which may not be shared by society in general. In fact a lot of people would even quarrel with your use of the term woman's libber they say that's a label a derogatory label and it offends me. Well I didn't want to offend you as a matter of fact I only threw it out to to see what rise I could get out of you. But if I were operating Ms Magazine or Cosmopolitan I would have ethical standards that might be different between those two although they may be just the same. But certainly the editors of that would look upon Playboy as an ethical problem for the women's movement. They would look people at Playboy would look upon penthouse people at Penthouse might look upon Oui magazine as an ethical problem. So ethics cannot be solved by a code but by what is what's the need we have here for a personal set of

values. I think that would ultimately answer the problem. Other people will say you don't need any ethical standards if a newspaper is operating beyond the ethical standards ultimately the public will not buy it. Some of the why does selling newspapers are bought simply because they do avoid the ethical standard on many types of stories. Right. And I feel very uncomfortable as a journalist in a journalism educator to to accept that position I like I like to think that the role of the Fourth Estate in our society is that it is part of society that it's a responsible member of the society and that it must have ethical standards just like the other three estates. So from the point of view of a journalist then if they if a journalist meets a theologian or if a theologian meets a journalist and one says the ethical question involves morals about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin the editor comes back and says Pardon me but that's more a traffic problem than one of morals we can understand both sides.

I think that's one way of putting it. Right. Well I appreciate your commentary Roger Colly professor of communication at Boston University for this edition. Bernard Reuben. The First Amendment and a free people weekly examination of civil liberties in the media. In the 1970s the program was produced in cooperation with the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University. Why didn't you do ph radio Boston which is solely responsible for its content. This is the station program exchange. Some of the white is selling newspapers are bought simply because they do avoid the ethical standard on many types of stories right.

And I feel very uncomfortable as a journalist in a journalism educator to to accept that position I like I like to think that the role of the Fourth Estate in our society is that it is part of society that it's a responsible member of the society and that it must have ethical standards just like the other three states. So from the point of view of a journalist then if they if a journalist meets a theologian or if Philo Gene meets a journalist and one says the ethical question involves morals about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin you want to comes back and says Pardon me but that's more a traffic problem than one of morals we can understand both sides. I think that's one way of putting it. Right. Well I appreciate your commentary Roger Colly professor of communication at Boston University for this edition. Bernard Reuben. The First Amendment and a free people a weekly examination of civil liberties in the media. In the 1970s.

The tool for democratic communication at Boston University.