These articles usually have nothing more in common than the paper clip that binds them. They regularly include a feature on men's fashion, a story about an obscene jury award and something about the prostate gland. During a recent visit, however, she handed me something new--an ethical debate.
The debate was contained in a few clippings of the "For Better or Worse" comic strip. In summary, Michael, the son of this fictional family, is a fledgling writer who stumbled upon a great story told to him by a kindly janitor at his college. The school newspaper wanted to run the story, perhaps in the process launching Michael's career.
The problem was, however, that the janitor didn't want the story to run. Although he didn't indicate it earlier, the janitor said he spoke to Michael in confidence. Michael's editors wanted him to run it. But they would leave the decision to him.
"What would you do?" my mother asked.
Well, I would rather talk about prostates.
Actually, I would prefer to tackle this kind of debate than one over Connie Chung and Newt Gingrich's mom any day. This is more interesting, more difficult and more representative of the kind of ethical issue that daily confronts newspapers.
Do journalists really have ethics?
Marion Lewenstein, professor of communication at Stanford University, will be speaking on this very subject at the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Women in Business luncheon next Tuesday.
I'm not sure what the answer is to that question, but I'm hoping Marion will help me.
What's clear to me is that for some news organizations, ethics are like plumbing. They only get attention when they are in need of repair.
But most newspapers, in reality, do not operate like that. They are regularly wrestling with these kinds of debates. And the fact is, when a news organization defers to its ethics in deciding not to run something, the public never knows it.
Readers and viewers only know when, in their opinion, a paper or television network has shown a lack of ethics. And then of course the conclusion is that they never existed to begin with.
No, we would not run Michael's story as noted above. And, or course, neither did Michael. What would it serve? But would we run it if the story addressed an issue of greater public health and safety? Yes, we probably would.
The truth the media wrestle more with ethical issues than the public thinks they do, maybe even more than the public would in a similar situation. The Freedom Forum First Amendment center recently conducted a survey that demonstrated this. They asked journalists, politicians and the public the following question:
"Rumors about spouse abuse cannot be confirmed one day before a judge will be appointed for life. Would you report the story?"
Two percent of journalists said they would run the story. Nearly 7 percent of politicians said they would. As for the public? More than 41 percent said they would go with the story.
Although these kinds of issues are rare here at the Weekly, we do get our share of tough issues.
Recently we came across a story about a man who had been arrested and jailed on suspicion of two felony counts of child molestation. He was very popular among some parents.
Some parents were angry because news about the arrest had not been made public. Others felt the running the story would ruin his reputation.
They were both right. We labored over this one. But in the end, we decided we could not ignore the fact that this man had been arrested. We do not, in general, run stories about police investigations of criminal activity. But we do regularly run stories about people being arrested. And we do not make that decision based on the quality of the police investigation of the popularity of the suspect.
Ironically, last year we came across a story where another individual was suspected of similar crimes. In that situation we decided not to run the story because no arrest had been made. Some close to the situation were angry that we didn't. Some still are.
There are no right answers in these situations. But some are better than others. And choosing not to run something is not always the most ethical decision. Sometimes, it's just the easy way out.
Paul Gullixson is editor of the Weekly.
Back up to the Table of Contents Page