It seems that each time Americans turn on the television, pick up a newspaper, log on to an internet news site, or tune into a radio newscast they are bombarded with sex scandals involving the Nation’s politicians. Politician’s private lives have been pried open by the news media and every tiny detail is picked out and put on display for the public to gawk at. It seems the common belief these days is that the general public has the “right to know” the details of a politicians private life in order to judge their “morality”, and the news media is only doing their job by reporting which Senator had an extra-marital affair or which Congressman is gay. Today’s news media has crossed, and lost, ethical boundaries in order to feed what is conceived to be the public’s “right to know” about the morality of politicians but is really a growing lust for sensational gossip.
A certain right to privacy is assumed by all Americans. It is generally assumed that, as long as no laws are broken, what a person does within their personal life is private and separate from their work or professional life. Professionals and other workers are generally chosen for jobs based on their experience and capabilities within their chosen field. It is not common practice for a patient to choose their dentist based upon whether or not the dentist has had a pre-marital affair. It is generally not considered newsworthy if the manager of the local grocery store has an illegitimate child or the bank president is gay. No one generally cares if the nurse caring for them at the hospital dated several men in college.
If any one of the previously mentioned situations were reported on the local or national news the public would be outraged and the reporter would likely be fired for violating that person’s personal privacy. It is likely, though, that even if a journalist did cover such a story that story would never even make it to air or print because it would be considered unethical. However, there seems to be a double standard if a person’s chosen profession is of a political nature. Although a politician’s rights, both legal and assumed, are the same as any other citizen of the United States, they are routinely ignored by both the public and the media. Americans have a voracious appetite for scandal, gossip and peaks into the personal lives of politicians. The news media works hard to appease that hunger, even at the expense of privacy and journalistic ethics.
The practice of reporting scandal and gossip in the media is not a new one. In the late 1850’s the invention of the Hoe rotary press cheap newspapers became easier to print. Within a short time there was a proliferation of cheap newspapers that cost only a penny each. These “penny dailies” could be found almost anywhere. For the first time the news which was reported went beyond politics and began to include “social gossip, sports, and sensational crime and incident reports.” This led to a focus on “crime, sex, and depravity in general.” A “rising revulsion” of this “gutter press” caused newspapers to begin avoiding such matters (Shi and Tindall, 512). For a time sex, scandal, and gossip became confined to “tabloid” media and the “news media” reported ethical and informative news.
Today there are less small, independently owned newspapers and more large media conglomerates than ever before. But even more numerous are the tabloids who have historically ignored journalistic ethics. Another stumbling block responsible journalists had come against in recent years is the invention of internet “news” blogs. These outlets for “news” which focus on scandal and delve into the personal lives of politicians have multiplied over the past two years.
At one time tabloids competed against tabloid and news companies competed against other news companies. But, in recent years as the market has been flooded with more and more sources for rumor and irresponsible “journalism” and the public has become more and more interested in the personal lives of celebrities and politicians, the lines have blurred. The small newspapers, radio stations, and TV news stations compete with the huge media corporations. The media corporations compete with internet bloggers. News magazines compete with weekly tabloids. According to Jeff Cohen:
Once, only tabloid newspapers trafficked in gossip about public figures. Now there’s the World Wide Web, which feeds talk radio, which feeds “all-news” cable. If we don’t publish what millions of people have already heard or read, we’re acting as censors, or people will think we missed the story. And, in the 24-hour news cycle, if we hold back to check the facts ourselves, we’ll be beaten by the competition (Cohen).
The struggle for market share has once again reduced informative news reporting to “infotainment”. In an article titled “Getting it Right” Sidney Callahan says, “Megamedia corporations bent on making profits distort the role of the press” (Callahan). News outlets that once obeyed a strict code of ethics and could be counted on to report facts have degenerated to reporting hearsay and scandal as fact. “The competitive urge to get the story first [. . .] tempts journalists to trim ethical corners” (Callahan). Journalists now spend more time researching and reporting the details of a politician’s private life than the issues which that politician is for or against. “Yellow journalism” such as that in the days of the “penny dailies” has returned in full force.
The word ethic is defined as a system of moral standards or principles. Most professions have either a written or unwritten code of ethics which individuals are expected to adhere to. Journalism and the media are no different, though today’s media seems to ignore them more and more. Though at times ethics are more of an “understood” set of principles in 1996 the Society for Professional Journalists (SPJ) produced a written Code of Ethics. It took two years of discussion and debate for the code to be approved (Hernandez and Schmitt). The code was established to “promote the ethical thought in the [journalism] business, both for newcomers and established professionals, particularly those who may be tempted to cross the line” (Hernandez and Schmitt).
There are four major areas of the Code of Ethics created by the SPJ; seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable. The blatant coverage of the private lives of politicians violates three of these areas on several different levels.
A juicy story full of sex, lies, and secrets sells. Throw in a politician and make those lies and secrets a part of his or her personal and family life and the number of papers or magazines sold sky rockets, thus padding the pockets of the media corporations that rule the press today. When faced with the choice between a solid story about a bill that will give money to schools to help them become safer or a story about a Senator who had an extra-marital affair fifteen years ago, which story is a journalists more likely to tell? Chances are that the politician’s personal indiscretions will be in print and broadcast over the airways across the country and the article about the school safety bill, if reported at all, will be short and have very little print space or air time. Sadly, it is likely that within a few days the entire country will know the intimate details of the lives of the Senator, his family, and the woman with whom the Senator was involved, but very few people will know the details of the school safety bill.
Why do so many irrelevant stories get pushed to the forefront and important issues get pushed aside? Journalistic responsibility has become secondary to the pursuit of profit. Profit in and of itself is not necessarily bad. Money is a necessary evil of the world. It pays the bills and buys the food necessary for survival. But when profit becomes the deciding factor when choosing a news story it breaks and important ethical rule which requires journalists to act independently. The SPJ Code of Ethics states, “Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know” (Code of Ethics). When a reporter or editor becomes more concerned about how much money they will make from a story than about the content of that story a conflict of interest arises and an ethical line is crossed.
Minimize harm. This area of the code of ethics states, “Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect” (Code of Ethics). This is the code that is the most abused by the media today. When a politician’s personal life is picked apart by the media and his or her “dirty laundry” is aired to the entire country there are more lives hurt and exposed than just that politician. What does not get reported is the affect having the personal actions and indiscretions a husband, wife, mother or father does to the politician’s family. Things and issues that should private and dealt with inside a family unit are routinely splashed across every television set, computer, and newspaper across the country causing embarrassment and possible psychological damage to the family members of those involved. The common excuse for this is “the publics right to know”. There are some things the public has the right to know, such as whether or not a politician is taking bribes or broke any other laws. Just because something may be deemed interesting does not make it news. The SPJ Code of Ethics says, “Only and overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy” (Code of Ethics). Gossip and sex scandals are “interesting” but if no laws are broken they are not news. “[Journalists should] show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity” (Code of Ethics). Reporting such stories can cause more harm than good, crossing an important ethical line.
The ethical standards which are the most frequently ignored within the area that call for journalists to be accountable. The Code of Ethics says, “Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.” Though this means many things, the most important aspect of this means that journalists should “abide by the same high standards to which they hold others. (Code of Ethics). Journalists are being unethical when they report “personal information” about a politician’s private life that they would not reveal about themselves in a public forum. It is a journalist’s job to report, not judge. When a journalist puts someone’s personal behavior and “morality” on display for the country to see he or she is acting as a judge as to what is moral and immoral. Before doing so a journalist should ask him or her self if this question, “If this story were about me and my family would I feel the public had a right to know?” In his article “Covering the Private Lives of Politicians” Jeff Cohen asserts, “Privacy limits might seem worthy again if media figures themselves had to answer questions now deemed so enlightening on “character” or “judgment” or “integrity” (Cohen).
Journalists research, write, and present stories. Therefore, they have a responsibility to the public to uphold journalistic ethics and not give into the lure of “yellow journalism” by reporting salacious gossip disguised as news. At the 2005 Society of Professional Journalists National Conference SPJ president David Carlson told journalists, “We are the enemies of journalism every time we look the other way and let [. . .] another sensational headline, another ethical lapse sneak through the door” (qtd. in SPJ president). Carlson also challenged journalist to take ethics into their own hands by living by the SPJ code of ethics and be responsible for their own ethical behavior in journalism (SPJ president).
Editors and owners of media companies can choose responsible journalism over the pursuit of profit by carefully choosing what stories are reported. There is no question that sex and gossip sells, but so does thoughtful, well researched, ethically reported news. The responsibility of the news media is to inform and educate the public on subjects and issues to help citizens be more aware of the world around them and make informed and educated decisions. Delving into the private lives of any law-abiding citizen, including politicians, does none of those things.
The responsibility and blame of the unethical state of reporting in today’s media falls not only on the media corporations, editors and journalists, but also on the bulk of the American public. Sex and scandal sells because we buy it. American’s can make the blurring of unethical lines unacceptable again by not watching newscasts or purchasing newspapers or magazines that continue delving into the personal lives of politicians. Another effective method is to write letters to their editor to protest the focus on “infotainment” rather than valuable information. The media profession must recognize that tabloid reporting should be left to tabloids and the reporting of personal private lives in “respectable” media outlets is not ethical and no longer acceptable.
Works Cited
Callahan, Sidney. “Getting it Right”. Commonweal. 128.20 (2001) EBSCOhost. Three Rivers Community Coll. Lib. Poplar Bluff, MO. 24 Nov. 2006
“Code of Ethics”. Society of Professional Journalists. 11 Nov. 2006
Cohen, Jeff. “Covering the Private Lives of Politicians”. Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). 1 Nov. 1999. 28 Oct. 2006
Hernandez, Debra Gersh, and Schmitt, Bill. “SPJ approves ethics code”. Editor & Publisher. 129.42 (1996) EBSCOhost. Three Rivers Community Coll. Lib. Poplar Bluff, MO. 24 Nov. 2006
Shi, David E., Tindal, George Brown. America: A Narrative History. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Ltd., 2004.
“SPJ president urges ethical behavior in newsrooms”. SPJ News. 2005. Society of Professional Journalists. 24 Nov. 2006
