Publisher’s Note: The publisher has had no role in editing this essay, which is published as the writer submitted it with the intention of publication in BEACONS.
By Luca Gross
Ethics in journalism are constantly put to the test. Plagiarism, fabrication and blatant lying are considered to be the most disgraceful sins of journalism. Ethics are absolute and major in any career field you will find yourself, however, they hold a great weight in this one. Journalists who break these sacred codes wreak havoc on the credibility of their peers, the publications and the entirety of journalism. According to the Society of Professional Journalists, journalists must act with integrity to uphold that ethical journalism is essentially “the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy.” They then provide four key points about what a journalist must do to act with integrity and uphold those ethical standards. With an ever-changing world of journalism, the repercussions have varied in severity for many who unfortunately do commit these heinous acts of journalistic sin.
So what is the SPJ’s Code of Ethics exactly? According to the SPJ site, the first major principle is that all journalists must “Seek Truth and Report It” meaning that “Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.” To further cement this ideal, a few notes are made about what a journalist should do to uphold this value. Many come down to being courageous but cautious, informative but not inaccurate and to not plagiarize under any circumstance. The second major point is to “Minimize Harm” which the site then declares “Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.” The people you will report on are indeed people too, the bullet points for this ideal essentially state the various situations in which you may need to report differently or not at all, basically meaning depending on the context of your piece you have to respect those you may be reporting against or if someone is a victim. The third point they list is shorter but no less significant than any other, journalists must “Act Independently” meaning there is no greater responsibility to a journalist than serving the public, or as the SPJ puts it “The highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public.” While the big point is fairly straightforward, this is especially true in that in order to operate like so a journalist should never bribe or take bribes, monetary or otherwise, do not let outside influences determine how you report and “Avoid conflicts of interest” no matter what. Last, but not least, a journalist must “Be Accountable and Transparent” meaning their work is theirs and they must hold themselves to these standards being discussed. “Ethical journalism means taking responsibility for one’s work and explaining one’s decisions to the public.” with bullets following that essentially say journalism must be one with the community, no secret practices and any-and-all mistakes made must be acknowledged not buried nor overlooked. An important footnote about this code can be found at the bottom of the page and it reads, “The SPJ Code of Ethics is a statement of abiding principles supported by additional explanations and position papers that address changing journalistic practices. It is not a set of rules, rather a guide that encourages all who engage in journalism to take responsibility for the information they provide, regardless of medium. The code should be read as a whole; individual principles should not be taken out of context. It is not, nor can it be under the First Amendment, legally enforceable.” These codes are the highest and most important guidelines for anybody in the field of journalism.
Plagiarism and fabrication are the two most commonly committed sins within the field of journalism. Many young and even veteran Journalists have fallen guilty to these acts. It may take one time before being exposed by a colleague or reader, and in some cases the poor practice of journalism stretches through their entire career. No two cases of journalists being found guilty have been the same nor are the punishments always the same. One might lose his or her job immediately with absolutely no forecast of a second chance anywhere in the world, but sometimes they do. One thing that most cases share in common is that the journalists involved, or even their publications, usually take a massive hit to their reputation(s) and an even greater amount of criticism from other publications and journalists alike. These acts also aid in discrediting journalism as a whole. It is important to note that there are five remaining sins considered to be the seven deadly sins of the field of journalism. Something as commonly avoidable as bias is considered a sin. This is when you present your opinion through facts that support your view instead of setting the whole picture. Conflict of interest is another one, stated in the SPJ Code of Ethics, any form of favor is basically bribery and forbidden. Deception is not necessarily similar but it involves misrepresenting facts or information to sway others opinions on yourself. Some call it “Burning a source” and its when you essentially give a source confidentiality or anonymity in one way or another and then end up going back on it and exposing them or something else intended to remain off the record in a journalistic piece. Last but not least, is theft. It sounds similar to plagiarism but it is actually about the collection of information illegally. Much like how in detective cases you need probable cause or a warrant to find evidence, well, journalists cannot steal information from a source in any way.
What is plagiarism? In school, we are taught time and time again growing up just what it is and not to do it or we will fail and probably go to jail, ok so the second part is a bit extreme but in the world of journalism, to plagiarize is to sign your own career-death sentence. According to Marriam-Webster Dictionary, the literal definition of ‘plagiarize’ is “to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source.” According to the Online News Association ethics code, Plagiarism is considered to be the primary sins of journalism. Realistically there is nothing lazier than taking someone else’s hard work and dedication, passing it off as your own and indeed not crediting them at all. The ONA ethics site makes use of a quote from the SPJ Code of Ethics, that quote is as follows “Never plagiarize. Always attribute.” There really is no other way to state it. Many cases of plagiarism boil down to similar excuses from those suspected of it. Journalists either mix up research material with their own, they run out of time, they rush it, or they just do not have it in them and they copy it outright. It could be that they are too young or moving too quickly, it could also be said that their career is dwindling and they need that boost of material. There is no one single excuse and almost no excuse is ever taken into consideration. The ONA ethics makes a good point that most publications will believe any plagiarism committed is already “too much”. There is no short list of case studies that cover those explicitly guilty of plagiarising a fellow journalist for a quick win. Another unpopular-popular sin committed by journalists is fabrication. According to Marriam-Webster Dictionary, the literal definition of fabricating is to invent or create. In the world of journalism this usually means making up aspects of a story. Whether it’s a single quote, a whole source or entire stories, becoming a fabulist in journalism is a lot less respected than it sounds. As stated in the SPJ Code of Ethics, the main duty of a journalist is to seek and spread the truth. Making things up is quite literally doing the exact opposite of what that entails. At the point entire stories are fabricated they should just go write the next best seller or even a summer blockbuster. The not-so-simple act of fabrication goes against pretty much everything in the SPJ Code of Ethics. To fabricate is to be dishonest, discrediting and most certainly harms not only the credibility of the publication, but it also harms the readers. It harms the people in the area of the publication because it is their right to know the truth. One reporter looking for a sensational hit-story or a career bump can stop those very people from getting the information they need for the next local election, or literally any other important news, the list is unending. The implications of either sin are unbounded and require intense inspection and investigation when a reporter is exposed and it is clear they are guilty of plagiarism, fabrication, or any other journalistic sin.
Previously mentioned, the list of case studies involving reporters guilty of either plagiarism or fabrication, sometimes unfortunately both, is seemingly never ending. One of the most infamous cases, however, is the 1981 case of Pulitzer-Prize-winning Janet Cooke, a 26-year-old reporter for The Washington Post. She was caught fabricating the existence of a little boy who was crucial to the story. According to Cass Pererson for The Washington Post, the story was about a little boy living in a heroin epidemic. She had won the Pulitzer Prize for this story due to its shocking focus and excellent prose. One of the most prestigious titles you can achieve in the world of journalism and she lost it due to unintentional self-sabotage. The sad part about it all is that Cooke did do the research behind the scenes, she did interview experts and could have built a story on the drug problem itself, like a good reporter. She decided to chase a sensational story to get that headline. According to David A. Maraniss, Cooke was attempting to hide the guilt by claiming she gave Jimmy anonymity, she also goes so far as to lie about her life being in danger if she did give up the information. She was not trying really hard to prove the already impossible. She had to resign and was stripped of the prize.
Another case of a fabulist, arguably more infamous, was Stephen Glass. 25-years-old and just out of college he landed a job for The New Republic. According to Lori Robertson for AJR, Glass was hired in 1995 as an intern and quickly climbed the ranks at The New Republic all the way to assistant editor then associate editor. It was this quick rise that seemingly gave him the opportunity to take his young age and use it as a weapon to deliver fabricated stories the older editors took without question. According to Robin Pogrebin,in the entirety of his short career “Mr. Glass had completely fabricated six articles and had manufactured material in parts of 21 other articles.” To add onto that, according to “Through A Glass Darkly: Magazine Pays Piper” by Robert Neuwirth, there were only 14 articles published that were not fabulized in any way. Glass was fired and his reputation was put in the ground. It is important to remember his story, however, as it is a prime example of when age plays a big role in fabricating to get ahead. Shattered Glass (2003) is a film-adaptation of this true story, it is an entertaining watch and gives you a more human sense of the situation. This next one on the list is another young reporter who worked for the same publication, and the culprit goes by the name of Ruth Shalit. According to Alicia C. Shepard in an AJR article on the subject, Shalit was another young reporter in 1992 who worked as an intern for The New Republic and rose the ranks “practically overnight,” as Shepard put it. In the same article it is exclaimed Shalit was found guilty of several counts of inaccuracy with a side of plagiarism.
The previous two cases were of rather young reporters. The next two are relatively surprising. One would not expect seasoned journalists to make the same type of mistakes or risks as a young and eager journalist. Patricia Smith was a columnist at The Boston Globe. According to Robin Pogrebin for The New York Times, Smith “had fabricated people and quotations in four of her columns” in the year of 1998. In the same article it’s said the fabricated details were discovered during a double checking of her work. It is a sad thing that even the experienced slack and fall into the world of journalistic sin. She is one of the few who admitted her mistakes when it was discovered. This investigation led to the request of Smith’s resignation rather than termination. There is a level of respect held towards her given her career. The next case is another journalism veteran, Mike Barnicle. A longtime columnist for the Boston Globe, Barnicle was requested to resign in 1998 after it was discovered that he had been guilty of not fabrication but instead, plagiarization. According to Howell Raines for the New York Times, he believes that Barnicle being asked to resign rather than getting dismissed is “understandable as a matter of loyalty,” and it is true. Barnicle was a long running “star columnist” in Raines’ words. Despite this and his apologetics, the offense is too much to remain on the same pedestal he has been regarded. What we can learn from the case of Mike Barnicle, is that the temptation to take a shortcut in the name of success can be too much even when you are so revered like Barnicle was, according to an article by Felicity Barringer for The New York times. In all of these situations this next quote holds great relevance. Nancy Day for the Boston Globe once stated a series of hypothetical questions that audience members of a news publication may pose in response to what is going on in the aforementioned cases. They all essentially question how much one should care about if the journalists they read are indeed plagiarizing or fabricating material. In the same piece by Day, an answer to the hypothetical questions is “For starters, real writers, reporters, and columnists practice the ABCs of journalism: accuracy, balance, completeness.” This should sound familiar, the SPJ Code of Ethics is very similar to this principle she mentions all journalists should follow with no wiggle room.
What do these cases have in common with each other and every other unmentioned case study out there? Each of the now former-journalists, whether they did it once or a hundred different times, have individually and collectively smeared dirt, mud and detritus all over themselves, their peers, the publications they worked for, journalists before them and journalist after them, but also the entire name of journalism as a whole. Over the years it has become widely apparent that the public has a finicky trust in the media and when more and more people commit acts like the ones these individual journalists have, sometimes repeatedly before being caught or otherwise exposed to the public and their peers, it only damages that trust further and further. While most publications do indeed sever the ties they once had with the guilty parties, they still face a great deal of scrutiny, criticism and backlash. Whether they do not handle it to the public’s or another publication’s standard, whether they try to hide it, whether they don’t and get out ahead of it. It is nearly impossible for the publications and peers of the guilty journalists to completely separate themselves from the situation. And they should not try to entirely because they have to take that backlash and painful reportings that surely will take up at least a few headlines. There is a level of accountability that all journalists must hold themselves and their peers to. That even goes for the case of superiors being guilty of malpractice and misconduct. As the cases discussed above clearly display the spectrum of severity and varying degrees of how the publications react and handle the cases, paired with their peers and in some cases opposition. What is the right level of punishment for these journalists who violate the sacred and inviolable codes of journalism as stated by the SPJ Code of Ethics? Look at what we do to athletes found guilty of cheating or otherwise getting ahead in the game or their career by taking part in unethical means of enhancements or advantages over their competitors or god forbid commit a legal crime. In many of these cases, which are usually hitting the tabloids a bit more publicly known than cases of journalistic unethicality, the athletes guilty of whatever they are being accused of get their titles stripped from them, lose their sponsorships and often get the boot from their team. As many of these cases often do, the best punishment or repercussion is to fire them and strip them of any and all achievements, then we use them as an example for the future of journalism as what not to do with your career, established veteran with a decorated history in the field of journalism or fresh-out-of-college newbie with a bright and promising future full of potential. We need not shame the violators, however, it is important to not forget those who prove there are other journalists out there who do the job the way it is supposed to be done. Not only that there are journalists out there who put their life on the line in the name of preaching truth to those who need to hear it.
The only thing that we can ever really do to combat this epidemic of plagiarism, fabrication and the other sins of journalism is to simply call someone out. Expose them, like any good journalist, get to the bottom of the truth, get the facts, get the information and deliver that truth in your own words to the great people of the world. And if you yourself cannot do the job without taking shortcuts and pulling strings like everyone else on the list of guilty journalists, maybe put the pen down.
Comments