Missing from the Journalism Code of Ethics
Wed May 12th, 2004 15:58 MSTThe Society of Professional Journalist maintains a Code of Ethics (previously Fisked).
There is a glaring omission from that document. I wonder how many Americans realize that the it has nothing requiring journalists to even consider damage to their country in making editorial decisions (what to investigate, what to report, when and how to report it).
I suggest that my readers look at the document. It is very “Politically Correct” and contains some important values (some of which are often ignored). If you can find a clause about damage to country, please email or post a comment. I couldn’t find one.
Thanks.
\
Why should journalists censor themselves in order to avoid damaging the government? I would be apalled if such as clause as you desire were to appear in their code.
Read it again, Mike: He said to avoid damaging the COUNTRY, not the government. There is a huge difference, which our founding fathers understood very well. The country is the people, both soldiers and civilians, and if journalists don’t care how many people get killed as a result of their reporting, that’s irresponsible.
Who gets to decide what damages the country and what damages the government?
Blutundehre:
That’s a very good question. The answer used to be obvious. Today The Government seems to be a separate entity, with a life and goals of its own, and a coercive power of its own apart from The Country, which used to mean the collective. All of us, in other words. We need to understand that this has happened.
Arisen in our midst is another entity, The Media, with survival and political goals of its own. A bureaucracy of its own, a power system of its own, and a system of persuasion nearly as odious as any governmental propaganda system.
When this third institution aligns itself with a particular government, or more accurately, an “administration” and opposes an administration it disagrees with, then it poses a danger to a freely elected government. (We don’t have to get into the Bush election controversy). That, then, is bad for the country.
The problem is not in a distinction between the government and the country. The problem is that the first can be influenced by a third and dangerous to the second. I’m a small part of the second, and I think I along with others should be able to decide. The Media is not elected.
Blutundehre:
That’s a very good question. The answer used to be obvious. Today The Government seems to be a separate entity, with a life and goals of its own, and a coercive power of its own apart from The Country, which used to mean the collective. All of us, in other words. We need to understand that this has happened.
Arisen in our midst is another entity, The Media, with survival and political goals of its own. A bureaucracy of its own, a power system of its own, and a system of persuasion nearly as odious as any governmental propaganda system.
When this third institution aligns itself with a particular government, or more accurately, an “administration” and opposes an administration it disagrees with, then it poses a danger to a freely elected government. (We don’t have to get into the Bush election controversy). That, then, is bad for the country.
The problem is not in a distinction between the government and the country. The problem is that the first can be influenced by a third and dangerous to the second. I’m a small part of the second, and I think I along with others should be able to decide. The Media are not elected.
texas hold em
texas hold em texas hold em hold em hold em