Skip to main content
University of Wisconsin–Madison

Category: Media Morals

The “worst people” on campus?

Posted on by Leave a reply

The Badger Herald, an independent student newspaper, ran an article Monday condemning University of Wisconsin students who bought tickets to the Rose Bowl and then scalped them for higher prices. The paper was rightly concerned about the system of distributing tickets for major games, such as UW’s first appearance in the Rose Bowl for a decade.

So far so good.  But the opinion page article made a major mistake.

It printed the names of students who had re-sold their tickets and placed their names under the headline: “The Worst People on Campus,” saying there surely is a special place in hell for such people. The headline and the naming of students were meant to be tongue-in-cheek.  Many people failed to see the humor. An uproar ensued.

The article was, well, sophomoric.  Journalists should consider the consequences of publishing any story. Ethical red flags should go up when you are thinking of naming students in a derogatory manner.

Naming the students was wrong on several counts. It is unfair to name just these students when many people over the years have scalped tickets, for a variety of reasons. Why pick them out of the lineup? Also, the naming was defamatory.

Most importantly, the naming violates journalism ethics’ principle of minimizing harm.  Naming the students causes harm by subjecting them to public abuse. Since what appears online seems to stay online forever, the naming could damage the students’ employment prospects. All a prospective employer has to do is “Google” the student’s name and it will pop up under the “Worst People on Campus” list.

Moreover, covering an issue incorrectly defeats the purpose of the story – to focus attention on the ticket system.  Now, all of the attention is on the naming of students.

Fixing stories

Next to making a serious mistake on a story, the biggest mistake in journalism is to not deal with the error properly. The best approach is to swiftly recognize one’s mistake, apologize unstintingly, explain what happened and say how editorial policies are being put in place to prevent it from happening again. Almost as bad as not apologizing — or trying to defend the indefensible — is giving confusing reasons for your remedial action.

On this score, the ‘fixing’ by the Badger Herald gets a low grade.

Yesterday, the paper’s editorial board published a statement that the story was tongue-in-cheek and it regrets the “pain” the story has caused. But the statement also said that “while we may debate the appropriateness of the running the list of names,” that “act” did generate much attention about an important issue.

Really? The naming is “debatable”? The paper should have said without qualification that naming was a mistake. Period. Saying that the naming did generate attention only confuses readers, and antagonizes the named students. The statement that “Hey we got people’s attention!” can be read as an attempt to justify the naming, after all.

It sounds like a weak half-apology.

Today, another curious development. The original story was changed online. For one thing, the students were no longer listed. An editorial note explained that the paper had taken down the names of the students. But again, the reasons given muddy the water.

The note said the names were removed out of fairness: “We don’t have the resources to continue fact-checking and adding the additional 200 or so names that have been submitted to the newspaper since the initial publication of “The Worst People on Campus.” Because of this, it would be unfair to single out the three dozen people previously listed on this page.

Hold on.

The most important reason to take down the names is that it is the right thing to do, not because you lack resources. The naming caused unjustifiable harm to students. Does this mean that if the paper had the resources, they would list their names?  So the paper doesn’t think it is wrong to name the students, after all is said and done? I’m confused.

I suggest that student newspapers turn this mistake into a learning moment.

The moral is that all newsrooms need clear and firm guidelines on how potentially harmful articles are to be discussed and decided upon. The guidelines should insist that all such stories should be vetted by a range of senior editors before publication. Also, the paper should have a code of ethics that spells out how issues of harm are to be balanced with the freedom to publish.

In this case, the guidelines either didn’t exist or were not followed.

“Let’s kill Julian Assange!” WikiLeaks and the power of patriotism

Posted on by Leave a reply

A narrow patriotism — the psychological equivalent of a knee jerk — is an under-recognized force in modern journalism ethics.

It distorts our thinking about the role of journalism as soon as journalists offend national pride and whistleblowers dare to reveal secrets. Narrow patriotism turns practitioners of a free press into scolding censors. Suddenly, independent journalists become dastardly law breakers.

Narrow patriotism is the view that “love of country” means not embarrassing one’s government, hiding all secrets and muting one’s criticism of foreign and military policy in times of tension. Narrow patriotism is an absolute value, trumping the freedom of the press.

The Wikileaks saga proves, once again, that this form of patriotism is a powerful commitment of many journalists; often, more powerful than objectivity or independence.

For instance, as WikiLeaks rolled out the American diplomatic cables, Jeffrey T. Kuhner of the conservative Washington Times called for the assassination of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assangein a December 2 opinion piece. “We should treat Mr. Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him”

One day later, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer said the WikiLeaks document dump was “sabotage” during a time of war. US Attorney General Eric Holder should “Throw the WikiBook” at the website, using every legal tool at his disposal.

These vociferous comments are not nasty comments made by anonymous online “patriots.” They come from practitioners of a free press in the land of the free.

Critical journalism as patriotism

The Wikileaks controversy reveals tensions in our view of the role of journalism in democracy.

We believe in the idea of a free press; but we oppose it in practice when the press offends our patriotism, or works against some vaguely defined “national interest.”

The same narrow patriotism was at work among major American media when President Bush decided to go to war with Iraq on flimsy claims. TV anchors put flags on their lapels and reporters accepted too easily the existence of weapons of mass destruction.

In times of conflict, the strong emotions of patriotism override journalists’ in-principle commitment to critical informing the public and to impartiality. The word “patriotism” rarely occurs in journalism codes of ethics but its influence on practice is substantial.

So what’s the right view of the role of journalism?

The role of a free press is not to serve the government or its diplomats. It is to serve the public who hold government accountable through information provided by the media.

Throughout history, journalists have caused their governments trouble and embarrassment. Journalists are properly patriotic when they write critically of government, when they reveal their hidden strategies, when they embarrass their government in front of the world.

Criticism and the publishing of important confidential data is the way journalists often serve the public, despite howls of outrage from some citizens.

Of course, Kuhner and Krauthammer don’t represent all American journalists. Many journalists support WikiLeaks. For example, Anthony Shadid, foreign reporter for The New York Times in Bagdad, expressed enthusiastic support during a recent lecture at my university’s Centre for Journalism Ethics.

The two-time Pulitzer Prize winner said: “I should probably be a little more ambiguous and grey about this, but I think it’s wonderful. It’s a wonderful disclosure, this transparency and this openness of public office. I find it incredibly refreshing and incredibly insightful, as well.”

Two things at once
Like Shadid, I think the importance of the cables justifies their publication. But I am more concerned than Shadid about the new power of ‘stateless’ websites like Wikileaks.

In my view, if we care about the freedom to publish we need to do two things at the same time: First, protest attempts to shut down WikiLeaks, which include denying it access to the internet and calls to arrest Assange.

Second, we need to urge Assange to explain the principles that guide his decision to publish. Is he committed to simply publishing any and all secrets regardless of the consequences? Or is he willing to adopt the responsible approach of The New York Times and The Guardian which seeks to minimize the harm of their stories by carefully vetting the data. Is Assange willing to balance the freedom to publish with the principle of minimizing harm?

Minimizing harm does not mean not damaging the public profile of government. It means not naming informants, human activists, or innocent third parties if that would prompt reprisals. It means not providing detailed information that would help terrorists attack a public institution.

Organizations like The New York Times are serious about vetting their stories. I am not so sure Assange or WikiLeaks has the same concern.

Public support for this form of whistleblower journalism will turn swiftly against it should future releases lead to the death of a third party, or lead to a terrorist attack. The best way to retain support for a free press is to act responsibly, and to be seen to be acting so.

Is ‘responsibility’ a declining idea?

From an ethical perspective, what is significant about the emergence of WikiLeaks is not only that new technology allows citizens to gather and publish secret material globally, and these online publishers are difficult to control.

What is significant is that enthusiasm for revealing secrets undermines the idea of responsibility — the responsible use of the freedom to publish.

In a WikiLeaks world, the principle of minimizing harm, first articulated by professional journalism in the previous century for another media era, may be dwindling in importance.

Up to this point, the release of WikiLeaks documents has followed a pattern: WikiLeaks supplies the secret data to major papers and professional journalists vet and write the stories. In the future, however, the role of responsible news outlets may decline.

As new websites spring up, each pursuing their ends with the passion of activists, the idea of a free and responsible press may come to seem irrelevant. The idea of ethically restraining the freedom to publish may recede into the rear view mirror of history.

I hope not.

Protest attacks on WikiLeaks but urge responsibility

Posted on by Leave a reply

How much we truly believe in a free and open society is revealed when the freedom to publish causes trouble for our government.

The WikiLeaks release of American diplomatic cables tests that belief. It reveals contradictions in our view of the role of journalism.

We believe in the idea of a free press; but we oppose it in practice when the press offends our patriotism or works against some vaguely defined “national interest.”

The role of a free press is not to serve the government or its diplomats. It is to serve the public who hold government accountable through information provided by the media.

Throughout history, journalists have caused their governments trouble and embarrassment. In my view, journalists are properly patriotic when they write critically of government, when they reveal their hidden strategies, when they embarrass their government in front of the world.

For journalism, criticism is patriotism – that’s the way journalists serve their public, despite howls of outrage from citizens who embrace a narrow, authoritarian form of patriotism.

Two things at once

If we care about the freedom to publish we need to do two things at the same time: First, protest attempts to shut down WikiLeaks.

We should insist that public institutions, such as libraries, not refuse to link to WikiLeaks or in any way refuse to provide access to stories on the cables. Maybe news organizations who say they support WikiLeaks’ whistleblower journalism should consider hosting the site?

Second, we need to urge Julian Assange, head of WikiLeaks, to explain the ethical principles that guide his decision to publish. Is he committed to simply publishing any and all secrets regardless of the consequences? Or is he willing to adopt the responsible approach of the New York Times and The Guardian to their stories on the cables.  Is he willing to balance the freedom to publish with the principle of minimizing harm?

Minimizing harm does not mean not damaging the public profile of government. It means not naming informants, human activists, or innocent third parties if that would prompt reprisals. It means not providing detailed information that would help terrorists attack a public institution.

Organizations like the New York Times are serious about responsibly vetting their stories on the cables. I am not so sure Assange or WikiLeaks has the same concern.

This issue worries me because public support for this form of journalism will turn swiftly against it should future releases lead to the death of a third party, or lead to a terrorist attack. The best way to retain support for a free press is to act responsibly, and to be seen to be acting so.

Is ‘responsibility’ a declining concept?

From an ethical perspective, what is new about the emergence of WikiLeaks is not just that new technology allow citizens to gather and publish secret material globally — new publishers that are difficult to control.

What is new is that the idea of responsible journalism comes into question.

The principle of minimizing harm, as supported by professional journalism ethics, may be dwindling in importance.

Right now, the data is provided by WikiLeaks and professional journalists write the stories. But in the future, the role of professional journalism in such releases may decline.

As new web sites spring up, each pursuing their ends with the passion of activists, the idea of a free and responsible press may seem irrelevant. The idea of ethically restraining the freedom to publish may recede into the rear view mirror of history.

I hope not.