Drawing the Line

If you have had any contact with civilization in the past couple of days, then I am sure you are aware of the tragic murder of four American men in the streets of Fallujah, Iraq yesterday. The men worked for Blackwater Security Consulting, a private company contracted by the U.S. Government to aid in rebuilding Iraq. The victims were traveling in an automobile that was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade. Their bodies were then mutilated, dragged through the streets and hung from a bridge. The story is a truly sad and gruesome one.

As I have mentioned before, I am a journalist; I work in multiple newsrooms, and have been in many in the past. My point being, I know how the process of information works that results in what you see on your TV screen or hear on your radio. Every American TV station, Radio station, and newspaper ran the story about what happened in the streets of Fallujah yesterday. Most TV stations were showing video of the burning automobile the men were traveling in, and that is the visual most newspapers used as well. If you aren't aware already, anytime a story like that airs, and the media has video or pictures of it, they probably have the video or pictures of the whole thing; i.e., not just the burning automobile. The reason most TV stations and newspapers didn't show the American men being dragged through the streets or their burning, desecrated bodies hanging from a bridge is because of ethics. Good ethics lead journalists to show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage (i.e. the victims' families, friends), especially regarding tragedy and/or grief.

When I first heard about that story, ethics were the first thing to cross my mind. I asked myself what I would do if I worked for a national news agency and had to decide what parts of the video or pictures to run. On one hand, I have a responsibility to accurately and completely inform the public. On the other hand, I have the responsibility to respect human beings and human life and to prevent unnecessary harm or discomfort. Where do I draw the line? I decided, as most news agencies did, that I would not run the parts of the video or pictures showing the victims' bodies, both out of respect for their survivors and because of its brutal nature.

However, as I was going to get my coffee this morning, I was shocked to see that not all news agencies drew the line where I did. As I reached across the counter for my cup, I glanced down at a stack of New York Times newspapers. The picture on the front page, in plain sight of any man, woman, or child who passed by, was of the smoking and mutilated bodies of the American men killed in Fallujah hanging from a bridge, while Iraqis below them celebrated. I have never had a high opinion of the New York Times, but now I don't think it could be any lower. It was not necessary to show that picture to tell the story, or to prove it true. In fact, by today, most Americans were already familiar with what happened and were most certainly not begging for graphic proof. So why run the picture? To get attention, to be controversial...I'm not sure exactly what the NYT's reasoning was, but I do know what it wasn't: ethical. They completely disregarded respect for the victims as well as compassion for the victims' families and friends in an effort to sell papers. It was wrong, and it is actions like theirs that give journalists a bad name.

I don't know if it's because election time is approaching and politics have been in the news more, lately, but I have been paying greater attention to issues related to government in recent weeks. One of those issues has been bothering me more than the rest: ethics in the U.S. judicial system. For the sake of anyone who is foreign to the U.S., the government consists of a system of checks and balances in which the three branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) hold each other accountable so that no single branch or individual becomes too powerful. The news story that brought the problems with the judicial system to my attention was the court case going before the Supreme Court this week revolving around the Pledge of Allegiance. Just to give a little background on that case: In June 2002, an aethist man in CA claimed the phrase "Under God" in the pledge violates the clause in the first amendment that prohibits the U.S. government from sanctioning any religious belief. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the man, sparking a nationwide burst of protest. The Bush administration asked the court to reconsider it's decision, which is an extremely rare happening. The court reviewed the case and upheld its original ruling. The case has now been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, who started hearing arguments on it this week. Here is the part that bothers me: when the justices of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made upheld its ruling on the case, they said they did so because they refused to allow public sentiment or outcry to guide their decisions. Am I crazy, is the U.S. not a democracy, and is a democracy not a government both by and for the people? The justices in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals need to be removed, because, without a doubt, they have gotten out of check. I hope they are not exemplary of the entire judicial system or the United States is in jeapordy. It is not the role of the courts to dictate or create law. That is the role of the legislature. When one branch of the government begins to assume the role of two, it needs to be held accountable. If you are an American, let your Congressmen know you are unhappy with the Justices in power; your nation's future as a democracy depends on it.

In the header of this blog, I hint at the need for ethics to change and grow proportionately to technology, especially in a day and age in which technology is growing so rapidly. Our present time has often been referred to as the Information Age; a time where there is not only more information but more means and speed of accessibility as well. If you have kept up with major events in recent years, then I am sure you are aware of the growing number of ethical problems in America revolving around information.

Most recently, I think of the newest Medicare law. President Bush signed the law in December, only after his administration assured Congress the plan would not exceed 400 billion dollars over ten years. In January, however, the White House announced the actual cost would be closer to 534 billion dollars. Then came word from Medicare's chief that he had estimated such a figure originally, but was threatened with job termination by his superiors if he shared that information with Congress.

It is not just this administration, either. If you recall, the Clinton administration had its fair share of information problems as well; most notably the false information which caused highly respected Cabinet members to publicly deny the President's relations with Monica Lewinski.

Information ethics are also plaguing the intelligence community and the business world, as evidenced by the war in Iraq and the scandals with Enron and Martha Stewart. I have said before in this blog that those in power should set the example for the rest of us, and I still hold to that. Not only are the stakes higher in government and big business, but so are the effects they have on the rest of the world. In such an age, I propose that society needs to establish an Information Ethic. This Information Ethic, first and foremost needs to be based on honesty and the truth, but even further than that on these principles:

-Responsibility in dealing with information
-Respect for the power of information
-Fairness that is blind to political persuasions
-Compassion for the sources of information

Clearly, this will be no easy task, but it has to happen, because information is only growing.

There is a saying that goes, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." This goes hand in hand with the reason I named this blog Drawing the Line, and that is the dire need for this country to start drawing lines and setting standards because if it doesn't, it will fall. The issue that reminds me of this, this week, is the controversy over same-sex marriage in California. I have nothing against homosexuals, and have a number of friends and acquaintances who are gay, but I do not advocate the legalization of same-sex marriage. It goes against the institution of family and the morals that hold this country together. I am pleased with the President and Governor of California's actions against it because it gives me hope that there are leaders in our country that believe we should stop compromising the principles and laws this nation was founded upon for the sake of tolerance and fear of offending anyone. If we, as a country, continue down the path that San Francisco is trying to take, we will eventually stand for nothing. If you think I am being overly dramatic about this, consider the historians who believe the fall of the Roman Empire was a result of the spread of homosexuality within the Empire. Of course, there is no absolute way of proving this today, but just take it as food for thought; and, if you are an American, for the sake of your country's future, please draw the line on this one as it continues to arise all over the nation.

I work in two newsrooms every week. One at a television station, and the other at a radio station. Between the two, I read a lot of stories, which keeps me aware of what's going on in the world around me, a necessity for a journalist. It is also a constant reminder to me that there are a lot more stories than there are newscasts in the world; meaning everything that happens doesn't always get reported. Who decides which stories are "newsworthy"? Journalists do; which makes ethics in our field all the more important.

There is one story in particular I read this week that I knew I was going to write about before I could even finish the whole article. I'm not sure if the journalists in your area thought it was worthy of their newscast or not, but
if they didn't, they should have. The story revolved around a legislative effort here in Florida to make it legal to perform an abortion on a teen without notifying her parents. Fortunately, our Governor had the sense and moral courage to not only refuse the legislation, but to speak out against it, saying that he could not imagine a world where such a thing existed. But, what struck me about that was, that world does exist...(especially in six states)

If that legislation was proposed and pushed all the way to the Governor's desk, that means there were enough people who wanted it bad enough to get it there. It may sound cliche, but what is our world coming to when there are people who would actually approve of letting a girl get an abortion without her family even knowing. You can't get a driver's license in this state, without your parents knowing...and there are people who would allow an abortion? So nobody is confused about what I am saying, the proposed legislation wasn't about parental CONSENT, it was about parental NOTIFICATION. Regardless of your stance on the issue of abortion, you can't possibly agree with allowing a young woman to go through such a physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually scarring process without the knowledge of her parents or guardians. Can you? I was in disbelief that something like that had even taken shape on paper, much less been proposed as law. I am not with Governor Bush on everything, but I am with him on this. I want to make more people aware because if the legislation got that far once, it will get at least that far again, and next time, we may not be so lucky as to have an ethical leader in office. So do your part as an informed citizen and prevent proposals like this from even becoming the Governor's decision.

I have been putting it off, mostly because I find so many thought-provoking examples of a lack of ethics in other areas, but I want to discuss the role of ethics in government. Journalists, celebrities, and doctors all have important ethical roles, to be sure, but in my opinion, the institution of government is on a level all of its own, above these. I see it this way because, in my country (USA), at least, the government is an institution created and maintained by the people, for those people, and with those people's interests in mind. In such a unique form of government, which reveres above all else - freedom -, it is particularly important for the government to set the bar for the rest of the country; to be held to the highest of moral and ethical standards, no, to define those standards. It is the job of every elected official and every government employee. Somebody from another country would probably be surprised to know that is what our government was founded on; all they would have to do is take a look at any newspaper from the past decade to catch a headline about a congressman cheating on his wife or an senator accepting a bribe. But that needs to change. America is still a young nation, and a very successful one, but if what many people believe is true, history repeats it self, meaning it can't be successful forever. I don't mean to sound jaded in writing this, and I know it is a bit different from my other entries,in that it is not about a specific issue or article of news; but it is something I feel needs to be addressed...if America is to continue to be successful.

The closer I get to finishing college and entering the field of journalism as a professional, the more attention I pay to the actions of those working in the field already, especially regarding ethics. Lately, I have been noticing some things that bother me. It all began with a newspaper article I was reading the other day that was a Q and A with retiring reporter who had been working in journalism for quite some time. I have done these conducted these types of interviews myself before, filled with the standard "end of job" questions. But it was the retiring reporter's response to one of these standard questions in this interview stood out to me. When asked why he became a reporter in the first place and why he was quitting, he replied that he had hopes of changing the world, and didn't feel he had accomplished such.

Right now, you may be asking yourself what is wrong with that answer, and that is exactly why I am writing this. I don't think most journalists, much less most people in the world understand that the role of a journalist is NOT to make a CHANGE IN ANYTHING. If you want to change the world, you run for public office. A journalist's role is to objectively report the facts, to be the watchdog for the people.

Even more disturbing is the possibility that if any other journalists share that reporter's perspective, they are reporting the news with a bias, from their own point of view! I hate to have to say this, but remember this the next time you watch TV, listen to the radio, or read the newspaper. Question everything, and everyone who is bringing it to you, and believe me when I say that when I report the news it will be just that: the news. I want the truth to be known, above all else, even if it reflects against my personal views. This is but one aspect of ethics within the field of journalism, but it is no doubt the most important.
See for yourself the code we (journalists) are supposed to adhere to.