Accountability is the word that keeps popping up in discussions of the journalism of today. When it comes to responsibility for the veracity of information, it’s a winding road, difficult for all but the most persistent to navigate in some cases. Who is responsible when it comes to reporting information that is ultimately incorrect?
I’ve grappled with this one personally for some time, in my other incarnation as an activist. There are a lot of reasons why inaccuracies can eventually end up in the paper.
While the most glaring and obvious errors are often caught by an alert readership, many more-subtle mistakes slip by unrecognized, especially when they appear to make sense in light of conventional wisdom. It’s easy for the general public to say, "That reporter should have known better and checked his sources,” but what if the reporter is being given false or misleading information by an accepted expert in a field, who subsequently also believes the information to be true?
This happens far more often than one would think. Given the complexity of subjects such as technology and today’s social issues, it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that factual errors occur. A reporter assigned to a story may or may not have the grasp and understanding of a subject required to accurately define the given situation for the general public.
In other cases, the reporter may be under pressures of some kind to report a story in a certain way. Media of all kinds have what they may feel as responsibilities to their local communities to promote local charities, civic organizations, and other things of perceived benefit to their readers. What happens, then, if that benefit takes precedence over the need for precise accuracy?
Media of all kinds are in business. There’s no escaping that fact. It’s also no secret that newspapers, TV and radio news departments are in trying times economically. So with budget cutbacks and other financial considerations, these media outlets are faced with being able to hire only those individuals who are willing to work for what they can pay. In some markets, this amount is at or very close to minimum wage for a number of positions that nonetheless require specialized skills. The personnel, then, are likely to be inexperienced, or those with other sources of income, such as the semi retired, or people with spouses in better positions or other industries. A few altruistic crusaders will be available, but not enough to staff the whole company.
With all these considerations, I can see why media are less than willing to publicly examine their own profession. It’s not all arrogance as some bloggers have suggested. There’s a significant element of fear in there, too. Any journo who goes digging for dirt on his own colleagues is taking a serious gamble on his future. The reality of mortgages and car payments can easily outweigh the need for transparency and an unknown level of accountability. From the standpoint of the individual, there aren’t going to be many who’d have a desire to explore what is now unknown territory.
From the standpoint of the company or corporation, the same kind of reluctance is multiplied in direct relation to the size of the company. As Kelly McBride pointed out at the Poynter Ethics Journal, there are no standards. What if the kinds of standards that are ultimately established are too much for some companies to attain?
Right now most of the emphasis when it comes to questions of disclosure and accuracy are centered on the political arena due to the upcoming election. There are other areas affected, too, and they will most likely be coming up after the election furor dies down. Probably the first one to come up will be the area of non-profits. Social services and charities of all kinds do most of their fund-raising publicity around Christmas, and as one with experience in that area, I’m aware there’s a temptation to over-report the need and stress the urgency of the situation. Sometimes that well-intentioned emphasis can stray into outright distortion, depending on a lot of variables.
Media of all kinds, both old and new, are going to be on a learning curve for some time. Right now the public is suspicious of media, and the media will eventually (if it hasn’t already occurred) become a little less gullible and a little more self-informed. It’s going to be difficult all round, and nobody knows where it’s all going to end up.
UPDATE: Some other pieces to keep you up to speed, courtesy of The Media Drop:
A black eye for CBS -- and our nation
Comments