Silence or Death?

Today I went to a presentation by journalist Luis Horacio Najera titled "Silence or Death: Journalism in the Context of Mexico's Drug War."

Najera began by talking about many problems in the world today, specifically in North and South America. He talked about cocaine consumption, and although it went down in the U.S. after 9/11, it is still a major problem. He also talked about firearm abuse and homicide problems.

The purpose of bringing all of this up was to make a point about how so many journalists are threatened, beaten, or put in danger while on the job. Between 1992 and 2012, 257 journalists were murdered. One of them was a friend of Najera. He found police officers drinking with gangsters and took pictures. They then proceeded to beat him.

He shared with us the following quote: "Journalism is an unappeasable passion that can be assimilated and humanized only through stark confrontation with reality."

He then asked us, "Are you prepared to die for this?"

That really made me think. Should journalists all over the world risk their lives just to get a story that will entertain the public for a few minutes? Is it really worth it?

I know that for me personally, I would not be willing to risk my life for a story. While I do enjoy journalism, it is not THAT important to me. However, if others are willing to put themselves in that position, then I completely respect their decision. If journalists did not risk their lives for stories, then we would not have a lot of the news that we do today. I don't think most people realize the danger and risk that journalists put themselves in. I don't think most people realize what life would be like without journalists.

After the presentation, I felt a lot more appreciation for journalists around the world today and for those who have been injured or died on the job. They have bravery and courage that not many do. They were prepared to die for their duty. They were prepared to die for what they truly loved. And that is something that we will never be able to repay them for.

Journalists' 1st Loyalty: The Public

The title says it all. Journalists' first loyalty is to the citizens. Easy? I think not.

Journalists should act as mediators rather than reporters. Therefore, they must become independent of their company and realize who they are truly working for. A commitment must be made.

Here is an article from Poynter called The Ethics of Civic Journalism: Independence as the Guide that discusses what it means to be independent as a journalist as well as their relationship with the public.

The business relationship of journalism is portrayed by a triangle. At one corner is the citizen. At another is the news organization. At the third is the advertiser/customer. A journalist must work between all three of these influences pulling at them. However, the citizen remains at the top of the triangle, where the journalist's first loyalty lies.

So why must journalists' first loyalty be to the public? Why is it so important?

Once again, that is how you gain trust and credibility. Besides, isn't that who we are serving? Isn't that the point of journalism? To inform the public? And if that is our job, then the citizens must be put above any other influences that we may have. That is also how you keep truth and ethics in your writing. If you let your news organization become your first loyalty, then maybe that will influence you to put something not completely truthful or ethical in your writing to make it more interesting, thus acquiring more readers and making your company more successful. But that is not right, and completely destroys the meaning of true journalism.

This slide show discusses some of the points I have made in this post as well as further thought into why problems may arise concerning the loyalty of a journalist.

Here are five ideas taken from the book The Elements of Journalism of how companies can protect journalists' allegiance to the public:
1. The owner/corporation must be committed to citizens first.
2. Hire business managers who also put citizens first.
3. Set and communicate clear standards.
4. Journalists have final say over news.
5. Communicate clear standards to the public.

I especially like the third and fifth points. Clear communication is extremely important when it comes to journalism, not only between you and your business, but especially between you and the public. If the citizens do not understand what your standards are or what your purpose is, then you are going to have a problem. You need to let them know that you are dedicated to them and you are there to tell them the absolute truth no matter what. You need to gain their trust. This includes admitting when you are wrong or have made a mistake. A lot of times when this happens, journalists just ignore it and hope no one will notice or remember. But this does not show your loyalty to them. Show them that you are willing to admit your faults, no matter how humiliating. It may be hard, but they will grow to see that you truly do care about them and are willing to put them first before anything else.

The Truth

There are NO real substitutes for the truth in journalism. Why?

Journalism's first obligation is to the truth. Always.

So why is the truth so important? Here are a few reasons:

-To gain the trust of your audience.

-To make your writing credible.

-To give your readers a sense of security.

However, you must be careful. Is there ever a time when the truth is not okay? I believe there is. For example, certain things are best not said at all in order to give people privacy. If something you say could damage a person's reputation and that certain fact is not relevant to the story, then maybe you should think twice about adding it. You need to find a balance between truth and ethics. However, NEVER make something up just to make your story more interesting. That is pretty much the worst thing you could do as a journalist.

Now I don't think that most journalists just flat out lie to the public without caring. There are those exceptions in the past, such as Steven Glass, who make up stories to gain the interest of their readers. But I believe most journalists have good intentions, but don't fully carry them out. For example, a journalist might think something happened a certain way when it actually didn't. The journalist didn't intentionally lie to the public, but their credibility is still damaged. This is where we have to be careful. This is where we have to be, what Robert Niles calls it, "truth vigilantes."

So what about bloggers? What is their obligation to the truth? Do they even have one?

What I have to say about blogs is this: blogs are people's personal websites. They can post anything they want on them. Should they post the truth and only the truth on their blogs? Yes. Should they be responsible if they do not? No. You have to understand that while blogs may be interesting and contain new points of view, they are not credible. People can post whatever they want on their blogs. It's unfortunate that those who post unreliable information on their sites ruin it for the rest of us, but that's how it is. They just can't be trusted.

I think this video clip makes a good point. Sometimes it is hard as journalists to distinguish what is the truth and what is not. But we have to keep in mind that there are always going to be opposing views and different ways to look at every situation. However, it is our duty to portray both of those sides as best and as truthfully as we possibly can. A good rule to follow is that if you're not sure if something is the complete truth, then just don't say it at all.

The Society of Professional Journalists' website contains a list of ways to "seek truth and report it." Click here to view it.