Journalism Ethics What: News Is Fit to Print?

Frank LoMonte - Attorney, Student Press Law Center

It's certainly a danger that if journalists push the boundaries too far in terms of what they publish about people's private information and private business, that there'll be a backlash against that and that there'll be a backlash among the public. That's always a concern. And it's why journalists should exercise some judgment and some restraint and not print every single thing that they have a first amendment right to print. There's certainly a difference between what you can constitutionally say and what's a good idea ethically and judgmentally to say.

Joe Urschel - Executive Director and Senior VP, The Newseum

Every advance in technology creates a new ethical dilemma. Particularly the speed of delivery. Because you used to be able —if you're publishing a newspaper once a day and you come across information at 10:30 in the morning, you've got another twelve hours maybe until your paper has to go to press. In those twelve hours you can check for accuracy, you can reflect on whether it's really news or not, you can try to find out if it's really true or not. There's a little bit of a lag time between the gathering of news and the dissemination of news. Now, of course, news goes on the air instantly and there's almost no time for reflection even at a newspaper which is running, probably, a news Web site as well. So, if I'm a newspaper reporter and I come across information at 10 a.m. I want to get it on the Website 10:01 a.m. So, your ability to apply your ethical standards to what you're reporting is reduced down to a nanosecond.

Frank LoMonte

The courts have said that states can't outlaw the publishing of the name of a juvenile, or the name of a rape victim, that that's a matter for journalists and their own ethical judgment to decide whether it's necessary and there's a compelling reason for doing so. But what's interesting is that the profession has policed itself in that regard and really the profession has, with extremely few exceptions, made a determination ethically not to publish the names of sexual assault victims because they feel that it's just not necessary to tell the story and it's injurious to the person.

Joe Urschel

You may have ethical standards for fairness but there will be eight or ten of your competitors at a minimum on the Web who don't. Who are out for partisan reasons or a personal agenda, or whatever, that are getting their message, their video, posted instantly and you will have to react to that. And one way you'll have to react to that is by saying what they've said. And so then you in fact become a carrier of other folk's information which may or not be true and probably isn't fair.

Frank LoMonte

What we've seen is that over time if journalists push that boundary too far there will be limits imposed whether or not they hold up constitutionally. Los Angeles has had a proposal pending about a paparazzi law to say that you have to keep your distance from celebrities. To essentially set up a no photographing zone or a no pursuing zone around people who are celebrities. That's the kind of legislation that results when there's a sense among society that people have pushed the boundaries too far and are printing things that are just lurid, or sensational, and that don't have any real news value to them.