Chapter 11 focuses on media organizations and media professionalism. In this chapter, we learn about media organization’s main goals, their relations with society and the role media professionals in the working world. According McQuail, media professionalism is different from other occupations because of the unique way of the media world. A study of news work, done by Tuchman states that “professionalism has largely come to be defined according to the needs of the news organization itself.” The objectivity of the news is considered the main goal of almost all journalists.
There are some questions to whether or not journalism could be considered a profession due to the idea that “they behave very selectively with those they have to deal with and professionals should treat everyone equally.” Also, journalists deny any moral responsibility for inadvertent negative consequences of their reports. But isn’t it true that this reputation for journalists is also what makes them successful?
The text also states that even established media organizations may act in irresponsible ways including a “increased tolerance for unethical practices.” This can be seen in the scandal involving CNBC’s popular anchor Maria Bartiromo and Citigroup’s chief executive Todd Thomson. It is stated that Thomson and Bartiromo both attended business conferences in Asia. Thomson left his fellow coworkers to take commercial flights while he and the “Money Honey” took at $50,000 ride on Citigroup’s corporate jet. While the cost of the flight was extremely high and landed Thomson in hot water with the company’s CEO, it was the fact that the two traveled alone which questioned the journalistic ethics of Bartiromo.
CNBC claims that Bartiromo received permission to fly with Thomson and even paid Citigroup the commercial rates of flying a transpacific flight, which ranges from $3,000 to $4,000. CNBC also stated that the flight was “work related.”
Read more about this story… here is the link. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16840015/
Now a question to you all, it is obvious that Bartiromo acted in a unethical way throwing her professionalism out the window, however, do you feel that CNBC also acted unethical by allowing her to receive gifts from a source? In a situation like this, is the professionalism of the organization is just as important as the journalist who work for them?
-Katie Cocozza
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
This article is a great example of when a journalist forgets to use common sense and goes out on a limb to get a story. I believe that it is up to the journalist to make the call on what is good and bad practice. Accepting gifts is considered a bad thing in the journalistic world. My option differs because as long as I stay true to my beliefs and am not swayed in either direction by gifts, then keep them coming. As for the second question presented, many believe a journalist is an extension of the beliefs of the organization in which they work. But, journalist can do what they please because they can make their own choices. It is the organizations job to keep tabs on their journalists. So, I believe everything should be self regulated, and if a journalist does something unethical to get a story, they should be held solely accountable and not the organization for which they work.
I don't think it is ethical for a journalist to accept a gift from the subject of an article and organizations should lay down and enforce ground rules for their writers. I do feel that the organization is responsible to a degree because they choose to hire certain people and should train them appropriately. However, each journalist is obviously able to act independently and therefore, should they disobey any rules, the organization should take action against them. It is up to the organization to hold the writers responsible.
Journalists are often faced with ethical dilemmas when trying to get the next great story. This is an example of a journalist forgetting the “rules” about not accepting gifts. Personally, I feel as though this is in part her bad judgment but also an instinct to get the scoop. However, her boss and company should also be partially responsible for her actions, and letting her know the “rights and wrongs” of journalism in her filed specifically. When dealing with more famous, affluent and well known people, the gifts become greater and harder to turn down. In the field of journalism (in the perfect world) everyone is ethical and has good judgment, but we live in the real world where people are imperfect and make mistakes.
I think a question that we should ponder amongst one another is, what kind of job is the job of a jojurnalist. Essentialy people are working for themselves; even under the same roof for the same paper or television program. Journalists are playing right into the fold of what many sociologists would argue is the biggest weakness of free market capitalism. When an individual is working for him or herself, anything goes as long as its legal. Sometimes it's even illegal. Money is the root of all evil; and it is also the root of journalism.
Sandra Reichman said...
I think Maria Bartiromo had a lapse in professionalism as all people do at some point in their careers...but as for Maria Bartiromo, she is a public figure. A celebrity, so to speak...
But to answer the 2nd part of the question, CNBC is also responsible for her acting unethical allowing her to recieive gifts from a source. But I think their unethical acts were done on purpose to get people to talk about it. It's part of the whole sensationalism in journalism thing, taking chances to sort of "create" a story.
Also, the thing is, and don't mark my words on this one, I wouldn't think MSNBC a cable affilate of the same network as CNBC, would purposly rat out an NBC Universal employee without having a "story" motive.
As you can see, we're talking about it now...in fact the whole blog is dedicated to this "Maria Bartiromo" subject, so in my opinion, CNBC accomplished what they were looking to do...get some negative attention.
Journalists nowadays are forgetting about morals and doing everything and anything they can to get the story.
It is unethical to receive gifts, bribes, whatever you want to call them, in most professions. The only reason it gets blown up so much in this field is b/c millions of people read their work everyday. It's not something that can just get pushed under the rug.
Media professionals as a whole are in an industry that is much more complicated and complex than most and they do what they can to get by....not saying its right, just saying, they do it, and I don't see it stopping anytime soon.
there is no way that it can be considered ethical to ever accept gifts. Even if you aren't swayed by them, somebody else can say you were. Nobody in any business can ever accept gifts not just journalists. And even if you arn't swayed one way or another when recieving a gift, you know you are going to think about it next time you have to decide something. Take Reggie Bush for example, theres a chance he could have his Heisman taken away now. Theres no reason to accept gifts, UNLESS everyone is giving you gifts, then in that case bring em on.
Secondly ajournalist definitly is an extension of where he works. The company is always responsible for what he puts out and hes told how to do what he does. If he doesnt want to do it then they will find somebody else who does. However, the full blunt should not be put on the company if the journalist messes up. It should go mostly on the journalist. Its a tricky subject though because like I said the company always has a hold or an idea of whats going on, there is always someone above you that you have to answer to about everything. Unless proven that nobody else had anything to do with one person doing somehtign wrong then everybody is responsible. In the long run if its proved that the jounralist messed up and not the company itself then it still tarnished the reputation of that company because its their employee. so its a lose lose basically.
I do believe that by accepting gifts, a journalist maybe persuaded. However, we cannot definately say that they would be....It is how a person reacts to recieving gifts. You can't just make a judgment because they are a journalist-- they are also people, and it is these people who will decide whether gifts are bad or good. So I think anyone can be persuaded, journalist or not. Journalists need to be aware that their is a line that should be drawn. Persuasion is not the key to any success. If accepting the gift is their choice, I believe it portrays a bad image upon the journalist and their organization. They shouldn't want be recognized as the people who accept gifts. It can only cause a negative effect.
Journalists definitely become persuaded by the different gifts presented to them. I mean how could they not be. They go out to do their job and if someone wants them to view a certain situation one way they will do everything possible to try and persuade them to take their stand. Do I think this is right....No. It is like anything else in life where you cant go around looking for people to give you stuff just so you can make a stand for them. That should not be the case. It is like sports. So many athletes are offered cars, money, basically anything just so they go to their school. That is illegal and should not happen but some athletes cant pass it up and end up taking their gifts anyway. If the journalists truly believes a side and makes a stand then that is fine. It might be the the wrong stand but that is why it is like a team effort. You dont always do everything right and the people above the journalist for the most part will have to deal with it.
Are ethics part of professionalism, or should a journalist's ethical principles be examined apart from their professionalism? It seems to me that the two can be separated, but ethics can potentially influence professionalism. Is professionalism in the case of a journalist directly proportional to their integrity and objectivity? Of course there are any number of acts which a journalist can commit which would make them seem unprofessional, but what do we think of when we associate professionalism with these individuals, how broad reaching is this concept? From what I have observed, a professional is (at least) an individual who takes his profession seriously, as well as his image. It seems as though it should stretch beyond that since there are so many types of professions, and each would have an inherently unique set of values related to the work (and manner in which it is preformed) in a given field. I would like to ask the class what might a journalist list as a set of values for a professional in their field?
-Derek
Post a Comment