Ethics in Journalism – Personal Opinions

This is Part 1 in a Multi-Part Series Examining Journalistic Ethics.

ALLIANCE- According to a Gallup Poll rating professions concerning honesty and ethics in professions, only 4% of Americans rated journalism as very honest. The poll continues with only 19% who thought it was in the high category, 34% in the average range, 23% in the low category and 18% rated journalism as very low in terms of honesty and trustworthiness.

The Gallup Poll shows a very noticeable decrease in the trust Americans have with the news. FSince the year 1976 the percentages dropped to 7% saying very honest, 26% rated journalism as high, 49% rated it average, 3% rated it low and only 2% rated it very low.

The very honest rating decreased dropped by three percentage points, high dropped by 7%, and average dropped b y15%. On the other end we see the low rating increase to 15% and very low increase to 16%. This clearly shows a decrease in the number of Americans who trust the news whether in print, online, television or other means.

A Harris Poll reported in December 2016, only 9% of individuals feel journalism has great deal of prestige, 38% said it was somewhat prestigious, 36% said journalism has not that much prestige and 17% said journalism was not at all prestigious.

Many factors lead to this decline in faith the American people have in journalists. Objectivity and bias are two issues that helped develop such a negative shift in the view this country has of journalists.

News reporters, honest news reporters report the facts. It is a journalist’s responsibility to inform the public and give the public something about which to think. It is not the responsibility of an honest and ethical journalist to tell the readers or viewers what to think. It is the consumers’ responsibility to take in the facts and make their own decisions.

One example that meets these criteria is an article in the Alliance Times-Herald entitled “Climate Change: It’s Time To Take It Seriously.” This primary article is not to argue the topic of climate change, but rather to point out an example of a reporter interjecting their selves, their opinions and any prejudices they may have.

The author of the article tells the reader what to do and think while adding his personal opinion, “If you were like me and knew this was a problem, but didn’t take it seriously enough, I would encourage you to watch Before The Flood. If you weren’t like me and still don’t believe this is a real problem, I would encourage you to watch Before The Flood. If you have always been an advocate for this problem, I still encourage you to watch it anyways.”
Not only does the author tell consumers what to do, he blatantly does so by expressing his personal opinion on the quality and accuracy of the movie.

When a reporter reports their own opinion, those who do not share the same opinion begin to lose faith in the credibility of the journalist and that journalist’s medium. When the author tells the consumer what they should and should not do, the loss of trust of the credibility continues. Some newspapers and other news medium became viewed as politically polarized due to a reporter interjecting their opinion.

On the subject of reporters expressing their own opinion, the Associated Press Style Book says, “Anyone who works for a publication must be mindful that opinions they express may damage the publication’s reputation as an unbiased source of news. They must refrain from declaring their views on contentious public issues in any public forum, whether it be Web logs, chat rooms, letters to the editor, petitions, bumper stickers or label buttons, and must not take part in demonstrations in support of causes or movements.”

Another problem that contributes to the decline of the respect for journalists is the viewpoint of the author. When a reporter writes in the first person, it takes away from the credibility of the article and its author as well. Readers tend to see the first person as the author’s life story and how he lives rather than providing the facts about the situation.

The article states in the ATH “The argument was about beef, particularly about consuming less beef. Him (the reporter’s employer) and his wife decided to become vegans, or at least vegetarians. They (the movie) had a lot of points when it comes to global warming and climate change. Again, I just didn’t take it seriously enough. In this particular instance regarding beef, they were right.”

According to this film’s website, “Globally, livestock farming accounts for approximately 15% of total greenhouse gas emissions and is the source of roughly 50-60% of global emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, the two key non-CO2 greenhouse gases. In the United States feeding the populace is even costlier, incurring about 20-25% of all combined national emissions.”
Leardno DiCaprio, an actor from many fictional films, is one of the producers of this film.

“We call these people (DiCaprio and other figures in the limelight) influencers,” Jacklyn Wilson of Flying Diamond Genetics explained. Wilson is one of the largest beef producers in the state.

Wilson expressed her lack of faith in the local news and journalism in general as well as others with which she is familiar.

“This is nothing new,” Wilson said. Wilson continued to explain the beef industry is always attacked by one group or another, with the primary source being mainstream news.

Wilson said, what really surprised is her that someone would run such a baseless article about beef in a state and region that relies heavily on the beef industry.

The source of statistical material quoted are found on a website promoting Leonardo DiCaprio’s film “Before the Flood.”

The Environmental Protection Agency provides much different numbers from the film. According to a report from the EPA, which can be known for their strict rules and guidelines, only 9% of all world green house gas emissions world wide come from all agriculture, not just the raising of cattle.

The numbers the movie provides reflect much different percentages.

This article in question references statistics provided from the film’s website and are far from being close to any credible sources.

In this, and many more of the author “news articles,” refers to himself with first person nouns and pronouns. He also refers to others in the first person as well making it read more like a personal history rather the reporting of the facts. This takes away from the credibility of the article, author and that author’s medium as he moves further and further away from the Associated Press rules and guidelines for writing a newspaper article.

The AP Style Book states a reporter is never to make their self the subject of a newspaper article unless under extreme circumstances. Because of this reporting in the first person and providing incorrect statistics, in this case several individuals in the cattle industry in the region said at least they would cancel their subscription due to this biased, opinionated ideal focused around a movie.

Wilson said she would not be surprised if other ranchers and ranchers families cancelled their subscription as well.

This is the result of a reporter reporting how they feel and what they think rather than providing facts.