A gentleman responds ...

... I had not noticed that Maxine and Gene had commented on this post of mine, but I got an email fromGene yesterday in which he expanded on some things pertaining to his book. That my post got Gene and the incomparable Maxine into contact makes the post worthwhile. Gene has graciously allowed me to quote from his email:

"You suggest," Gene writes, "that I naively assume that all journalists are people of integrity. I must confess that I do think MOST of them are. However, Chapter 1 does address the question about whether the rules (I call them guidelines) of professional ethics really make a difference if the journalist is not disposed to be honest." He then quotes is the relevant passage:

You should know that there are capable, intelligent journalists who reject the idea that journalism ethics can be taught in a college course. They argue that journalists, and journalism students, are either honorable or they are not. If they are honorable, this hypothesis continues, they will automatically make the right decision and so do not need this course. If they are not honorable, no college course is going to straighten them out. As an esteemed editor remarked to a college audience, “If your mom didn’t teach you right from wrong, your college teacher is not going to be able to.”

Although there is truth to that statement, it misses the point. The author of this textbook assumes that you did learn honesty and propriety in your early life. In fact, this course is intended to build on your own sense of right and wrong and to show how to apply that sense to solving ethical problems in the profession.

Journalism prizes essentially the same values as the rest of society – values like honesty and compassion – but sometimes journalists have conflicts in values that their fellow citizens do not. For example, your mom would instruct you tointervene to help someone in need. However, journalists might have to weigh intervention to help one person against their duty to inform the public about thousands of other people in the same sort of adversity. If they intervene, they destroy the story’s authenticity. And they fail to inform the public.

Another flaw in the critics’ argument is the presumption that honorable journalists will reflexively do the right thing. Your mom may not have taught you a decision-making procedure. As you will discover, “the right thing” is not always obvious. You will see that sound decision-making goes beyond instinct and carefully considers – in a process called critical thinking – the pros and cons of various courses of action.

No reasonable person, I think, can disagree with what Gene says. In particular, I agree that most journalists are quite ethical. All of those I have known have been. Moreover, it would be good if not only professional journalists, but also bloggers read Gene's book. I hope Maxine will contribute more to this discussion, because getting Gene and Maxine together should prove very enlightening.