Politics and Journalistic Ethics
I'd been meaning to write about this subject since I found Newsweek's seven-part expose on the internal workings of the presidential campaigns. Major campaigns granted special access to reporters on the condition that the not report until after the election. As it happens, there's been a lot of potentially important, damaging information from these reports, particularly about Palin and her rocky relationship with both honesty and McCain.
I've read people suggesting that these issues were intentionally covered up by the press to aid McCain or create a closer race; but since the same agreement was in place with every candidate, I think it's less an issue of favoritism/manipulation and more an opportunity to discuss journalistic ethics.
1. Is it better to enter into a limiting agreement like this, on the premise that it's better to have information eventually (even too late) than not at all? I think most journalists would say yes.
2. Is there a point where what you learn is so potentially critical to the well-being of the nation that you have an obligation to break your promise and report early? What is that point?
In this case, it seems moot, so it's a decent test-discussion. Not only has McCain lost, but (as far as I can see) the things that were 'hidden' about Palin are actually just further examples of things that were already public - that she can be wildly unethical about spending other people's money and that she could be vicious and willfully ignorant. This inside scoop provides more examples of that, but examples were already there for those paying attention. (We didn't know that she overspent her clothing budget, but we did know that she took state per diem while staying at home and feeding her family; we didn't know about the conflict within the McCain camp, but we did know about her record of using her position to personally punish people, etc).
So, when is it too much? When should the journalist break their promise and spill?
BTW, this focuses on McCain/Palin at the moment because that's what's been the biggest news, but it applies to ANY campaign. Should we have known about the Hillary/Bill/Management conflicts in that campaign? How about that Obama had to be pressured into visiting the staff at his campaign HQ?
I've read people suggesting that these issues were intentionally covered up by the press to aid McCain or create a closer race; but since the same agreement was in place with every candidate, I think it's less an issue of favoritism/manipulation and more an opportunity to discuss journalistic ethics.
1. Is it better to enter into a limiting agreement like this, on the premise that it's better to have information eventually (even too late) than not at all? I think most journalists would say yes.
2. Is there a point where what you learn is so potentially critical to the well-being of the nation that you have an obligation to break your promise and report early? What is that point?
In this case, it seems moot, so it's a decent test-discussion. Not only has McCain lost, but (as far as I can see) the things that were 'hidden' about Palin are actually just further examples of things that were already public - that she can be wildly unethical about spending other people's money and that she could be vicious and willfully ignorant. This inside scoop provides more examples of that, but examples were already there for those paying attention. (We didn't know that she overspent her clothing budget, but we did know that she took state per diem while staying at home and feeding her family; we didn't know about the conflict within the McCain camp, but we did know about her record of using her position to personally punish people, etc).
So, when is it too much? When should the journalist break their promise and spill?
BTW, this focuses on McCain/Palin at the moment because that's what's been the biggest news, but it applies to ANY campaign. Should we have known about the Hillary/Bill/Management conflicts in that campaign? How about that Obama had to be pressured into visiting the staff at his campaign HQ?