1  

Journalistic Malpractice: the press should not have

the freedom to lie.

Katie Kuntzman Bucknell University

The Stakeholder Organization

May 11th, 2016

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary Page 3 Introduction Page 4 Current Policies Page 5 The First Amendment Page 5

Defamation Law Page 5

Shield Laws Page 5

Sunshine Laws & the Freedom of Information Act Page 6

The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics Page 6

Journalistic Failures Page 7 Mike Daisey on This American Life Page 8

Rolling Stone’s “A Rape on Campus” Page 9

The Debate Page 10 Protect the Journalists Page 10

Control the Journalists Page 11

Recommendations Page 12 Peer Review Board Page 12

Public Editor Page 13

Conclusion Page 14

Works Cited Page 15

 3  

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Citizens rely on the press to inform them, and it is a journalist’s job to provide the public with the most

factual information. The First Amendment protects the press’ right to free speech, and this has set the tone for

the rest of journalistic history in America. While this freedom does allow for reporters to unveil the truth and

spread awareness to its readership or viewership, it is not entirely unflawed.

This paper will delve into the current policies within American journalism today, and it will look at

where these policies have failed the public. Through two specific examples of journalistic failure, this paper will

explore the less ineffectual practices across the journalism industry today. The journalism industry is rapidly

changing, especially with the increase of, and reliance on, digital media. By utilizing the Internet, news sources

have begun to put more of an importance on getting the news out quickly, rather than making sure that all of

the facts are straight. As the news is surrounding us more and more, people are left wondering which sources are

valuable, and which are spreading falsified information.

Truthful news has such a critical value to society, and when untrue information is published it not only

hinders the journalism industry, but it hinders society as a whole. By spreading lies, society is forced to question

what news sources, if any, are reliable. In order to combat these new issues in the journalism industry, whilst still

keeping true to the Code of Ethics set forth for journalists, new rules and regulations must be established. While

rules and regulations for journalists risk compatibility issues with the First Amendment, this paper will propose

several recommendations for moving forward that accommodate the freedom of the press in tandem with

producing credible news for the public.

 4  

INTRODUCTION The United States has a unique

dedication to protecting the press, which is

exemplified through the First Amendment,

amongst other laws and procedures throughout

American history. While American citizens are

lucky to live in a country where censorship does

not exist, that does not mean that all of the news

that is produced, by even the most reputable of

sources, has not been falsified in some way,

shape, or form.

Journalism in America has changed

drastically throughout the years; as Downie and

Schudson, professors of journalism, put it,

“American journalism is at a transformational

moment, in which the era of dominant

newspapers and influential network news

divisions is rapidly giving way to one in which

the gathering and distribution of news is more

widely dispersed” (Downie). Now, the title of

“the press,” or even the moniker “journalist,”

casts a wide net across many different

individuals and institutions. What was once just

writers and reporters for newspapers has now

become everything from tweeters to bloggers to

vloggers, and everything in between. This comes

from a transition to digital media, as well as a

decrease in dependence on traditional print

media. With more and more traditional

journalists being laid off, it is no wonder that

these individuals are resorting to less traditional

forms of media, most of which are found in the

digital sphere.

In the digital day in age where one can

receive news updates from hundreds of sources

simultaneously, it is becoming increasingly more

difficult to decipher what sources are giving its

audience reliable and factual information. This

also comes from a newfound dedication to

getting news out as quickly as possible. The US

is seeing less and less articles meticulously

combed through by fact checkers, and more

articles that are hot off the press ten minutes

after the event even happened; fact checking is

now often happening after articles are

published.

In addition, the increasing dependence

on the commercial side of journalism is entirely

counteracting what is at the core of journalism,

which is simply to tell the truth. While a

reporter once had a simple task, this task has

now become clouded with weight from

institutions, advertisers, and a multitude of

outside forces.

Pure journalistic integrity is not as easy

to come by today. With the rise of social media,

people are beginning to believe less and less of

the news, and in this current environment every

one needs to be informed. More importantly,

this information needs to be factual.

5

CURRENT POLICIES Currently, there is no formal set of laws

and regulations, nor any specific, official

governing body, for journalists. Instead,

journalists are supposed to follow the laws set in

force by the United States government, as well

as the Code of Ethics set force by the Society of

Professional Journalists.

The First Amendment

The First Amendment is at the root of

the American press. To specify, the First

Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law

respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

and to petition the government for a redress of

grievances” (First Amendment). This

Amendment protects the press’ right to speak

and write freely, and it is a cornerstone of life as

an American citizen.

Defamation Law

In addition to the First Amendment,

journalists must also abide by the United States

defamation law. Defamation is “a statement that

injures a third party's reputation;” included in

the tort of defamation is slander, or oral

defamation, and libel, which is “defamation

expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs,

effigies, or any communication embodied in

physical form that is injurious to a person's

reputation, exposes a person to public hatred,

contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in

his/her business or profession” (Defamation

Law) (Slander) (Libel). This law affects

journalists in scenarios where they have attacked

specific people, however journalists tend to be

protected under the First Amendment in

defamation cases. In order for a plaintiff to win

a defamation case, they must show four things:

“a false statement purporting to be fact;

publication or communication of that statement

to a third person; fault; and damages, or some

harm caused to the person or entity who is the

subject of the statement” (Defamation Law).

Under United States law, members of the press

tend to have almost unlimited freedom in their

work, and courts tend to not hold up defamation

cases.

Shield Laws

While there are no laws governing

journalistic processes, there are other laws in

place to protect journalists in addition to the

First Amendment. Currently, forty-eight states,

excluding Wyoming and Hawaii, and the

District of Columbia, have granted journalists

“reporter’s privilege” (Raise the Shield!). This

“privilege” grants protection to reporters so they

do not have to reveal confidential information if

they have been subpoenaed by a state

government. Allowing reporters this sort of

amnesty from revealing confidential information

6

can help reinforce their integrity as journalists.

While these state laws are helpful in protecting

journalists, there is currently no federal law in

place to protect them from this particular issue.

The Society of Professional Journalists is

heatedly pursuing federal legislature on this

issue to more greatly protect professional

journalists.

Sunshine Laws and the Freedom of

Information Act

In the 1970’s, Sunshine Laws were put

into action to “shine light” on the interior of the

state and federal governments. From these laws,

government officials were mandated to disclose

records and decisions from regulatory body

meetings (Legal). This means that individuals

and journalists, alike, can gain closer access to

the government’s internal practices. In addition,

in 1966, the Freedom of Information Act was

created to “disclose records not specifically and

reasonably exempt to any individuals --

including journalists -- upon written request,

with the right of access enforceable in court”

(Legal). This act applies to most branches and

departments of the United States government,

aside from the president, Congress, and the

courts. While gaining access to this information

proves to take ample patience from reporters, it

is still a major access point for journalistic

endeavors, protected by US law.

The Society of Professional Journalists

Code of Ethics

Under current policies, journalists are

encouraged to adhere to the Code of Ethics set

forth by the Society of Professional Journalists.

Founded in 1909, the SPJ’s mission is:

• To promote this flow of information.

• To maintain constant vigilance in

protection of the First Amendment

guarantees of freedom of speech and of

the press.

• To stimulate high standards and ethical

behavior in the practice of journalism.

• To foster excellence among journalists.

• To inspire successive generations of

talented individuals to become dedicated

journalists.

• To encourage diversity in journalism.

• To be the pre-eminent, broad-based

membership organization for journalists.

• To encourage a climate in which

journalism can be practiced freely (Our

Mission).

The Code of Ethics that the SPJ has set forth

is merely a set of guidelines, and according to

the SPJ, “it is not, nor can it be under the First

Amendment, legally enforceable” (SPJ Code of

Ethics). The Code is constructed on the

foundation of four main principles: Seek Truth

7

and Report It, Minimize Harm, Act

Independently, and Be Accountable and

Transparent (SPJ Code of Ethics).

Seek Truth and Report It

This section focuses on accuracy and honesty;

journalists should always verify their work,

which includes reaching out to each source

mentioned in the publication.

Minimize Harm

This portion discusses the importance of

respecting all individuals involved in story, and

it states that a journalist should “use heightened

sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims

of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are

inexperienced or unable to give consent.”

Act Independently

These particular lines focus on the idea that “the

highest and primary obligation of ethical

journalism is to serve the public.” This not only

means that all journalists should avoid conflicts

of interest, but also they should always

“distinguish news from advertising,” which is a

growing issue in the current media milieu.

Be Accountable and Transparent

This final section of the Code of Ethics states

that journalists should take responsibility for

their work, and they should be able to

acknowledge their own mistakes, as well as

uncover and expose any unethical conduct by

other journalists.

JOURNALISTIC FAILURES While the methods put in place seem to

be fairly all encompassing, there have still been

many errors throughout American journalism

history. Especially in this new age of media,

journalism malpractice has been rampant, and

these failures have had lasting effects on society.

The SPJ Code of Ethics is a statement of abiding principles supported by additional explanations and position papers (at spj.org) that address changing journalistic practices. It is not a set of rules, rather a guide that encourages all who engage in journalism to take responsibility for the information they provide, regardless of medium. The code should be read as a whole; individual principles should not be taken out of context. It is not, nor can it be under the First Amendment, legally enforceable.

SEEK TRUTH AND REPORT IT Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

u Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.

u Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.u Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in

promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.u Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.u Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.u Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as pos-

sible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.u Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for

sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.

u Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criti-cism or allegations of wrongdoing.

u Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.

u Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.

u Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.u Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and

government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.

u Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.u Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience.

Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.u Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and

experiences may shape their reporting.u Label advocacy and commentary.u Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information.

Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.u Never plagiarize. Always attribute.

MINIMIZE HARMEthical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

u Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.

u Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.

u Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justifica-tion to publish or broadcast.

u Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.

u Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.u Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider

the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.u Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of

publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.

ACT INDEPENDENTLYThe highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public.

Journalists should:

u Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.u Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid politi-

cal and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.

u Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; do not pay for access to news. Identify content provided by outside sources, whether paid or not.

u Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.

u Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.

BE ACCOUNTABLE AND TRANSPARENTEthical journalism means taking responsibility for one's work and explaining one’s decisions to the public.

Journalists should:

u Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news content.

u Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.u Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain

corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.u Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.u Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.

PREAMBLEMembers of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity.

The Society declares these four principles as the foundation of ethical journalism and encourages their use in its practice by all people in all media.

Figure 1: SPJ Code of Ethics

8

“Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory” on

NPR’s This American Life

In 2012, Mike Daisey, an American

monologist, author, and actor, performed on

National Public Radio’s This American Life (454:

Mr. Daisey). NPR, and This American Life in

particular, is known for a being reputable source

of culture. This American Life, hosted by Ira Glass,

mostly showcases non-fiction stories, so it was

assumed that Mike Daisey’s monologue would

be a non-fiction story of the like. Daisey’s

performance was an adaptation of his

monologue “The Agony and the Ecstacy of

Steve Jobs,” a monologue that he wrote about

his trip to China to visit Apple’s factories (454:

Mr Daisey). The monologue details specific

events that he saw during his factory visits, as

well as conversations and meetings with factory

workers and his translator, Kathy (454: Mr.

Daisey). He talks about the gruesome workdays,

terrible conditions, disfiguring chemicals,

underage workers, and, of course, the suicide

epidemic that had been occurring at the

Foxconn Plant, one of Apple’s factories. His

monologue was intriguing, riveting, detailed,

and, as Ira Glass would come to find out,

falsified.

Two months after the original

monologue aired on NPR, Ira Glass issued a

retraction and dedicated his show to discussing

the falsified information in Mike Daisey’s

monologue (460: Retraction). While This

American Life did proceed in fact checking

methodology, the show did not account for the

fact that Mike Daisey was lying about some of

the facts. TAL should have triangulated the

information in order to make sure all of the

information was correct, and if it were not able

to do so it should have not aired the showed, or

it should have aired the show with a disclaimer

of creative licensing, stating that the message

was slightly fictionalized.

While Mike Daisey did fabricate some

facts, it does not mean that his entire message

was false, nor does it mean that what he lied

about was not actually true. He should not have

lied about his story, nor should TAL have

allowed him to do so, because now listeners

think that everything he said was a lie. Foxconn

really did have a suicide epidemic; there are

terrible working conditions in these Chinese

factories and countless accounts of underage

workers in these factories – yet now everyone

believes these are all lies. The lapse in judgment

of both Ira Glass and Mike Daisey as journalists

not only produced lies for the public, but also

they covered up important truths that listeners

needed to know about.

9

Rolling Stone Magazine’s: “A Rape on

Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle

for Justice at UVA”

Rolling Stone’s “A Rape on Campus”

article exemplifies journalistic failure in a more

traditional form of journalism: online and print

magazine. On November 19th, 2014, Rolling

Stone shocked its audience with an article

entitled: “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault

and Struggle for Justice at UVA” (Erdely).

Sabrina Rubin Erdely, who at the time had

been writing at Rolling Stone for six years, wrote

the article under the guidance and support of

her editorial team. “A Rape on Campus”

followed one main source: Jackie, a female

student from the University of Virginia. In the

article, Jackie shared her disturbing and heart-

wrenching story of being raped during her

freshman year at the university, and the article

uses Jackie’s story as a microcosm for the rape

culture and corrupt university practices not only

at UVA, but also at universities across the

country. In addition to Jackie’s alarming

firsthand account of rape, the article also

included snippets of stories from various rape

victims, all students at the University of Virginia

at some point in time.

Throughout the writing process, Erdely

never learned the name of Jackie’s rapist, who

was given the pseudo name Drew, nor did she

delve deeply into finding out this key bit of

information. In fact, Erdely never actually

contacted a vast majority of the individuals

written about in the article. Finally, right after

the date of publication, Erdely tried one last

time to elicit the name from Jackie. At this

point, Jackie decided to reveal the name; only,

she could not remember how to spell his last

name (Coronel). As soon as Jackie could not

remember the spelling, Erdely knew something

was wrong, at which point it was too late.

Within days of publication, Erdely’s

article began attracting vast media attention.

The fraternity mentioned in the article, UVA

administration, Jackie’s defamed friends – every

person cited in the article was enraged. Weeks

passed, various peer newspaper articles were

produced, and finally on April 5th, 2015, just five

months after the article was published, Rolling

Stone retracted “A Rape on Campus” (Coronel).

In its place the magazine posted “Rolling Stone

and UVA: The Columbia University Graduate

School of Journalism Report.” This report,

written by the Columbia University Graduate

School of Journalism, detailed each error that

Erdely, and the entire Rolling Stone staff, made

throughout the journalistic process of producing

“A Rape on Campus.” Jackie did indeed lie

about her rape, but had Erdely and the Rolling

Stone staff done their proper jobs as journalists,

none of this falsified information would have hit

the press.

10

The aftermath of this journalistic failure

is immense and tragic. Not only were various

people and institutions wrongly libeled, but also

the wrongdoings of this article reinforced this

widely, and wrongly, held belief that many

proclaimed rape victims are actually lying.

Studies show that between two and ten

percent of rapes are falsely claimed, which is far

less than much of society has been lead to

believe. Erdely’s decision to continue working

with Jackie, instead of following the procedures

set forth by the SPJ Code of Ethics, has

hindered society’s view of rape culture. This

journalistic failure had real repercussions for

society, and specifically for rape victims, yet

Erdely is still a writer at Rolling Stone, and the

magazine received no repercussions aside from a

little bad public relations for a brief stint of time.

THE DEBATE The debate at hand is over what sort of controls

there should be in the journalism industry. It has

been debated by many stakeholders, including

journalists, politicians, every day citizens, media

organizations, and even the Inter-American

Council on Human Rights (Licensing of Media

Workers). Are things okay the way they are,

should journalists have more protection from

the government, or should journalists have more

regulation?

Protect the Journalists

The journalists themselves are the main

stakeholder on this side of the argument. As

mentioned above, there is a strong push from

the journalism industry for the federal

government to impose a shield law for

protection (Raise the Shield!). In addition to this

sort of protection, journalists on this side of the

debate feel as if any sort of licensing system

would be “used as a political tool for

governments to suppress alternative, critical or

diverse voices” (Licensing of Media Workers).

Journalists are appalled by the desire of

some to enforce more rules on this vibrantly

expanding industry. In 2012, Alan Greenblatt, a

writer for NPR, wrote about how he has been

increasingly asked for identification, for example

some sort of press badge, when interviewing

Figure 2: The Truth about a Viral Graphic on Rape Statistic

11

people, specifically in the government

(Greenblatt). In response, a journalist from Ad

Week wrote, “you simply do not need a degree

in journalism to prove you know how to ask

who, what, when, where, why and how, and

then write it up accurately. Plenty of good

reporters didn’t learn those skills in the

classroom. And plenty of bad reporters have a

degree but still didn’t learn to apply those skills

well” (Adams). Enforcing a stringent licensing

system would limit the possibilities for non-

traditional journalists, as traditional media

outlets are not offering the number of jobs as

they have in the past. There are more and more

bloggers on the journalism scene today, and

creating a government mandated certification

system would be difficult to enforce due to this

expansion. Allowing the government to police

journalists risks major infringements on the First

Amendment, as government and the press are

supposed to stay as two separate entities.

Control the Journalists

On the other side of this argument is a

strong front of individuals, institutions, and

mostly members of the Republic party who

believe that journalists should have more

regulations. In 2010, the State of Michigan was

proposing a law to register journalists, and in

2016 a South Carolina senator, relating

journalists to guns, proposed a registry system

(Jackson) (Winter). Senator Bruce Patterson,

who introduced the Michigan bill, said “the

general public is being overwhelmed by an

increasing number of media outlets --

traditional, online and citizen generated -- and

an even greater amount of misinformation”

(Winter). The proposed legislation, as well as

many of its kind, have the intention of

legitimizing the media in this digital age where

news is constantly around us from a countless

number of sources. This bill is not alone; as

Kelly McBride, a media ethics expert from at

the Poynter Institute states, “governments often

try to control journalists through a credentialing

process -- and these attempts are usually deemed

unconstitutional” (Winter). Despite the fact that

“legitimate media sources are critically

important to our government,” enforcing

government-mandated rules on journalists

leaves great room for politics in the press,

something that the First Amendment fervently

stands against (Winter).

Figure  3:  Free  Speech

12

RECOMMENDATIONS While everyone can agree that some

boundaries must exist even in profession as

stringently protected by the First Amendment,

the argument becomes on where these

boundaries should lie. The Society of Professional Journalist’s

Code of Ethics is all encompassing and well

rounded, however a Code of Ethics does not

seem to be enough to solve greater issues with

journalistic malpractice. This Society, however,

can be of assistance in a more tactile way in the

future than it has been to date. Instead of the

government imposing reform on journalists, this

new reform should come from peers; journalists

should be reviewing and policing each other.

This can be done in a few ways, mostly through

the use of a Peer Review Board and a Public

Editor.

Peer Review Board

While licensing for journalists should not

come from the government, some sort of

accreditation system should be put in place.

Instead of this coming from a higher power, it

should come from a peer review board, such as

the Society of Professional Journalists. This

would simply make the existing Code of Ethics

into a more binding set of rules and regulations.

The board would be responsible for reviewing

journalists and their work, making sure that it is

up to the high standards of the Society of

Professional Journalists. If a journalist does not

follow the Code of Ethics, they will lose their

accreditation, and thus they will lose their

integrity amongst the journalism community,

and in the news world.

This is not a radical idea; peer review

boards exist in other industries, such as the

American Institute of Certified Public

Accountants’ peer review system of accountants.

The peer review also system already exists in

journalism, most frequently in scholarly

journalism. However, it is not as commonly seen

or known, and it needs to become a more

legitimized practice.

The Peer Review Board would be made

up of a journalist society, such as the Society of

Professional Journalists, and they would be in

charge of policing other journalists. Becoming a

member of this society would require journalists

to submit previous work to prove that they are

ethical writers who know, and work using, the

Code of Ethics set forth by the board. There

should be no age requirement, nor any formal

education requirement, as journalists have

clearly expressed that these characterizes are

irrelevant to making good journalists. The true

test of whether or not someone should gain a

certification is if their work has shown diligence

to the ethical responsibilities of journalists.

This is not an overnight change by any

means, but it is a change that needs to occur.

13

Advertising and truly making this change known

is going to be the factor most critical to success.

There will need to be a campaign to explain this

change to the public, and there will need to be a

campaign to make journalists get on board to

protect their industry. As soon as people become

aware of this system, they should only want to

read articles written by journalists who have

been accredited by the SPJ.

Public Editor

A public editor, or someone who works

outside of the institution for which they are

editing, would be a great way to enforce more

stringent rules on journalists, while leaving the

government out of the press sphere (The Public

Editor). Public Editors, also referred to as

ombudsmen, are commonly found across the

globe, but they are not as population, nor as

publicized, as they could be in the United

States. The job of a Public Editor is to “receive

and investigate complaints from newspaper

readers or listeners or viewers of radio and

television stations about accuracy, fairness,

balance and good taste in news coverage. He or

she recommends appropriate remedies or

responses to correct or clarify news reports”

(About).

The New York Times is currently in the process

of hiring its sixth Public Editor. The New York

Times, a famously credible news source, hired its

first Public Editor in 2003, after a plagiarism

scandal. The Times has used a Public Editor ever

since, which has brought back its critical

credibility. The Times’ Public Editor’s job is to

“write about the Times and its journalism in a

frequent blog – the Public Editor’s Journal —

and in a twice-monthly print column in the

Sunday Review section. The public editor’s

office also handles questions and comments

from readers and investigates matters of

journalistic integrity. The public editor works

independently, outside of the reporting and

editing structure of the newspaper; her opinions

are her own” (About the Public Editor). All

media outlets should adopt this method, and

they should be more forced to publicize it to

their audiences. By allowing an outside source to

continuously audit the work done within the

organization, it is clear that none of the

information published will be falsified. This idea

is similar to what Rolling Stone did after the “A

Rape on Campus” scandal (Coronel). By

allowing the Columbia University Graduate

School of Journalism to report on their paper,

all of the journalistic flaws were unveiled. If

Rolling Stone had contracted this review prior to

publishing its article, society would have been

better off.

14

CONCLUSION In this day in age where journalism is

becoming increasingly commercialized, a more

formal set of rules and regulations would benefit

journalists, and society as a whole. It would

allow legitimate, ethical journalists to set

themselves apart from those who are not as

dedicated to their craft, and it would allow

readers to know when they are being given the

correct, authentic information. Solving these

issues is critical to the vitality of the American

press. In no way should regulation impose on

First Amendment rights, nor should the

government have any input on these

regulations. The only goal of these regulations is

to make sure that all news is factual for the

greater good of the American people.

The press has been set up to enlighten

the public on important news. Instead of

shedding light on critical issues within society,

over the years the press has become too

consumed with selling papers and getting hits,

which has forced true journalistic standards to

be put on the backburner. Not only has this

improper focus resulted in the press falsifying

stories, but also what is worse is that these lies it

has spread have actually covered up important

truths, as evidenced through the Rolling Stone

article and the NPR show. The cornerstone of

news and the press is integrity, and without

integrity how are readers, listeners, and viewers

supposed to trust any news outlet?

This paper does not focus on the issue of

biased news sources; bias is not the issue, but

instead the issue is lying. Lying to the public

through producing falsified stories and passing

them off as the truth should not be condoned, as

it is misinforming society, and these accounts of

misinformation could be covering up real issues

that society must tackle. By utilizing a Peer

Review Board, as well as a Public Editor,

journalists will be allowed to police themselves,

which keeps true to the ideals of the First

Amendment, whilst still legitimizing and

verifying that news is bringing its audience true,

factual information.

15

WORKS CITED

"About." Organization of News Ombudsmen. Web. 09 May 2016. "About The Public Editor." The Public Editors Journal. The New York Times. Web. 09 May 2016. Adams, Meranda. "How Do You (And Should You Need To) Prove You’re A Journalist?" FishbowlNY.

Ad Week, 11 Apr. 2012. Web. 11 May 2016. Coronel, Shiela, Steve Collier, and Derek Kravitz. "Rolling Stone and UVA: The Columbia University

Graduate School of Journalism Report." Rolling Stone. 05 Apr. 2015. Web. 15 Apr. 2016. "Defamation." Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. Web. 08 May 2016. Downie, Leonard, Jr., and Michael Schudson. The Reconstruction of American Journalism. Rep. 20 Oct.

2009. Web. 08 May 2016. Erdely, Sabrina Rubin. "A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA." Rolling

Stone. 19 Nov. 2014. Web. 16 Apr. 2016. "First Amendment." Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. Web. 08 May 2016. Fisher, Marc. "Who Cares If It's True?" Columbia Journalism Review. Web. 09 May 2016. Glass, Ira. "454: Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory Transcript." This American Life, 6 Jan. 2012. Web.

04 May 2016. Glass, Ira. "460: Retraction Transcript." This American Life. 2012. Web. 05 May 2016. Greenblatt, Alan. "Increasingly, Reporters Must First Answer Some Questions." The Two-Way.

National Public Radio, 10 Apr. 2012. Web. 10 May 2016. Jackson, Gavin, and Schuyler Kropf. "Republican Lawmaker Says Journalists Should Face a Registry

to Work in South Carolina." Post and Courier. 19 Jan. 2016. Web. 11 May 2016. Khurana, Rakesh, and Nitin Nohria. "It’s Time to Make Management a True Profession." Harvard

Business Review (2008). Web.

16

Lee, Michelle Ye Hee. "The Truth about a Viral Graphic on Rape Statistics." Washington Post. The

Washington Post, 9 Dec. 2014. Web. 11 May 2016. "Legal." Ethics, Law & Good Practice. NYU Journalism Handbook for Students, 31 Aug. 2007. Web. 9

May 2016. "Libel." Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. Web. 08 May 2016. "Licensing of Media Workers." Article 19. Web. 11 May 2016. "A New Understanding: What Makes People Trust and Rely on News?" American Press Institute. 17 Apr.

2016. Web. 08 May 2016. “Our Mission.” Society of Professional Journalists. Web. 11 May 2016.

"The Public Editor." The New York Times. Web. 09 May 2016. "Raise the Shield!" Society of Professional Journalists. Web. 11 May 2016. Rolling Stone. "A Note to Our Readers." Rolling Stone. 05 Dec. 2014. Web. 19 Apr. 2016. Shelton, Mike. Free Speech. Digital image. The Franklin Center. Blue Grass Bulletin. Web. 11 May 2016.

"Slander." Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. Web. 08 May 2016. "SPJ Code of Ethics." Society of Professional Journalists. Web. 07 May 2016. Uberti, David. "The Worst Journalism of 2014." Columbia Journalism Review. 22 Dec. 2014. Web. 11

May 2016. Winter, Jana. "Michigan Considers Law to Register Journalists." Fox News. FOX News Network, 28

May 2010. Web. 11 May 2016.