“Ethical Jounalism as Told by Bill Marimow”
Philadelphia Inquirer editor Bill Marimow proved in his lecture that he is truly one of the most respected journalists in the U.S. His discussion brought to my attention several ethical decisions that must be made in journalism. Among these issues were taking bribes or gifts from sources and using the names of minors in print. Both brought me new intense ethical messages that I may not have considered prior to hearing Marimow’s examples.
The second case that Bill Marimow discussed with us involved a close source that did not necessarily bribe him, but invited him out to a sports event. His manager’s guidelines specifically stated that no employee should accept gifts from sources, including tickets to sports events. While it is ethical not to accept the gift, it is also important to consider the significance of the relationship to the source and whether it will hurt their feelings, causing you to lose the source for future stories.
Another case he shared with us was a Baltimore drug bust, where a 10-year-old boy named Isaac was used as the lookout. The journalist focused the story on the boy because the rule is to use the name and picture regardless of his age. He spoke to the media openly about the details in the presence and consent of his mother. This issue brings up matters of whether to use the boy’s name, whether he is a public or private person, and whether the mother’s consent is valid if drugs impaired her judgment.
Similar to Marimow’s discussion, David Ingram’s The News Manual states that “to accept a bribe is dishonest” (Ingram, 2008). It was essential for Marimow to notify the editor about the gift because journalists are meant to maintain a reputation as a trusted, professional person. Journalists must remain unbiased in their writing, and therefore accepting a bribe can disorient the public’s view of the journalist as an honest reporter.
The conclusion that Marimow came up with in the bribery case was to go with him and make sure to spend an equal amount of money at and after the game. But this decision did not come without difficulty. He decided to go to an editor that he respected and get his opinion on the issue. I think that in journalism, this is one of the most important things you should do. Marimow’s point was reiterated throughout his lecture that if you have to hesitate, you don’t do it or you consult the senior editor before making a bad ethical decision.
In this case, it was essential for him to get a second opinion because if he had followed the rules and hadn’t accepted the ticket, he might have lost a valuable source. Establishing and maintaining a strong and trusting relationship with sources is often just as important as following the ethical guidelines of your employer. I strongly agree with Marimow’s recommendation to ask first before making any rash decisions. It was smart for him to attend the event with his source but was even smarter to make sure he was spending an equal amount of money so that it could no longer be considered a gift.
The decisions that Marimow had to make about the young boy in the drug case were not quite as simple. In this case, it took second opinions to decide whether or not to run the boy’s name and picture. Most argued that he should use it with no questions asked since he had the mother’s consent. On the other hand, there were also others who argued the possibility that the mother might be on drugs, therefore having impaired judgment.
Since this case was considered a high profile, public issue, it was necessary to at least include the boy in the story. Ultimately, it was decided that they would run the boy’s first name without his last. Instead they referred to him as “Little” Isaac and ran a fuzzy photo as opposed to a vivid one. Deciding whether the minor is a public or private person is important, but since it is a public issue, using his name and story was necessary.
I respect Marimow’s decision to leave his last name out of it because even though it is a high-profile story, the young boy now still has a future ahead of where he won’t have to be constantly associated with this story. L. Hancock’s article “Naming Kid Criminals,” Hancock suggests that all children should be given the “best chance for a second chance” and therefore still deserve protection (Hancock). Crimes by juveniles such as this one can be expunged later in life, so Marimow’s decision gave “Little” Isaac the benefit of the doubt.
In both cases, Bill Marimow had to face intense ethical issues. But ultimately, the most important lesson that Marimow taught us was always to ask the editor if we have any hesitation and to get a second opinion if you are still hesitant. Ethical issues such as these are critically important to the profession because it is our job to establish ourselves as trustworthy reporters.
Marimow’s lecture gave perspective from a professional standpoint, and I left feeling like I learned a significant amount and felt even better informed about ethics than when I went in. Some people might see these lectures as a requirement for class but I truly believe that they are crucial for future career success in journalism. One mistake in this profession can ruin your reputation as a professional. Ultimately, the Oweida Lecture left me with the crucial lesson that when pursuing a story, giving your sources the benefit of the doubt will always help your individual reputation and the reputation of the profession.
References
Foreman, Gene., (2010). The Ethical Journalist. West Sussex, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Hancock, L. (1998). NAMING KID CRIMINALS. Columbia Journalism Review, 37(2), 18-18
Ingram, D. “Pressures on Journalists.” (2008). The news manual.
Retrieved from http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Manuals Volume 3/volume3_58.htm