Caitlyn Flanagan Speaks On Integrity and Objectivity As a Journalist
Caitlyn Flanagan spoke as part of the 31st Penn State Foster-Foreman Conference of Distinguished Writers last night at the State Theatre, and her speech inspired and informed both me and the other students present at the event. The main focus of Flanagan’s speech was an article she recently published as a cover story in The Atlantic. The piece was an investigative project (that she said had taken about a year to write) about the fraternity system in American Universities and the amount of power they have in keeping criminal activity under wraps and maintaining their status within a university. She mentioned that she had to do a lot of research and conduct interviews to put the story together, and during that time she faced a few ethical dilemmas, whether or not she realized it.
Part 1: Situation Definition
One ethical issue that Flanagan faced is the dilemma of balancing objectivity with subjectivity. Her story focused on investigating the truth about the power structure that protects fraternities, but in her speech, Flanagan talked about encouraging students to take action against the unjust actions of fraternities and how they tend to cover up problematic or criminal activity. Because she had two different aims in writing her article, Flanagan had to be aware of how she presented the facts and balance a fair retelling of the events with a tone that would be authoritative enough to inspire her readers to do something.
The second ethical issue Flanagan faced was in her interactions with her sources. Flanagan mentioned interviewing numerous sources within the fraternity system, like current brothers, alumni, lawyers, and organization presidents. She mentioned that often, people involved in Greek life view the press as the enemy, because the press tends to shed a negative light on fraternities. Because of this, Flanagan had a responsibility to be courteous and professional with her sources, and be completely honest about the type of story she was writing to avoid deceiving her sources into sharing information that they wouldn’t normally share.
Part 2: Analysis
Journalists are first and foremost responsible for reporting the truth. Media ethicists, as well as the Society For Professional Journalists, have set specific guidelines for reporters to follow. Journalists have a responsibility to present news stories as objectively and truthfully as possible, and one of the main guidelines for reporting a story is to ensure that it is “fair and balanced” (Day 2006). This means that the journalist takes an objective stance on the issue at hand, and tries to avoid injecting their opinion into the story. However, the media also have a responsibility to keep important issues in the public conscience. In other words, journalists have a responsibility to act as a “whistleblower” to inspire change (Richardson, Wang, Hall 2012). The media hold a lot of power in what issues dominate discussion, not only in the news, but in our day-to-day lives. This is called agenda setting (Golan 2014).
It is recommended that the best way for a journalist to stay fair and balanced is to report all the facts on a story. It is also important for them to consider a story from multiple different points of view, and present those points of view to their readers (Stavitsky, Dvorkin 2009).
In addition, maintaining a good professional relationship with sources is essential to a successful news story. Sources for a news story are still people, and as such it is important to be as honest, respectful, and transparent with them as possible. The demeanor of a journalist towards their interviewees can have great influence on their responses (Jensen, Bessarabova, Adame, Burgoon, Slowik 2011). It is the responsibility of the reporter to minimize harm, on both the public and the sources of information. Because of this, a journalist should avoid an aggressive or deceptive attitude towards their sources. Especially in the case of fraternities and the people in them, who feel they are treated unfairly by the press, extra care must be taken in order to affect a favorable outcome for both the journalist and the sources (Glovin 2015).
Part 3: Conclusion
Flanagan made the right choice in making a fair and balanced report on fraternities. She chose to report all the facts in her story, while adding a humorous spin on some of the facts. Even though she does inset opinions at times, such as when she discusses the irony of the university system, the opinions do not affect the overall effect of the article. She uses her article and her appearances on college campuses as a kind of hand-in-hand system to encourage activism in college students. She urged students in her speech to share their own opinions on the fraternity system, not hers. She also took into consideration the feelings of all the sides involved in the story, and credited a vast majority of fraternity brothers with being good and honest people.
Also, Flanagan used the best system for getting information from her sources. She mentioned that she managed to get interviews with fraternity organization presidents and other important people because she maintained a courteous and professional demeanor with them. She was honest about the type of story she was writing and didn’t pressure her sources to reveal information.
These two ethical issues also go hand-in-hand, so they are important to discuss. Because Flanagan remembered to be fair and balanced, it eventually helped her more easily maintain a positive relationship with her sources and go deeper into her investigational story than she might normally have been able to.
Part 4: References
Day, L. (2006). Ethics in Media Communications: Cases and Controversies. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University.
Glovin, D. (2015, March 24). Fraternities Lobby Against Campus Rape Investigations. Bloomberg Business. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03- 24/fraternities-lobby-against-campus-rape-investigations
Golan, G. J. (2014). Agenda Setting in a 2.0 World: New Agendas in Communication. Journal Of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(3), 476-477.
Jensen, M. L., Bessarabova, E., Adame, B., Burgoon, J. K., & Slowik, S. M. (2011). Deceptive Language by Innocent and Guilty Criminal Suspects: The Influence of Dominance, Question, and Guilt on Interview Responses. Journal Of Language & Social Psychology, 30(4), 357-375.
Richardson, B.K., Wang, Z., & Hall, C. A. (2012). Blowing the Whistle Against Greek Hazing: The Theory of Reasoned Action as a Framework for Reporting Intentions. Communication Studies, 63(2), 172-193.
Stavitsky, A. G., & Dvorkin, J. Objectivity and Balance: Conceptual and Practical History in American Journalism. Retrieved from The Corporation of Public Broadcasting.