Blog 4- A Case Study on Cleveland Journalists and A Lesson on Conflict of Interest

Blog 4: A Case Study on Cleveland Journalists and A Lesson on Conflict of Interest 

By: Mackenzie Barbin

Situation Definition

Think back to this past November, early in the month. Presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were scurrying across America to finish last minute campaigning. Television ads, billboards, radio announcements, yard signs, polls and rallies all pertaining to the election bombarded the American public. With the election essentially clogging all mainstream media, it was nearly impossible for citizens to avoid the campaigns of Trump and Clinton. From high schools, to back yards, to street corners, the election was present everywhere.

Now, think back to that exact time and shift your attention to Cleveland, Ohio. Being the second biggest city in Ohio, both presidential candidates placed emphasis on this location and spent a considerable amount of time campaigning here. In fact, a beneficiary concert hosted by American music icon Jay Z was held on November 4, 2016 in support of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The concert was a part of a “get out and vote” series put on by different musical artists with the goal of garnering support for Clinton.

Thousands of Cleveland locals waited in line to receive free tickets to the event, two of which were Jackie Fernandez and Somara Theodore, employees of the local news station, WEWS Channel 5. Fernandez served as a morning news anchor while Theodore worked as the station’s meteorologist. Both were young professionals who were hired early in their career by WEWS Channel 5. Both employees were fired from the news station upon tweeting while in line for Jay Z concert tickets. All the while, Fernandez and Theodore were supposedly on the clock.

This case brings up a few ethical considerations. When the young professionals purchased tickets for a Jay Z concert benefiting the Clinton campaign, a conflict arose. The two young female journalists were faced with a dilemma. The clear border dividing their personal and professional lives was shattered; therefore, they violated ethical journalistic standards. Throughout this blog, I am going to analyze the conflict of interest at hand.

Analysis

In order to fully analyze the ethical issues presented, I think it is important to have a sound definition of conflict of interest. According to information presented in COMM 409, a conflict of interest is a situation where “any self-interest or loyalty to any person or organization deflects a journalist from serving the public” (foreman, 2010). Conflict of interest is otherwise known as a clash between professional loyalties and outside interests.

If acted upon, a conflict of interest may, in fact, undermine a journalist’s credibility. If journalist allow their self-interests to interfere with their work, they are directly impacting their followers, and this is a complete violation of trust. If the public notices any similarity between outside interests and the professional work of a journalist, odds are the public will become skeptical and untrusting regardless if the content is truth or fabricated. Such was the case when Fernandez and Theodore openly backed Clinton.

A journalist must always be in uniform meaning they must play the journalistic role 24/7. Journalists cannot pick and choose when they want to be on the clock. Even when off duty, journalists need to be aware of this perception. Being the face of the news, journalists are easily recognizable, and therefore; they are constantly in the eye of the public. This may mean having to forgo some rights that other citizens enjoy (such as a free concert). If a conflict can be avoided, it should be.

With these ethical considerations in mind, Fernandez and Theodore should have approached their situation much differently. First and foremost, these women bought tickets during work hours. They used the time they were being compensated for to perform a leisurely activity. Second, acquiring tickets to the concert was inappropriate. Prior to the incident, Scripps, a parent company to WEWS News, had sent a message to employees to be extremely vigilant and to avoid participating in any political activities until the election was over. By acquiring tickets, the young ladies took a biased political stance, and this stance was inappropriate for any journalist.

Regarding politics, remaining neutral as a journalist is essential. In his book Changing media Changing Europe, George DeMartino said, “When major political decisions are to be made on pressing social issues, democracies have come to rely to a great extent on media (DeMartino, 2015). Considering how heavily Americans rely on the media, it is essential for journalists to remain as unbiased as possible so that the public can formulate their own opinions and beliefs based on solely the facts.

In addition to taking a biased political stance, the journalists violated WEWS’ newsroom conflict codes. And if this wasn’t enough, to add the cherry on top, the young women tweeted about their biased actions, making their journalistic faults public and available for everyone to see.

These ethical violations were so crucial because they not only affected the journalist’s credibility, but they also affected the news station’s credibility which in turn lead to a lack of trust from their viewers. If viewers can’t trust the station, they will turn to other media outlets to receive their information.

With a direct violation against the companies’ code of conduct, WEWS had no choice but to fire the journalists. Within one day, the young ladies’ pictures and professional biographies were taken down from the news station’s website signifying the company had no tolerance for those who break the rules.

Conclusion

While the punishment, for just acquiring concert tickets, seemed harsh, WEWS used this specific circumstance as a teaching experience. WEWS proved that they hold their employees to extremely high standards. According to Sada Reed, a veteran sports reporter, “Professionalism exists when an organized occupation determines who is qualified to perform certain tasks and prevents others from performing those tasks” (Reed, 2013). By firing Fernandez and Theodore, the news station was acting to ensure a specific level of professionalism in the work environment.

WEWS proved their dedication and commitment to ensuring ethics in the journalistic industry by exemplifying their zero tolerance policy when it comes to biases in organizational values, personal values, and in this case, governmental values.

There is much to learn from this situation, and I am confident that after being punished so severely, Fernandez and Theodore will never make this mistake again. A journalist must always remember their position and must always consider the principles of ethicality. Fernandez and Theodore should have thought twice about their decisions, and if they were still in doubt, they could have consulted a manager for input. Had the young ladies done this, they would still have their jobs.

References:

Reed, S. (2013). American sports writers’ social media use and its influence on professionalism. Journalism Practice, 7(5), 555-571.

DeMartino, G. (2015). Chapter 5: Conflict of interest disclosure in economics: Will journalists aid in the cause? Changing Media, Changing Europe (pp. 101-112). Intellect Ltd.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply