Ethics in Action: Going Undercover

      Undercover. Image Courtesy clipground.com

    Bringing the truth to the public is often a painstaking effort. While journalists must act with integrity, credibility, and ethics, there is no clear "one size fits all" code of operations. Undercover journalists have their time and place. Yet the fact remains that the methods for retrieving information must be as ethically sustainable as possible. The truth goes beyond delivering the facts. Readers need to know that the sources and the efforts that went into retrieving the story justifies the means. If they cannot trust the writer, how can they trust the story? Going undercover is a lie of sorts. It should be avoided unless there is no other way.

     As a hypothetical reporter, being asked to go undercover at a retirement home to expose negligent care is a tricky situation. My gut reaction is to exhaust all possible avenues before infiltrating the institution. Above all else, journalists are frontline workers. They should be trusted to act ethically and honestly whenever possible. 

     Transparency is a word we've heard a lot recently. Not just for government institutions and agencies, but for individuals. I believe the foundation of strong journalism rests on emotional intelligence and integrity. Someone who is strong of mind can problem solve without resorting to shady practices. My first instinct would be to dive into character witnesses. Visiting the nursing home, speaking with the residents there, the staff. Digging and researching for information and public records. There is a whole world of options out there before resorting to going undercover. The people in those homes may have family around. The staff may be motivated to admit the truth. Being able to get on their level and get them to open up is paramount. People make truth possible. Through their resilience, through their bravery, through their knowledge, through their actions. 

     Beyond the integrity of the story, there is the issue of personal involvement. To dive into undercover work puts a journalist at the heart of conflict. This isn't good for the story. It's easy for emotion to take over. We've all experienced this at some point or another. Being in the thick of the conflict may compromise integrity or damage credibility. 

     The bottom line is that people should be given the open, transparent opportunity to talk. No one should be coerced or tricked into divulging a story. It is almost always dishonest in my opinion for a journalist to seek information in this way. How can you write a truthful story if the sources are not willingly participating? The work of a journalist should be, above all else, for the people and by the people. Journalism is at its very core a democratic function. Bringing truth to the public should be done with utmost care to the human condition. A lot hangs in the balance of a story. I think the biggest questions to ask before diving into undercover work are the following-

1. Am I acting out of the best interests of the public and the people involved?

2. How can I gather this story in a way that will not only expose the truth but show credibility and honesty in my line of work?

Of utmost importance are the folks in the retirement home. You cannot tell their story without their knowledge and acceptance. You cannot tell their story without compassion. They must be a part of the deliverance for it to be morally sound. The public will have a deeper sense of confidence and trust in journalists who take pride in honest work. The public has no reason to trust a covert journalist. All methods should be exhausted before undercover work is utilized. 

     

          Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics 

                                                            Photo courtesy of SPJ.com

    First and foremost, I just want to take a minute to recognize that this Sunday, April 17th is the official 113th Birthday of the Society of Professional Journalists!

    Journalism is more than the art of writing a story. It has everything to do with the administration of information to the public in a democratic society. Anyone engaging in journalism must hold a foundation of conduct. Since the press is essentially an apparatus for freedom of speech through publication, it requires devotion to inalienable human rights as well as attention to self-conduct and credibility. 

    The SPJ Code of Ethics highlights 4 key areas in which journalists should address ethical conduct. 

    * Seek the Truth and Report it

    Accuracy and fairness are pillars of ethical conduct as a journalist. There is a high level of responsibility and integrity that comes with the trade. They uphold the critical value of the freedom of the press and freedom of speech not only by providing information to the public but in doing so with utmost attention to detail and accountability. When seeking information or investigating a story, journalists must verify that their sources are accurate and original. It is also vital that their work is verified once more as accurate before release. Otherwise, they run the risk of being unreliable and misleading. From an ethical standpoint, the very nature of journalism is to provide the public with the truth. This entails giving those without a voice the opportunity to have one and holding those in positions of power to a degree of accountability. In order to report the truth, a journalist must first seek it out and take responsibility for presenting it to the people. Transparency is paramount to good, credible journalism. It's the foundation of democracy. 

    * Minimize Harm 

    The very basis of avoiding harm involves respectful treatment of all individuals that a journalist may come into contact with. Procuring and providing news does not give journalists the right to be overly intrusive, pessimistic, or arrogant. Above all else, there should always be a balance between the public's need for information and the potential it may have to harm. To me, this is a very crucial part of being a credible journalist. Trauma impacts people in a multitude of ways. Being able to approach others with compassion and respect is paramount. Minimizing harm also involves understanding what can be legally published, and what requires ethical grounds. Journalists must have a high level of emotional intelligence, in my opinion. They deal with people on a regular basis and as the foundation for their stories to unfold. They have a duty to uphold integrity for their sources, themselves, and their audience.  

    * Act Independently

        In a sense, journalists are leaders. They have obligations to others by the very nature of their work. Obtaining stories and dispensing them requires attention to that duty. To best serve the public, journalists and reporters must identify sources in congruence with their motives. If sources are seeking compensation for information or are using any sort of bribery to provide information, a journalist has a moral obligation to determine that the source is a good one. Journalists, like other leaders, must avoid accepting gifts, favors, and special treatment. Similarly, they must avoid participation in such a way that it would compromise their informative obligation to the public. Journalists cannot be part of political or outside activities that might damage their ability to remain impartial and honest. They cannot act on unethical self-interest, in other words. Beyond this scope, acting independently also entails producing news that does not advertise in any way, shape, or form. Any sponsored content should be labeled as such. They must remain an impartial force to help protect the rights under the first amendment. A good, credible, honest journalist is a public leader by way of the press. 

    * Be Accountable and Transparent 

    Above all else, journalists must take ownership of their actions and work. Whatever they publish IS susceptible to public criticism and WILL affect their reputation and credibility in the trade. Like journalists hold the government to accountability and transparency, so too should they exhibit ethical transparency standards. They should be able to go back and fix or right their mistakes right away with a humble rapport. They are the faces of the press, just as elected officials are the faces of the political sector. They build upon a network of outside characters to bring truth and accuracy to the public. They should be accountable to uphold this standard in their daily work, including when they get things wrong. No one is right or perfect all the time. Not the government, not journalists, not individuals. Being able to address one's wrongs and grow is an ethical imperative. 

    Although the SPJ Code of Ethics is not part of the First Amendment, it has been around and prevalent for over a century. It is not only relevant but crucial to the conduct of journalists and reporters. These standards help to manifest freedom of speech and press with ethical parameters. Like doctors, educators, lawyers, and other frontline or public workers, ethics not only make for exceptional service but uphold the fabric of democracy.

                              Sunshine Week: Blueprint for Accountability 

    During my time perusing the Sunshine Week website, I stumbled across a link to a non-profit organization called "Blueprint for Accountability." Its mission is to identify and formulate solutions to build an accountable government. They seek to repair areas of government that lack transparency, ethics, and oversight. They list various recommendations for Executive Branch action in a very concise, informative, and attractive format. They break down recommendations into six categories: ethics, open government, balance of power, whistleblowers, responsive government, and the COVID pandemic. Overall, they do a wonderful job of pinpointing what is happening under the current Biden Administration as it involves democratic transparency and accountability. 

     One of the major points of Blueprint for Accountability's newest progress report is the implementation of a memorandum on the Freedom of Information Act. Attorney-General Garland was responsible for putting this into action on March 15, 2022. The goal was to strengthen government transparency of all operations alongside fair and effective administration of FOIA. 

     As we move on through the report to Pandemic Response & Preparedness, we see an effort to ensure that major policy decisions related to COVID-19 are put into place by competent experts in the medical, scientific, and health sectors of our government. The progress report makes it clear that this was something the current government administration has committed to. 

     Further memorandum under the Biden Administration titled "Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policy-making" looks to instill integral policies and infrastructure to uphold and enforce the pandemic response. It also seeks to improve the accessibility of information pertaining to Coronavirus. 

     In times of pandemic or a health crisis like we've seen recently, the government can either help or hurt the public response. Some of the above efforts were crucial to ensuring that even in a time of emergency and overreaching government power, individuals and organizations can still hold their elected officials accountable. Individuals should be able to rely on the government to provide timely information and ensure disclosure and maintenance of policy and practice. Furthermore, all of the scientific inquiry and data that shape the government's response to COVID should be backed by competent, credible sources. Public interest is protected only insofar as the government is transparent and pliable to democratic discussion and adjustment. Nothing should be swept under the rug. That allows unchecked power to bloom in even the best of government systems. 

     I believe that journalists and the general public can gather a lot of crucial information from this site. Reforms are crucial to government accountability and greatly impact how journalists access crucial information on behalf of the public. Democratic values demand government transparency to ensure that the public is making informed decisions. Journalists go beyond simply investigating and writing stories. Much of their work encompasses protecting public access to information. Oftentimes, their work reflects stories and information that would otherwise remain invisible. Just as often, they represent those who may not have a voice. Their work encompasses far more than just black words on white paper. They hold a position of power to clearly and effectively articulate information to the public. 

     I personally found the "Blueprint for Accountability" to be a wonderful resource. It is attractive and concise, and the aim is clear. It's a condensed compilation of crucial information regarding government policy that has been enacted or stands to be implemented. The entire mission of the organization is to open up the government. I believe transparency is the heart of democracy. If people are going to be supported and support their government, they need to have a deep sense of faith that the government operates within their best interests. Journalists, as we've seen in movies like "All the President's Men" or "Spotlight," and throughout history have influenced and upheld democratic values and the 1st Amendment. They are champions of this critical sector. 

     

Freedom of the Press & COVID-19

   Coronavirus Hurts Freedom of Press. Image Courtesy of NY Times.

     By now, we see COVID-19 passing in the rearview mirror. Though we might not be out of the woods entirely, things are much different than they were even a few months ago. At the height of the pandemic, there were a lot of government mandates to prevent the spread of the virus. These efforts were an important aspect of government emergency power, but they also imposed limits on journalists and in turn, the freedom of the press. 

    Although news media was deemed an essential service, reporters and journalists still had to work around local and state ordinances, social distancing, and other barriers to obtaining information. As a result of working from home or "sheltering-in-place" orders, journalists faced issues relating to obtaining information in a timely manner. Open meetings and public records became difficult to navigate. With more and more becoming virtual, there was often little public notice that important meetings, hearings, and court cases would be virtual, postponed, or barred to the public entirely.   

     The public's right of access to government information is crucial. Perhaps more so in the time of a public health crisis. While journalists were struggling with a slew of barriers, people staying informed was still a prominent goal. 

     The Reporter's Committee highlights that the origins of democracy are centered around an informed population. Freedom of Information Laws (FOIAs) or sunshine acts legally ensure that government agencies are transparent. These allow journalists to find and disseminate critical information to divulge to the public. The Committee assembled a list of best practices that journalists could use during the pandemic to secure viable information in a time-sensitive manner. 

     In recent events, COVID-19 elicited concerns that drove a lawsuit against York County Courts on behalf of five news outlets in Pennsylvania. They believed that the courts were impeding constitutional rights and making it difficult to obtain critical non-confidential documents and judicial records. 

     "The lawsuit cites examples of journalists at the represented news organizations requesting judicial records, only to receive a slim percentage in a timely fashion, with days of delays, heavy redactions or outright denials to the majority of the requests. In many instances, the redactions were not requested by the parties or the court, but rather were imposed by the clerk’s office, in violation of the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions. The media outlets claim this difficulty in obtaining judicial records is caused directly by the policies and practices of the York County Clerk of Courts, and is a consistent pattern throughout many of their ongoing records requests of the clerk’s office." -Gillian Vernick 

     

    With this development, there is an increasing need to hold political entities and other bureaucratic agencies to a standard of transparency. Without transparency, they are not serving the public in a way that best reflects American democratic constitutional rights. Specifically the 1st Amendment. These news outlets and the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press lawyers are paving the way to hold these institutions accountable. The position of the county clerk is, after all, an elected one. If we cannot keep our elected officials in check, then it poses a risk for deeper abuse of power and corruption. Journalists across the country bring awareness to the public that would not exist if it were not for 1st Amendment Rights and access to information. Government systems that directly impede the distribution of information, especially pertinent to COVID-19 in a time of great social and political distress, must be amended and held accountable. 

Pertinent Links-

COVID-19 Press Freedom and Government Transparency - RCFP

Amid ‘Sunshine Week,’ darkness persists in state public records law (rcfp.org)

 Network News Comparison 

                                                     Breaking News on a red background. Image courtesy of kchanews.

    Today I tuned into a BBC broadcast followed by CBS. Both of these newscasts covered major and minor events through a geographical lens. We'll start by looking at BBC. 

    

    BBC began their newscast with a local opinion on the interrupted global food supply. With the conflict between Ukraine and Russia escalating, the U.K. has seen prices skyrocket. Many common household food products such as sunflower oil have been hard to come by. This segued into the Ukraine refugee crisis in Britain. There was great coverage on the topic, ranging from experts in the matter, to clips of politicians, and an interview with refugee sponsors. I felt that anyone tuning into the crisis, especially locally, would feel confident that the source was pertinent and well-informed. After this bit, the newscast bled into local concerns surrounding the impending privatization of Channel 4 in the U.K. They broke this down into concise terms and included a guest speaker from the channel to weigh in on what privatization would mean. There was a valid, factual case made for either side of the issue. There was plenty of opportunity for those tuning in to formulate their own opinion. The guest speaker informed the reporters that privatization would in fact produce more jobs, but it could impact the content. Instead of obligations to its audience, the channel would have a greater obligation to its stakeholders. The newscast was rounded out after this segment with initial speakers weighing in and saying farewells. 

    CBS had a different approach with their newscast. This might be expected when they are reporting from a very different geographical region. Everything was rather formal. The initial opening story was about ghost gun regulations, violence, and corresponding statistics in the U.S. within the scope of the Biden Administration. Prominent professionals were interviewed live. The scope of information was coming from a trusted, reliable source. (Though not always indicative of the entire picture) This blended into the topic of Donald Trump and the criminal charges he could be facing for involvement in the January 6 insurrection. There was also a discussion of financial allegations pertaining to Trump's organization. Again we see prominent professionals weigh in on the matter to give viewers a sense of trust or source for the data. The remainder of the newscast I watched dived into the Ukraine crisis but through the lens of the average American citizen. They discussed economic statistics and inflation. The war in this particular newscast was used to define the inflation we are seeing after the pandemic. This was rather biased in my opinion. This bled into midterm elections and an economic narrative. A reporter weighed in with a democratic senate member about the general negative connotation that the Biden Administration faces as midterm elections loom. The strategy she identified they are using to turn Americans away from the right was to shift blame onto Putin and the Ukraine crisis. Overall, it was an unbiased news segment. It definitely catered to liberal-minded individuals, however. 

In comparison, I feel that both sources offered a professional platform that offered concise, factual information. Things were kept simple and easily applicable to anyone who might be watching. Names were put to faces. Evidence and statistics were used often and woven into interviews. I am not someone who typically watches the news on either of these platforms. I got the general impression that either source was fairly reliable for the average person tuning in. All news stations tend to be biased in the sense that they are going to report the news through a local lens, even if it is a national or international topic. The dialogue is likely to follow a regional bias, too.  

In contrast, I felt more trustworthy about the BBC platform. After growing up in a house where the news was constantly on and varying between several of the major U.S. news outlets, I probably have a bias myself. I never liked the news growing up. I preferred to read as much as I could as often as I could. The news felt like it was missing a level of self-discovery. It felt narrow. BBC seemed to have a broad opinion even with the local lens. The war on Ukraine was not thought of through inflation or food supply shortages alone. Reporters built off of this local scope with regard to the rest of Europe and especially Ukraine. I felt it was more informing than CBS. CBS seemed to have the approach of "bating" with the news. Major headlines and leads were thrown right out and contrasted with BBC's approach of starting off with a character interview. CBS was especially particular about throwing out hooks to the American public. Things that affect them were of utmost importance in each story or headline. CBS stories also tended to come from a leftist perspective. Someone looking to glean information about the upcoming midterm elections with any general sense would have come away from the program with only an idea of what the Democrats were doing to prepare. Whereas BBC's political content was general or corresponded to the Ukraine crisis. There was critiquing of leadership involved, but never dialogue that separated the "left" or "right." Perhaps this is because of the bipartisan system in the U.S., but I feel it to be redundant and annoying. I don't want to hear about the left or the right so much as what politicians are engaged in and how this might impact others. Overall, I feel CBS was leaning toward appealing to a certain political group. BBC tended to be broad about the statements and opinions they built their newscast off of. I would risk a guess that CBS subscribers tend to be a little more defined than their BBC counterparts.

In hindsight, both newscasts sought to inform the public through engaging hooks and interesting or meaningful interviews. Reporters and editors compiled valid, concise information to deliver to the public sector. In my own attempts at journalism and communication, I feel I could take some key pointers from both sources. News has to be engaging to keep people tuned in. This is something I will work harder to implement in my own efforts in the near future. 

 Evaluating Website Reliability 

                                                            Investigating reliability clipart 

In the most recent class activity, we take a look at two websites in order to discern reliability...

*Disabled World: Disability News and Information (disabled-world.com)

*Program Areas | U.S. Department of Labor (dol.gov)

Website 1- U.S. Department of Labor 

In order to determine reliability, we first have to address the basic source component. We'll start with the U.S. Department of Labor. It is both a secure and official entity, which earns it greater credibility right off the bat. It also has the following attributes that I found to be most prominently indicative of a reliable website.

~ It's professional, concise, informative 

~Easy navigation features 

~Search bar 

~Up to date

~Clear mission statement

~Well categorized info sections, including a FAQ for General, Individual, and Employee related topics. 

Overall, one can use the site efficiently and not have to search around with any great difficulty. It is primarily focused on employment for peoples with disabilities, so it's going to come up in a search engine efficiently for those seeking relevant content. The information is all coming from a trusted source, so it's going to be accurate and up to date. It also has appealing graphics and formatting. Overall, it is highly readable, the pictures engaging, and the background is not over or under stimulating. It's well planned out for ease of navigation. 

Website 2- disabled-world.com

Our second site is a bit less straightforward. It is not necessarily as secure or officialized, but it does state explicitly at the bottom of the site homepage that it provides only general information. Typically, I'd be wary of this site's reliability just as a general rule because I tend to look for indications that it's a credible source. Otherwise, I wouldn't want to use it without having to fact-check elsewhere that is reputable. However, I do think this site holds its own sort of reliability, even if it does not rival the .gov site we've dissected above. I think it holds these crucial elements that work.

~Up to date

~Transparent, professional, informative, educational

~Contains stats, resources, and facts that are in all the cases I witnessed cited or organized under references to larger, reliable organizations. 

~Search bar 

~About section 

~Contact us feature (This is always a crucial section for me on a website. If I can contact someone or put a face to what I'm reading, I can build further questions, reach out, or check credibility from the writer's own arsenal and educational background.)

In general, this site was lacking the same quality and assured readability and reliability that the .gov site provided. It is visibly lacking in my opinion, and the white background contrasted against the blue words is somewhat tough on my eyes. It does provide some great information though, including a page dedicated to communication with and about people who have disabilities. There is a lot of general information here, though it tends to feel "sluggish" to work through. One might have to really dig around in order to come across what you're looking for. 

General Conclusions

Evaluating these two sites got me thinking a lot about the sources I particularly gravitate towards in my own research. I started thinking more about my own research habits. A lot of times, I think it's important to point out that a majority of our information in a technological age comes from unreliable sources and we have to do some more footwork if we are to determine the actual facts. For instance, I use the Reddit platform occasionally because I enjoy a good debate or discussion on topics such as finance, politics, economy, and the environment. Within this platform, there is a LARGE gray area for people to misrepresent or botch statistics and factual evidence. I end up spending a lot of time finding outside educational sources to more deeply explore viewpoints that others might call to attention, or discern whether certain statistics are true or not. Tying this back to the above websites, I think we can all consider using a bit more caution when proceeding with where we retrieve information and how we distribute it further. Even journalists can fall into a pit trap of misrepresentation or inaccurate data. We have to constantly be checking our sources and seeking alternative avenues when we aren't certain. Regardless, I believe both of these sites have a lot to offer educationally, though the .gov site is always going to take the cake for having that verified, secure platform. It lets readers know right away that the information presented is going to be clear, concise, and verified as accurate to the best of human ability. 

   Communicating without Bias 

                                                                            

                                  Hiking Burnt Mountain, Sugarloaf, Maine, USA.

    Communication encompasses much more than the ability to speak aloud or by some other medium. Communication is deeply rooted in human nature and how we learn to interface with the world around us. From the very get-go, verbal and physical communication is the most crucial aspect of our development. When we think about communicating, a lot of times there is already a bias formed there based on the simple fact that we all come from different environments and backgrounds. These influence our communication modes. 

Taking a closer look, there is a lot of evidence that beyond our environment and background we also tend to communicate with and about individuals based on identity groupings; terms like "the blind" or the "mentally unstable" create a boundary between individuals that can often create discord or segregation where it doesn't belong. The simple fact remains that people, no matter from what background or what personal challenges they may face, want to be treated with dignity, compassion, and equality. 

We see this throughout all of history. Every frontier has been amended in some way, shape, or form ranging from race and ethnicity, gender, and now, disabilities. There is always room for human improvement of our social and emotional intellect. How we interface and communicate with the world has a lot of power to instill change and dictate how future generations will do so as well. The fact remains that disabilities are not defining terms. They are conditions that many if not all of us face at some point in our lives and they must be integrated into what we understand and interface with. 

In this recent communications learning module, we see an overview of communicating with and about people who have disabilities. I think a big takeaway here is that they are a variation of "normal." There is no one size fits all or one perfect mold for humanity. We all fall on a spectrum and we all hold key crucial elements that lead us to have quality lives. Being able to set aside the awkward element and being able to stand comfortably in a healthy, humble humility for the world and the learning process we are all constantly undergoing is crucial. Navigating journalism especially involves how to present people, places, and events to the larger world so that they may be understood and represented. I learned from this article that the most important tool we wield is the ability to avoid references to disabilities when communicating unless they are directly pertinent to the context. We do not have to zoom in on things that set people apart so much as highlighting the strengths, insights, and experiences they do have. Everyone is different, everyone is unique, and we have the power to change dialect when it comes to setting the bar for how we identify people. 

A few insights that come to mind for me personally-

As a child, I was involved with a civil rights group in my elementary and middle school. I went on to participate each year as an avid skier and runner in the Special Olympics events hosted by various institutions. These experiences stick with me even today. I remember attending a conference at the Augusta Civic Center and meeting countless individuals who experienced intellectual and developmental disabilities as well as those who work closely with them. It was an eye-opening experience for me because there is a very profound realization that all people, everywhere, all across this great green globe are having human experiences. Each and every one of us hold some piece of the spiritual, social "puzzle" or mystery. We are all having a profound existence and every single existence looks different. Our minds do not all work the same, and that is not a difference to fear or shy from. Regardless of gender, ethnicity, or disabilities, we are all human and worthy of compassion and celebration. These experiences give me goosebumps to this day. I can still hear the joyous laughter of people crossing the finish lines, whether on skis, using a prosthetic, or someone using a ski-sled who typically uses a wheelchair. Enjoying the simple pleasures of human interaction in the spirit of games and races not only highlighted individual capabilities but brought people together and unified in their individual experiences. The human experience is something we are meant to celebrate, differences included. In the future, I often fantasize about people having equal opportunities and freedoms to enjoy their experiences. For now, it starts with communication and how we approach the subject as we interface with the world. So much of what we do flows from our ability to communicate. 

As someone who aspires to become a better writer and potentially use journalism and communications to my benefit inside and outside of my career, there is so much room for improving human social conditions. It starts with language. When we shift our language, we change our perspective. That's as powerful a tool now as it always has been throughout our history.