Ethics: Spirit of the Game

On the first day of journalism class way back in 2002, my professor told us, "You are the camera. You're not in front of it."

 

First, I don't think I presented an "air-tight" case that no one can disagree with. People's stance on this is going to depend on things that would take a lot more than one post, no matter how well composed, to change.

Now, to shoot down the "it's ok if you investigate after the fact or away from the field, since that's not becoming part of the story" notion: Say I'm an NFL writer. My job is to chronicle a crappy team. If I write a column criticizing the coach, I'm contributing to the "media pressure" that eventually contributes to his firing. Am I becoming part of the story since my actions, along with the actions of every columnist who wrote a piece criticizing the coach, influenced the way the owner felt and affected his decision-making? Where does that line really get drawn on whether you're part of the story?

In cases like the one at the start of this tread, the whole notion of "not influencing the outcome" is more or less a fantasy. Most of the arguments here have set up this fallacy that goes: If we tell a rules official, then we are acting to influence the outcome, and if we don't tell the official, then we are not acting to influence the outcome. But by not reporting a golfer who broke a rule -- and deliberately withholding information IS an action (and a conscious choice, no less), no matter how passive the act may be -- you're indeed affecting the outcome because it allowed him to improve his score and perhaps bump someone down farther on the list. To me, the substantial difference between telling and not telling a rules official isn't whether you're influencing the outcome. You will do that either way. The only real difference is that if you act to point out his rule-breaking, people on the scene will know that you were part of the story. If you act to withhold information about his rule-breaking from the officials, nobody there knows that you influenced the outcome. And most journalists I know will never do or not do something just based on whether people will know about it.

Well, just because most are raised on getting wrapped up in the act of journalism, that doesn't make it right. Most lemmings are raised to run off cliffs, too. I'm just suggesting that we look deeper than the surface of journalistic practices and really think about the ultimate point of the craft, about why journalism matters.

From a more practical standpoint, it's pretty hard to tell people that journalists stand for fairness and all that good stuff and then explain to them that even though you knew somebody broke the rules, you consciously chose to not bring that to light when it mattered because of your journalistic principles. In fact, you could argue that it's hypocritical to allow the rule-breaking to happen by not bringing it to light, thump your chest and say you did the right thing by "not becoming the story", and then write a story about the rule-breaking that was partly allowed to occur because of your silence. How is that NOT becoming part of the story?

I disagree about journalism's point being the means, not the end. One, journalism isn't art. It involves an activity -- writing -- that can be art, but the trade of journalism itself is not art. Great works of journalism don't end up in art museums. So the process of creation isn't more important than the end product. Further evidence: The waves of people getting into the business aren't doing so out of the desire to create works of art. It's the idealism of making a difference, helping good, stopping evil, yaddy yadda, that's bringing them in. One of the objectives of journalism is to be a watchdog. What is the ultimate point of becoming a watchdog? To stop wrongdoings, not to merely observe and transcribe them. If you tell people that your ultimate goal as a journalist is to record and replay wrongdoings, not prevent them, how many people do you think would actually want to pursue this profession?

And then, we take a step back and see that all this debate about ethics and principles stemmed from a practice putt -- PRACTICE! -- and realize we have way too much time on our hands.

 

Just two points. And I think you present a compelling case.

It's not that hard to explain. The people you're explaining to may not understand it, but your principles are your principles.

Perhaps ... if they're pursuing the profession for anything else, their idealism should be met with a dose of realism.

 

Great thread.

Here are a couple other things to think about here.

1. We have all been at a high school game where the teams were out on the floor warming up before the refs emerged from the locker room. During this period, how many times have we seen a player throw down a dunk?

If the refs were there, it would have been a technical foul before the start of the game. But you saw it, and it is a violation of the rules, so you report it to the official?

What rules do you choose to report, and which rules do you choose not to report?

What are the "big ones" and what are the "don't worry abouts."

2. Let's say the writer reported the rules infraction to an official at the meet. The official would ask the golfer if they practice putted, and then the golfer said no.

You have a classic case of he said/she said, and guess what? The official would not (I'm hoping they would not) penalize the player just for a random person (the only one by the way) saying the rule was broken.

3. Last night Detroit had too many men on the ice. It was obvious and NBC noticed it. Should a representative from NBC stopped play so the refs could get the call correct?

 

Situation 1: No official is going to call a technical on hearsay, because someone in the stands says a player dunked in pre-game warmups. If that happened, you'd have 100 free throws assessed before the opening tip of every game.

Situation 2: You've been handed a magnificent subject for a column on a silver platter. If you caught a cheat and it is clear, and he lies on top of that, you run this guy out of town and show no mercy.

Situation 3: Apples and oranges from the subject at hand. No one other than the officials are permitted to make such a determination.

 

Agreed -- and was the point I was going to make after getting through the four pages here ... I'm sure there are similar incidents in every other sport where the TV crew sees something like this. But (and while I hesitate to call most of these people 'journalists') you don't see Joe Buck or Jim Nantz or whoever sending a quick message down to a coach or official saying to take a closer look at such-and-such a play or player. It just isn't done. It can't be done. And, if we do it, we shift from journalism into the realm of Dateline: To Catch A Predator. (Not journalism.)

 

Yes and no ... switch the sport to football. Infraction occurs and John Blowhard Madden sees it. Coaches down there don't. Does he radio down to the field and tell the offended coach that he needs to toss that red flag? He did, after all, see the infraction. He knows it happened. And if he doesn't say anything, an unfair advantage is had. If he does say something, coach listens, correct call is made. Is that ok?

 

Can't help but think that our code as journalists parrallells that ol' Prime Directive. Thanks, Gene.


"As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Star Fleet personnel may interfere with the healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes the introduction of superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Star Fleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral
obligation."

 

Yeah, but just about every time they mention the Prime Directive on the show, they proceed to bend it or find some dogmatic loophole around it

 

true enough ...