Journalistic Ethics Rapidly Becoming Extinct By Richard Craig February 20, 1998

We all knew that news coverage of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal was redefining the benchmark for sleaze. Now a journalists' group has proved it for us.

The Committee of Concerned Journalists -- an association of distinguished newspeople which recently held a forum here in Ann Arbor -- has released a study of reporting on the Lewinsky story. The results indicate that the "Feeding Frenzy" mentality is leading more and more reporters to abandon their commitment to accuracy.

Given the poll results that show the public's distaste for this, it appears that news outlets are becoming more and more determined to make themselves irrelevant. They're also making it harder for people like me to teach ethics to prospective journalists.

The study examined coverage of the statements and allegations contained in the reporting by major television programs, newspapers and magazines over the first six days of the story. It found that 40 percent of all statements during that time were based on anonymous sourcing from a single source.

So what, right? Reporters use anonymous sources all the time. The key here is the use of information from one, and only one, anonymous source. While there's no one universal set of ethical guidelines for journalists, the general rule of thumb in most newsrooms has been to confirm information with a minimum of two sources when quoting anonymous sources. Clearly, when this story broke, more than a few reporters and editors were willing to throw their own accepted standards out the window.

In addition, 41 percent of all statements analyzed did not concern the known facts of the case, but instead were journalists offering analysis, opinion or speculation. Indeed, the report found that the single most common statement by journalists was that Clinton was in big trouble. While some might consider this obvious, was it a provable fact? No, it was a conclusion -- one which polls later proved to be at least questionable. Yet this interpretation was reported even more often than any of the actual allegations against the president, or his denials (such as they were) or details of the investigation.

According to the report, the next two most common statements by journalists were also conclusions: that the President was trying to mislead the public and that impeachment was a possibility. Now, at least theoretically, impeachment is always a possibility -- Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) asked the House Judiciary Committee to look into impeachment last March, for Pete's sake. But to assume that Clinton was dissembling or acting hypocritically when there were very few facts known was a fundamentally irresponsible act.

Of course, it could be argued that since very few hard facts were known early on, it forced journalists to go with what they had. The problem is that this assumes that a news organization must always pretend to have something to say, even when it doesn't have facts. This is a disturbing state of affairs, particularly in a society in which a lie repeated often enough becomes accepted as truth. This may also explain why one of the most commonly-voiced complaints about coverage of the scandal was that the media jumped to conclusions.

Many news outlets fueled this by taking an oft-used yet cowardly approach. Rather than trying to verify information on their own, they simply passed on reports from other outlets. Technically, by saying "The Washington Post is reporting that ...", they absolved themselves from blame if the information turned out to be false. This is a convenient way to duck responsibility -- something that too many organizations seem eager to do these days.

It's also a way in which the focus shifts from the scandal itself to coverage of the scandal. Too often, the coverage degenerated into journalists interviewing other journalists -- an incestuous yet fairly common practice. The study showed that between punditry and unverified reporting from other news outlets, 30 percent of what was reported was effectively based on no sourcing at all by the news outlet publishing it. This is suitable fodder for opinion columns, but not for the top of the news.

I teach classes on journalism here at the University of Michigan. One of the subjects that we discuss most is the ethical nature of journalism -- to what standards should journalists adhere? Thanks to the Lewinsky scandal and others like it, I'm having a harder and harder time maintaining credibility with my students.

While addressing a class this week, I was preaching the necessity of fact-checking -- "If your mother says she loves you, check it out" -- when the absurdity of the situation hit me. I was telling these students that they should be vigilant in verifying information if they want to be successful journalists, yet a mountain of real-world evidence points to the contrary.

Should people like me stop fooling ourselves and tell kids that when a scandal hits, all bets are off? Or should we continue to preach high standards, even if we're fighting a losing battle?

Hopefully, the reaction of the American people to the coverage of this scandal indicates that principled reporting isn't a lost cause.

©1998 Richard Craig. All rights reserved.

Unsubstantiated Facts Column Archive