Ethical Journalism

There is virtually no difference in the rules featured within pages 12-18. Every single one of the 26 guidelines spells out one main idea. It should not accept bribes, invitations, gifts, promote material outside of reviews, or accept payments for favorable coverage. Basically, The Times should not do anything that jeopardizes its neutral standpoint. To somebody working at the actual paper, I imagine these rules would be quite beneficial and save them from a wide array of ethical dilemmas. To a casual reader, not every item in the list is worth reading. Grasping the big picture is sufficient for a student like myself. And the big picture is: The New York Times and its reporters must strive to be fair and unbiased in its coverage.

Many of these restrictions only apply to larger newspapers, like the Times, with prestigious reputations and readerships in the hundred thousands. For starters, my tiny online publication does not have free access to any of the museums in our town, we will never get any colossal trade discounts from General Motors, and our reporters have yet to receive any honorary degrees.

On the other hand, several of these rules should be adopted by every newspaper, in spite of its staff size or readership. Staff members clearly shouldn't accept gifts or discounts from individuals or companies. This may interfere with a news outlet's ability to perform their rigorous watchdog routine for the public. Reporters or editors may be tempted to overlook scandals or other unfavorable stories if a certain company has showered a newspaper in gifts. For me, the main point here comes at the end of rule 26. If a publication does turn down an expensive gift, a polite letter to the company should always explain the reasoning behind the gesture.

My friend's uncle works at my local paper. One year, an Italian restaurant surprised a handful of the paper's reporters with tickets to a 76ers playoff game. The reporters turned down the generous offer with little to no explanation for their actions. To this day, the restaurant ignores the reporters and often refuses to seat them for lunch. When the paper orders out from the tiny Italian bistro for lunch, the noodles are often undercooked and the portions of garlic bread are anything but generous. This may sound ridiculous, but it does serve to illustrate an important lesson. Businesses may be looking for favorable coverage or discounted advertising when they hand out gifts, but in certain situations the gift may be a healthy sign of generosity or friendship. So, always make sure to politely explain the reasons for declining a gift or invitation.

My online publication is a small operation. My staff writers probably won't be asked to offer blurbs for book sleeves or testimonials on national TV networks any time soon. This is a serious problem for larger papers who don't want their reporters widely expressing their personal views and opinions in a public setting. If a person's opinions are followed by "Staff writer at the New York Times" it might be perceived that the Times shares the individual's views on the issue. If a person in that situation publicly expresses their viewpoints, they need to somehow separate themselves from the Times, and note that their views are not shared by their respective newspaper.

This idea will be upheld at my onlie publicaton. As I said, networks like NBC and national Bestseller sleeves will not pose many problems for our small operation. But, I will make it abundantly clear that my staff must proceed all opinions on social networking sites or personal blogs, with a statement that their viewpoints are not shared by our online publication.

I also had some issue with rule number 56. Clearly, reporters writing reviews on automobiles must return $70,000 BMWs after testdriving them. But do music reviewers have to return albums after listening to the music? My guess is no, considering most albums fall under $25.