ByWillAtkinson.com

The secret is out: journalists lie. Woodward and Bernstein, journalism’s beatified sons, lied to score their scoop. Jayson Blair lied to keep his prestigious job. I recently read Sissela Bok’s classic book on lying, aptly titled “Lying.” Enjoy:

In 1978’s “Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life,” writer and philosopher Sissela Bok addresses the act of lying and its moral implications. Bok was astonished at the lack of moral theory available in the late 70s in regards to lying (Bok xix).

What is a lie? According to Bok, a lie is a statement intended to mislead (Bok . Her definitions does not account for the factual truthfulness or falsity of a statement, but rather if the statement was “intended” to mislead (Bok . A misleading intent, therefore, is the unique feature that characterizes a lie.

Bok discusses several systems by which philosophers have used to weigh moral decisions, one of which is the philosopher Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative. Kant’s categorical imperative states, “Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Bok 52). In other words, all of one’s actions should be able to be applied successfully and morally to humankind.

As a mass communication professional, one can use Kant’s categorical imperative to help make decisions in newsgathering and other activities. Bok warns against journalists using deceptive tactics, “If deception is pervasive and rarely punished, then it will be all the more likely to spread” (Bok 120). Bok mentions two revered newspaper reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, as examples.

Both reporters received Pulitzer Prizes for their work in investigating President Nixon’s involvement in the Watergate break-in. A movie based upon their stories, “All the President’s Men,” won several Oscars in 1976, including for best picture. Obscured in all the hullabaloo was an unsettling fact: Woodward and Bernstein lied to sources in order to extract information. In fact, “the two journalists came to tell more than one lie; a whole fabric of deception arose” (Bok 120).

Sources were falsely told the reporters already had information when it was merely speculation, the reporters fraudulently impersonated officials, and they lied to sources “in order to extract corroboration of a fact which [Deep Throat] would have feared to reveal in other ways” (Bok 121). Additionally, the Washington Post printed some stories by Woodward and Bernstein “for which there was not always adequate evidence” (Bok 121).

Bok elaborates the reasoning the two journalists might have had for lying: professional pressure, desire to break a story first, and to gain fame (Bok 120). The “mounting crisis” of Watergate provided an adequate circumstance for the reporters to lie (Bok 120,121). The Watergate stories needed to be told but Bok is unconvinced deception was required in order to report the stories. “The absence of any acknowledgement of a moral dilemma” troubles Bok even more. She writes that young reporters might be inspired by Woodward and Bernstein to pursue similar tactics as journalists (Bok 121). Woodward and Bernstein’s example could have severe professional effects on journalism and its perceived credibility (Bok 121).

Although credibility problems with the media existed when Bok wrote “Lying” in the late-70s, her words seem prophetic as prominent media studies continually find problems with the public’s perception of media credibility. A large portion of modern newspaper readers believes papers “are often biased and tend to over-cover sensational stories” (“The Findings in Brief”).
If Kant’s categorical imperative were applied using Woodward and Bernstein’s methods, it becomes difficult to foresee any improvement in media credibility. Reporters would be known universally as liars and would not be trusted. With Woodward and Bernstein’s methods used universally, sources would soon dry up because they would not want to be lied to or used as advancement in a reporter’s quest for fame.

Bok is hardly negative toward journalistic pursuits, however. In a 2003 conference on journalism and business values held by the Poynter Institute, Bok said, “Journalists already have a head-start on high-quality ethics because they often come equipped with a healthy skepticism” (Sloan). She said a “continued and repeated emphasis” on ethical practices by CEOs and company boards is “vitally important” (Sloan). Therefore, she believes the people who control a company – publishers, editors and station managers – can set an ethical tone beneficial to all companies, including those that produce journalism.

Mass communication professionals rely upon the “principle of veracity.” The principle of veracity, or truth, is a “foundation of relations among human beings; when this trust shatters or wears away, institution collapse” (Bok 31). Consumers of media invest their time because they believe in the truth of what they see, hear, or read. Mass communication professionals, in turn, rely upon the veracity of sources, reports, documents and other sources of news and information. Both media consumers and mass communication professionals rely upon veracity.

Reporters must consider alternative methods to deceptive newsgathering tactics. Lying to get a story, often done to sell more papers or receive higher ratings, will actually erode audience over time (Pritchard 25). Media products considered unreliable sources of news will lose to media outlets that make veracity a top goal. For example, CBS canceled “60 Minutes II” shortly after a questionable segment about President Bush’s military record aired.

Consider the news reporter. A reporter’s job is often to venture into a newspaper’s surrounding community and retrieve news of broad interest. Suppose a reporter overhears a company’s executive having a conversation regarding the company’s impending round of layoffs. Interesting, the reporting thinks. The reporter might think it worthwhile to get some more information. The reporter goes to the company headquarters and masquerades as a janitor in order to listen in on a board meeting discussing the layoffs. A hard-hitting, front-page story is published, sending shocks across the community. The story goes on the wires and the reporter receives book offers and television interviews. The public praises the reporter for courage and enterprise.

However, why should the public trust the story? If the reporter misrepresented himself or herself to overhear a meeting, what else might be a lie? What can be taken as truth and what can be taken as falsehood? The excuse for the lie would be public benefit. The public now knows that the company is going to fire people, and people who have jobs there can leave earlier.
However, predictions of a public good that will result from a lie are risky. “The possibilities of error about one’s good intentions are immense” (Bok 81). Because of the reporter’s story, the company might declare bankruptcy (due to a stock market dive) and employees would not receive severance packages. A plethora of possible negative scenarios could result from the reporter’s decision to gather news disingenuously.

The truthfulness of a reporter is essential. Any aberration from ethical conduct impairs other journalists and erodes public confidence. Additionally, it is imperative to remember the speculation of public good that will result from a story gathered through surreptitious means is a loser’s game.

Take another example: the editor. Editors control what media consumers see, hear and view. They determine newsworthiness of stories. Suppose an editor is learns of a couple that was killed waiting in a car. The editor learns the police charged two suspects and puts a reporter on the story. The reporter brings back a story with all the necessary details and the editor prepares to place it on the news page layout.

Before going to press, the editor learns the suspects previously charged have been cleared of the crime. The police have named another suspect. Your photographer already has a picture of the previous suspects, your reporter has the story, and you have already laid out the page. Do you wait until the next day?

The editor might go ahead with the story the reporter already wrote. It might be late in the day and the editor wants to come home to a family and eat dinner. The editor might go through three ways Bok says people come up with excuses. The editor might not see a fault in reporting the original story. After all, what does the editor know about this new suspect? This new suspect could be cleared as quickly as the first one. Second, the editors might clear himself of blame, because “he is not responsible” (Bok 74). It is not his fault the police are going through suspects like wildfire, after all. Third, the editor might even blame the police. The editor has “good reasons to do as he did” (Bok 74).

Under no circumstance should the editor name the individuals originally charged with the crime. The editor would be printing information he knows to be untrue. Word that the editor knew the information was untrue would undoubtedly get to the public (perhaps in the blogosphere). The paper would be shamed and its credibility tarnished.

By putting forth a lie as truth, media professionals cannot expect the public to accept media products as truth. It is self-defeating and hypocritical to use deceptive tactics in a profession that vaunts the pursuit of truth.

## Unrelated news ##
Will have a story on the Spratt/Norman 5th District race tomorrow in the Johnsonian.

My blog for the Rock Hill Herald continues to provide Winthrop coverage.