In a perfect world I would have a job doing research,
writing, and producing original content in sports media for a radio and TV simulcast similar to SVP and
Russillo, Boomer and Carton, or
the Dan Patrick Show. One ethical
scenario that I know I would run into would be booking guests on the show that
breaks news relying on unnamed sources. Another ethical scenario would be one
that happens pretty frequently in sports media. I might want to speak out
against a Commissioner, or an owner of a franchise that broadcasts on my
station, and I may be told not to do so. Or if I do speak out, I may be suspended or fired. The perfect example of this is when ESPN and PBS did a documentary on
the effects of head trauma in the NFL, only for ESPN to pull the plug at the
last minute because of their relationship with the NFL.
The Frontline documentary, League of Denial, had two excellent investigative journalists from
ESPN working with PBS to uncover the long-term effects repeated head trauma had
on former NFL players. This was very damaging evidence to the NFL as more and
more lawsuits came on from former players. A few months before ESPN was set to air this documentary; they decided not to
show it in what was a clear conflict of interest. ESPN has a
multibillion-dollar contract with the NFL to air their games and it seemed as
if they did not want to anger the league that is paying them their billions. My
second example of an ethical dilemma happened a few years ago at Notre Dame. An
unnamed Notre Dame football player was accused of sexually assaulting a girl
who would later go on to kill herself. There seemed to be no
true investigation to this girl's claims, there were accusations that this
player’s teammates threatened
this girl to stop making problems, and yet this unnamed player was never
charged with any crime, nor did he miss any playing time on the field. There
was barely any mention of it in local news, and less in the national news.
People knew about this, and nobody wanted to say anything, but why? It probably
has something to do with Notre Dame wanting to keep its pristine reputation, or
not wanting to lose its lucrative TV deal with
NBC. I'm just glad that somebody decided to do some investigating, but I'm
still disappointed that nobody on a national level decided to do some digging.
As it pertains to my dream job,
a key tool I would use would be diligent research for fact gathering on a subject
to discuss for the program. I understand that time is of the essence, but there
is a saying from one of the broadcasts that I watch that states, "Fast and
wrong is still fast." Unfortunately, I find that to be true of too many respected
sports media outlets. I comprehend that it's important to be the first to
report a breaking news story, but I'm more interested that they are getting all
the facts correctly, rather than constantly having to go back and check if the
person that broke the story has corrected their initial reports.
After
going over Chapter 1, two of the ideologies that stuck out to me were Sissela Bok’s steps to
making ethical decisions, and Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative. This may
be a stretch, but I think that within these two ideologies there are
similarities that can be used in journalism for the greater good. Bok tells us
to use three steps when analyzing an ethical question. First, we ask ourselves
how we feel about the action, then we consult an expert, and finally we attempt
to seek public dialogue with the people that are involved in the dispute (p. 5).
Bok’s final step may present a problem if a journalist is up against a deadline,
but if it is something that needs to get done there are always ways to properly
see things through. I especially liked the categorical imperative because this
is how I try to do anything in my day-to-day life. The two ways you can carry
out the categorical imperative are to “act as if the choices one makes for
oneself could become a universal law (p. 9).” Or, “you should act so that you
treat each individual as an end and never as merely a means (p. 9).” I'm fairly
certain that the categorical imperative resonates with me because of my nine
years in Catholic school being taught to “do unto others as you would have done
unto you.” Truthfully, I was more drawn to the explanation that Patterson gives
to the reader regarding this theory. “Kant's ethical theory is based on the
notion that it is the act itself, rather than the person who acts, where moral
force resides (p. 10).” Personally, I don't like attention. I don't like the
spotlight. But I want to do what's best for the people I am trying to help. I
interpreted Patterson's explanation to mean that you are never bigger than whatever
act you are doing. You should always ask yourself, if you are doing this because you want to better the lives of
the people you are serving? Or are you doing this to serve yourself?
As I
mentioned in my opening paragraph, the ethical dilemmas that come up in sports
media work, happen in every field of journalism. I believe that when
journalists come out of school they truly want to make a difference by
reporting the facts supported by quotes from people in high places that are not
afraid to put their name to said quotes. A journalist could come in from
uncovering a massive story that would change the lives of the people they're reporting
to, only to be shot down by editors or owners of the media outlet because it
would affect their wallets. These same journalists could also be stonewalled by
these people in high places giving them quotes, but telling them that they must
refer to the people they're quoting as “a source familiar with the situation” instead
of their actual name. While this may not necessarily harm a journalist’s
credibility, media cynics like me continually lose faith in the human race
because of the use of “sources.”
No comments:
Post a Comment