Journalists and the media have an incredible responsibility that involves informing

the public and keeping them up to date on important news and current affairs in an

accurate and unbiased manner . In recent times, this task has become exceedingly

complicated as most journalists have to walk a fine line between integrity and

commerce. Hard decisions are made every day. Sometimes these decisions involve

choosing not to air or print certain information or to provide information that is

not meant for public consumption at that time. It can involve breaking the law and

it always involves influencing the public on some level. There is a contrast between

printing everything that is known, selecting information to disregard, and presenting

information that is simply false. This difference has an impact on society. Media

personnel representing a major bias also have an affect on facts that are being

analyzed by the masses. This essay will look at the importance of accurate and

unbiased reporting, its affect on society and the difficulties associated with it.



























“Journalists are trained to operate under a professional code of values and

ethics…” states a representative for the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance.

According to the MEAA, each individual in the media is aware of their code of ethics.

An important ethical concern of the association is that journalists need to be

accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers, and each other. They are responsible

to “report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all

essential facts” (Australian Journalists’ Association Code of Ethics, 2003, p. 1) The

association does not permit the deliberate misuse of information. Not only that, but

“disclose conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy,

fairness or independence of your journalism” (Australian Journalists’ Association

Code of Ethics, 2003, p. 1) is encouraged.


The MEAA does contend however, that one of a journalist’s main interests should be

the public’s right to know. The association states journalists describe society to itself.

They convey information, ideas and opinions, a privileged role. They search, disclose,

record, question, entertain, suggest and remember. They inform citizens and animate

democracy. They give a practical form to freedom of expression. Many journalists

work in private enterprise, but all have these public responsibilities. They scrutinise

power, but also exercise it, and should be accountable. The MEAA, along with other

organisations such as AIM.org and FAIR.org, is promoting accuracy and media

fairness, but also trying to ensure careers of respectable journalists without

compromising the legitimacy of information.








Many editors and journalists in the media agree that there are journalists who do not

abide by the code of ethics presented by the Australian Journalists’ Association.

Whilst it is expected for journalists to keep their personal and political opinions out of

their work (unless those opinions are called for), there are many examples of bias in

the media. This bias is not just unacceptable on a ‘ethical’ level, but it is sometimes

inadmissible on legal grounds as well. In 1997, John Laws a radio personality, was

charged with contempt of court after remarks made on his radio program caused a

man’s murder trial to be aborted (1997).


Whilst ‘freedom of speech’ is at the heart of all journalistic endeavours, that heart

must attempt at all times to be fair and unbiased, otherwise the results can be

catastrophic. Journalists and the media wield such power not just in local markets,

but how the news is reported can greatly affect the world’s view of western countries

such as Australia and America. According to Sardar and Davies, the west’s continual

misrepresentation of Arab nations and the Muslim faith contributed to the negative

attitude and subsequent terrorist attack’s on New York in 2001. “No society is more

open than America, more blessed with the means of communication…yet the power

of that media, works to keep American people closed to experience and ideas from

the rest of the world and thereby increases the insularity, self-absorption and

ignorance that is the over-riding problem the rest of the world has with America”

2002, p. 11). This is an extreme yet incredibly important example of how bias in

media can affect how the public, here and in other countries, make decisions on

how they view the world.








There is no better example of media bias than when dealing with politics. The most

popular belief among liberals is that the news media has a labour bias, however

according to labour the news media has a conservative slant. Liberals contend that

the press gives short shrift to traditional conservatives topics such as religion and

family values, while giving disproportionate attention to more left wing positions such

as abortion, feminism, gay rights, and the environment. It is widely known that ‘The

Age’ newspaper tends to be less conservative than ‘The Australian’ or ‘Financial

Review’, when reporting certain political coverage. Scholars argue that at certain

times the Australian press has been more left or right, reflecting the climate of the

country at the time. One critic reasons that the problem may not be journalistic bias,

but the way journalists approach balance and fairness might be misunderstood, even

rejected by the news consumers. A crucial job of a journalist is to appease the public

while maintaining a balance of opinion in his or her work.


























This journalistic bias, can at times be unavoidable as journalists are human and it is

not always possible to even identify bias, let alone prevent it completely. However

using false reporting in an attempt to increase rating or circulation is also

prevalent in the media and is an extremely dangerous practice. The popularity, for

example, of one-hour newsmagazines has placed pressure upon these moneymakers

to create flashy and sensational reporting often at the expense of accuracy and

honesty. As in the case of Dateline, a newsmagazine affiliated with NBC, two car

crashes were staged to show that GM trucks were unsafe and hazardous to the public.

Later it was discovered that the “holocaust” fire that was described was in fact

planned by NBC to “get a decent show”. The piece was later retracted due to

obviously fraudulent actions on the part of NBC. Unfortunately, retractions and

apologies often come too little, too late as the victims of this type of journalism have

already been tried and convicted by the media. More often than not, reputations are

ruined and businesses destroyed before the truth is revealed and even then there is no

guarantee that the public that saw the original fraudulent report will also see the

apology.


















Whilst many critics of journalism today tout the lack of honest, unbiased

and accurate reporting, it is completely unfair to lay the blame squarely at the feet

of journalists or media outlets. There are those that would argue that some these

‘ethical and legal’ responsibilities violate the basic tenant of the media and that

is ‘free speech.’ At the basis of all democratic societies, is the principle of ‘free

speech.’ The censorship debate has raged for many years and is often one of

the reasons why journalists do not always follow the ethical standards set out

for them. This paradox is best observed in the United States, where the right to

free speech is actually one of the amendments to their Constitution. However the

U.S. does have a reputation for ‘selecting’ which speech is actually free or not.

In 1983 The Supreme Court upheld an earlier ruling that allowed the principle

of East Hazlewood High School to censor the school newspaper (Pember, 1997).

With these conflicting attitudes prevalent not just in United States, but also here

in Australia it is very difficult for the media to know exactly the ‘right’ way to

tackle the issues of privacy, censorship and freedom of speech.


Some member so the general public may believe that inaccurate or unfair reporting

does not affect them or that the impact of the media in general is not that great. This

is simply not true. What the public views on TV has a great impact on how they act in

life. According to a poll conducted at the Roper Centre, 71% of those surveyed said

they relied on news in helping them make practical decisions…in manners such as

investing, purchasing, voting, health, and education. Accurate and honest information

is then crucial to the quality of the decisions made by the public.




The poor material, as well as the responsible material, impacts society as a whole,

says Lou Prato in his article “Most Journalists Are Ethical.” He continues to say that

“responsible, honourable journalism still exists”. However, there are members of

the media who believe that they themselves have not done an adequate job covering

news that builds community, inspires people, and offers solutions. “We must better

this,” says Richard Oppel, a journalist himself . Although the people of America seem

content with the old-fashioned way of getting news, such as Nightly Network News,

Local TV news, and local newspapers, 90% of the public said the media’s desire to

profit “improperly influences the news”. The fact that the traditional news outlets are

the least trusted intensifies the pressure on these journalists to improve their reporting.


The task of reporting the news is a demanding one. How the journalist may be

impacted is often overlooked in cases of inaccuracy, censorship, and bias. It must be

taken into consideration, however, the impression a journalist has on current events in

the media. In a study done by FAIR.org, it was discovered that 90% of the news

media agreed that the Nightly Network News was not as accurate as it could be.

This shows that the media is aware of the problem at hand. However, what it does not

show is the impact sloppy reporting has on a respectable journalist. Stereotypes tend

to tarnish the work of the entire profession. Many respectable reporters are out

working to give the media a decent name.










The readers and communities need to trust those journalists who are doing a decent

job. Alexandra Marks explains in her article, “To the Public, the Press too Often Gets

it Wrong,” from SIRS Researcher, that the public needs hold up their end of the deal.

This is where the solutions to media problems may lay. The past is often a blueprint

for the future. Lessons learned in the past can change and alter activities later on, and

care must be taken in how one writes, and how one interprets the news. Society is

informed today. When discrepancies first appeared, however, the public’s difficulty

knowing whom to trust was evident. “‘Twenty or thirty years ago there was plenty of

plagiarism, embellishment, and other unethical short cuts,’” explains Howard Kurtz,

media critic for the Washington Post. The number of cases within the past five, ten,

even twenty years, in which the public’s well being is put at risk, is what is disturbing.

The severity of the cases, and the varying punishments, also cause controversy.


Gays in the military is an issue on the front burner nowadays. In 1993, there was an

overwhelming controversy concerning this issue. Most of the reports were negative.

However, a positive RAND study never got significant coverage. This report

supposedly cost the Pentagon $1.2 million, and President Clinton based his 1993

Executive Order on this study. This study, as found on the “Real News Page”

website, revealed that 76% of military participants were against discrimination based

upon sexual orientation. When the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was struck, RAND

was reluctantly forced to back itself and it’s study off due to the lack of enthusiasm to

print controversial issues. As a result, the American people were deprived of a

substantial educational document that could have provided research information and

facts to the public’s debate on gays in the military. Magazines, newspapers, and TV

are responsible in some part for the distribution of this information, and they

obviously failed to inform the public in this incident.

Another example is the case of CNN and Time Magazine. The television news station

and the magazine were reporting that the U.S. military was using nerve gas to kill

American defectors in Laos during the Vietnam War. The “‘serious faults in

reporting’” were not acknowledged until the U.S. government exposed information

that disproved the story. The program and the magazine only then retracted the

article. Closer to home, programs such as ‘A Current Affair’ and magazines

‘Who Weekly’ are notorious for sensational journalism and inability to show

both sides of the story.


In some ways, journalistic ethics have improved over the last half-century

Registered Members, login
Join now, it's free

Property of EssaySwap.com