Deception in journalism – morally wrong?

Jump to Comments

DECEPTION IN JOURNALISM IS UNPROFESSIONAL AND MORALLY WRONG. DISCUSS.

“Some doctors claim exemption from a strict rule against lying in as much as they on occasion have to lie (so they say) to fulfill their overriding duty to patients to do them no harm. Might not journalists claim to be similarly exempted: that they sometimes ‘have to’ lie to fulfill their overriding duty to the public to unearth and reveal important truths?” (Besley, 1992, p93)

There is no clear answer to the question of whether deception in journalism is unprofessional and morally wrong. If we are discussing deception in newsgathering, certain extreme circumstances mean that a journalist may have to deceive to get to the heart of a story. For the act of deception to be deemed morally and professionally conscionable there must be no other way to glean the information, and the story must be of great public interest. This is reflected in the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) Code:

“PCC Code Clause 11
(i) Journalists must not generally obtain or seek to obtain information or pictures through misrepresentation or subterfuge.
(ii) Documents or photographs should be removed only with the consent of the owner.
(iii) Subterfuge can be justified only in the public interest and only when material cannot be obtained by any other means. “
(Saunders, 2005, p48.)

The matter of deception in story telling is a more complex matter entirely.

Deception in newsgathering is most commonly associated with investigative journalism, defined by Randall as:

“original research carried out by journalists often using the rawest of material. It can be extensive interviewing, or matching and comparing facts and figures and discovering previously unknown patterns and connections.”
(Randall, 2000, p99)

It is when deception is used in other areas of journalism that the most unconscionable acts are often perpetrated. Randall also serves to give us an example of such behaviour – a reporter at the Los Angeles Examiner was told by his editor to telephone the mother of a murdered girl before she would have been made aware of her daughter’s death. Breaking the news to her in this way would have been morally reprehensible enough but before doing so the reporter was instructed to tell her not that her daughter had been killed, but that she had won a beauty competition. He then gleaned information from the unaware mother about her daughters life. Once he had all he needed, he was ordered to tell her the truth. (Randall, 2000, p119)

This is clearly unprofessional and ethically repugnant. Even within the parameters of investigate journalism, in cases of the highest public interest, reporters must not gather information by deception if it can be found out any other way. In this case the journalist in question could and should have waited for the mother to be informed of her daughters death by the proper authorities. Only then should he have approached her for information, and if she did not wish to share it, he should have respected her wishes.

For deception to be ethically and professionally justified, as well as there being no other way to gather the information, the information you do gather must reside firmly in the domain of the public interest. This does not simply mean it is of interest to the public. The PCC defines it thusly –

“The public interest includes.
(i) Detecting or exposing crime or a serious misdemeanour.
(ii) Protecting public health and safety
(iii) Preventing the public from being misled by some statement or action of an individual or organisation.”
(Saunders, 2005, p49)

However, part one of this definition can still prove problematic. A good example of how involves the News of the World’s “cocaine sting” strategy, employed several times in 1999. News of the World journalists approached minor celebrities, and offered them cocaine, obviously without revealing their press affiliation.

“celebrity victims of the NoW’s ‘cocaine sting’ strategy … included Richard Bacon (fired from presenting Blue Peter), DJ Johnnie Walker (suspended from Radio 2) and England Rugby captain Lawrence Dallaglio (fined £15,000 for bringing the game into disrepute).” (Keeble, 2001, p57)

The Earl of Hardwicke was also jailed after being ’stung’ but the judge gave him a relatively short sentence amid worries that the newspaper was perpetrating entrapments.

“The paper defended its position, claiming it was exposing ‘one of the greatest social evils in Britain.’ “
(Keeble, 2001, p57)

It could be argued that in reality the News of the World was really interested in selling papers. Had it wished to tackle the mounting levels of cocaine abuse in Britain its time would have been better spent attempting to expose cocaine dealers, not posing as them.

Many triumphs of investigative journalism have involved the author engaging in outright deceptions which, had they been made known to the public at the time, could have been judged to have been at the very least, in extremely bad taste.

For example, in the 1960s American journalist Jessica Mitford began phoning funeral homes, posing as a recently bereaved person trying to arrange a service for a loved one. She used the information gleaned from this to write an expose of the questionable practices employed by workers in said establishments to encourage vulnerable people to spend money on unnecessary procedures and accessories. (Pilger, 2004, p46)

“The American Way of Death became an instant bestseller…It not only made funerals a fashionable media topic, but caused membership of non-profit funeral societies to leap from 17,000 to almost a million.”
(Pilger, 2004, p46)

In the late 70s and 80s German journalist Gunter Wallraff took on a completely false identity – even altering his racial appearance by disguising himself as a Turkish immigrant – to uncover how those deemed to be on the bottom of his countries social scale were treated by those with power. The book he wrote about his experiences, the tellingly titled “Ganz unten (Lowest of the Low)” remains the most successful in German publishing history. (Pilger, 2004, p159)

It is interesting though that in John Pilger’s 2004 book “Tell Me No Lies: Investigative Journalism and its Triumphs” these are the only two cases (out of 29) where such a level of deception is involved in the process of newsgathering. It could be argued that this indicates just how necessary deceptive practices must be deemed to be, even by those exposing corruption in the highest echelons of power.

“Isn’t that a kind of moral self-indulgence? You keep yourself pure by not doing the dirty deeds necessary, but at the cost of innocent lives.”
(Baggini, 2005, p51)

In some cases, even if there is a clear public interest in the material being investigated, and there is no other way other than deception for the journalist to gather information, moral quagmires may still arise. One example of this is the 1978 case of ‘The Abortion Profiteers.’ The Chicago Sun-Times was informed by a source unwilling to go on the record or provide documental evidence, that four clinics in the city were performing “abortions” on women who were not actually pregnant as a means to make more money. After two female journalists who made appointments with the clinics in question were told they were pregnant after providing urine samples which had in fact been taken from men, the newspaper put several reporters undercover at the facilities.

“For months, investigators observed nonpregnant women having “abortions.” To protect their cover, the investigators rarely intervened to prevent these abuses; worse, at times they were at least indirect agents of the wrongdoing. The decision to continue gathering information for the story was often agonising and always made on utilitarian grounds.”
(Christians et al, 2001, p69)

While the journalists in question may have felt personally very guilty for not stepping in to prevent what they knew at the time to be needless procedures, likely to have both physical and emotional consequences, they had to reason that the procedure would have taken place whether they were there or not. However, the fact that they were present at those specific times meant that other women would not suffer needlessly in future. This also relates back to the problems of engaging in ’stings’ or entrapment – had the journalist not interfered, they could not say with any real confidence that a situation would have unfolded as it did. However, in cases such as ‘The Abortion Profiteers” where the controversy surrounds an event which would have taken place regardless, a journalist who is truly committed to uncovering the truth must put “moral self-indulgence” aside.

“All you can do is make sure your conscience is as clear as a profession full of compromise and uncertainty will allow it to be.” John Simpson
(Saunders, 2005, p163)

Outside of investigative journalism, there are other times when it can be deemed necessary for a journalist to deceive. While reporting from Iraq for the Wall Street journal, Farnaz Fassihi would disguise herself in a burkha to make herself less vulnerable to attacks from insurgents. (Fassihi, F, (2004))

Premeditated attacks on journalists are rising across the globe, but in war zones especially. So far this year thirty journalists have been killed in Iraq alone. (www.cpj.org 08/11/07)

Many war correspondents, especially Westerners now disguise themselves to lower the chances of attack. This is clearly a form of deception, yet it is unlikely that a journalist would be deemed unprofessional or immoral for such behaviour.

Deception in journalism can also be examined in relation to ethical schools of thought.

According to Immanuel Kant there was one ruling ‘categorical imperative‘ that must be held to be true above all others, stating that human beings should

“act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law for all rational beings”
(Saunders, 2005, p18.)

According to Saunders

“On a Kantian view of things, journalists could claim no privileges because categorical imperatives are not subject to circumstances.”
(Saunders, 2005, p18.)

Perhaps unsurprisingly then, it is a journalist who provides us with a loophole. In his 2005 book ‘The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten” Guardian columnist Julian Baggini – who has also authored many books on the subject of philosophy – shows that Kant’s ruling categorical imperative is in fact, all about circumstances. He uses the example of a woman given the opportunity to run off with her best friends husband and his family fortune. On the surface, this seems like an obvious moral choice – she should not do this, for she would not wish to make it a universal law that it is acceptable for people to run off with their best friends husbands. But, he argues, what if her best friend had been cheating on her husband for years while siphoning off his fortune? Then she is really making a universal law that it is acceptable to run off with your best friends husband when his wife is cheating and stealing his money.

“The problem [her] situation highlights is not just a sophisticated joke at the rule’s expense. It goes to the heart of what the principle actually means. For either one of two interpretations, the principle is either ridiculous or empty…because every circumstance is slightly different; every case is in some sense unique. So anything we did could be justified on the grounds that we would agree to be treated the same way in exactly the same circumstance.”
(Baggini, 2005, p248.)

However, this loophole is one that could keep us turning forever. As pointed out by Baggini, it is nigh on impossible to find two separate situations unfolding under the exact same circumstances. His method of further validating our moral and ethical choices – looking for “relevant similarity” is very comparable to the advice given to journalists facing a difficult decision.

“We should do as we would be done by in any situation which, though not exactly the same, is similar in the morally relevant ways.”
(Baggini, 2005, p248.)

Journalists unsure as to whether a certain deception may be justifiable would be wise to examine previous cases where deception was used. By examining instances where the act was accepted as necessary, they can better judge what course to take in their own circumstances.

As aforementioned, the reasoning of utilitarianism – that consequences of an action determine whether the action itself was morally and ethically just – is often used by those in the journalistic trade to validate their methods. What must always be borne in mind is the reasoning of Bernard Williams, a former Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge:

“…if utilitarianism is true, it is better on utilitarian grounds that people should not believe in it because of its tendency to debase the moral currency.”
(Saunders, 2005, p20)

What this means for journalists is that the consequences alone are not enough to justify any action. This leads us on to the other type of deception in journalism – deception in story telling.

“The media might comply with a request from the police to release false information so as to lure kidnappers into a trap. Subsequently the public might be ‘debriefed’ and its approval sought and gained retrospectively for the media’s complicity”
(Besley, 1992, p100)

The situation hypothesized in the above quote involves an action most reasonable people would judge to be ethically sound. There are other examples of such behaviour that are more problematic.

In the 2007 film ‘Manufacturing Dissent‘ accusations were made that left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore took

“…liberties with the truth and the chronology of events for greater dramatic effect” (Liberation Entertainment 2007)

and also that he

“uses the tools of the editor to break the principles of the journalistic trade.”
(Liberation Entertainment 2007)

In one scene of the film he is asked:”That’s true. Film is edited. It is manipulated to present a point of view. The facts in the films are 100% completely true.” “
(Liberation Entertainment 2007)

But as Pilate said to Jesus

“Truth? What is that?” (Saunders, 2005, p40)

It can be a slippery concept. For example, in the 2002 film ‘Bowling for Columbine’ Moore uses the fact that Canada has the same number of licensed firearms per head of the population as America does, but far less gun-related violence, in support of his theory that the “culture of fear” perpetuated in the American media and the racism inherent within it are responsible for the appalling level of gun violence in the United States. However, in “Manufacturing Dissent” it is revealed that most licensed firearms in Canada are hunting rifles, not handguns. Handguns are the most popular licensed firearms in the US and are the weapons used in the majority of gun related crime across the globe. While in the same film it is argued that:

“Michael Moore has been able to make himself heard and has been able to land some punches.” – Joseph Heath, co-author “The Rebel Sell“
(Liberation Entertainment 2007)

if these punches are not landing where they can have a real effect they have not really done any discernable good. The evidence uncovered by Moore and the conclusions that can be drawn from it – that America needs tighter restrictions on the ownership of handguns – are the real heart of the issue. Misleading ‘evidence’ such as this inevitably also leads to aspersions being cast over all of the investigator in questions conclusions.

It must also be considered that when the argument that “the ends justify the means” is used, we must immediately ask “For whom?”

Website Medialens.org recently accused news outlets including The Times and The Independent newspapers, the BBC and CNN, of misleading the public over the circumstances surrounding the closing of a domestic television station by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. This is not the first time Medialens has questioned the portrayal of Chavez in the British and American media. They argue that despite him having been democratically elected, he is often painted as an autocratic militarist.

In June of this year Chavez decided not to renew the license of Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), leading to accusations that
“Mr Chavez is moving towards an increasingly authoritarian rule and is quashing dissent against his ’socialist revolution’.” (Philp, ‘”He is losing the country’s respect”,’ The Times, May 29, 2007)”
(Quoted from 13/06/07 Available at www.medialens.org)

However, Medialens claim this is not the case:

“for two days before the April 11, 2002 coup, RCTV cancelled regular programming and instead ran constant coverage of a general strike aimed at ousting Chavez. A stream of commentators delivered fierce criticism of the president with no response allowed from the government. RCTV also ran non-stop adverts encouraging people to attend an April 11 march aimed at toppling the government…FAIR [Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting] also makes the obvious point: “Were a similar event to happen in the U.S., and TV journalists and executives were caught conspiring with coup plotters, it’s doubtful they would stay out of jail, let alone be allowed to continue to run television stations, as they have in Venezuela.” (FAIR, op. cit)”
(Quoted from 13/06/07 Available at www.medialens.org)

What Medialens are insinuating is that the press in the West seeks to undermine the authority of foreign governments with whom their own government takes issue. While often this may be for noble reasons, it is often too an exercise in power play and the protection of business interests. While the West may claim to want to rid developing countries of Communist or Fascist rulers, they wish to do so on their own terms so that they may still exercise power over these countries and their natural resources. So while they may argue that ‘the ends justify the means’ that may only be true for the West, not for the citizens of other nations they seek to plunder.

Journalists unsure as to whether a deception they are considering is justified or not are advised to carry out “The Publicity Test” (Besley, 1992, p107).

An unsure journalist should ask the opinion of a journalist of more experience. Not only will a more seasoned peer be able to tell them if there may be another way to gather information, they can also better prepare them for public reaction and for the reactions of those whom they have deceived. This is important, as no matter how successful a journalist may be in bringing to light a serious issue worthy of public attention, there are likely to be those who do not thank them for it.

“…our judgement that what we propose to do would stand the test of publicity may be over hastily reached.”
(Besley, 1992, p106)

Jessica Mitford was censured by members of the American government who accused her of attacking American business. They even claimed she was a Communist spy. (Pilger, 2004, p46)

Gunter Wallraff left his homeland of Germany

“…after decades of being hounded himself by lawyers, officials and the right-wing Axel Springer media” (Pilger, 2004, p158.)

Even the man behind one of Britain’s first investigative scoops W.T. Stead, who uncovered the seedy underworld of child prostitution in Britain in the 1880’s, was imprisoned for the crime of purchasing a child, despite the fact he had done so merely to prove how easily it could be done. (Randall, 2000, p111)

Deception in journalism may be deemed, in extreme cases, of true professionalism, to be in reality the only moral choice. However, the journalist must be entirely sure not only of their own reasoning and motives, but also that they are ready to carry the deception as far as necessary, and for the consequences they will face.

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• ivestigative journalism
• Professional norms for journalism that relies on deception
• Journalism: More than ever, not what you think

12 Comments

Filed under Articles

Tags: The Times, Iraq, CNN, MediaLens, Press Complaints Commission, investigative journalism, deception, Los Angeles Examiner, public interest, News of the World, Richard Bacon, Blue Peter, Johnnie Walker, Lawrence Dallaglio, Earl of Hardwicke, cocaine, Jessica Mitford, John Pilger, The American Way of Death, Gunter Wallraff, Ganz unten (Lowest of the Low), Tell Me No Lies: Investigative Journalism and its Triumphs, The Abortion Profiteers, Chicago Sun-Times, utilitarianism, John Simpson, Wall Street Journal, Farnaz Fassihi, Committee to Protect Journalists, Immanuel Kant, categorical imperative, The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, Guardian, Julian Baggini, Bernard Williams, University of Cambridge, Manufacturing Dissent, Michael Moore, Liberation Entertainment, Bowling for Columbine, Joseph Heath, The Rebel Sell, The Independent, BBC, Hugo Chavez, Radio Caracas Television, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Communist, Facist, The Publicity Test, W.T. Stead, child prostitution