A glitch in the journalist's creed? re: Walter Williams

[AVID]

Is this how the media masters are rationalizing silence?

"..suppression of the news, for any consideration other than the welfare of society, is indefensible."

Journalist's Creed

The Journalist's Creed was written by the first dean of the Missouri School of Journalism, Walter Williams. One century later, his declaration remains one of the clearest statements of the principles, values and standards of journalists throughout the world.

I believe in the profession of journalism.

I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of their responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of a lesser service than the public service is betrayal of this trust.

I believe that clear thinking and clear statement, accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism.

I believe that a journalist should write only what he holds in his heart to be true.

I believe that suppression of the news, for any consideration other than the welfare of society, is indefensible.

I believe that no one should write as a journalist what he would not say as a gentleman; that bribery by one's own pocketbook is as much to be avoided as bribery by the pocketbook of another; that individual responsibility may not be escaped by pleading another's instructions or another's dividends.

I believe that advertising, news and editorial columns should alike serve the best interests of readers; that a single standard of helpful truth and cleanness should prevail for all; that the supreme test of good journalism is the measure of its public service.

I believe that the journalism which succeeds best -- and best deserves success -- fears God and honors Man; is stoutly independent, unmoved by pride of opinion or greed of power, constructive, tolerant but never careless, self-controlled, patient, always respectful of its readers but always unafraid, is quickly indignant at injustice; is unswayed by the appeal of privilege or the clamor of the mob; seeks to give every man a chance and, as far as law and honest wage and recognition of human brotherhood can make it so, an equal chance; is profoundly patriotic while sincerely promoting international good will and cementing world-comradeship; is a journalism of humanity, of and for today's world.

[Demit]

1. Well, I don't know what was in the mind of a man writing 100 years ago,

but I can imagine he was possibly thinking of situations like not publishing troop movements in wartime, or, if there's a killer loose, be careful that information published will be able to help in apprehending him & not cause a panic. In other words, being responsible in what is published, consider possible ramifications and not just put it out there for the sake of a scoop. Although, 100 years later in our present situation this phrase looks very ominous, I'd venture to say that he's saying suppressing the news is indefensible--except for some very well-considered & common-sense exceptions.

[bryant69]

2. That's the problem with journalistic integerity

It's often built around being the first person to break the most sensationalistic story, because that is what is good for the paper and, ultimately, a reporters paycheck.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Demit]

4. Scoops, in these days of 24 hr news cycles, are practically meaningless

It's a concept that, weirdly, has lived on well past its usefulness. These days when somebody breaks a story it's about ten minutes before everybody else has it. It doesn't matter to the reader or viewer who had it first.

I agree that, as a result, the race these days is for the sensationalistic, even amongst the more sobersided newspapers. (The tabloids have always viewed it as their stock in trade, and never concerned themselves too much with journalistic integrity.) The broadsides are tearing their hair out trying to restore the readership they used to have. They're losing it to the blogosphere, and they don't have a clue as to what to do about it.

[CoffeeCat]

3. The problem with the news is that reporting truth = denied access.

It's obvious that BushCo would severely punish--and limit access--to reporters who write the truth about them.

How would a reporter do their job without access to the WH?

Day-to-day reporter would be impossible. You'd be dis-invited to press conferences/briefings. If you were allowed to attend, you'd never be called on. They would stop returning your calls or giving quotes for any stories.

Unfortunately, this WH demands compliance, and the media obliges--in exchange for access.

I'm convinced that Elizabeth B's articles in the NY Times are concessions for the Times writing some unbiased, moderate stories about the WH. I can hear it now, "Ok. Ok. You're the NY Times. We know you can't kow tow to us every second. However, if you want access, we need to see some fluffy, feel-good stuff about us every once in a while."

Bastages.