Ethical Standards in Journalistic Writing

When it comes to the story published by Rolling Stone, written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, about the UVA rape allegations, there are definitely ethical standards in question.  Without a doubt, the basic code of ethics for journalism was not followed in the laying out of this story.  The lack of fact-checking played a huge part when it comes down to determining whether or not Rolling Stone followed the code of ethics established for journalist.  When the victim, Jackie’s, story came into question as not having matched up with stories that the fraternity was bringing forward, in terms of a party having been thrown, the name of her date and his affiliation with the fraternity - or him existing at all - all made Rolling Stone look very ill-educated in what acceptable journalism looked like.  For a journalist, the core principal of writing a story is to be as objective as possible, which relies on hearing both sides of the story and writing a piece the equally reflects the issue from both perspectives, doesn’t judge, and allows for a clean cut of the situation being reported on. Rolling Stone did not follow this technique, so on an ethically expected level, yes - there is cause for ethical concern.

In terms of Rolling Stone reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, having adequately served her source, Jackie, I would have to say that although there were good intentions behind writing the story, she ultimately failed in her attempt because she did not follow the journalist code of ethics.  Sabrina wanted to bring attention to an issue that is extremely prevalent in our society.  Clearly this reporter, and editor were not abiding by Mills Utility principle, which begs to look at the outcome associated with completing a certain task.  If the Rolling Stone team had looked ahead and kept in mind the possible backlash, questioning, and lack of information that they used to write and publish this story, a lot of what’s happened could have been avoided.  It’s true, if the reporter had taken just a little more time to gather information and inquire deeper into those who Jackie mentioned than maybe their article would have been even stronger and would have been able to withstand the backlash it received, because they would have had a credible more objective piece.  But sadly, after having been criticized for the lack of information and accuracy in their published article Rolling Stone stating that their trust in jackie was misplaced, not only discredits Jackie’s claim altogether, but after putting this young woman story in the public eye, lacking all the information possible, and then abandoning her and her story, was not a respectable move on behalf of Rolling Stone.  Rape is a serious topic, and perhaps, as mentioned in Maya Dusenbery’s blog post, it’s a topic that should be left out of the objective realm of writing since there are so many outlooks and beliefs about the act.  Following the idea of Pluralism, which essentially says there are multiple competing values and not one ultimate value, there are certain topics that just can’t be broken down or perceived through an objective lens.  When you have a topic, such as rape, where the victim, the perpetrator, social norms, personal value, and morals are affected it seems like a topic that is almost impossible to restrict to an objective view.  To turn rape into an objective view, for me, discredits just how serious a topic it is.

Now, as we continue our discussion on ethical situations, within the entire series of events that unfolded since the release of the Rolling Stone article, other actions can be brought into question as ethical or not as well.  Charles C. Johnson, who decided to take it upon himself and leak Jackie’s personal information online, shattered a ton of ethical obligations, not just journalistic ones.  Yes, Jackie did agree to sit down and be interviewed for the Rolling Stone story, but no, that does not mean she has relinquished her right o privacy in some extent.  And not at all does that give the right of some attention-seeking “internet-troll” to leak Jackie’s personal information online.  An individuals right to privacy should always be respected no matter what the circumstances.  Jackie’s story should have definitely been fact checked before being published; and this is not at all to discredit her claims and recollections of what happened the night that she was attacked, it just makes for a stronger argument, so that if her story is attacked (which is was, due to the lack of fact-checking) the publishers can at least say that they have heard her story, and have in fact contacted and talked to all involved in order to make for a more compelling argument, perhaps on Jackies case.  Fact-checking doesn’t mean “we don’t believe you” it means, we need to have all the information possible so if we are questioned, or ‘new’ information is brought up, we can say, we know/knew/are aware/ and have done that, it just makes for a stronger story, in the journalism world at least.  Also, if they had fact checked in the first place,  they probably wouldn’t have had to abandon Jackie at all when s*** hits the fan.

When a story is called into question, who should shoulder the “burden” of transparency?  Ultimately I would have to say the reporter.  Although after the story leaves the reporters desk, and undergoes the eyes of the editors, the reporter is charged with the responsibility of having done proper research and accurate fact-checking before presenting the final product to their editors.

Within the series of events that unfolded since this articles release, there have been questions to whether or not “activism journalism” could be a possible thing to flourish and work within the industry.  The reporter wanted to make a statement about rape culture within American universities, and while using her article on Jackie as a foot in to such a topic, ended up with ridicule from the upset journalism community.  The idea of activism journalism holds certain ethical problems, because one, journalism in itself holds its own code of ethics to be followed, and two, activism (the policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about social or political change) doesn’t use an objective lens but a persuasive one, to make you think a certain way.  So while the idea is interesting, it ultimately wouldn’t make much since if we’re abiding by the ethical codes of these two realms.  Activism should be done with a persuasive style and the freedom to be bias, whilst journalism needs to abide by its code which calls for an objective lens.  Ethics is a complex topic and idea to grasp, and while forever the core of most issues in the world, it’s still makes for an interesting dinner topic……and maybe the loss of a few friends along the way.