Factual or Sensational News?
Freedom of expression is a constitutional right and a right guaranteed under international law to speak freely without censorship. This right allows individuals to disagree with others, including the government and powerful organizations, which by their own might may try to suppress, silence, intimidate or embarrass others. The right is not confined to verbal speech, but it tries to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
Some suggest that avoiding accountability is the main reason why governments suppress free speech. For that reason, the Freedom of Speech is a right protected by the Constitution, the highest law of the land. However, it is also well established that the First Amendment right does not protect a person in cases where the speech involves defamatory statements or speech that would cause generalized panic reactions, fighting or inflamatory words, speech that would incite people to commit crime or speech where obscenities are expressed. Sensational news that by innuendo, suggestion or implied figures result in one of the exceptions, such as defamation of character, should not have First Amendment protection either.
Journalists have the right to publish stories and express their points of views. The media is one of the most powerful vehicles to report news, share information, create and document history. Television, radio, cable, newspapers, magazines and on-line blogs are part of our daily lives.
But with freedom comes responsibility. News published should be factual, well balanced and must be true statements. Objective news demand objective research and verification of facts to convey the truth. Defamation, negligence and sensational stories where the facts are either totally untrue or are exaggerated have been in the increase among reputable television news, newspapers and organization news. Some believe that American main television organizations (CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN) and newspapers (The New York Times, the Washington Post, Associated Press) are driven by program ratings and sensational news to improve their gains, regardless of whether anyone is dragged through the mud by defamatory statements made in the process.
Dan Rather anchored CBS Evening News since 1981 until his demise in March 2005. At the end of Rather's time as anchor, CBS nightly news program was behind in the ratings. Criticism of Rather reached a new low after 60 Minutes ran Rather’s report about President’s Bush military record. Critics questioned the authenticity of the documents supporting the report, which turned out to be forgeries. Rather retired under pressure as the anchor of the CBS Evening News in March 2005. Was Rather’s demise caused by poor ratings? Was the culprit an uncontrolled pressure to air sensational news that would improve the ratings? Was it biased reporting? Maybe irresponsible journalism? And at the end of it all, how would President Bush’s reputation be restored?
In February 2008, the Associated Press published an article about a civil action filed by the US Government against several Colombian bureaus of exchange houses or “Casas de Cambio”. The headline was, “Huge drug euro laundering scheme found.” The article read, as though it was a matter of fact, “crime is happening right on schedule in
The U.S. Attorney for the U.S. District Court of Southern Florida assigned to this case apparently decided not to pursue the case for lack of evidence. In February 2008, the U.S. Justice Department went to federal court in
Another story of irresponsible journalism seems to be the case of an article published by The New York Times on February 21, 2008 about Senator John McCain, GOP presidential front runner for the presidential election in November. The article suggested the occurrence of a romantic (improper) relationship between Senator McCain and Vicki Iseman, who is a lobbyist. Even though McCain’s advisors provided ample proof to The New York Times about the truth of the matter, it published the story anyway without giving any consideration to the damage it would cause to the reputation of Senator McCain and Ms. Isemen. Was that article published because the story had sexy overtones that would make sensational news about the GOP presidential front runner? Was it published with the distinct purpose to harm Mr. McCain’s campaign because of The New York Times’ liberal political views? Was it irresponsible reporting?
While freedom of speech is a constitutional right, it should not be used by the media as a license to publish irresponsible articles filed with sensational statements with the knowledge that the mere mention, suggestion or innuendo of sex, money and politics will result in better ratings and an easy buck while at the same time unfairly destroying the reputation of law abiding citizens and companies.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen