I was asked an interesting question earlier today by a BBC producer who wanted to know about the American angle to the hacking scandal at Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World. Could this type of thing happen in the American press? she asked.
My immediate response was to say that it wouldn’t. The American press is a different beast. We have stricter ethical standards. We’re stodgier. Competition is tough, but it’s much less fierce.
But thinking about it a minute I had to start hedging on us. Was I being naive? First of all, it has indeed happened here before, in at least one instance. In the Cincinnati Enquirer’s Chiquita banana scandal in the late 1990s, a reporter illegally accessed Chiquita voicemails to help his investigation into widespread corporate wrongdoing and later pleaded guilty to two felonies.
While that was an isolated incident, I at least had to qualify my answer with an “at least not something so systematically criminal as what has gone at the News of the World.” Those British tabloids are insane.
And then I had to acknowledge that we have our tabloid newspapers here too. But they’re far less powerful than those in the UK with far fewer readers. This country has five times as many people as the UK, but even Murdoch’s New York Post, as close to a British-style tabloid as we have, has a circulation of just half a million. News of the World has five times that. The Sun has six times the circ.
Here’s John Gapper of the Financial Times on British newspaper culture, and how it differs from the dominant media culture in the U.S.:
Standards on British tabloids have indeed been diluted over decades by the distorted incentives on editors and reporters. The rewards for bending rules - whether by plagiarising others’ work, making up quotes and stories, or illegal invasions of privacy - were higher than the risks of getting caught…
While Fleet Street editors do their best to see no evil, those in the US are far more inclined to discipline or fire reporters who behave unethically. The fact that your career could well end humiliatingly if you misbehave is a strong incentive to do the right thing.
(I should note that Britain has some quality newspapers, not least of which is the FT itself, but tabloid circulation far exceeds that of so-called quality papers like the FT, the Guardian, and The Times. So I don’t think I’m out of line saying the tabloid culture is the newspaper culture there.)
But what about places like the National Enquirer and TMZ in the U.S.? How far will those publications go to get a scrap of news on a hot story? We know they pay for news, which is a no-no at serious American news organizations that aren’t news divisions of TV networks that launder payments through “licenses.” Paying for news is an ethical question, though, not a legal one—unless you’re doing something like bribing police for information, which Murdoch’s folks did repeatedly.
I don’t think these folks would go nearly as far as News of the World did. But I don’t really know, do I? And the competition for scraps of celebrity “news” sure seems to have gotten much more heated here in the past decade or so and it doesn’t seem to be slowing down.
One thing I think I do know for sure, though: If an NotW-like scandal came out here, even from a company as powerful as News Corp., the culprits wouldn’t have the police, government, and the rest of the media falling all over themselves to cover it up for them. The good thing about our tabloid culture is that it’s mostly separate from our hard news culture. And, relatively speaking, the good thing about our news culture is that it’s more diversified than in Britain, diluting the power of any one press baron over public life.
That I can say that about our own consolidated corporate media says a lot about how topheavy it is over there.
Which of the following qualifies as "journalism": plagiarizing others' work and putting your byline on it, fabricating quotes, or illegally violating citizens' privacy?
It's bizarre that people involved in these activities are described as 'journalists.' Pick any profession with a set of ethics and standards. If criminals joined their ranks and began selling their products under that professional banner, do you imagine most would respond by embracing dilution?
You seem awfully confident that media companies here are full of ethicists with healthy boundaries. And it must be nice knowing your government would never cut a deal with a powerful interest group, or shortchange privacy concerns without telling the public.
I'm sure you're right. Still, we haven't heard much from those pristine quarters about standards, Rupert Murdoch or decent people shunning his company.
#1 Posted by dubious, CJR on Wed 6 Jul 2011 at 11:03 PM
Don't read this as an exoneration of the American press or American society, Dubious. If it was all perfect, I wouldn't have this whole media-critic job.
I'm talking specifically about the comparisons between us and the UK, and I think it's clear that there's a big difference in ethical standards, as Gapper says.
#2 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Thu 7 Jul 2011 at 12:26 AM
Our (US reporters') ethical standards differ from our Limey brethren, yes. But only on the tactical level. So in The U.S., thou shalt not pay sources for news (outside of taking them to dinner on the company's dime), and thou shalt not hack into phone mail.
On the strategic level (that is, above our pay grades, Ryan) things are quite similar: Thou shalt kowtow to power, be it political or economic. Thou shalt celebrate Great Men on the covers of Time and Business Week, whilst ignoring systemic fraud and criminality among their ranks and within their corporations, until it's too late to ignore such things.
Mike Gallagher's Chiquita story is a case in point. To my knowledge, no facts in the story--including allegations that Chiquita basically hired people to wipe out a village--were ever disputed. But because Gallagher stole some voice mails, he was prosecuted and drummed out of journalism while Chiquita continued to do what it was doing, including, as was revealed later, paying off terrorists.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17615143/ns/business-us_business/t/chiquita-admits-paying-colombia-terrorists/
It's no big deal though.
#3 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Thu 7 Jul 2011 at 12:25 PM
Mr. Ericson nails it.
Methinks you are a little bit naive, @Ryan, if you don't believe that right\wing operatives at Fox News and "sister" organizations aren't capable of this, or indeed haven't already done it. And let's be clear -- Murdoch is the Big Daddy of rightwing operatives and the Conservatives were working WITH Murdoch's reporters.
And look at the excesses of the ant-Clinton era when even NYT, Washington Post, ABC, and WSJ threw ethics and standards out the window. And that's not even mentioning all of the other rightwing operatives, Koch-funded and otherwise, who have hacked into Democrats' accounts over the years, stealing memos, committing election fraud, and for other purposes.
You, and your colleagues, just aren't looking very hard.
#4 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 7 Jul 2011 at 12:56 PM
Oops. this was supposed to be blockquoted:
Sorry.
#5 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 7 Jul 2011 at 01:19 PM
I think the fact that British media forced an investigation into their government's involvement in manufacturing a WMD case in Iraq:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/iraq-war-inquiry
versus the American media's approach towards investigation "A sign we're becoming a banana republic." tells us all we need to know about American media.
For the most part, it's kept.
The conduct of the Murdoch outfit is repulsive. The paper didn't need to tamper with privacy and evidence to keep the eyeballs glued to the story, but let's be mighty careful when we compare British media to American media. American media kept quiet about Bush administration abuses such as warrantless wiretaps, torture, and the use of government (such as the justice department) for GOP ends long after the evidence was known because they were "too polite".
Then they put pundits on the air on all channels and venues to defend the abuses, often by lying.
If you gave me a choice between a vigorous press that looks to excess and publishes true facts - lest they suffer under British libel; and a comatose press who feels free to tell lazy lies, keep controversial information and perspectives from public discussion (like GOP voter suppression / election tampering), and is willing to publish the same sorts of salacious details so long as it's dug out by GOP head hunters or the National Enquirer - I'd pick the brits.
The American system is such a huge failure.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 7 Jul 2011 at 06:56 PM
CJR counsels journalists on ethics, but it badly misses the mark. It constantly goes after the easy targets like Murdoch, his tabloids and his pundits; it even tackles the WSJ on frequent occasion. Meanwhile, the most prolific and insidious perpetrators of unethical journalism — the AP and the NYT — are hardly ever critiqued unless to show how "smart" (read: pro-govt, pro-democrat, pro-Keynesian) their coverage is. While it is no crime that CJR's unspoken code of ethics is ideologically informed mostly by The Communist Manifesto, it behooves all conscientious observers to question whether CJR's m.o. is conducive to a free press (as prescribed by the Framers, at least). Fancying the USA as a "democracy," and supporting govt control of private property and industry, are not exactly the traits of a press that wants to be free. Will it be a cold Hades afternoon before CJR begins tackling the murderous foreign policy, blatant lies, corporatism, etc., committed by the same govt entities for which it tends to apologize? "Inquiring minds ..."
#7 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Thu 7 Jul 2011 at 07:03 PM
I do agree here that tabloids dont have upper hand in US media. However, the likes of Fox news produces the "news" that are more like "hoax" and unlike BBC in UK, we dont have any tax payer funded neutral channels, which means there is no one talking things from neutral perspective!
#8 Posted by Mark, CJR on Fri 8 Jul 2011 at 04:44 AM
'Our limey brethren'? What century are you living in, to use this language?
#9 Posted by Susan Greenberg , CJR on Fri 8 Jul 2011 at 06:02 PM
'Our limey brethren'? What century are you living in, to use this language?
#10 Posted by Susan Greenberg , CJR on Fri 8 Jul 2011 at 06:04 PM
Are we only considering newspapers in our journalistic comparison between the US and the Brits? It is certainly naive to think that this sort of thing isn't happening in the dominate media source: tabloid television! Especially when one considers that the very same parties, i.e. Rupert Murdock and NewsCorp, are the masters of FoxNews.
Sadly, we can no longer look to the formerly legitimate press, such as America's largest paper, the Wall Street Journal, to monitor their brothers; they're NewsCorp, too!
#11 Posted by Bry, CJR on Mon 11 Jul 2011 at 08:13 AM