The View From Here: Now is the time to close the gaps
Despite popular opinion, and some people who take the word of radio talk show hosts with admitted biases as the only truth, reporters have ethics.
In fact, the trusty Society of Professional Journalists’ ethics code provides a wealth of information for anyone who would ever want to know what the field is supposed to be about. It’s not supposed to be about “positive” versus “negative,” or liberal versus conservative, but rather, delivering the news with integrity.
Things like honesty, fairness and courage are stressed when there are ethical matters involved in news gathering and writing factual accounts of what happens in the world.
Seeking the other side in instances where there are allegations of wrongdoing, identifying sources, not plagiarizing, avoiding “undercover” news gathering, supporting the open exchange of ideas even if you don’t agree with those views and being free of obligations to any interest other than the public’s right to know are all included.
And while they’re not always followed, as is the case in many professions with codes of ethics, they do exist. When there are major infractions, like the Jayson Blair scandal at the New York Times, or the recent revelation that a morning talk show personality was paid to give products good reviews and disguise them as news, people hear about them, and most people who know their ethics want to cringe.
So too, should the people involved in ethics issues in government cringe when one of their own messes up.
While there are many ethical considerations being raised right now in light of state Sen. John Ford and apparent “consulting” fees and the legislature’s move to make that illegal, I have to wonder what ethical considerations would look like locally.
Other than hearing the occasional, “I abstain” on a vote occurring at city hall, which is an act that may or may not be explained at that person’s own discretion, I really can’t tell you the city’s methods for ensuring conflicts of interest don’t occur.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t any such methods in place, it’s just I haven’t heard much about them. And I only point out the city because that is the place that I am the most familiar with, as ethical considerations should extend to all governments — real ones that are obvious to outsiders.
Taking money for votes, for example, would be an obvious no-no, but what about votes where you have less obvious conflicts? Are there rules demanding integrity?
Let’s say, in a pretend example, you have a lawn-mowing service and you contract with the government for mowing. That’s how you make your living. Later on down the road, you get elected to office.
In this example, if, some time later, that same government wanted to do its own mowing as a matter of saving money, you would personally lose money. Do you rally the troops so you can still make a buck (although current open meetings laws make this illegal)? Do you abstain and hope for the best? Do you have the integrity to make the right decision based on what’s best for the citizens?
We all have ethics considerations we have to live by and government should be no different. We should all hope the state officials will take some measures to discourage conflicts of interest and local leaders will follow suit in the appropriate manner.
After all, elected leaders are supposed to represent the people, not line their pockets or otherwise profit by capitalizing on an ambiguous system of self-rule.
Amy Satterwhite is a reporter for the Standard. She can be reached at 473-2191 or by e-mail at [email protected].