ETHICS IN PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISM vs. BREITBART AND FOX NEWS, July 21, 2010, MEDIA MATTERS
“BASIC JOURNALISM CALLS FOR GETTING INFORMATION, CHECKING IT OUT, LOOKING FOR CONTEXT AND TRYING TO GET TO THE TRUTH,” SAID THE ETHICS COMMITTEE CHAIR AT THE SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS. “IS FOX A LEGITMATE NEWS ORGANIZATION THAT SEEKS TRUTH? OR DO THEY HAVE AN AGENDA?
Andrew Breitbart and Fox News are coming under criticism by journalism observers and news ethicists for posting a video clip of former Agriculture Department Director Shirley Sherrod out of context, and without seeking her comment.
Breitbert, who first posted the clip Monday at his BigGovernment.com site, has been under scrutiny after it was revealed the clip misrepresented Sherrod's message during a speech in March before a group of NAACP members.
Fox then posted the clip as well. Neither one sought comment from Sherrod prior to reporting it. She was forced to resign on Monday.
"Basic journalism calls for getting information, checking it out, looking for context and trying to get to the truth," said Andy Schotz, ethics committee chair at the Society of Professional Journalists. "Gathering snippets and putting them out there to see what happens seems to be what is happening here. (Breitbart) is also someone with a specific agenda."
As for Fox, Schotz said: "Is it a legitimate news organization that seeks truth? Or do they have an agenda? You can see yourself the way they host Tea Party events and promote the Tea Party."
Sherrod was forced to resign on Monday after a portion of the taped speech she gave last March was posted at Breitbart's site.
In the edited tape, she spoke about how she had not initially helped a white farmer as much as she could have in 1986 when he was going to lose his farm. In the posting, Breitbart made it appear as though the story had occurred during her time as a federal official and not 24 years ago when she worked for a non-profit organization.
Breitbart also did not include the entire context of the speech, in which she later explained that she learned from the situation and ended up helping the farmer, Roger Spooner and his wife. Both Spooners spoke out several times Tuesday to support Sherrod and voice that they would have lost their farm if not for her help.
Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at The Poynter Institute, said taking comments and video out of context occurs too often these days. "When you excerpt a clip, you must make sure the editing process preserves the integrity of what the person is saying," she explains. "Here you have the exact opposite. It actually distorts what she was trying to say, maybe even changes what she was trying to say."
McBride said the fast pace of the web is pushing more news outlets, such as Breitbart and Fox, to rush items up on the web or on cable television before they are checked. "It is becoming part of the way journalism is done," she said. "There is an inherent danger in it because you risk getting it wrong. It would have been better if they had called her and tracked her down, especially when you are talking about issues of race."
Daniel Okrent, who served as the first public editor for The New York Times and is a respected author, said failing to contact Sherrod for comment was a major error. "You always have to give people a chance to comment," he said. "If you are representing yourself as a news organization, you have to give people the right to respond."
He also added, "Taking things out of context happens every day. One of the things you do to protect yourself is to check with the person involved."
PBS Ombudsman Alicia Shepard agreed: "Any journalist would seek comment. If Breitbart does not, he is not a journalist." She also added, "Fox has just as much of an obligation as any news organization to look at the video and check the facts."
Fred Brown, a Denver Post columnist and journalism professor at the University of Denver, said the video clip should have sparked some skepticism in both Breitbart and Fox. "What you have to be most skeptical about is your own skepticism," said Brown, also an SPJ ethics committee member. "They should have listened to the whole tape. They posted it with something in mind and decided they did not want to show it in context. That is at least sloppy."
Brown said BigGovernment.com, as a blog, is not excused from being inaccurate. "A blog can get away with being partisan, but you can't be inaccurate," he explained, adding "Fox should be held to a higher standard. They ought to tell the whole story."
Tom Fiedler, Dean of the College of Communication at Boston University, said both news outlets broke two basic tenants of journalism: "One involves having your information correct. The other is giving someone a chance to comment."
Andrew Breitbart and Fox News are coming under criticism by journalism observers and news ethicists for posting a video clip of former Agriculture Department Director Shirley Sherrod out of context, and without seeking her comment.
Breitbert, who first posted the clip Monday at his BigGovernment.com site, has been under scrutiny after it was revealed the clip misrepresented Sherrod's message during a speech in March before a group of NAACP members.
Fox then posted the clip as well. Neither one sought comment from Sherrod prior to reporting it. She was forced to resign on Monday.
"Basic journalism calls for getting information, checking it out, looking for context and trying to get to the truth," said Andy Schotz, ethics committee chair at the Society of Professional Journalists. "Gathering snippets and putting them out there to see what happens seems to be what is happening here. (Breitbart) is also someone with a specific agenda."
As for Fox, Schotz said: "Is it a legitimate news organization that seeks truth? Or do they have an agenda? You can see yourself the way they host Tea Party events and promote the Tea Party."
Sherrod was forced to resign on Monday after a portion of the taped speech she gave last March was posted at Breitbart's site.
In the edited tape, she spoke about how she had not initially helped a white farmer as much as she could have in 1986 when he was going to lose his farm. In the posting, Breitbart made it appear as though the story had occurred during her time as a federal official and not 24 years ago when she worked for a non-profit organization.
Breitbart also did not include the entire context of the speech, in which she later explained that she learned from the situation and ended up helping the farmer, Roger Spooner and his wife. Both Spooners spoke out several times Tuesday to support Sherrod and voice that they would have lost their farm if not for her help.
Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at The Poynter Institute, said taking comments and video out of context occurs too often these days. "When you excerpt a clip, you must make sure the editing process preserves the integrity of what the person is saying," she explains. "Here you have the exact opposite. It actually distorts what she was trying to say, maybe even changes what she was trying to say."
McBride said the fast pace of the web is pushing more news outlets, such as Breitbart and Fox, to rush items up on the web or on cable television before they are checked. "It is becoming part of the way journalism is done," she said. "There is an inherent danger in it because you risk getting it wrong. It would have been better if they had called her and tracked her down, especially when you are talking about issues of race."
Daniel Okrent, who served as the first public editor for The New York Times and is a respected author, said failing to contact Sherrod for comment was a major error. "You always have to give people a chance to comment," he said. "If you are representing yourself as a news organization, you have to give people the right to respond."
He also added, "Taking things out of context happens every day. One of the things you do to protect yourself is to check with the person involved."
PBS Ombudsman Alicia Shepard agreed: "Any journalist would seek comment. If Breitbart does not, he is not a journalist." She also added, "Fox has just as much of an obligation as any news organization to look at the video and check the facts."
Fred Brown, a Denver Post columnist and journalism professor at the University of Denver, said the video clip should have sparked some skepticism in both Breitbart and Fox. "What you have to be most skeptical about is your own skepticism," said Brown, also an SPJ ethics committee member. "They should have listened to the whole tape. They posted it with something in mind and decided they did not want to show it in context. That is at least sloppy."
Brown said BigGovernment.com, as a blog, is not excused from being inaccurate. "A blog can get away with being partisan, but you can't be inaccurate," he explained, adding "Fox should be held to a higher standard. They ought to tell the whole story."
Tom Fiedler, Dean of the College of Communication at Boston University, said both news outlets broke two basic tenants of journalism: "One involves having your information correct. The other is giving someone a chance to comment."
I think this is significant because every profession holds those who practice it to high professional standards. In this recent case, those standards were blatantly violated. This piece confirms that serious journalism professionals are paying attention. They know who was sleazy and dishonest in this case.
It is important because the next time either FOX or Breitbart tries to push a phony story, any serious journalist will pay closer scrutiny--and maybe, just maybe, they won't get away with it so easily.