Opinion Archive

What to Make of Ethics in Journalism

June 19, 2008

Tim Russert, NBC TV's long-running moderator of the political roundtable "Meet the Press" died this past week, leaving the world with one less ethically professional journalist at a time when it is in sore need of them. His absence will be a silent reminder of the fact that much of what today passes for journalism in both Mexico and the United States serves not to illuminate, but to divide. The way we relate to our media has changed, which means that there are fewer Tim Russerts and more Lou Dobbs.

All the news that I think is fit to print

The dictionary definition of journalism is broad. According to Webster, it is "the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media." Many believe that true professionals are completely objective, but beyond the fact that the very "editing of news" is subjective, the public is demanding much more opinion from their journalists than before. This is true in both the U.S. and Mexico.

Much of this has to do with the proliferation of both new media (the Internet's billions of "channels") and the dramatic expansion of actual TV channels via cable/satellite. This allows people and corporations to "narrowcast" very specific information to small, but fanatically interested, audiences. In 1969, 85% of all televisions watched in the evening were tuned to the three broadcasting networks; in 2006 it was only about a third.

The upshot is that journalism, which had been tempered by its need to appeal to the mass market, is now pressured to appeal to the fringe groups that constitute the core consumers of the different media "franchises." In political terms, they are "appealing to their base," effectively shutting the rest of us out. Millions of people egg journalists on to vent their own fears, prejudices and frustrations. And there is gold in vitriol, as Fox News (and copycats) have found.

But journalism is at its best when it strikes a balance between information and opinion. Top-notch reporters do it when they go to the most dangerous, controversial, or off-beat places and give an unexpected, insightful, or "just-the-facts-ma'am" report without contempt, condecension, or cultural blindness.

Talk show hosts, like Russert, have to walk a finer line. Russert found that, through investigation, he could get his guests to question themselves by quoting what they had said in the past. He was incisive, but never rude, resisting the urge to be a "shock jock." This blue-collar "boy from Buffalo" ended up having much more class than the big-city sophisticates that surrounded him. In the world of broadcast journalism, the late Peter Jennings had pulled it off, as does Brian Williams. Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather were not as successful, but they were better than most of the new generation.

But it is Mexican journalists who should take special note. In post-PRI Mexico, crassness and self-righteousness often masquerade as journalistic chutzpah and independence. It's a fine line and it is crossed with clumsy gusto. That is not to say that many Mexican journalists aren't intelligent. In fact, Mexico can be proud of much of what is being offered on the radio and in the "cultural channels" of 11, 22 and Proyecto 40 (where your correspondent is sometimes guest host).

But they often fall prey to one, or all, of the three major issues that haunt Mexican journalism: 1) self-righteousness, which is all the more shocking given the shady circumstances that surround all electronic media concessions, 2) ideological pidgeonholing, where they become predictable in their allegiance to a political party and 3) promoting the boss' interests, a vice that is especially prominent among Mexico's TV duopoly.

Tim Russert, despite having been a disciple of a Democratic Senator, was considered by Republicans, Democrats and Independents as being fair to all of his guests. He respected the democratic process, and he knew that politicians often fall prey to the contradictions of their constituents. He knew that it is not personal and that, while it was his role to catch these contradictions, it was not his place to humiliate anyone. In a telling nod to his professional ethic, Russert would decline to comment on his guests outside the studio. Each time he was asked, he would turn the question around and say, "what do you think of him/her?"

Finally, Russert had tremendous good cheer, understanding that politics is often like a game and that not every disagreement is the end of the world. Perhaps that is the most salutory lesson of all: that you can be an incisive interviewer and an insightful editorialist, but that all of that skill doesn't mean you have to take yourself too seriously. Thank you, Tim.

For the latest thought-provoking article by Agustin Barrios Gomez please go to our Opinion Column page

Return to top