Recent studies and public opinion polls indicate a waning trust of the news media’s objectivity and accuracy by the American public, and several incidents have established that Americans, including some CSUN students and professors, have a lot to say regarding the importance of journalistic integrity.
According to a 1999 study conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors, 42 percent of Americans surveyed have found mistakes in print media. Of those individuals, 59 percent have seen corrections made, and 78 percent notice and appreciate whenever the media apologizes for mistakes.
Another national study, conducted in June and July 2004 by the Missouri School of Journalism, found that 62 percent of Americans surveyed considered journalists credible, with more than half describing newspapers and television newscasts as “trustworthy.”
However, the study also showed that almost three-fourths of the American public said they feel reporters tend to favor one side of the story when covering political and social issues.
Some CSUN students share these sentiments.
“I wish the media could be more articulate and dependable, but perceptions get in the way,” said Stephanie Marusich, senior women’s studies major.
Others have given up watching, listening and reading all forms of news media for similar reasons.
“I don’t watch the news because I don’t know who’s writing it or who’s funding it,” said Grace Bumacod, junior communication disorders and sciences major. “(Those factors) may cause (their stories) to be biased.”
Two events have brought the discussion of journalistic integrity to the forefront of conversation in recent weeks.
The May 9 issue of Newsweek magazine reported that American military personnel had allegedly mishandled or mistreated copies of the Quran, the holy book of the Muslim faith, that were in the possession of Islamic prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The report cited one reported occurrence where a copy of the Quran had been flushed down a toilet.
This information could not be confirmed when the report was later challenged. Newsweek later retracted the story, and an apology was issued.
The Newsweek story used an anonymous source, who later expressed uncertainty about the validity of the information previously given. The information could not be confirmed by other sources.
There are dangers to using a single anonymous source without backing up the information with other sources, said Jim Hill, a journalism professor at CSUN. Hill spent ten years as an investigative reporter for CNN.
“This (Newsweek) reporter did not do common sense reporting,” Hill said. “There has got to be a healthy skepticism to common sense reporting.”
“It was a terrible mistake without adequate fact checking,” said Maureen Rubin, journalism professor at CSUN. “It’s unfortunate that an experienced reporter did not take the time to realize the importance (of the allegations) to readers of Muslim faith.”
In another incident that sparked public debate over the role of journalism in the United States, Vanity Fair recently released a story that revealed former FBI official W. Mark Felt as Deep Throat — the main source for a series of Washington Post stories that made public the details surrounding the 1972 Watergate break-in, which eventually contributed to the resignation of President Richard Nixon in 1974.
The use of an anonymous source in this case, which for many became a story that defined modern American journalism, has been debated on cable airwaves and on newspaper editorial pages ever since the revelation May 31.
“Investigative reporting is vital to journalism,” Hill said. “I do not believe that all reporters are investigative, but all reporters do a certain amount of investigative reporting. It is a specialty, and vital to have in journalism.”
“Journalists are supposed to write facts, and if (those are not) believed, (they) have nothing of a profession,” Rubin said.
