Make the news or report the news?

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

Given many feelings towards our media today, as well as the recent events with the hurricane, I feel I should bring one of the major arguments about the journalistic trade and see how members feel about it.

The question is, should the media make the news and take part in the news, or should they simply stand back and report the news.

The public seems extremely fickle on the subject, as the media has received flak for acting in either way. For example, in my state a politician well-known for his anti-gay rights stance was suspected of propositioning boys for sex over the internet. One of the local media outlets hired an investigator, who entered a gay chatroom the politician supposedly frequented with false information posted in his profile. The investigator did not in any way attempt to contact the politician, but the politician instead contacted him and propositioned him.

This was reported by the media and the ensuing storm essentially destroyed the politician's reputation. Many people are saying, however, that the media had no right to go out and "make" the news like that, that they should only be reporting, not taking any kind of action aside from that.

However, in times of great need, many journalists have been on location and have shot some of the most horrific scenes. The public outrage at this is that they are taking pictures and writing stories and not helping the people in need (which would be taking part in the news, making the news, so to speak).

So what do you think? Is the duty of the media to simply report and not take part in the world around them, or are they to take an active part in the news that they are reporting?

[Rye]

It really depends. They should be reporting the news, not making it, but they shouldn't be reserved in seeking the news, as long as it's not hurting anyone.

[bipper]

They can try all they want to dig up a story as long as it is not interfereing with the natural cycle of things. So yeah, they should report what happens and somewhat try to get the story flowing.

In cases of the chatroom, I would instantly be suspicious and not believe anyone that the investigator did not "lure" the politician in. I would need proof from multiple angles on this. In a world where communication is so easy, and money/power talks so loudly - I tend to believe people who were ambushed or set up.

It may make a good story for two seconds, but if it is discredited ever, I would hope that journalsist and his represented company get flushed.

Bipper

[Madame Adequate]

I dunno. It's a tough one to call. I have no problem with that particular example - after all, it could just as easily have happened with some kid who was brave enough to say something, but didn't know how to go about proving it and such - but on the other hand I'm tempted to say "Human first, worker second." =/

[Miriel]

I really don't think that doing investigative journalism counts as "making the news". It would be different if a Journalist approached a Senator and said, hey let's do some insider trading, and then proceeded to write about the Senator's illegal behaivor. But in the case of the Chatroom and the investigator "luring" the politician, you said yourself that there was already speculation that this sort of thing was going on, and when there's smoke, there's often fire. So I don't see anything wrong with a reporter doing some digging in order to get to the bottom of things.

Seek the truth and report it, that's in a Journalist's code of ethics. That means that Journalists shouldn't always be passive about their reporting. There are some incredible stories that would never have come out if Journalists were restricted to simply reporting news as it was brought to them. Sometimes, they have to go out and find that truth in order to reveal it to the public.

Now, there are cases in which Journalists have crossed the line in order to create news or sensationalize it further. And that's seriously messed up. Like with the case of the Lindbergh Baby kidnapping. An idiotic reporter actually tampered with the crime scene and ultimately got a man convicted and executed for a crime he did not commit. All because the police were stumped and the Newspapers were desperate to find someone to blame.

So the papers got their story, at the price of an innocent man's life. Journalists need to walk a fine line between simply seeking the truth, and being reckless with their moral integrity in order to find a story.

[Skyblade]

I don't really have a problem with the media "making" news, as in your example. The police have used similar MOs countless times. Had the politician been committing a crime, then the media should have turned the information they had over to the police and let them handle it. However, being a hypocritical jack@$$ isn't actually against the law. The media didn't break any laws in their actions. They had every right to act the way they did. Even the nonexistant "right to privacy" can't protect the politician, as he had gone into a public chat room.

However, while I don't have a problem with the media "making" the news in that way, I do have a problem with them not reporting everything. Lying by omission is not something I appreciate among our current media, yet it is something that is present to extreme degrees. In the current example, the media should have released documented accounts of the entire event. If they did so, then I don't have a problem, but I find it difficult to believe that they released anything except what they needed to butcher the politician. That I don't agree with. When making such things public, you should not be allowed to hold anything back. Whatever their reasons for withholding information (and I am working under the assumption that they are, I don't know enough about this case to know whether they did or not), I don't see any validity to them. If they are withholding information because they were actually the ones who propositioned the politician, that is wrong. If they are withholding it to protect the identity of their reporter, that's also wrong (if he didn't want to be known for doing what he did, he shouldn't have done it. If you fail to identify someone giving testimony, it's hearsay. Not admissable in court, and it shouldn't be admissable in the media).

[Vaprice]

In darkness, there is always a tiny spec of light. Where there is hate, there is always love. Where there is evil, a hero shall always rise.

They are reporters, they do report what is big in the world today. Those who take action to do something right, have the responsibility of doing so. They are our brothers and sisters, and we should not stand back and watch from the sidelines. But once again they do have a choice to help and not help.