Top Story

Young Journalists Use Facebook Ads to Reach Prospective Employers

1.	X-Ray Reading Helps Interpret Author's Intentions 12:05 AM Feb. 10, 2010
2.	USDA Drops National Animal ID Plan 12:01 AM Feb. 10, 2010
3.	Live Chat Today: What Position Should I Apply for When Company Has Multiple Openings? 12:01 AM Feb. 10, 2010
4.	AP stories are back on Google News again 7:21 PM Feb. 9, 2010
5.	Foursquare partners with New York Times for Olympics 4:39 PM Feb. 9, 2010
More Recent Articles

Most E-mailed

Article Feedback

View all feedback

Red Light, Green Light: A Plea For Balance in Media Ethics
(Read the Article)
Post Feedback | Feedback Guidelines | Report Feedback Abuse

Sorting options:	most recent	\| author
Display options:	expand all	\| collapse all

Page 1 of 1

How Would We Use This?
Posted by Ellie Johnston 9/18/2009 8:58:18 AM

Have passion. Don't submit to the old red light ways. I would have to argue that I think the part about rape is wrong. I think that names should not be used. Don't focus so much on scandal. There are stories out there lets not wait for something horrible to happen.

Green Light Ethics and Civic Duty
Posted by Rebecca Phillips 1/31/2009 12:58:33 PM

Clark has great insight on Media Ethics. I never realized how true his statement of "Ethics springs from scandal" really is. The great thing about Green Light Ethics is that it encourages journalists to do exactly what should be done in the face of scandal: expose it. Red Light Ethics focuses too much on what journalists cannot and should not do rather than what their duty is. If I were a journalist, Red Light Ethics would force me to second guess myself constantly, which, in my opinion, would have a negative effect on the responsibility of journalists to provide information and tell the public what they need to know. There is nothing ethical in holding back. While it is important to minimize harm and avoid stupidity, the point of media ethics is to enhance the role of journalists in our society. People need to know they can depend on journalists to do the right thing and make them aware of what's going on, but how can they if journalists are constantly worrying about constraints? Green Light Ethics not only restores the sense of civic duty to journalism, but it also restores nobility to the profession.

yellow light
Posted by Renee Deveney 1/29/2009 9:48:04 PM

i can apply both red and green light ethics in a balanced way to better my writing and understanding of the process. while some may argue that the issue is a simple battle between do and do not, i believe that a balance of regulations in terms of journalism should be applied. it is important to know that, as a reporter or writer, that you should take a stand and go against the grain to inform the public. However, at the same time, it is important to know the boundaries and how to respect the people who you are writing for. in this way, a "yellow" light approach should be taken in which both sides are analyzed and studied before publishing in order to ensure its ethical value.

Green Light Ethics obviously better
Posted by April Gunn 9/12/2008 7:44:30 AM

A "green light" approach to ethics seems to me to be obviously superior to a "red light" approach in many ways. It encourages journalists to get the stories that are really important but also requires that they check all the facts and have all the "ducks in a row," so to speak. Reading the requirements of the "red light" approach sounded like a list of to-dos for journalists that have gotten caught in the self-government trap that causes so many media industries to limit their own right to freedom of speech.

That said, I think using a green light approach in our own work would mean, first and foremost, working extra hard to make sure we check our facts and sources. Truth is, after all, a surefire defense against libel...and embarrassment. It also means keeping in mind our audience and the possible effects of the stories we write, and delivering important information in such a way that it is useful and constructive to readers instead of simply sensational or inflammatory.

an ethical approach to our own work
Posted by Robert Lang 9/11/2008 4:06:40 PM

I think a definate paradox exists between "Red Light" and "Green Light" ethics. Journalists have the right to report the story that needs to be reported. Their job is to report the news. And so they should not approach a story timidly. But at the same time, caution is needed in reporting a story. It is irresponsible to dive head long into a story without cautiously assuring oneself of the authenticity of the sources and the story itself. We only have to look back the the CBS News scandal in which Dan Rather lost his job. The responsibility to report the news definately gives journalists power over the individuals in the news. But power is a fickle thing and can be used for bad as well as good. I think with my own work, as should be the case with all journalists' work, the power we possess should be used for the good of the public we report to, and not to be used to degregate someone's character or reputation, if such a degregation is not necessary or proper.

applying ethics to your own work
Posted by Laura Diepenbrock 9/11/2008 2:32:27 PM

What, in terms of ethical behavior, can to take and apply in your own work?

You can apply many things from this article into your own work. The point of the article is the fact that ethics spring from scandal. If each we write with all honesty, and report the true story, we will be demonstrating 'Green Light' ethics.

Go Green
Posted by Kasey Weber 11/8/2005 9:45:19 PM

I think you are completely right on about your views on journalistic ethics. It is the true job of a journalist to find all of the information and then to report the whole story, not only the parts of it that are �safe�. A truly good, legitimate story won�t simply be handed to a journalist, the journalist must delve into the hard stories to find the real truths. That is �Green Light� ethics.

Also, if we, as journalists, succumb to the negativity of �Red Light� ethics, our entire industry will operate negatively. And if we are negative ourselves, how will the public look at us? The only possibility would be with negative eyes. However, if we handle our jobs with integrity, the public will view us with respect because they will see that we are living up to our duties to inform. Therefore, we cannot back down from any story. We cannot be scared. We have to go at stories with full force and uncover every detail. It is our job.

We must stay positive and perform in ways that reflect our journalistic dignity. If we don�t, we risk losing the respect of our audience and the integrity we have in ourselves.

Journalistic Cannibalism
Posted by Tanner George 11/7/2005 9:55:26 PM

It seems journalists are committing professional homicide in their coverage of each other�s mistakes. I agree there should be coverage and questions on weather or not a report is credible, but the extent of this coverage should be minimal. Journalists are supposed to report the facts objectively, not dig up half truths and hearsay. Reporting on the credibility of a journalist�s sources is a waste of time and energy. If a journalist believes a story is a fabrication, that journalist should try to discover the �real� truth. They shouldn�t waste their time trying to discredit their peers; rather they should credit the truth.
A journalist has a responsibility to the public. There are some occasions where a story needs to be told where there is no verification. We remember Watergate and Deep Throat; this story would never have been published with this red light ethics mentality. If your public believes you to be a credible reporter, you should have more liberty to report on issues where not all of the facts are known. There are many stories with loose ends that can�t be proven right or wrong. These stories may be incredibly important to the public. If the truth can�t be proven without a doubt, should we pretend the story didn�t happen?

excellent piece
Posted by Doug Jones 6/8/2005 11:06:51 AM

Great piece. I couldn't agree more!

Thank you
Posted by Will Doolittle 5/23/2005 4:05:02 PM

Great piece. Thank you. Since getting into the business as a teenager (30 years ago), I have become dismayed at the greater and greater timidity in newsrooms, the trend toward killing anything that might offend someone, the constant cry of "We'll get call on that!" as if that were a bad thing. And, even worse, I often see reporters questioned and criticized about stories that do offend readers, but not questioned about holes in stories or about lazy, source-driven, timid reporting.

Lighten up and tighten up
Posted by Bill McIntyre 5/20/2005 12:39:33 PM

I agree, "fun and ethics" don't always go together as Clark points out. But the renewed focus on news scandals at least opens the door to lighten up and tighten up.

The Newsweak, er Newsweek, Koran flushing is hardly at the level of Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Patricia Smith or Janet Cooke but it incrementally increases reader�s doubt.

It�s all cheating, of one form or another, and each time it�s exposed the public trust in journalists and the stories they report is diminished.

Why not adopt creative penalties for wayward news organizations by renaming violators of the public trust for a week or a month or a year as a punishment for wrongdoing.

The Washington Post could be renamed the Washington Compost for a month for to its role in the Janet Cooke scandal.

The New York Times motto, �All the news that�s fit to print� would instead declare �All the news that�s fit to print along with some nifty fictional writing, too!� for a 45-day Jayson Blair penalty.

The Fox News motto, �We report. You decide.� could become Faux News �We distort. You decide.� as a 10-day sentence for biased reporting.

CBS would become See, B.S. for a week as penalty for Memogate.

And Newsweek would dedicate one issue titled, �Newsweak�. Just a thought.

Reporters? What about publishers?
Posted by Becky Blanton 5/20/2005 6:47:39 AM

As a member of a group called "Leadership Washington" I attended my ususal all-day, once a month "field trip" yesterday. The purpose of this 12 member group is to visit various areas around the county and meet the leaders in that group/area. Last month was education day - we met educators, spoke with vocational centers, heard reports and stats from the school board etc. Yesterday was law and justice day. We heard about the problems officers and the judges face with growing DUI offenses and the need to educate readers - what was the problem I asked.

And Judge James Averitt replied..."A few years ago the editor of The Lebanon Enterprise did a story on DUI's and the advertisers didn't like it. So, a bunch of them got together and went to Landmark (who owns the Enterprise) and they got the editor fired."

Now - the editor did the right thing - reported on the news. The publisher - according to Averitt, killed the messenger....better to maintain the revenue stream rather than inform the public.

More people have been killed in alcohol related deaths than have died in ALL the wars in which Americans have fought - so the judge told us. God forbid that be news if it pisses off alcohol advertisers.

My point is - Poynter repeatedly hammers the reporters, but I can't say I have ever seen the isse of unethical publishers or papers addressed.

If a District Judge is willing to tell a group of businessmen and women in an open forum that a newspaper fired an editor for doing his job...then small wonder that the public has little faith in the veracity of journalists.

Forget green light/red lighting of reporters and start looking at the income generating policies of the major media. As the judge hammered into us all day long - few people are doing the right thing anymore - it's ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. While reporters are quick to expose that in the public sector - they won't look at the same problem in-house.

Shooting the Wounded
Posted by Roy Peter Clark 5/18/2005 2:54:43 PM

David: I didn't mean for my remarks on the Newsweek story to sound as if I were coming out of the hills after the battle and shooting the wounded. In fact, I'm making a green light case for the kind of effort and attention that goes into trying to pin down such a story.

In the last couple of days, another idea has surfaced which is profoundly red light: that even if the story were true and fully sourced, that it should not have been published. Any good that would have come from such a story, goes the argument, would be outweighed by the foreseeable consequences.

That argument seems profoundly undemocratic although there is clearly a long history of self-censorship in times of war. I think the case you are making argues against this type of self-restraint. Parts of the Islamic world will think the worst of us whether we were to publish such a story or not, whether the government engages in atrocities or not.

In many cases the consequences of publication are not predictable. But that doesn't mean they should not be imagined as part of news judgement and decision making. -- rpc

Implications re Newsweek
Posted by David Jensen 5/18/2005 2:24:17 AM

Inaccurate information is inaccurate information. But actions based on information, inaccurate or accurate, are the responsibility of the persons taking the action. Mr. Clark says, a "poorly sourced (Newsweek) story...may have led to the loss of life." Either it did or didn't. I hope he doesn't have any doubt about the matter at this stage.

Mr. Clark does not say directly that Newsweek killed people, but the implication is that its actions did. The real question, however, is whether someone should die because a publication is flushed down the toilet. Or whether it is at the bottom of a bird cage or used as a fish wrap or, perhaps, as a package for chichararrones.

We should all be able to understand that killing people because a publication is flushed into toilet is what is fundamentally wrong -- rather than the information about the flushing, inaccurate or not.

Newsweek bears responsibility for the accuracy of its reports, but there is no way it can verify the flushing. Newsweek relies on second or third hand sources, as does the rest of the media nearly all the time. Indeed, Mr. Clark's article itself relies on information provided by others that he has not personally verified.

We would not expect people to die if Newsweek reported that Ralph Nader flushed a Bible down the toilet. The fundamental, so to speak, problem is with the ethnocentric folks who are fueled by a powerful beliefs that view other societies with extreme hostility and anger.

Page 1 of 1

View all feedback

See All Jobs

Add Your Resume

Post Your Job

Become a Member

More media jobs

Article Feedback

Latest Poynter Blogs (See All Blogs)