Hidden Camera: The mainstream media meets to plot against Mitt Romney…
Yesterday, the Right Scoop blog breathlessly announced that it had acquired a recording of what an open mic had caught in the discussion among reporters prior . to Mitt Romney’s press conference:
CBS REPORTER: “Yeah that’s the question. I would just say do you regret your question.”
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: “Your question? Your statement?”
CBS REPORTER: “I mean your statement. Not even the tone, because then he can go off on …”
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: “And then if he does, if we can just follow-up and say ‘but this morning your answer is continuing to sound …”
CBS REPORTER: “You can’t say that.…”
CBS REPORTER: “I’m just trying to make sure that we’re just talking about, no matter who he calls on, we’re covered on the one question.”
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: “Do you stand by your statement or regret your statement?”
This is it!, proclaimed Rush Limbaugh and, like echoes in a grotto, every other conservative talk show host and blogger, and of course Fox News, bleated the same. The smoking gun! The proof! The mainstream is engaged in a conspiracy to destroy Mitt Romney and to re-elect President Obama! Just let George Stephanopoulos and the rest try to deny media bias now!
I’ve got an ethics bulletin for Rush and the chorus: there is nothing in the ethics of journalism that says reporters can’t collaborate to stop newsmakers and politicians from ducking their questions. Nor should there be. This isn’t a game. The reporters are there to get answers, and if they weren’t the habitual deceit-mongers we know they all are, candidates for office would meet their duty to be candid with the public about their plans, positions and views. Collaborating as a team to make sure there’s a better chance of forcing candidates to do that is smart, effective, and ethical journalism.
Who needs a smoking gun at this point to “prove” news media bias toward the left, Democrats, and Obama? There have been too many of those smoking guns to count, but this isn’t one of them. If the conservatives want to prove that reporters aren’t similarly zealous in questing President Obama, then let’s see that “smoking gun.” “Okay, let’s agree, now: no tough questions. Nothing about “Fast and Furious,’ or the economy, or Afghanistan, or the fact the Vice President is better qualified to be a paperweight. Everyone on board?” I wouldn’t be shocked. But Romney was treated fairly, and the reporters were doing their jobs.
For a change.
__________________________________________
Facts: The Right Scoop
Source: Newsbusters
Graphic: MSN
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
The operative part of your ethics bulletin for Rush and the chorus “there is nothing in the ethics of journalism” full stop. Just leave it at that because there are no ethics in journalism whether it be the main stream media or ethics bloggers. Of course I am not sure there needs to be ethics in either case.
The Society of Professional Journalism promotes a code of ethics for journalists (http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp). That doesn’t necessarily mean all their members follow it; nor does it mean they all fail to follow it.
I read “habitual deceit-mongers” and immediately thought you were referring to reporters. I love how elegant that description is. Maybe, mongers for politicians and peddlers for the media?
Yes, I like that.
Okay, so I know I’m late to the party on this one and there’s a reason: Something about this one bothered me and it took a few days to figure out how to put it into words.
I *do* have a problem with the Press Corps acting this way because it sets up a dangerous future license for them to engage in groupthink with no checks and balances against it. (Indeed, the First Amendment would correctly, though tragically, protect it.)
I agree completely that our elected officials of both parties need to be asked tough questions. But if “the” question to ask is so important, then each of the reporters in the room should be able to easily come to that conclusion independently–with no collaboration necessary at all.
In a larger sense, if the Press Corps is going to make it a standard practice to collaborate and work out common strategy, then why bother having more than one reporter in the room? Indeed, why bother having more than one news outlet in the U.S. if they are going to deliberately (not coincidentally) have 100% identical coverage?
What I want, and what we all deserve, is a Press Corps that represents a diversity of opinions what is or is not important enough to print / report / ask. This country is NOT monolithic in thought or values, and a healthy Press Corps will reflect that in their various questions on a variety of subjects. And yes, if a politician ducks a question by selectively calling on other reporters, then have at it: the next reporter should call him on it, and the next, and the next.
But as a news consumer, until the pol actually DOES duck the question, I want there to be some chance that one of the reporters will share my priorities on what should be asked.
The power to bury a story is one that the news media still wields, and the built-in guard against it is having a variety of outlets so that one of them will break a story that others don’t. If they think it’s okay (and if we agree that it’s okay) for them to collaborate on THAT, then I fear the news media will just devolve in to Pravda.
When they collaborate on what to ask / print / report, they also implicitly collaborate on what NOT to ask / print / report.
What question didn’t get asked because they all got together to ask that one? We’ll never know.
–Dwayne