"At the AP we have rules...Unidentified sources can't be used to express opinions, to attack opponents or opposing ideas, or to put forth self-serving statements."
[Mike Feinsilber]
Rumors of sexual harassment surfaced in July 1991, surrounding Thomas' nomination to the United States Supreme Court. The first leak of the committee's confidential material came when two lobbyists outside the Senate discussed the confidential statement given by Hill.1 Nina Totenberg, legal affairs correspondent for National Public Radio (NPR), read portions of Hill's confidential affidavit to NPR's audience on 10/6/91. The story was broken in print by Newsday reporter, Timothy Phelps, the night before NPR's broadcast.2 Phelps on ABC's "Nightline" said that he had heard a rumor about Hill and Thomas in mid-July.
Appearing on "Nightline" after breaking the story, Totenberg found herself defending her honor as to personal reaction against her generated by the Hill story. Totenberg was quoted as saying that nobody had disputed "the truth or accuracy" of her story. Senator Alan Simpson questioned Totenberg as to whether she had ever read the code of professional [journalistic] ethics and the respect for right of privacy and dignity of others. "Let's not pretend you're objective here," charged Simpson.3 This raises the highly controversial question of whether the media should give authorities information collected by journalists, but not published.
The institutional relationship between the media and Washington's political power, focuses part of American journalistic character on forcing open the closed doors, finding a story and telling it to the public who have a right to know. Tension has existed between media and government since the nation's earliest days. In Walter Agee's terms, the journalistic imperative to uncover, report and let the public know, carries the impression that government cannot be trusted and that bureaucrats manipulate news for their own interests. Government, on the other hand, insists that it alone has the resources and overall view essential for judging when national security is endangered, and is equipped to decide what should or should not be published. At times of tension between government and the press, government looks for ways to control, minimize or eliminate the press which it views as a barrier to implementation of policy or solution of problems.4
The most effective Washington insiders know how the press works and almost all policymakers try to use the press. Their favorite tool is the "leak" and/or the "exclusive." Properly handled, a "good" leak can lead to considerable coverage. Virtually all media will prominently feature even a marginal story if it is exclusive. Leaks have proven to be useful because the press rarely goes after the source that feeds it. By becoming a source, one is guaranteed more gentle treatment than might otherwise be the case. Those sophisticated about the press use the leak to build support for their position as well as receive information.5
The report gives the event its force; and the power to make a reportable event is the power to make experience. Daniel Boorstin speaks of the leak as a "pseudo-event," which evolves from having been planned, planted or incited. Planted primarily for the purpose of being reported or reproduced, its happening is arranged for the convenience of the reporting or reproducing media. The announcement is made in advance for future release and written as if it had previously occurred.6 The journalist's role is to report and maintain a steady flow of news; whether the announcement is real is less important than its newsworthiness. Whereas one might expect the rise of television and on-the-spot reporting of news to encourage reporting of authentic events as they occur, Boorstin finds that this has simply created more and better pseudo-events.
Boorstin compares the leak to a formal press conference insofar as its arrangement and strictly-ruled protocol are concerned. Conducted within an atmosphere of confidence and intrigue, the press conference is more appealing to all concerned. The institutionalized leak has put a greater burden of contrivance and pretense on both government officials and journalists. Most leaks come from official sources as smokescreens for a larger, more threatening move by the administration. The journalist's task is to find a way to communicate this, so that it will not appear entirely unreal to the audience.
Although some have criticized the institutionalized leak as a form of domestic counter-intelligence, it has become increasingly important and is the source of many influential reports of current politics. As the press conference became formalized, the institutionalized leak developed.7 James Reston (NY Times) has stated that the Executive Branch is the only known vessel that leaks from the top. "It leaks the baloney it thinks people will swallow..." A.M. Rosenthal (NY Times) wrote, "the public has the idea that the press is constantly breaking secrets. The reality is that it is the U.S. Government and U.S. officials who are releasing information to serve their own political, bureaucratic or governmental ends."8
The journalist's performance is often restrained by unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles and undue interference with their autonomy. As Gans points out, sources and journalists must be accessible to one another before information can become news, however, that access depends on their social distance and respective power. Those who are economically and powerfully political obtain easy access to and are sought out by journalists. Those lacking power are harder to reach by journalists and usually not sought out until their activities produce social or moral disorder news. The issue of accessibility is reflective of the social structure outside of the newsroom; and the extent to which information is available to journalists is hierarchically and differentially distributed.9
It was revealed that television correspondent Barbara Walters, had privately passed on to the White House, documents containing information on the Iran/Contra Affair (3/87), which she had received in interviews with an Iranian arms dealer. Walters was criticized by the President of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE), for knowing something and not telling her viewers and for letting herself be used as a conduit. Transmission of information to the president was in violation of a literal interpretation of news policy.10 The American Broadcasting Company limits journalists from cooperating with government agencies unless a threat to human life is involved. Ethical and responsible journalists provide equal access to the media for all participants in a controversy. But what if some engage in terrorist activity for the purpose of gaining such access?
Citing the First Amendment, Totenberg and Phelps refused to reveal their sources when subpoenaed for testimony. Journalists can resist subpoenas, however, invoking the reporter's privilege not to testify usually depends on whether they are asked to discuss what they learned confidentially in the process of news gathering. The Washington Post has a long-standing practice of resisting subpeonas directed to its reporters, arguing that testimony about the news gathering process will discourage people from speaking freely to reporters, for fear of litigation. The courts have been leaning towards the First Amendment right of the reporter not to testify in cases where information sought by subpoena can be obtained through alternative means.11 This raises the issue of whether a journalist is on firm ethical ground in resisting a subpoena to protect the privacy of a source.
In Arthur Schopenhauer's terms, "freedom of the press is to machinery of the state what the safety-valve is to the steam engine," in that all elements of dissatisfaction are released by means of freedom of the press. He considers freedom of the press a "permit to sell poison" of the mind and heart, in that anything can be told to the masses, especially when tied to the prospect of reward. Once something has been put into man's head what misdeeds is he not capable of committing? Schopenhauer believes that freedom of the press should be conditional upon strict prohibition of any type of anonymity, fearing that the dangers of press freedom outweigh its usefulness, especially where legal cures are available for complaints.12
The focus at the time of the hearings on the source of the leaks obscured the fact that there was more than one reporter, story and source of leak. A Senate special investigation was focused on who leaked the allegations to the media, rather than whether or not the allegations were true. Senate special counsel Peter Fleming, was quoted as saying that "it was not part of our mandate to weigh the merits of the Thomas nomination or the truth of Anita Hill's allegations."13 The leaks resulted in an unfair trial by publicity in the court of public opinion. Thomas' life was transformed forever and doubts about his integrity will always remain. His strong public record was challenged without due process or rules of evidence. Hill's conviction that she did the right thing in testifying against Thomas accounts for the permanent mark her appearance on nationwide television left on the American social and political landscape.
The Senate spent a large amount of money investigating the leaks, yet did not investigate whether Hill or Thomas had lied under oath to the Judiciary Committee.14 The leaking of Hill's charges and the failure of anyone to see the source of the leaks brought to justice shows the tactics that official Washington seems willing to tolerate. The mystery of who leaked the event that initiated the Hill-Thomas hearings still remains unsolved. This leads to the question of whether leaks are a legitimate subject for government or congressional investigation.
Some of the difficult ethical questions journalists are faced with in relation to their sources concern the notion of privacy. The ASNE states: "Pledges of confidentiality to news sources must be honored at all costs, and therefore should not be given lightly. Unless there is clear and pressing need to make confidences, sources of information should be identified."15 Under what conditions and to what extent are journalists ethically justified in revealing the privacy of their sources? On the other hand, how far should journalists go to protect that privacy? A broader issue for consideration is the nature, status and moral right to privacy, and the criteria used to decide whether or not such a right has been violated.
The Journalistic Process
"..."[N]ews" does not just happen, pictures and ideas do not merely spring from reality into our eyes and minds, truth is not directly available, we do not have unrestrained variety at our disposal."
[Edward W. Said]
The primary purpose of news as Gans has argued, stems from the journalist's role as creator of "nation and society," and manager of the "symbolic arena," to provide comprehensive and representative images of "nation and society." To be comprehensive and representative, news must be reported in terms of all known perspectives and must assist all sectors of nation and society in placing their messages in the symbolic arena. As the Commission of Freedom of the Press (1947) states, news should include "the projection of a representative picture of the constituent groups in society."16
There is a divergence of opinion among scholars and journalism critics as to the definition of news. News has been defined as "a part of our communications that calls for a change of attitudes concerning events of importance...whose significance is still under consideration and discussion," and "an accurate, unbiased account of the significant facts of some timely happening."17 News can be said to provide significant facts relevant to the formation of opinion, or to a change of attitude on current public issues of importance to communities or persons. A comprehensive theory of news must address the issues of what news is, and what makes a piece of news newsworthy. In the selection of "newsworthiness," it has been found that the process prefers those who have achieved notoriety in movies, radio and television. Galtung and Ruge 1973, suggest that to be deemed newsworthy an event should be recent, concern elite persons, be negative and surprising.18 For Gans, newsworthiness includes the criteria of timeliness, political importance, a development in an ongoing story, involvement of individuals, powerful people or celebrities, conflict, drama, novelty, potential impact of an event, relevance to a deep-rooted cultural theme, violation of social order and human interest.19
Genuine news directed at current events is the report of an event, not states of affairs, past or future events or the experience of an event. Identification of an event and establishment of its duration and range are problematic issues in the determination of news. Although the essential purpose of news is to inform, the media is often more interested in entertaining then informing. Nevertheless, insofar as a report provides information, it counts as news. What constitutes news is defined against background assumptions about what is normal, routine and hence, not news. These assumptions reflect widespread, but not necessarily valid, agreement about what is happening in the world.
Said contends that opinions, news and newspapers are made as the result of human will, history, social institutions and the conventions of one's profession. While the press aims for objectivity, factuality, realistic coverage and accuracy, Said would argue that they express intentions and not necessarily realizable goals.20 Said points out that just because we have become conditioned to think of newspapers as being reliable and factual, their aims do not occur as a matter of course.21 In actuality he purports, as Gans has shown, that journalists, news agencies and networks consciously decide what is to be portrayed and in what manner. News is a commodity, expensive to gather and distribute, and the result of a complex process of normally deliberate selecti on and expression.
On newspapers, Schopenhauer's position is that they are comparable to the second hand of a clock which rarely works properly. Stating that "leading articles [in newspapers] are the chorus to the drama of current events," he thinks all journalists are alarmists, which is their way of making themselves interesting. Schopenhauer argues against paying too much attention to journalists, claiming that exaggeration is, in every sense, essential to journalism.22
Most journalists have a strong commitment to and identification with their product. The successful journalist is one who can find a story which, if necessary, will be created by the questions asked of public figures, by the human interest unfolding from an ordinary event or by the "news behind the news." In the absence of any newsworthy issues, the journalist must speculate about things to come. Boorstin contends that this change in our attitude toward "news" is symptomatic of a revolutionary change in attitudes toward what happens, what is new, surprising and important in the world.23
Studies undertaken by Herbert Schiller, David Halberstam and Michael Schudson attest to the extent to which the formation of news and opinion operates according to rules, within frameworks and by means of conventions that give the process a uniform identity. The journalist makes the assumption that certain things are normal, values are internalized and habits of society taken for granted. Consciousness of a professional code of ethics and a way of doing things are connected to what and how things are said. Given the journalist's working reality and the pressures of standardizing and stereotyping, journalists often "bring more to the events they cover than they take away from them."24 The media sets limits and maintains pressures drawing lines beyond which a journalist does not feel it necessary to go; done with little acknowledgment or awareness that this is what in fact is being done. The illusion of consensus is that the media act on behalf of society. As Said and Gitlin demonstrate, the media are responsive to what society is and what society wants.25
News reports accurately follow an implicit hierarchy of relative importance as decided by the networks. News selection and presentation is influenced by organizational pressure and limits arising from the structures of the journalistic workplace and allegiance to professional conventions of filming, editing and reporting. Television journalists often make vague references to journalistic "news sense" when asked how they decide what to cover and how to cover it. News agendas are presented as the natural, common sense way for the viewer to see things, i.e., imagery of presentation. Whatever the personal political views of the presenter, journalist or interviewer, the imagery of presentation frames the situation, approving the way things are seen from the judgment of those in charge.26
News is standardized with competing networks and stations representing similar items in sequence, showing a sameness in the world. Since the networks want to reach the same viewers, who they believe are ruled by a uniform set of assumptions of reality, images are likely to be similar. Networks maintain permanent camera crews which film pre-selected events, i.e., press conferences, parades, award ceremonies and demonstrations. The ritual nature of news programming stresses the way the political process has been compressed into meaninglessness. A campaign speech, for example, could be represented by short filmed items, balanced against a filmed segment by the opposing candidate, with segments taken out of context. Thus, viewers see only specific events which prevail as news.
George Herbert Mead suggests that there are two models of journalism: the information model which reports facts and emphasizes the truth value of news; and the story model which emphasizes the enjoyability and consummatory value of news, presented in a manner to create pleasing aesthetic experiences. In the late 70s the story form of journalism had become almost all entertainment, devoid of information.27 Most local news has become integrated into sponsored "entertainment" which, combined with the compression of news, has resulted in the trivialization of complex issues. A Wall Street Journal survey28 of local news, found that it had become "pure entertainment" and that the process was having a negative impact on the credibility of all television journalists.
Despite the differences between electronic and print news media, there are similarities. Both types of news are selected and produced by journalists with similar views. Television favors news that produces dramatic, action-packed film; news magazines emphasize stories that lend themselves to dramatic narrative, illustrated with action-packed still photos. Television news often feels distorted because its media and format considerations depart from the linearity of what McLuhan calls the "print culture."29 Television news, according to Hall, has become a mosaic of images of society, images which exist in their own realm and which never become firmly fixed in the real.30
In newspaper, radio and television, there are a variety of presentations to be observed, i.e., different and fragmented viewpoints, conventional and countercultural images. What is produced by the media does not simply evolve from reality nor is it spontaneous. Newspapers, television and radio observe certain rules and conventions to present things intelligibly. These conventions and rules, more so than reality, shape the material delivered by the media and are used to reduce an often unmanageable reality to "news" or "stories." Story selection is a hurried decision and choice-making process wherein journalists act almost solely on the basis of quick, intuitive judgments. The application of news judgment requires consensus among journalists, wherein those possessing power can determine the relevant considerations for a given story. Done within a political context made active and effective by an unconscious ideology, the media as profit-seeking corporations are interested in promoting some images of reality over others, which are then disseminated without opposition.
Ideology in the news is an intentionally conceived, consistent, integrated and inflexible set of explicit political values, which is a determinant of political decisions. Although the news differentiates between conservative, liberal and moderate, these are perceived as opinions and since they are flexible, they are not ideologies.31 The mass media set the cultural-political agenda for one another. Certain events and topics are what count as news. If things occur which don't fit the news processor's categories, they are edited until they do fit or completely ignored. The news gathering and reporting agencies must be able to frame all news as a succession of news as events, and have the images and commentary to match the events.32
The power of corporate ideology is very strong and sets limitations on that which is permissible. A specific slant can register a certain position on a particular public issue, i.e., when issues are politically charged; when there is social conflict; when a slant is sympathetic to forms of deviance. The usual forms of slants are a legitimation of depoliticized forms of deviance, usually ethnic or sexual, and a delegitimation of the out of bounds or dangerous. To what extent do people make narratives for themselves and to what extent are they manipulated for the producer's ends? What is the balance between manipulation and expression?
Most [American] journalists report on the world with a subliminal consciousness that their employer is a participant in America's power. The media collect information within a framework dominated by government policy, then formulate independent views for television and radio networks, newspapers, magazines and films. The mass media provide images reflective of the powerful and influential interests in society served by media. Operating in unison with the image is a communicable set of feelings about the image, setting, its place in reality, implicit values and the type of attitude it promotes. An often threatening quality of the spectacle broadcast, framed with a tagline, i.e., Walter Cronkite's "and that's the way it is," can lead one to conclude that the image is indeed reality.33 Baudrillard asserts that all media and the official news source only exist to maintain the illusion of reality, the illusion of objectivity of facts.34
For a decade before it was recognized that news media could have an impact, episodic drama series, operating on the borderline between fact and fiction, played a journalistic role which for many prevailed over recognized journalism. Since news programs often provide information out of context, there are inherent problems in distinguishing fact from fiction. Such programs form patterns of ideas and attitudes about the world, and may determine what information will and will not be believed from the material offered by newscasts. The impact of episodic drama on mental patterns of "reality" guarantees viewer emotional participation. Once established, mental patterns of reality appear reinforced by selected participation and retention. Drama, not news programming, takes the lead in setting patterns of reality.35
In terms of news, research has shown that ratings are improved not when listeners are told what they should know, but what they want to hear. According to McLuhan, real news is bad news. The media attempt to satisfy the public's desires and are not inclined to venture past what the public wants, realizing their power is in the medium and not content of the message or program.36 The media suggest the importance of an event, issue or candidate through frequency, length, headline, size and positioning of a story. News editors and journalists are influenced in their judgment by the volume of television exposure.
Arguments that news should be more accurate or objective are, in actuality, in favor of news' authority and arguments which seek to increase the control of news under the guise of improving its quality. A number of studies have examined how the journalistic commitment to balance and objectivity has structured news accounts to project a certain world view (Gans l979, Gitlin l980, Hall l978).37 News of course can never give a full, accurate, objective picture of reality nor should it try to, for such an enterprise can only serve to increase its authority and decrease the public's opportunity to challenge and negotiate with it.
In a l930s study, Queenie D. Leavis found a connection between mass culture and commercial production. Taking the position that modern media systems were filled with lies and deceit or propaganda, Leavis concluded that individuals cannot just be educated into their own culture, they must also be educated against it. Richard Hoggart l957, strongly called for individual resistance to the debilitating effects of mass media; offering methods of how to value and discriminate among the volume of stories from the mass media.38 Gandy l982, argued that bureaucratically supplied information dominates mass media, which reproduces the authority of dominant institutions and contributes to the hegemony of the corporate state.39
Gilles Deleuze states that information (from the newspaper, to radio, to television) is made powerful by its nullity and radical ineffectiveness. Information plays on its ineffectiveness to establish its power, which power is to be ineffective and thereby all the more dangerous.40 The phenomenal powers of the media displayed by network television and the national press, have been set in place to influence national elections and public issues, to help diffuse the authority of congress and disassemble political parties. During the 60s and 70s, media's power expanded significantly presenting serious challenges to governmental authority. Max Kampelman 1982, suggests that the relatively unrestrained power of the media could possibly represent a greater challenge to democracy than publicized abuses of power by the executive branch and congress. Senator Daniel Moynihan contends that "our capacity for effective democratic government will be seriously and dangerously weakened," given the upper hand of the press in Washington.41
Schudson contends that "a large problem with the press is not that it fails democracy but that democracy is already in trouble and the media mirror its weaknesses and are entrapped in them."42 It can be said that journalists play a role in contributing to a more democratic society, and it can be assumed that informed citizens will create a better democracy. Lippmann contends that in a "realist" view of democracy it is the elite who rule and journalism cannot change matters. One can only reduce expectations of what democracy is supposed to be and what role public opinion can conceivably play.
News is one of the most complex and widely studied television genres. News has been called a high-status television genre whose purported objectivity and independence from politics or government is argued to be essential for the workings of a democracy. The communications revolution which is reshaping all of Western society has altered the basic terms of reference between the press and American democracy. The media has become deeply imbedded in the democratic process itself. Primarily as a result of television they no longer simply cover the news, but are often partners in its creation.
For the journalist, coverage of the Hill-Thomas hearings was a great story. Nevertheless, it required the journalist maintain a low profile while being ever mindful of public reaction and possible backlash to the manner in which it was covered. Would the public believe the press' real goal was to overthrow Thomas' Supreme Court nomination?