In print | Published September 4, 2008

As the second issue of this newspaper goes to print, it seems fitting to reflect on the subject of journalistic integrity. As a starting point, Merriam-Webster aptly defines “integrity” as a “firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values.” But in the case of journalism, this definition needs to be made more specific. Integrity means more than simply having a set of do’s and don’t’s; it means writing in the public interest. Tragically, we find ourselves confronted with two problems: first, that the public interest as it pertains to the media has become blurred; and second, that several seminal media institutions have failed to live up to this rigorous standard of moral behavior.

In order to elucidate what the public interest is, it’s essential to understand what it is not. First and foremost, the public interest is not tabloid-esque inquiry into politicians’ personal affairs. And nowhere is that more evident than in the media circus surrounding Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Upon the announcement of her nomination, the ordinarily cautious Newsweek burst forth with a rather unsavory take on Alaska’s “hockey mom,” calling her nomination “good theater” but otherwise declaring her wholly inept.

The fact that Newsweek represents the high water mark in the media’s treatment of Palin is horrific. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post ran pieces questioning Palin’s decisions regarding her most recent pregnancy; specifically, her choice to return to Alaska from a conference for the birth of the child.

And every paper, from the Times to the Wall Street Journal to USA Today, jumped on the story of Bristol Palin’s pregnancy. This cannot be made more explicit: the choices of Ms. Palin’s daughter are not news. Even Barack Obama (who has little to gain from downplaying the story) has told reporters to drop the subject. The fact that, by and large, they have not is indicative of a problem not with Bristol Palin or her choices, but rather with the media’s fixation on entertaining, but ultimately irrelevant scandals.

An affinity for scandal is far from the mainstream media’s worst vice in this electoral cycle. Even big names in the print media have shamelessly published unresearched and astonishingly ignorant perspectives on the election under the guise of “news.” Taking a love of the irrelevant one step further than the usual newspaper rabble, Wall Street Journal reporter Amy Chozick offered up the following commentary on Barack Obama’s candidacy: “In a nation in which 66% of the voting-age population is overweight and 32% is obese, could Sen. Obama’s skinniness be a liability? Despite his visits to waffle houses, ice-cream parlors and greasy-spoon diners around the country, his slim physique just might have some Americans wondering whether he is truly like them.”

Ms. Chozick here is guilty of two crimes. First, she falls into the same trap she fell into regarding Bristol Palin — her article is not relevant to Mr. Obama’s candidacy. The fact that Barack Obama is not overweight is an almost laughable talking point, and one which Mr. McCain’s campaign staff has, fortunately, not echoed.

But second, and more seriously, her article fails to meet the research and evidence standards one would expect from a paper like the Wall Street Journal. Her primary source is a Yahoo! Message Board thread that she anonymously started with the rather leading questions, “Does anyone out there think Barack Obama is too thin to be president? Anyone having a hard time relating to him and his ‘no excess body fat’?”

The Journal ought to be ashamed to have someone like Chozick on their payroll. In the midst of one of the most significant elections in recent history, there is little room for shoddy and immaterial reporting, especially in one of America’s leading papers. And here, the Journal is not alone. While Amy Chozick’s questionable research skills have earned her a degree of infamy, she is far from the only reporter to fall into the trap of turning the presidential election into a personality contest.

“Human interest” reporting has come to take the place of substantive analysis, to the detriment of actual journalism. And left unchecked, this pattern has the potential to turn the 2008 presidential election into an uninformed crapshoot between, as Paris Hilton put it, “that wrinkly white-haired guy” and “that other guy” who promises change.

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »