To the Editor:

Suzanne Garment’s cautious and curiously unfocused piece on the media, “Can the Media Be Reformed?” [August], seems to suggest that the profession of journalism has no code of ethics, but that practice varies according to the character of the individual journalist. Professional pressure of one kind or another, plus a certain pragmatism illustrated by some nostrums from Sam Donaldson, would seem to determine the ethical tenor of the journalist’s approach to his job.

In fact, the journalistic profession does have a clear operational code of ethics, which is fairly consistent throughout the free world, but is not set down in any of the various “codes of practice” issued by unions, publications, or other professional groups. Because of the curious constitutional position of American journalism, the code is practiced almost in its entirety in the U.S. In other countries, such as Britain, legal restrictions generally prevent the operation of the code to its fullest extent. . . .

This code was published in the December 1986 issue of Encounter, in my own discussion of journalistic ethics, . . . which I wrote, as it were, from inside the profession (my experience goes back more than twenty years and covers radio, television, and print). . . . The actual, as opposed to the mooted, ethical code of journalism is summed up in these nine rules:

Rule 1 (the sine qua non): Attract the attention of the public. Without this attention there can be no communication, and the profession of journalism cannot exist. Any reasonable means are permissible, and “reasonable” shall be defined by professional journalists (this includes editors and publishers) and no one else.

Rule 2: All coverage—politics, governmental affairs, private lives, military operations, commercial matters, and every other category without exception—may be obtained in a manner to be determined by the professional journalist and no one else. His criterion shall always be the public interest, which will include the interest (i.e., curiosity) of the public. In cases of dispute, that public interest shall be defined by the professional journalist and no one else.

Rule 3: If the subject of coverage wishes to reply, his right of access through the media shall be determined by the professional journalist and no one else. Any outside attempt to interfere with this discretion shall be construed as an attack upon the freedom of the media and publicized as such.

Rule 4: There is no such thing as an abuse of press freedom. Any attempt to apply this term to the practice of journalism in any medium shall be construed as an attack on the freedom of the press and an insult to democracy, and publicized as such.

Rule 5: Terms of honesty, truth, morality, justice, and all other such value judgments shall be determined by professional journalists and no one else, where they involve the practice of journalism. The criterion shall always be the public interest (see Rule 2).

Rule 6: Any attempt by any person or body, private or public (especially the government), to invoke any legal restraint upon the practice of journalism, whether it be through new or old laws of libel and slander, through censorship, official or unofficial, or through appeals to discretion, decency, or other such arbitrary terms, shall be construed as an attack upon the freedom of the press, an insult to democracy, and the destruction of the people’s right-to-know, and publicized as such. N.B.: professional journalists may themselves have recourse to libel and slander actions at their discretion.

Rule 7: Freedom, democracy, and the people’s right-to-know are synonymous with the unfettered practice of journalism. Any suggestion that this identity is anything other than absolute shall be construed as an attack upon the foundations of democracy, and publicized as such.

Rule 8: The professional journalist shall normally be responsible to no one but his colleagues as defined above (see Rule 1). In certain circumstances he shall be responsible to the law; these circumstances shall be determined by professional journalists and no one else. Any attempt to do so by anyone outside the profession of journalism shall be construed as an attempt to destroy democracy, and publicized as such.

Rule 9: The discretion of professional journalists in all matters covered by these rules of ethics is absolute. Any suggestion to the contrary shall be construed as an attack on freedom, democracy, and the people’s right-to-know, and publicized as such.

The problems arising in the practice of journalism—unfairness (according to non-journalists, of course), public outrage, invented “news” à la Janet Cooke—stem generally from the application of this code under the pressures of the media profession in a free society. The most intense of these is competition, closely followed by the sort of ideological warping discussed by S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda S. Lichter in their excellent book The Media Elite.

The central point of this discussion ought to be not whether journalists behave badly or not, but whether, given that a relatively small part of their profession now serves to inform (rather than entertain, shock, or satisfy the idle curiosity of) the public, journalists should continue to enjoy the benefit-of-clergy status conferred on them by the American legal system. Why not discuss, for example, whether journalistic practice is not restricted by the Fourth Amendment and its guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure? That amendment does not confine its restrictions to government officers but is quite general. The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process has also repeatedly been violated by journalists.

It really is not enough to lament vaguely, as Mrs. Garment does, that journalistic malpractice is unfortunate and that there should be some means of defense. The fact that any group should claim total exemption from the normal restraints which bind the rest of society is not an expression of freedom; it is an expression of lynch law, and ought to be seen squarely as such. The final justification given by journalists for even the grisliest of their capers is no more complex than the-end-justifies-the-means. We all know where that leads, and we know also that the end is by no means as clear-cut as the most self-righteous of our journalists would have us believe.

Herb Greer
Manchester, England

_____________

To the Editor:

In considering the agonizing of the press in the wake of the Gary Hart debacle, Suzanne Garment seems kinder than necessary. The same people who lament press recklessness in staking out Hart have not suggested that the equally ruthless and openly ideological destruction of James Watt and other ex-members of the administration who also found reporters hanging from trees, cross-examining their children, and the like was a bad idea. . . .

Hart finally removed himself (we are told) because the Washington Post informed his people that unless he quit it was going to reveal another—and possibly juicier—scandal. So he quit, and the newspaper did not go public with the story. But does anyone imagine that the same offer would have been made to a Republican candidate? What seems to be the case is that the Post already had all the dirt and more, but Hart was as safe with the Post as John F. Kennedy had been until the Miami Herald forced the issue into the open. That compelled competitive action. But it is notable that even then—and until now—the Post has not delivered the whole story. So it would appear that the rules have not changed quite so much as Suzanne Garment suggests. For Republicans, they have not changed at all.

Saul David
Van Nuys, California

_____________

To the Editor:

For a long time I have shared Suzanne Garment’s frustration with the American media and have wondered if anything can be done in the way of reform. She appreciates the fact that the “grinding and sometimes panicking pressure of time prevents journalists” from putting their ideas into anything but “a few basic, simple categories.”

The standard answer to this problem, which she rightly dismisses as unrealistic, is to pay “attention to the education that [media persons] receive before they take up their jobs.” . . . But anyone can learn at any time, . . . and it is a lack of curiosity, an unwillingness to learn, that I think is the source of most mediocrity in today’s popular media. . . .

It seems to me that most popular journalists spend too much time reading and watching others with a similar slant who cover the same events. And public leaders appear to follow suit. One shock I had in the course of the Iran-contra hearings was that committee members cited Time, Newsweek, and TV commentators as reliable sources. Seldom if ever did I hear anyone cite Jeane Kirkpatrick . . ., for example, or such diverse sources as COMMENTARY or Reason. The Washington Post and the New York Times seemed to constitute the limit of their information. . . .

It is discouraging to me that most media leaders, and public figures as well, do not give any indication that they are willing to look beyond the clichés taken from the popular media. . . .

Douglas H. Schewe
Madison, Wisconsin

_____________

Suzanne Garment writes:

“Why not discuss,” asks Herb Greer in his letter, “whether journalistic practice is not restricted by the Fourth Amendment . . .?” “The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process,” he adds, “has also repeatedly been violated by journalists.” There is no avoiding the word: this train of thought is silly. These amendments were not intended to apply to journalists, have never been interpreted to apply to them except in marginal ways, and will never be the means of working the transformation Mr. Greer thinks necessary.

The U.S. Constitution is sometimes inconvenient that way. Neither has American libel law proved to be a very effective instrument of retribution against the broad-ranging journalistic sins Mr. Greer enumerates.

We who would reform the press are therefore stuck with using means less compelling than the force of law. The journalists of Mr. Greer’s letter, though, are so vicious that anything less than coercion could not possibly prompt any change in them at all. Mr. Greer has told us there are hellish monsters out there and sent us off to fight them with broken swords.

In fact, though, the monsters are not precisely as Mr. Greer draws them. He writes of journalists who are always walking around snarling that they and “no one else” shall determine the rules of the press game. Impressions differ, of course, but the journalists I’ve met—including me—are, for better or for worse, more dependent creatures than that. They are in vital and constant need of new ideas, fresh stories, cooperative sources. They like to be in tune with what is popular. They want to go with the winner. They are fearful of getting caught in factual error that demands correction.

These traits allow journalists to be massively manipulated by people who know how to do the job. These qualities also make the system permeable enough so that there is definitely something to be gained by judiciously yelling bloody murder at appropriate times and in various ways.

“Legal action or bust” is a posture more defeatist than is necessary or useful.

Saul David is absolutely right in saying that journalists have been rougher on Republicans in recent years than on Democrats. But the ethic of journalistic investigation seems to have slipped its party-partisan moorings lately, as expresidental candidate Joseph Biden and repentant presidential candidate Michael Dukakis will testify.

Mr. David is also quite right to say that some newspapers have embraced the new rules more readily than others have. But there has been a change in many places. My guess is that twenty years ago a paper like the Washington Post would have hesitated to run reports even on the womanizing of a presidential candidate still in the race.

Douglas H. Schewe emphasizes what needs emphasizing: journalism is often a very sad thing these days, but Congressmen who seem to get all their information from newsmagazines are worse.

_____________