Furthermore, every “fake,” whether it deceives few or many, lowers both the newspaper that publishes it and newspapers generally in the estimation of all who know that it is false. Stories recognized by the reader as untrue, either as a whole or in part, shake his confidence in the truth of all newspaper reports and lead him to discount all the news that he reads. Thus the value of the press as a source of reliable information is seriously impaired. From whatever point of view “faking” is regarded, therefore, it is indefensible. It hurts the guilty writer; it hurts the victim of “the fake”; it hurts the newspaper that publishes it; it hurts journalism generally.

The Dangers of Inaccuracy. Inaccuracy due to carelessness or failure to verify facts is less reprehensible because it is not deliberate, but it is nevertheless a form of misrepresentation that in its results may be as bad as “faking.” An error made by a reporter in the initials or spelling of the name of a person charged with some crime has often injured an innocent man or woman whose name happened to be the same as the incorrect form of the real criminal’s name. In one instance, a firm spent hundreds of dollars in sending out letters contradicting an erroneous newspaper report of its failure, the error having been due to the reporter’s carelessness in confusing the solvent firm with an insolvent one engaged in the same business and having the same name except for different initials. In such cases the newspaper is put in an embarrassing position by its careless reporter, and is compelled to make a public retraction of his mistake. Even if he is not discharged, he is not likely thereafter to be entrusted with important assignments, and everything that he does will be carefully scrutinized until he has established a reputation for accuracy.

If reporters and correspondents remember that every story they write not only affects themselves, their newspapers, and the persons they write about, but also contributes toward forming the readers’ opinions, they will consider carefully whether or not they can afford to permit haste and carelessness to impair the completeness and accuracy of their work. Although they are at the foot of the journalistic ladder when they begin their work, reporters and correspondents should realize that upon the character of their work in gathering and writing the news depend, to some extent, at least, the opinions of the citizens and voters who read their paper.

How Editors Determine the News Policy. The editors of the news, by determining what shall be printed and how it shall be printed, naturally have greater responsibility for the general character of the newspaper than have the reporters. The editor’s failure to verify facts in the work of reporters and correspondents means that any errors in such work receive his approval and he thereby becomes responsible for them. The results of faithful, accurate reporting, on the other hand, may be entirely destroyed by the editor’s efforts to make the news more striking and sensational. By their instructions to reporters, correspondents, and copy-readers, editors directly determine the character of the newspaper. When an editor tells a reporter, a rewrite man, or a copy-reader to play up a certain “feature” in a news story, he determines to a considerable extent what the effect of that piece of news will be upon the readers. By cutting out important details, by shifting the emphasis from one particular to another, by inserting a word here and there, editors and copy-readers may completely alter the impression made by the news. The size and character of the headline given a story produce quite as great an impression on the reader as the story itself. Headlines, as has already been pointed out, have played no small part in so-called “yellow journalism.” All that has been said of the importance of giving readers complete and accurate news reports, and of the evils growing out of suppressing or distorting the news, applies quite as much to editors and copy-readers as it does to reporters and correspondents.

The Newspaper Worker’s Problem. A vital question for every one engaged in newspaper writing or editing is whether or not he will obey the orders of his superiors when these orders do not square with his own standards of truth and right. The reporter must decide the question when the city editor gives him his instructions; the city editor must decide when the managing editor directs him in his work; the managing editor must decide when the owners announce to him their policy for the paper. Then it is that every newspaper worker is brought face to face with the problems of present-day newspaper making. Then it is that these problems cease to be general questions for discussion and become a personal matter that each newspaper worker must decide for himself. When it becomes a personal question to him, its solution does not always seem so easy as when it is a general problem, because to disobey the orders of his superiors usually means to lose his position.

This question, however, is not peculiar to the newspaper profession. The problem is not unlike that which confronts men engaged in every kind of business or professional work. Every business man, every lawyer, every physician finds himself called upon again and again to settle for himself the same ethical question. Competition in business not infrequently leads to questionable practices for getting the better of business rivals, employees, or customers; and it is repeatedly necessary for men in positions of all grades to determine whether or not they will carry out their employers’ policies when these do not agree with their own standards of right and wrong. Lawyers and physicians in their struggle to build up a practice are tempted to resort to methods condemned as unethical by the standards of their profession, or in the offices of established practitioners they find practices in use which do not harmonize with their own ethical ideals. In the older professions of law and medicine the members have directly or indirectly regulated the conditions of admission to practice, and have established codes of professional ethics. Such regulation, reinforced by government legislation, has tended to maintain better professional and ethical standards than would be possible without it.

Journalism, among the last of the callings to be generally recognized as a profession, has established neither standards of admission nor a formulated code of ethics. Only recently has the need of professional college courses in preparation for journalism been recognized by the public and by newspapers themselves. With the quickening of the public conscience in regard to political and social conditions has come a keener appreciation of the importance of the newspaper as the greatest single source of information in our democracy, and a realization of the dangers of abuse of this power by editors and publishers. Whatever opinions may be held as to present-day standards in journalism, every one will grant that it is the duty of those who enjoy the advantages of university training in preparation for this profession to maintain the highest ideals in their own work. Opportunity to know the truth carries with it responsibility for making the truth prevail. Noblesse oblige is as true of the privilege of knowledge as it ever was of the privilege of rank.

SUGGESTIONS

  1. Remember that whatever you write is read by thousands.
  2. Don’t forget that your story or headline helps to influence public opinion.
  3. Realize that every mistake you make hurts someone.
  4. Don’t embroider facts with fancy; “truth is stranger than fiction.”
  5. Don’t try to make cleverness a substitute for truth.
  6. Remember that faking is lying.
  7. Refer all requests to “keep it out of the paper” to those higher in authority.
  8. Stand firmly for what your conscience tells you is right.
  9. Sacrifice your position, if need be, rather than your principles.
  10. See the bright side of life; don’t be pessimistic or cynical.
  11. Seek to know the truth and endeavor to make the truth prevail.