Ethics Lessons from the Media?

Give me a break. In Friday's WSJ there was an article discussing whether we bloggers need a code of ethics. This from a press hot off of "Rathergate". This from the main-street media that look the other way if it's their guy and attack like a hungry hound dog if it's not their man. This from kazillions of "would be" editorialists who are paid to report facts but seldom do. This from a press that have become masters at utilizing the old one step forward and two backward against its opponents. Example:
"John Doe made a million dollars last year. There are rumors, however, of mafia connections. Unconfirmed rumors report the possibility of IRS agents being seen in the neighborhood where Doe lives." Get the message. Look at this the next AP news article you read.

Part of the problem is the evolution of "journalists". In times past most reporters had risen through the ranks from less noble positions as the press room or other mundane areas of the business. They had ink on their fingers and stains on their shirt pocket from a leaky pen. They were journeyman craftsmen. Now its Joe who can't make up his mind what to do for a living and who had a dad that could foot the bill for Columbia school of journalism.

The basic ethics problem in the nation as a whole is that of basic morality. With liberty goes responsibility. We seem to have forgotten that fact. We don't get paid, claim a lack of bias, or try to influence politicians. If there was a code of ethics who would prepare it? With what authority? What would develop would be censorship and the abridgement of free speech. We are still subject to the laws for libel just like any citizen, so lets just leave it there.

Relative Memory

It is well known that as age increases past some certain point the short- term memory seems to go. It also seems true that as the short-term memory decreases the long -term memory seems to at least hold its own if not increases. Some times it increases so much that it teeters on the edge of believability.

It is funny that in some professions or occupations, the memory seems to go faster than in others. In the '70's we were told to worry about the coming ice age. Today some of the same people are the proponents of the global warming theory. I'm not a rocket scientist but reason seems to say that people that can't tell me Monday what the temperature will be Friday should be suspect when they project the earth to warm one degree in twenty years.

Then lets take journalism. Is it a profession, an occupation, or a job. Whatever, it seems that it is supposedly defined as having to do with telling people the facts. Now logic would say that a fact should be something concrete - that could be proven by some test or observation. Gravity is a fact. The income tax is a fact - if you don't believe that try not paying it. Only to journalists do facts often depend on the political party in power. Ergo the deficit. A significant national deficit is not a problem unless the Republican's are in power.

We are in a situation to greatly be affected by our foriegn oil dependency. France and other countries have a good record of saftey in the production of electricity from nuclear power. Thanks to a movie it has completely been removed from consideration in this country despite the fact that it has been proven safe. We have abundant supplies of oil in the artic. But we don't want to disturb the caribou. Forget the fact that they are dying in droves from partisites. Oh we could use insecticides, but thanks to "Silent Spring" we don't use DDT any more.

We could go on and on but everyone knows the drill. Maybe economics will change the situation. If and when the public decides that jounalism is about facts again, they may punish in the pocket book those who peddle opinion under that name.