Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story – When Rolling Stone set aside the basic tenets of journalism ethics

Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story / No harm no foul no crime / Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story / It'll get 'em every time. 

lyrics by Gaelic Storm (c) 2008

The very first bullet point in the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics (SPJ) states that journalists must:

• Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.

Yet in an article published on November 19, 2014, Rolling Stone magazine put accuracy and verification aside when retelling an account of rape at the University of Virginia.

Source: kfor.com

It is estimated that 20-25% of females enrolled in higher education are victims of sexual assault.  (The National College Women Sexual Victimization study, p. 10)   And it is widely known that most incidences of rape and sexual assault go unreported to the police; while 2/3 of the victims tell another person, only 5% of sexual assault victims go to the police.  (NCWSV, p. 23).  There have been allegations that universities cover up crimes and discourage victims from reporting the assaults to the police for fear of damage to the school’s reputation and loss of federal funding.  In 1990, a federal law was enacted that required colleges to report on crimes that occur on or near their campuses; this act was later renamed the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act after a college student who was brutally raped and murdered in her Lehigh University dorm room in 1986.  In addition to penalties for violating this act, universities are also subject to a loss of federal aid funding.

Source: DLA Piper (slideshare.net)

Against this backdrop, the Rolling Stone article “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA”, seemed poised to fulfill one of the main principles of journalism: "The highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public."  It examined the culture of rape on campus including why rapes frequently go unreported and how universities react.  The reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, focused her article on the University of Virginia and led off with a horrific tale of gang rape against an UVA freshman referred to as Jackie.  The first nine paragraphs detailed the attack in lurid detail; the next several described Jackie’s attempts at dealing with the attack.  Later, the article delved into the pervasiveness of these types of crimes at UVA.

While journalists may employ many good story-telling techniques to gain a reader’s interest, they must balance the need to be compelling and entertaining with the requirement to be ethical.  

www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

In this article, Erdely, Rolling Stone's editors and publishers all failed to:

• Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. 
• Verify information before releasing it.
• Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
• Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.
  excerpt: Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics

Emotion won out over Rationality.  Had the writer used logic instead of relying on feelings and employed some basic fact-checking, chances are Jackie’s story would never have been published.

In December, The Washington Post published a report which poked gaping holes in the Rolling Stone article and in their adherence to journalistic standards. Feministing.com, an online community for feminists, decried both the lack of ethics displayed by Rolling Stone and the damage it did to the cause of stopping on campus assaults.  Specifically, the author pointed out the lack of fact-checking, the lack of interviews of the accused, and lack of personal responsibility by blaming the victim for any inaccuracies.  CBC.com, a Canadian based news organization, similarly pointed out the lack of fact-checking or interviews, and accused Rolling Stone of disregarding journalism for activism.  Slate.com, an online news magazine, criticized Rolling Stone soundly for ethics violations: “Rolling Stone did a shoddy job reporting, editing, and fact-checking the story and an even shoddier job apologizing.”  Slate also did one thing that Rolling Stone did not --- it interviewed the accused.  In this instance, Slate interviewed Erdely, the Rolling Stone reporter, to get her side of the story: 

The reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, told us on the DoubleX Gabfest that she had been looking at different campuses to find an example that would illustrate how badly universities handle allegations of campus sexual assault. She came upon Jackie’s story of a gang rape, and, as any reporter would, concluded this was a story that needed to be told.   

According to The Washington Post, Jackie tried to back out of the article and asked that her story not be included in Rolling Stone; Jackie claims Erdely refused.  It would seem that the quest for a tantalizing lede trumped ethics.

Erdely failed Jackie on multiple levels.  She disregarded Jackie’s wish not to have her story published.  She failed to fact-check or interview the accused and, by not doing so, published inaccuracies which then undermined the entire story.  The few facts that she did include led to Jackie being doxxed (having her private information published online).  All this served to further victimize Jackie in the pursuit of a story.

Source: wtrv.com

Rolling Stone’s excuse for not fact-checking was that they were trying to protect Jackie as a rape victim.  While the SPJ code of ethics states that journalists must “use heightened sensitivity when dealing with […] victims of sex crimes”, it also states that “private people have a greater right to control information about themselves”.  Nowhere does it state that in order to do so, journalists should suspend accuracy or verification. 

When Jackie requested that her story not get published, Erdely disregarded that same guideline in whole.  Erdely should have employed Bok’s ethical decision-making and asked herself:

• Is there another professionally acceptable way to achieve the same goal that will not raise ethical issue? 

There were accounts from other rape victims at UVA in the article that Erdely could have centered her story around but she chose Jackie’s as it fit the narrative and was most likely to propel the story nationally.

While it is the journalist’s obligation to present an accurate depiction of events, the editors and publishers also share in that responsibility.  Rolling Stone failed twice: first in the publication of the story and then in the admission that the article was flawed.  Perhaps all felt that despite the glaring inaccuracies, Jackie's story served its purpose in drawing attention to campus sexual assault crimes.  In addition to the lack of accuracy, the story lacked objectivity and neutrality.  By veering towards activism, the article ran afoul of journalism ethics.  Activism follows the principle of Communitarianism: Community interests trump individual interest in quest for social justice.  With the advent of the 24/7 news cycle and proliferation of online news organizations and blogs, the lines between objective journalism and activism have become more blurred.  Today, it’s hard to find truly objective reporting unless you subscribe to the news wires (i.e.: Reuters or Associated Press).

When Qwikster led to Quitster: A Case Study in Public Relations

Ad: Netflix announces Qwikster

Case 7-B: Netflix: Not So Fast . . . A Response to Ongoing Furor, Lee Wilkins

Netflix email image source Google

In September 2011, Netflix emailed its customers an apology from the CEO for not communicating the recent price hikes (customers learned of the price hike from tech websites).  In that email, Netflix did not roll back the price hike, rather they announced a new service, Qwikster, which actually splits the existing Netflix service into two separate ones.   In addition to paying 60% more for the same service, customers will now have to maintain two separate accounts, get two separate bills, log onto two separate websites and manage two separate product lists.  This is touted as ‘moving forward’ for the company.  This email compounded the errors made during the summer by communicating a corporate-centric message.

Customers didn’t want to hear about the CEO’s fear of turning into AOL or Borders, they wanted to know how this was going to affect them.  The answer: badly.

As long as that email is, the CEO’s blog post is even longer and more self-centered. While it’s a good public relations tactic to have a corporate blog easily accessible on the company website, it’s an even better tactic to deploy good content through robust communication while being transparent about the message and intent.  Customers responded on the blog:

Excerpts: blog.netflix.com/2011/09/explanation-and-some-reflections.html

And with their mouse clicks: over 800,000 subscribers left in the weeks following the announcement of Qwikster.  Worse, Netflix’s stock price plummeted: 

How did this happen to a company that was previously beloved by both Wall Street and its customers?   In their rush to grow, Netflix lost sight of their brand promise and embarked on a new path, disregarding their loyal customers. 

PRSA: Trust and Ethics in Public Relations (2011 Presentation) 

Looking at the ethics guidelines from the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), Netflix failed on the core principle of “Disclosure of Information” in which members are expected to “build trust with the public by revealing all information needed for responsible decision making”.

The PRSA Code of Ethics is helpful in reviewing this case because it provides guidelines and core principles to follow.  It sets several fundamental values, including: advocacy; honesty; loyalty; professional development and objectivity; ethical practice and interaction.   Netflix ran afoul of honesty and loyalty; specifically Netflix failed to:

• Protect and advance the free flow of accurate and truthful information
• Foster informed decision-making through open communication 

www.prsa.org/AboutPRSA/Ethics/CodeEnglish/#.VL4nNkfF9ay

Where the code of ethics falls short is on consequences.  In the definition of ethics image, # 4 states “the consequences of actions and the importance of right and wrong”.  For Netflix, the consequence was a loss of trust from the public.  This led to a tarnishing of the brand, loss of customers, and a declining stock price.

John Stuart Mill’s Utility Principle focuses on the outcome.   It can be argued that Netflix management was overly focused on the outcome when they decided to raise prices by 60% and split their service into two distinct companies.  However, they were only focused on their desired financial outcome and not the impact to their customers.  Mill, a valuational hedonist, was concerned about the good of society and giving the people a voice.

Mill argued that pleasure-and the absence of pain-was the only intrinsic moral end. Mill further asserted that an act was right in the proportion in which it contributed to the general happiness.  Conversely, an act was wrong in the proportion in which it contributed to general unhappiness or pain. Utilitarianism can be subtle and complex in that the same act can make some happy but cause others pain. Mill insisted that both outcomes be valued simultaneously, a precarious activity but one that forces discussion of competing stakeholder claims. (Patterson & Wilkins, p. 11)

John Rawl’s theory of Distributive Justice takes Mill’s Utility Principle one step further.  Instead of trying to calculate portions of good, Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance asks decision makers to examine the situation objectively from all points of view.  The veil is used to free decision makers of the bias of their position and inherent viewpoint. This enables two values to emerge:

          1) Individual liberty is maximized;

          2) Weaker parties will be protected.
This results in “reflective equilibrium” which allows for some inequalities as long as they “contribute in some significant way to the betterment of most”. (Patterson & Wilkins, p. 120)

In summary, Netflix would have been better served had they employed a lens of transparency in their communications and viewed their proposed changes from their customer’s viewpoint.  In 2011, the management of Netflix ignored the first key question in making ethical decisions:

•       What duties do I have, and to whom do I owe them?

In doing so, they invoked one of Cooper’s Findings – Plummeting Credibility. This lead to plummeting customers, plummeting revenue and a plummeting stock price. Netflix has since rolled back these changes and has regained all lost market share.

50 Shades of Media Ethics – It’s a Grey World

In “Media Ethics” by Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins, we learn that ethics are a rational process founded on certain agreed-on principles (p. 4).   As such, it is open to individual interpretation --- there is no one right resolution.   In absence of black & white (right & wrong), it is up to the individual to navigate through a sea of greys to choose the right solution or path.

Source: roflcat.com: weknowmemes.com; knowyourmeme.com 

Advertising, my chosen career, has been much maligned for a lack of ethics – witness the old adage: There’s no truth in advertising.   It’s even a punch line, “Read the fine print”, a TV character might say when they’ve been caught deceiving someone.   The purpose of advertising is to sell: a product, a service, an image.   Advertisers may feel that presenting their product in a truthful manner may dampen the message – “Don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story”.   After all, it is called the “ugly truth”.  

There are governing bodies such as the Federal Communications Committee, the American Advertising Federation and many industry specific organizations that set rules and guidelines about advertising.  So why does the public distrust ads so much?   It’s in the shades of grey.  Few companies will issue an advertisement that is outright false and easily disputed.  But how many will create one that is ambiguous, or misleading by what is contained or omitted in the message?  Too many will in the quest for sales.

Case in point: Splenda®.  When Splenda first came on the market in the US, it touted itself as a natural sugar substitute that was derived from sugar but without the pesky calories.  Sounds great thought dieters and diabetics everywhere.   Not so great as it was not quite true.   Turns out that there is nothing natural about the product as it is made in a laboratory from chemical compounds.  Both the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Sugar Association waged war against the Splenda claims and after a contentious court battle, Splenda revised their advertising to be more accurate.  

Misleading the public is not only wrong ethically but it is costly as McNeil Nutritionals, the makers of Splenda can attest.  It is also poor business.  Once a brand becomes tarnished, it is very difficult to regain the public’s trust.  For McNeil, they had a tough road ahead of them and they decided to aggressively discount their product through coupons and promotions to gain back lost market share.   Now with stiff competition from other ‘natural’ artificial sweeteners, McNeil has put Splenda up for sale.

In my career, I’ve been responsible for both the media and creative for a variety of consumer and business products.  Whereas some might find it tempting to omit certain truths or to be intentionally vague about benefits to generate higher sales, I’ve always found it best to be transparent.  My own personal guiding principles are: transparency and accuracy.  Believe in your product (service or image) and promote it to right target audience and the sales will come.   If the product is good and is priced for the market, there’s no need to be vague, ambiguous or misleading.   And if it’s not, improve the product.  The damage to the brand for short term gain isn’t worth it. 

For those entering the field and wondering how to develop their set of guiding principles, I’d recommend following Bok’s model:

First, consult your own conscience about the “rightness” of an action. How do you feel about the action? Second, seek expert advice for alternatives. Third, conduct a public discussion with the parties involved. (Patterson & Wilkins, p 5)

If something doesn’t feel right, it probably isn’t. If something seems unclear, vague or misleading, it probably is. If you are in doubt, ask a more seasoned colleague or mentor. Finally, show it to your target audience; do a quick online or in store focus group and get feedback. If the public misinterprets your ad or the product benefits, revise it.

Fortunately, for me, those situations have been far and few between.  I have been very deliberate in my choice of companies to work for and brands to represent.  While there have been opportunities to earn more at different organizations, it has always been important to me to be proud of where I work, what I work on and what I do.  In the rare instances where there has been an ethical quandary over messaging, I’ve been able to use my position as a subject matter expert to influence the outcome.  This is akin to Aristotle’s phrenemos – person of practical wisdom who excelled at ethical decisions in their daily activities. 

Below are three philosophical approaches to ethics: 

Table 1.1: Patterson & Wilkins, p. 11

Aristotle puts the emphasis on the decision maker.  Kant puts the emphasis on the decision and Mill puts it on the outcome.  The latter requires the decision maker to weigh the benefits of the stakeholders (typically the company and the public); this can prove disastrous if based on short sighted economic goals.

As Mill’s method is the most complex and fraught with risk, it is the most interesting to me to learn more about it and gain a new perspective.

Fine print: 
Media Ethics : Issues and Cases. Philip Patterson / Lee Wilkins, 8th edition. McGraw Hill 2014
McNeil Nutritionals is a division of Johnson & Johnson