PressEthic

Just as the healing begins, after weeks of minute-by-minute “breaking” coverage, endless predictions and salacious battles in the midterm elections, television is at it again. The November “sweeps” period is upon us.

Local television stations across the country are “pulling out all the stops,” making every possible grand and final effort to attract viewers in November. The public is inundated with endless news promotions and special reports, alleging the urgency and necessity of attention.

While such an attempt to lure viewers is nothing new - it is increasing, in both prominence and severity. What was once merely annoying is now alarming. Many television news programs, particularly in smaller, local demographics, use fear-mongering tactics to literally scare viewers into watching. More disturbing is the fact that many of these big “gotcha” stories are stretching the truth at the very least, and glaringly false in some instances.

An article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette addresses the controversial death of a small-town Pennsylvania pastor. Reverend Brent Dugan committed suicide after a local television station aired promos during November “sweeps” for a special report suggesting that the pastor was involved in illicit behavior.

Many question whether the report, which was never aired, was factual.

TV news has an obligation to uncover wrongdoing, but too often stations appear to be more excited about reporting stories that bring themselves attention. Were the accusations in Griffin's investigation true? Did the report merit airing? There's no way of knowing because the story never aired.

Amidst true scandals such as the outrages of Mark Foley or the shameful humiliations within numerous churches, it is clear that such stories are “newsworthy” and the public desires awareness.

Thus, the problem arises when news outlets attempt to create or investigate such news stories. The damage can be insurmountable if the story is alleged yet unfounded. In class, we discussed the issues regarding naming rape victims and the accused, the same ethical dilemnas apply here.

The reporter that investigated the pastor said his investigation "uncovered illicit, possibly illegal, activity by a local minister, activities which, at the very least, violated the rules of his denomination."

It's the use of key words -- possibly illegal, at the very least -- that call into question whether the report was worth doing in the first place. If the best Griffin could dig up was a trip to an adult bookstore (not illegal) and violation of church rules, then there's not much in it to serve the public interest. It comes off looking like another "gotcha"-style story designed for no benefit except the TV station's ratings.

As nearly all facets of media struggle for the public’s attention, it is increasingly important that viewers strive to remain discerning. Is “breaking news” really breaking? Is that “gotcha” story really a scoop? It is up to the viewer to decide. One should not allow media to simply choose what is important. Do your own investigating, formulate independent thought and determine for yourself.