Lueke and Fusco: Journalistic Ethic and Philosophy

CA said:

Agree or disagree with Geoff, he is very politely answering what [from one poster] are increasingly shrill accusations.   .... please show some humility towards the guest who is gracious enough to entertain opposing views publicly.  I can think of at least one local site where this exchange would never happen, we are lucky to read a couple that allow it. 

SSI couldn't agree more with this.  We have nothing but respect for the fact that Geoff will (a) show this kind of respect for his audience, to speak with them as the equals that they in fact are; (b) invest his valuable time; and (c) exchange ideas in an intelligent and convincing way.

The vast majority of Mariner Central and SSI posters agree.  Agree or disagree, it's wonderful to see a reporter stand in the street, look people in the eye, and back up what he has said in public.

.

=== Correct Me If I'm Wrong ===

That said:  originally I thought that the journalistic ethic -- the responsible, adult worldview that was behind the willingness to accept the collateral damage to people's lives -- was:

"Josh Lueke is a lowlife, and Jack Zduriencik is a liar, so whatever heat they take is fair and warranted."

But as we talk through this, and triangulate the key issues, a very different worldview seems to have surfaced.  The philosophy starts to sound uncomfortably like,

"I can't be faulted on my fact-checking.  So what's it to me, whose lives are harmed.  That's their problem."

I hope that's not what I'm hearing.  Very possibly I've misread Geoff on this.

.........................

Not only (1) Josh Lueke, but also (2) Lueke's family, (3) Carmen Fusco, (4) Jack Zduriencik and (5) who knows what other Fuscos with the M's -- have suffered, and suffered a lot, because of this harsh, discompassionate spotlight.

I'd like to think that before he wrote the articles, Geoff considered this human suffering to be fair, as opposed to considering it irrelevant.

Respectfully,

Jeff

Comments

1

Can it be more complex than A or B? Can't Lueke be more than a lowlife, but a talented player with a deeply troubling past who may or may not be reformed? Can't Zduriencik be more than a liar, but a brilliant talent evaluator who bought low on a toxic asset and did not believe he was deceiving anyone in the process of the acquisition?
I would not ask my journalists to be arbiters of complex moral issues--refusing to report on a story because someone might lose a job. I have no illusions that the journalistic ethic requires value-neutral reporting, but I do ask that journalists present well-researched facts about topics of interest. I believe that in this instance at least, Geoff succeeded. I'll leave the former role to church, Spirit, and conscience. 

2

But Geoff's logic has been simple, clear, and forceful.
Geoff's logic is to pin Zduriencik to the wall with either one of two scenarios, and then "QED -- it's either A or B by necessity, and in both cases, he's busted."
If that logic is unsound, then Geoff's material becomes open to question as to its fairness. 
..........................
I would not ask my journalists to be arbiters of complex moral issues--refusing to report on a story because someone might lose a job. I have no illusions that the journalistic ethic requires value-neutral reporting, but I do ask that journalists present well-researched facts about topics of interest.

And this is the entire issue.
If that's the sum total of journalistic ethic -- if it's true, don't worry whose life is destroyed --
... then I can understand why the internet is replacing the lot of 'em.  Most Americans don't live their lives that way, and don't think much of those who do.

3

The print media routinely DOES pick-and-choose which hit pieces to run, and which not to run.
The New York Times is going to run a hit piece on Hated Politician A the moment it gets the chance.  But faced with a piece that might lose a race for Endorsed Politician B, it will hold back that hit piece.
They only trot out the "if it's true, then it's not our job to worry about the ramifications" when --- > the subject is a person who doesn't classify as a friend. 
Bear in mind their "ethic" that they don't run hit pieces on other journalists, for instance.  All of a sudden, the ramifications of the truth become a factor to consider....
.................
For a guy who wanted us to move on, you're throwing out some intriguing stuff, CS :- )

4

Yeah... I never learned when to just drop it.
The print media routinely DOES pick-and-choose which hit pieces to run, and which not to run.

I agree wholeheartedly with this, and actually tried to cover the concept (perhaps too quickly) with my "I have no illusions that the journalistic ethic requires value-neutral reporting," statement.
There is something to be said for the concept that all journalism--all statements really--is spin, but to me that often leads to relativism. I want fight against this idea leading one to conclude, "Huh, this or that journalist has a bias so I cannot trust what he is saying. I guess we can never really know the answer to this or that question, so any answers provided are wrong." (Not that that is what you are doing exactly). My hope is that amidst the bias of any article there is a commitment to factual reporting--a standard that I think the Lueke articles have met.
As for the fall out: no one likes to see anyone lose their means of livelihood--especially if that person has learned from his mistakes. However, actions do have consequences. Mistakes--intentional or not-- like embarrassing your boss can sometimes get you fired. Blaming the reporter who tells the story is like the scooby-doo villain blaming those meddling kids--he would have gotten away with it too.
I don't know. What are your thoughts? What's the better alternative? When should the journalist speak the truth and when should he keep quiet? I mean those questions sincerely. I don't think they are easy.

5

Integrity being the adherence to his own set of standards -- the set that he himself believes in.  A set of standards which seem to meet and exceed those held by the industry itself.
For example, many reporters would have been chasing the Lueke story as a way to further political agendas (such as gender warfare).  Baker seems to have applied much more straightforward motivation -- simply to hold the Mariners accountable to their fans.
My hope is that amidst the bias of any article there is a commitment to factual reporting--a standard that I think the Lueke articles have met.

Definitely, and has gone beyond that - for example, in the fact that he has avoided demagoguing the issue through sympathy for the woman in the incident.
When should the journalist speak the truth and when should he keep quiet? I mean those questions sincerely. I don't think they are easy.

Not easy at all, and that would be another terrific discussion in itself.
I have my own worldview that would have been applied to the Lueke scenario, and (unless I'm still missing something) it would have led to a very different handling of the situation. 
But yeah.  The philosophical issues are complex, and we have little doubt that Baker would have met-and-exceeded those taught in journalism school and reiterated by his editors.
Most people see the world differently than does the mainstream media, of course.  You can check the opinion polls on that one...

Add comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><p><br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

shout_filter

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.