Truth Versus Sensationalism
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the definition of Journalism is: “Writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation.” Loosely translated, it means writing the truth without unfair bias and personal conceptualization. There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that there is a difference between journalism and that of its most popular offspring, tabloid journalism.
The definition of Tabloid Journalism is: “A publication of small format giving the news in small form usually with illustrated, often sensational, lurid material. It tends to emphasize or exaggerate events and stories such as disasters and catastrophes, and repeat scandal and innuendos about the deeply personal lives of celebrities, sports stars and politicians, etc.”
Surprisingly, there is actually a journalistic Code of Ethics that was designed as a guide to assist professional journalists in the truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity and fairness of their reporting, and to help with difficulties such as conflicts of interest and ethical dilemmas. The Preamble to the Society of Professional Journalists in America states:
“Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.”
I have highlighted the areas above to draw attention to a singular lack of truthful and fair reporting, and ethical and honest behavior apparent during media coverage of Michael’s 2005 trial. Of course the guidelines are just that, guidelines. They were not intended as a set of rules and are not legally binding under the First Amendment where it prohibits the making of any law that among other things, impedes, infringes or interferes with the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. But the question arises, does freedom of speech and freedom of press give individuals the right to blatantly distort, twist, manipulate, misinterpret and misrepresent the truth in the pursuit of headlines?
The casting of the shadow of doubt on Michael’s innocence, even before the jury had reached its verdict, was one of the most disgraceful episodes in journalistic history. There was no similarity at all between what was reported to the public by the media and the trial that was playing out in the courtroom. Instead, we read of the allegations, accusations and shocking innuendos written and aired by a biased press seemingly out of control. Nowhere during that time did we read of the unreliable and shady prosecution witnesses who deliberately gave false, misleading and incomplete testimony, and whose testimony disintegrated under the cross-examination of Michael’s defense team.
Within the four categories of the SPJ Code of Ethics, several guidelines are worthy of special note:
“Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct. Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others”
When one reads the media coverage of the trial, it becomes obvious that these guidelines were largely ignored and proves the absence of any ethical or moral standards on the part of the press. Michael was deemed guilty by the media even before the trial had begun and with headlines like “Sicko!” New York Daily News. “*****: Now Get Out Of This One” New York Post. “He’s Bad, He’s Dangerous, He’s History” “If he weren’t a pop idol with piles of cash to hide behind, he would have been picked up years ago.” The Sun, fed the public’s insatiable need for scandal and gossip and boosted audience numbers which then encouraged the media to milk the case for what it was worth.
No consideration was given to the toll all of this would take on Michael; the damage it would cause to his reputation, career and more importantly, his spirit. No-one was held accountable. No apologies were offered. No retractions, no inquiries, no investigations and no blame were admitted on the part of the media for their assassination of Michael’s character. Even after the jury reached its unanimous verdict of not guilty, a humiliated press still would not accept responsibility for their shameful behavior. The media analyst Tim Rutton said at the time, “So what happened when Jackson was acquitted on all counts? Red faces? Second thoughts? A little soul-searching, perhaps? Maybe one expression of regret for the rush to judgment? Naaawww. The reaction, instead, was rage liberally laced with contempt and the odd puzzled expression. Its targets were the jurors… Hell hath no fury like a cable anchor held up for scorn.”
Appearing on Court TV, Nancy Grace said, “I’m having a crow sandwich right now. It doesn’t taste very good. But you know what? I’m also not surprised. I thought that celebrity is such a big factor. When you think you know somebody, when you have watched their concerts, listened to their records, read the lyrics, believed they were coming from somebody’s heart… Jackson is very charismatic, although he never took the stand. That has an effect on this jury.
I’m not gonna throw a stone at the mom, although I think she was the weak link in the state’s case, but the reality is I’m not surprised. I thought that the jury would vote in favor of the similar transaction witnesses. Apparently the defense overwhelmed them with the cross-examining of the mother. I think it boils down to that, plain and simple.” She later added that Michael had been found not guilty “by reason of celebrity.”
Wendy Murphy on Fox News added, “I really think it’s the celebrity factor, not the evidence. I don’t think the jurors even understand how influenced they were by who Michael Jackson is… They basically put targets on the backs of all, especially highly vulnerable kids that will now come into Michael Jackson’s life.”
Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America was another who adhered to the idea that Michael had been acquitted due to his celebrity status, “Are you sure?” Are you sure that this gigantically renowned guy walking into the room had no influence at all?”
Diane Dimond in her last New York Post article wrote, “He walked out of court a free man, not guilty on all counts. But Michael Jackson is so much more than free. He now has carte blanche to live his life any way he wants, with whomever he wants, because who would ever try to prosecute Michael Jackson now?”
Not all journalists are guilty of the practices used during the coverage of Michael’s trial, but in this case it appears that the fine line drawn between journalism and tabloid journalism became indistinct; finally merging and giving birth to medialoid, where the mainstream media becoming infected by tabloid journalism launched a frenzied, propaganda attack on a man who never felt truly vindicated.
But the distinct ethical difference between journalism and tabloid journalism and the ethical or unethical practices in which they are used, at the end of the day comes down to one person; the person in charge. Whether it is a newspaper or magazine editor, a television producer or book publisher, an author or blogger, all have the power to approve what will be aired or printed. With that comes a certain amount of responsibility that is often ignored in the quest for a mass audience.
On whatever scale a journalist or person writes in a public arena, we are all held accountable for the factual content of the material we present. At the same time, the public bears a responsibility for correctly interpreting the validity of the written word. This can be difficult at times, given the over saturation of conflicting stories that are printed, and there will always be those who believe everything they read, but in looking at the sources from which the information is coming, keeping an open-mind and not being too quick to judge, we can start to separate fact from fiction.
One final note; regardless of how true or untrue, essentially each story contains an ideal, bias or pre-conceived notion of the person writing it. We never can be truly impartial. Michael’s case is proof of this fact.
Valmai Owens
Director of Publications
Creator/Editor of Fans In The Mirror
Patchwork Project Organizer, MJTP
Nicht unterstüzter Browser | Facebook