In "Lying to Tell the Truth: Journalists and the Social Context of Deception," Seow Ting Lee studies the practice of deception by those in the news industry. He contends that these practices are common within the journalistic realm. He supports this idea with quotes from other researchers who say that it is not only common but necessary to obtaining some stories. He believes deception is used to mislead audiences as well as sources.
As a method of research, Lee used 20 depth interviews to communicate with those who might have important information. Lee describes the depth interview as "an extended conversation with a purpose." Its merits, according to Lee, include an ability for the interviewer to reveal "hidden feelings, attitudes and beliefs that respondents are unaware of or that exist vaguely in their consciousness." Another researcher, Berger, contends that the depth interview is a way to get through the normal defenses people might have about sensitive topics such as the use of deception in journalism. This type of extended dialogue seems useful in obtaining more qualitative data. Lee intended to talk to working journalists about their experiences, rendering their responses (assuming the information they gave is accurate) completely valid, as the best measurement for the existence of something like journalistic deception would be it's measure of existence in field work. All but two of the 20 journalists interviewed had at least 10 years of experience. The interviews conducted average an hour and a half in length, with the longest being 2.5 hours and the shortest 57 minutes.
Lee found that 14 of the journalists interviewed had used deception. Those who said they did not use deception said they knew of someone who had. Lee found that most of those who had used deception tried many tactics to justify their actions. They accepted responsibility but denied that it was wrong. Some said that refraining from deception is the best course of action, but in some cases it was justifiable. The justifications demonstrate that the journalists were working for something more important - "It was an important story" - or to keep someone safe - "If their identity was known, there would be a lot of trouble." Lee says that the imperative of truthfulness (the inverse of deception) is understood by all who deceived, "or else there would be no need to justify such exceptions."
Lee successfully proves that journalistic deception does exist and is justified for the purpose of continuing deception or continuing a story pieced together using deception. Many claimed it was to protect their source. One of his interviewees gave hard proof of this: "Let's say if someone asks you, "Did so-and-so talk to you?" And you say no, I don't have a problem with that if you've made an agreement to protect the person. You know, what you put in print and what you do to get something into print are two different things."
Based on his research, Lee says there are three rules that help explain journalistic deception:
1. Who is deceived (newsmakers vs. audiences)
2. The perceived character of the person deceived (good vs. bad)
3. The nature of the act (omission vs. commission)
Lee discusses limitations on the idea of journalistic deception. He claims that there are some who would not deceive regardless of how necessary deception might seem. Lee claims much of this can be explained simply through personal beliefs or religious influences. However, the reader must be aware that some of these people might lie about this topic to protect themselves, a major justification used by those who did deceive.
This article was extremely pertinent in that it's the first article I've found that related directly to my topic. Lee discusses the deception of audiences which caused me to consider more the nature of deception as it applies to victims families.
No comments:
Post a Comment