Originally Posted by Reality Bytes
Originally Posted by 2wins
i was wondering if all the pontiffs here could illuminate us on what they believe journalistic ethics would entail. i see a lot of talk about these ethics, yet no examples.

I took a couple classes in J-school back in 1977 (my gf was majoring in Journalism), and I recall that back then reporting was to be done by the Joe Friday method "Just the facts" (who, what, when, where - not why). Adjectives were discouraged, and adverbs were right out, as I recall. 'Color commentary' was reserved for sports page, and opinions were given only on the opinions/editorial pages.

I never got to the point where they covered 'sources', but I've heard the 'two independent quotable sources' or multiple confidential but reputable sources and at least one quotable source was a reasonable requirement.

I am curious, when did you go to J-school, and how did they handle it?

[NOTE: I do not claim any kind of expertise based on only two journalism classes - I just mentioned that so you know where I'm coming from. I really am interested to know what you were taught, and what typical j-school classes teach today]
Didn't go to jschool. taught by old school, hard core types who yelled at you. problem for me, too, cause i picked up some of those habits and they don't translate well in this corporate, human resources world, but i digress. be fair, tell the truth, don't editorialize in a story. if you're writing an opinion piece then name it. if you're writing an analytical piece, then name it. if it's a news story, stick to the facts and make certain you check those facts. and frankly, holding a story is done but it is usually done to the benefit of the paper, not the subject. in otherwords, whoever agreed to hold the story was getting something bigger in exchange. and since this is the british press we're talking about, i am highly suspect because they are far more agressive than many of our folks here and i would bet the farm whoever made the original agreement was going to get something back in exchange. the reports talk about the british media, but i am skeptical here. i would wager one outlet rather than all had a hand in this and otherwise it was kept quiet. as for drudge, well, by definition you have to call him a journalist but in terms of classic defiinitions you would also have to add the label yellow journalist.

sure, you can talk to god, but if you don't listen then what's the use? so, onward through the fog!