Responsible Journalism

Responsible journalism is not an oxymoron.

   Politicians and corporate executive see reporters as nosy buttinskies, while journalists see themselves as responsible guardians of democracy, with a duty to uncover and expose fraud, lies, corruption and other forms of wrongdoing.
  To them, it's a challenge, while to their targets its a nuisance or annoyance at best and at worst an un-American insult to their self-perceived importance as leaders of the nation's welfare -- usually with themselves as chief beneficiaries. Therefore, any disagreement is attacked as unpatriotic or even criminal.
   One leading political candidate currently is facing charges of fraud, deception -- and, to a journalist the most egregious sin of all -- plagiarism.
   When the candidate offers as a defense that he didn't know what his business subsidiaries or partners were doing, that he had merely licensed the use of his name for an enterprise, the question becomes whether ignorance is an acceptable excuse.
   Ignorance may be a reason, but it's not an excuse. Or as a sign on a former President's desk put it, "The buck stops here."
  If a business has your name on it, and touts you as the source of whatever knowledge, skill or value is being marketed, then you are responsible for what goes on.  If you're eager to take credit (and profit), you must also be willing to accept blame.

   It is also true, of course, that there are some media outlets in constant, almost vindictive attack mode against one or more candidates, political parties, organizations or corporations, often for ideological reasons.
   In that case, the issue is whether these media outlets are commentators or responsible journalists. Both, however, are protected by the Constitutional guarantee of the right to speak and print.
   
   Every media outlet has an agenda. For some, their purpose is to promote a cause or to spread an idea, or to inform members of their organization's activities. These can include churches, civil rights or environmental groups, as well as clubs of every description. Only the laws of libel prevent them from publishing the most scandalous gossip.
   For mainstream journalism, such as radio, television, magazines and daily newspapers, the agenda is to be neutral in their news sections, even as they provide space and time for analysis and opinion.
   It may seem that news outlets, especially print media, are devoting an extraordinary amount of space to one candidate's activities and speeches, along with fact-checking of his allegations as well as deep coverage of various lawsuits -- numbering in the thousands -- against him and/or his business ventures and bankruptcies.
   But there are indeed an extraordinary number of questionable if not illegal activities attributed to him and his businesses. Therefore, it is journalism's responsibility to bring this information to the attention of voters and to law enforcement, if they're not already on the case.
   Will the news hounds also sniff out questionable activities perpetrated by other candidates? Certainly. That's their duty and responsibility.
   Meanwhile, the allegations made against one candidate are very available, and very juicy.