Persuasive Argument About Journalistic Ethics Essay

Exclusively available on Available only on IvyPanda® Made by Human No AI

In the book The Journalist and the Murderer, Janet Malcolm raises several ethical questions, which journalists so often have to face. The author’s work is a thorough analysis of the case between the convict Jeffrey McDonald and the famous non-fiction writer Joe McGinniss, who was accused of the breach of faith. The essence of the moral dilemma discussed in this book lies in the following: on the one hand, a journalist has to render the facts or information in an impartial and accurate manner, which is his or her primary duty. However, he or she bears certain responsibility to the person who gave consent to the interview. The main argument, which Janet Malcolm puts forward, is that individual interests must never be sacrificed for the sake of public amusement or popularity of the book as it is often done.

Certainly, this statement can be disputed; for example, some belletrists may raise objections and say that it is their duty to make the community more informed or knowledgeable. It seems that in this case, we should speak about a very common misconception. In her work, Janet Malcolm tries to unmask the true motives, which drive many non-fiction writers. The author states that journalists are always trying to make up excuses, justifying their immoral actions; she describes it in the following way, “The more pompous talk about freedom of speech and “the public’s right to know”; the least talented talk about Art; the seemliest murmur about earning a living” (Janet Malcolm, 1).

The point is that in the overwhelming majority of cases, journalists deliberately place emphasis on public interests, though the only thing they are concerned with is the popularity of the magazine or the book. In addition to that, it is necessary to draw a clear distinction between public interests or general welfare and entertainment. There is a tendency among many journalists to divert, amuse, or entertain the audience but not to make them more knowledgeable or informed. McGinniss is an example of such a writer: he did everything to win the trust of McDonald, saying that his book would throw new light on his case. Nonetheless, it turned out that the famous writer had very little concern with the convict’s case. Janet Malcolm draws a line between journalism and entertainment; she states that Mc Guinness (or some other fiction writers) only intend to write a best-selling book, yet such work is not always based on true facts (Janet Malcolm, 111).

Another aspect of this issue that we should discuss is the problem of self-righteousness. Many journalists are firmly convinced that the end always justifies the means. Such Machiavellian philosophy has been subjected to heavy criticism by Janet Malcolm. In her book, she says, “Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on know that what he does is morally indefensible” (Malcolm, 1). The author compares such people with predators, preying for human vices or miseries (Malcolm 1).

It should also be pointed out that the relationships between the journalist and the subject presuppose certain obligations between the two sides, such as, for instance, honesty. Non-fiction writers attempt to insinuate themselves into the confidence of another book in order to obtain relevant information, which can make their works more convincing or eloquent; they fail to notice that such behavior can hurt the feelings of the interviewee or the subject. It seems that such a possibility does not disturb them. They always can allege the responsibilities to the public by saying that they were performing their civil and professional duties. This is the most treacherous form of hypocrisy that is almost impossible to unmask. Moreover, pressmen or writers often make false promises to their subjects for by as for example, McGinniss did. Janet Malcolm points out that in the vast majority of cases, their main objective is money; the author portrays the true motives of many journalists in a very eloquent manner “I believe he is innocent, but that won’t sell my book, so I’ll say he’s guilty” (Janet Malcolm, 138). Perhaps, this is the main reason why so many belletrists attacked Janet Malcolm and her book.

We should not discuss the legal aspect of this case; probably, it would be better to focus on the moral side of this dilemma. Certainly, at some point, every person may tell a lie, but it is not permissible with journalists who always have to maintain a certain level of integrity. It is the basis of public confidence in them. The question arises of how we can trust those journalists who are dishonest with their subjects. What may prevent them from being dishonest with us?

Among such excuses that journalists often make up is the freedom of speech. Naturally, no one can cast doubt on a persons right to express their views and ideas, nevertheless, the freedom of speech is often confused with libel. We can observe a very curious paradox. Very often, immoral behavior is skillfully disguised under the mask of very noble things such as public duty or freedom of speech.

Roy Clark argues that there is a very narrow line between fact and fiction. Certainly, at some point, journalist or non-fiction writers may transform facts or reality, because to some extent, any work of art changes life, but there is a vast difference between such transformation and deliberate distortion of facts or slander.

Journalists must realize that their profession not only entitles them to influence the minds of other people, it also implies heavy responsibility to other people, though many representatives of this profession are inclined to evade it. Janet Malcolm proves that sometimes, journalists are driven by their mercenary interests, although their primary concerns should be general and individual welfare. Pressmen often mix this noble cause with entertainment and popularity. Furthermore, journalism is based on integrity, honesty, and reliability. Without them, the public can no longer put trust in these people.

Bibliography

Janet Malcolm. “The Journalist and the Murderer” Vintage Books, 1990.

Roy Clark. “The Line Between Fact and Fiction”. Web.

More related papers Related Essay Examples
Cite This paper
You're welcome to use this sample in your assignment. Be sure to cite it correctly

Reference

IvyPanda. (2021, December 2). Persuasive Argument About Journalistic Ethics. https://ivypanda.com/essays/persuasive-argument-about-journalistic-ethics/

Work Cited

"Persuasive Argument About Journalistic Ethics." IvyPanda, 2 Dec. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/persuasive-argument-about-journalistic-ethics/.

References

IvyPanda. (2021) 'Persuasive Argument About Journalistic Ethics'. 2 December.

References

IvyPanda. 2021. "Persuasive Argument About Journalistic Ethics." December 2, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/persuasive-argument-about-journalistic-ethics/.

1. IvyPanda. "Persuasive Argument About Journalistic Ethics." December 2, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/persuasive-argument-about-journalistic-ethics/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Persuasive Argument About Journalistic Ethics." December 2, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/persuasive-argument-about-journalistic-ethics/.

If, for any reason, you believe that this content should not be published on our website, please request its removal.
Updated:
This academic paper example has been carefully picked, checked and refined by our editorial team.
No AI was involved: only quilified experts contributed.
You are free to use it for the following purposes:
  • To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
  • As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
  • As a template for you assignment
1 / 1