The first person I would think ready to comment on the subject of ethics in journalism would be a Christian newspaper or other ultra-right-wing-fundamentalist monthly. Hmmm. Not so much. In the search for answers about ethics in journalism, this author found that the major local newspaper of the area was eager to answer questions about ethics in journalism but some the Christian publications, both local and abroad, preferred a more “loose lips sink ships” approach. “Und jus’ who are you writink zis awtikal for? Vat is yoouer nem und identifikashun numba? Und ‘ow can I confirm, vat iz zis, Jerry B. Jenkins Christian Writer’s Guild, is a legitimate organization?” Or the other extreme, “Are you recording this conversation? You never know who might be listening. No, actually, we’re getting out of the newspaper business, you may have heard . . . never mind what I meant by that! I’m actually selling this rag, you want to buy it? I’m getting out of the business, see . . . no, I don’t want to answer any questions! Gotta go! [click]”
I couldn’t believe that last conversation really took place until I heard the familiar automaton on the other end of the line, “If you’d like to make call, please hang up and dial again . . . “ Of course, I exaggerate slightly, I do mean slightly though. Those snippets really do capture the essence of the responses I got from the Christian publications that I contacted.
Jim Kershner of the Spokesman Review newspaper, on the other hand, was kind enough to answer my questions.
E: For you, when is the line crossed between serving journalism and serving the subject of your journalism? In your opinion, does accepting discounts or freebies blur that line?
JK: We never accept freebies or discounts. Anything beyond a cup of coffee or something trivial like that crosses the line. There is no reason to accept anything, except possibly a homemade brownie. That would be just rude to turn that down. But in general, accepting something like free lodging puts you in the awkward position of having accepted something that other people would pay for. It is much simpler to simply turn it down. Otherwise, you always have that nagging question in the back of your mind about whether you were swayed or not.
Also, he provided a link to their values statement online. It turns out that editors had just been hashing this out as I contacted Mr. Kershner. The values statement is very well done. After I read parts of it, I got the impression that the SR considers itself very mission oriented. They believe that they are there to serve the public not themselves or their Pulitzer Prize seeking egos.
In contrast, the negative or null responses I got from the half-dozen or so Christian publications, plus what I’ve read of them, give me an unfavorable impression. I am given the impression that whenever there is an agenda to be imposed, the temptation to make that the sole reason for the publication is dangerously tempting. Christian journalism all too easily becomes Christian propaganda.
Having said that, I do exclude more reputable mags like Christianity Today and Weekly World Magazine from that generalization. It does make me wonder though why “Christian” journalism as a label is necessary. Why shouldn’t it just be good journalism that flows out of a believer who seeks truth and the faithful reporting of it?
It will cut into time for writing but will also help me afford to. Well, maybe....I'm also directing a show for CYT next semester so the next Writing for the Soul Conference is definitely out.