Truth and Journalism

Integrity. It's a term that most of us have had instilled in our minds from the time we were young.


As journalists, we are obligated to inform the public of the world around them. Most people rely on the evenings news, online stories, etc. to tell them what is going on. Because of this, journalists have a great obligation to be truthful. Many people are relying on their statements


Truth can be distorted. Many times, especially in tabloids and political campaigns, certain statements will be taken out of context in order to "sell a story". While this could be seen as "dishonest", I feel that this is the news that so many people live for. If the truth was always portrayed honestly, would it always be as interesting? Maybe, but probably not. We live in a society where people enjoy seeing others fail and embarass themselves. Look at reality television. With the exception of a few of the shows, people flock to watch people make fools out of themselves. And that is the same with journalism at times. Yes, journalists are obligated to tell "the truth", but it may not always be in the correct way. Is this right? Not at all, but with obligations to reach certain quotas and engage the public, journalists may feel obligated to use the truth in an interesting way.


Journalists are also supposed to be objective and non-biased. This is something I need to work on personally. When I don't agree with something, it's hard for me to act otherwise. However, as a journalist, it is important to portray both sides evenly, and without bias. This goes hand in hand with telling the truth. Whether a journalist agrees with a certain statement or not, they are obligated to present sides fairly. In the same sort of situation, journalists should not express their opinion if the situation does not call for it.  John Swinton, former Chief of Staff for the New York Times said:
"I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with . . . If I allowed my honest opinion to appear in one issue of my paper, before 24 hours my occupation would be gone."




Celebrities are quite often the victims of "stretched truth" within journalism. Angelina Jolie, being the incredibly honest and integrity-ful person she is, expressed her opinion on truth in journalism in this video:



Honestly, I do believe that there are good, honest journalists out there who just want to inform the public. It is tough, trying to be un-biased but report the facts how they are. The public deserves to know what is going on in the world, and that can sometimes only come from journalists who strive to teach them.


But is there such thing as too much truth? Does there come a point when journalists' need to weed out some of the stories, in order to protect the public? I believe so. In 2008, someone from CNN demonstrated how to get past airport security with a bomb, and the article/video was shown on CNN. Now, I doubt CNN was showing this to the public so more terrorists could get past security, but I believe this is an instance where information was displayed that the public didn't need to know. CNN was trying to make a point that the security at airports needed to be tightened up, but in reality, this was not knowledge that was essential to be released to the public.


It has been said that people cannot be good members of the Church and in journalism at the same time. I really don't believe this. Yes, there are some situations where a journalist may feel compromised and have to report on something they may not particularly agree with. But at the same time, having the basis of integrity in their lives, I believes that members of the Church can be extremely good journalists. I'm not saying that all LDS journalists are honest, but I do believe that for the most part, many do strive for integrity in their work, and strive to tell the truth in an objective way.