The
Puppy Blender linked to
this post by Megan McArdle. It deals with the value of being a sociopath as a reporter. Here's the key argument.
I find it hard to be as cutting, or even as critical, as I really feel about people who allow me to enter their zone of privacy. I blame my parents for teaching me manners—the best investigative journalists don't have the best manners. The best investigative reporters might be called "sociopaths for truth." I think you know the type I'm talking about. And the very best of these are often good at faking empathy and then coldly eviscerating the empathized-with one.
One of the commenters on that post, redherkey, wrote something I just had to share with you.
So the premise is that brilliant journalism can only be conducted by being an unethical sociopath? What utter narcissistic, nihlistic garbage.
As I work with auditors and compliance professionals for one of the larger global financial firms, ethics and a principled personal foundation comes first with everyone I work with. It is unthinkable that you could progress past a lower level analyst without this foundation. The people I work with did learn manners from their parents, gain the trust of those they work with and understand how trust is the foundation for what we do.
While our behavior may not be popular, especially to those who committed significant errors or crimes, there is no question that what we do is just and based on reason. It's curious how reason and objective reality is directly derived from a foundation of trust and ethics.
In this respect, there should be no surprise that journalists consistently produce false reports, sell out to political or corrupt interests, tilt reporting to the point they are incapable of detecting material, significant bias, and in an almost epidemic proportion, produce completely fictitious reports. Objectivity only occurs in an environment based on ethics. Simply put, you cannot know the truth unless you're anchored in it.
Until the journalistic profession engages significant reform (perhaps through professional accreditation standards and requirements similar to that of CPAs, CFAs and other certifications), they will fail to be respected by other professionals and their failure to serve the public as a watchdog will only increase.
Wow.
KT Cat - Enjoyed your blog and have it bookmarked now. Thanks for the kind words on the post. I'm hopeful more folks in mainstream journalism will initiate reform efforts such as the professional accreditation I discussed later in the discussion to Megan's post.
ReplyDeleteThe one comment I didn't make but merits discussion is the the greater opportunity for error that the outside reporter experiences. When I'm functioning as an internal risk analyst assessing a pending acquisition, for instance, my facilitated role encourages the subject to share everything ugly, knowing we'll work together to obtain the resources to correct them. Only dishonesty, deception or extreme incompetence ensures an outcome detrimental to someone's career. Subsequently, my own error rate in my analysis is low given the high trust dynamic and opportunity for error correction in the process.
For an outside analyst (e.g. auditor or journalist), error will be much higher, putting the analyst at significant risk of getting it wrong. And worse yet, the journalist assessor often lacks the subject-matter competence that an external auditor would have, contributing to even greater error.
Finally, throw in this nonsense of a "sociopathic model" and a Leftist political axe to grind, and your error is likely to dominate your findings. This probably contributes to ad hoc comments by many professionals about how curious it is that those on the left lack fundamental competence (looking at this week's Rush Limbaugh misrepresentation by Media Matters, Harry Reid and others is a classic example).
Simply put, the investigative journalist absolutely must present the findings pre-publication with the subject for discussion and review and must be capable of correcting their findings when alternative explanations or compensating controls are presented.
Likewise, professional accreditation and a foundation to ethics would do wonders for journalism, though it would probably cause exceptional damage to progressive institutions that require the incompetence and easy manipulation of unprincipled journalists. It'll be curious to see if they'll self-reform before both self-destruct.