Recently, a long time ABC News reporter was suspended for falsely reporting details in relation to Koby Bryant's death. Matt Gutman said that all four of Bryant's children were on board the helicopter at the time of the crash, when in reality, only one was. ABC News released a statement that said “[Gutman’s] initial reporting was not accurate and failed to meet our editorial standards,” they followed this up by suspending Gutman.
While I'm sure Matt had no ill intention, this incident got me thinking. How far does the first amendment go to protect individual's right to freedom of the press? If a reporter included false information that wasn’t slander or purposeful, can they still be blamed? And more importantly can they, or should they be punished? Basically I want to know what, if any, circumstances grant you safety under the first amendment. I understand that if stories are being released with the sole purpose of destroying somebody’s reputation or with bad intentions, that those individuals would not be protected under the First Amendment. But what about this case, I truly believe that Matt Gutman was not trying to cause panic or dismay in the public. I just think that he was too eager to share his lead and didn’t do enough fact checking. With this being said, would the first amendment protect him, or could Matt Gutman sue ABC News for suspending him while he was exercising his right to freedom of the press.
How much fact checking is required? As a reporter is it your moral obligation to fact check your information before releasing it, or is it the obligation of the people to trust the sources and do fact checking of their own? Today we live in an age we are fake news surrounds us, old fashion journalism is rare, and most of the stories that are released or done with the sole purpose of making monkey. Stories are not realisease to help better educate the public. Should the first amendment add new guidelines that help limit fake news, or should reporters continue to be allowed to publish stories with little to no fact checking?
In my opinion I think it’s both the job of reporters and the public. Reporters shouldn’t be intentionally releasing stories knowing that they aren’t true, but at the same time consumers shouldn’t be reading or watching stories and immediately taking them at face value. People are malicious and selling out is becoming more and more common. Kobe Bryant’s death was a horrible tragedy, but despite the fact that one of the greatest basketball legends ever, has passed away, there are still countless tabloids that are using his death to drive profits up.
Everybody has secrets or part of their lives that they want to keep private. Some secrets are legal or are controversial, but some secrets are things that people should have a right to keep private. Currently I feel as though there is no true moral standard that Journalists are being held to. Outing somebody’s sexual orientation or harmless hobby should be off-limits. While things like illegal activity or offensive language are things that new story should be focusing on. But all of this leads to the bigger question who if anybody should be the people telling what can or can not be reported on? It can’t be the government because that would infringe on our rights, it can’t be one news organization because there isn’t a universal one. There really is no true industry standard, and that’s right where Matt Gutman’s situation goes into the gray area. He’s been with ABC since 2008 and he’s a highly respected reporter, so should one unintentional oversight destroy his career and leave him suspended, or would public backlash and becoming under fire himself within the public eye be enough of a lesson to ensure this doesn't happen again?
No comments:
Post a Comment