This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line,
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Feb 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
When do journalists learn about ethics?
An examination of classroom and professional attitudes about ethical standards.
Scott Reinardy & Jensen Moore
Ph.D. Students
School of Journalism
University of Missouri – Columbia
10 Neff Hall
Columbia, MO 65211
For all inquiries regarding this submission please contact the first
author at:
Phone: 573-882-5741
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Manuscript submitted to the Association for Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication
Graduate Education Interest Group
Guido H. Stempel III Research Paper Competition
March 25, 2005
© Scott Reinardy & Jensen Moore 2005
All Rights Reserved
Abstract
A survey (n=1,195) included broadcast and print journalist students
at a large Midwestern university, and broadcast and newspaper
professionals. The study compares the ethical perceptions of
introductory journalism students to graduating students, as well as
professional journalists. The results indicate that in general terms
the introductory students appear more ethically grounded than
graduating students, and graduating students have a higher standard
of ethics than professional practitioners. It appears the more
journalists gain practical experience the less defined their ethical
perceptions.
As part of the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics,
journalists have a duty to "expose unethical practices of journalists
and the news media." In the past 25 years, those in both professional
and academic fields of journalism have taken this call seriously
(Smith, 1999; Jennings, 2000; Trigoboff, 2000; Garcia, 2001; Hatchen,
2001; Robertson, 2001; Mackay, 2004). The journalistic tenets of
seeking truth; providing accurate information; not misrepresenting
sources, materials or content and not plagiarizing have been strictly
enforced at many of the leading newspapers in the country as several
journalists have been fired for ethics violations (e.g. Janet Cooke,
Washington Post, 1981; Steven Glass, New Republic, 1998; Patricia
Smith, Boston Globe, 1998; Jayson Blair, New York Times, 2003; Rick
Bragg, New York Times, 2003; Eric Snider, Provo Daily Herald, 2003;
Jim Van Vliet, Sacramento Bee, 2003; and Jack Kelley, USA Today,
2004). This has not been limited to journalists, however, as editors
too have either been asked to resign or been released for not
detecting the violations of their subordinates (e.g. Gerald Boyd, New
York Times, 2003; Howell Raines, New York Times, 2003; Karen
Jurgensen, USA Today, 2004).
These instances have not gone unnoticed in the academic field as much
of the recent work on journalism ethics has been devoted to
examinations of violations of professional ethics, and to a limited
extent to the mass media as purveyors of sensational news accounts
(Mackay, 2004; Patterson & Urbanski, 2004: Shaver, 2004). As
evidenced by the Janet Cooke, Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair cases,
the push in newsrooms to produce interesting or exciting news stories
can lead some journalists to fabricate, distort or embellish their
work. Prior to the Jayson Blair incident, many felt that journalistic
standards and norms were developed on the job (Rosten, 1937; Breed,
1955; Bugeja, 2000). However, some have come to question the
classroom practices of institutions that produce journalists (Peck, 2004).
The current study examines whether broadcast and print journalism
students learn professional ethics during their undergraduate
educations (as opposed to learning them on the job). One would expect
that students entering a journalism program would not have the same
ethical development as those graduating from the program. To
determine if this is the case, students taking an introductory
journalism course (before ethics coursework) and students graduating
from the journalism program (after ethics coursework) are compared
using survey methodology.
A second component of this study compares the ethical beliefs of
graduating journalism students to those of newsroom professionals.
The data for this secondary analysis comes from 2003 surveys of
newspaper and television newsroom practices (Reinardy & Craft, 2004).
If, in fact, professional ethics are altered during the course of
one's on-the-job training, we would expect to see a difference in
ethical standards between students and practitioners. For example, if
graduating students do not possess high levels of journalism ethics
but practitioners do, then we can assume journalists learned more
ethics through their employment.
The current study is of importance as few studies have examined where
journalism ethical standards originate. As the cases above indicate,
professional violations of ethical standards carry devastating
consequences to those specifically involved and to the profession of
journalism in general. Journalists not only lose their jobs and their
credibility, but the damage ripples throughout the newsroom and the
industry and diminishes the public perception of ethical standards in
journalism. As journalists and journalism educators we need to know
where the system needs improvement. Should we provide more on-the-job
training in ethics or more classroom instruction? Thus, the primary
research question examined in this study is: 1) Are journalism ethics
developed on-the-job or in the classroom?
Review of the Relevant Literature
Since the 1980s, there has been an erosion of public confidence in
journalism ethics and standards. A January 1996 Freedom Forum poll
reported that only 19 percent of people rated ethical standards of
journalists as high or very high. In December 1996, a Harris poll
found that 75 percent of American adults said that there was
political bias in journalism, and only 33 percent said the media
dealt fairly with all sides (Arant & Meyer, 1997). In Gallup's 2004
poll on honesty and ethics, 21 percent of the respondents said
reporters had high or very high ethical standards (Mitchell, 2004).
Overall, reporters were listed above lawyers, car salesmen, business
executives, congressmen and advertising directors but below bankers,
auto mechanics, elected officials and nursing-home operators (Mitchell, 2004).
Since Gallop began the honesty and ethics poll in 1974, reporters
have never finished high on the scale. The lowpoint was in 2000 when
only 16 percent rated reporters' ethical standards as high or very
high, a drastic decline from 1976 when that mark was at 33 percent
(McBride, 2004).
The interpretation of the precise meaning of the opinion polls may be
as difficult as defining journalism itself. When considering the
wide-ranging First Amendment, federal and state governments, as well
as the Supreme Court, have refused to define a journalist (Brooks, et
al., 2002). In a profession that does not require a state or federal
license to practice, an academic degree or certification of any sort,
establishing appropriate means of conduct appear essential. Generally
speaking, for those practicing journalism the conduct code is one
that emphasizes fairness, honesty, accuracy, and responsibility in an
effort to provide information that is credible, truthful, fair and
unbiased (APME, 1994). Regardless of journalistic intent, as the
polls have shown, that effort has not translated to the public perception.
Newspaper codes of ethics in the United States date back more than
120 years (Myers, 1922). Individual newspapers established the first
ethical codes, but a universal code was not developed until the
1920s. Although the American Society of Newspaper Editors adapted its
code in 1922 (Branson, 2002) and the Society of Professional
Journalists drafted a code in 1926 (Matthews, 1994), newspapers were
slow to act. In 1974, only 9 percent of American newspapers had
codes, but by 1984 more than half the newspapers surveyed had
implemented ethical codes (Pritchard & Morgan, 1989).
Although journalistic organizations and newspapers have established
codes of ethics, ethical standards are goals more than habits
(Stentz, 2002). They are parameters utilized for the occasional
investigative series and not referenced on a daily basis for the
cookie-cutter article. For instance, following the Monica Lewinsky
scandal, Kovach and Rosenstiel wrote, "news organizations (are)
unable to maintain or even define their own ethical standards"
(Starck, 2001). Starck contends that the concept of ethics is
inseparable from standards; as scholars talk about ethics,
professionals discuss standards.
For individuals in media, professional and ethical behavior is
learned through on-the-job experiences (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996),
anecdotal knowledge of past behavior as told by editors and staffers,
(Weaver & Wilhoit, 1986) and through socialization (Breed, 1955).
Breed (1955) says a young journalist learns by "osmosis" in observing
the other staffers and "discovers and internalizes the rights and
obligations of his status and its norms and values" (p. 328). The
young journalist will learn what his or her organization wants
through observation and experience.
Hanson's (2002) study compared the ethical decision-making of
television news directors and broadcast students enrolled in an
ethics course. He determined that the groups were out sync in regards
to the importance of classroom and on-the-job ethical training. He
writes, "In spite of journalism schools' efforts to acculturate these
students, the students may still be thinking more like the general
audience than like journalists" (p. 245). Lambeth, et al. (2004)
determined that although ethics education has established an
"essential place" in journalism schools there is disagreement on the
quality of instruction. While 81.8 percent of the teachers believed
the quality of instruction has improved during the past 20 years, the
administrators weren't as confident (61.1 percent). Nonetheless,
teachers (92.6) and administrators (88.6) believed that ethical
education had "prepared students for professional work" (p. 251).
This study examines the perceptions of ethical behavior among
journalism students in introductory classes, graduating journalism
students and professional journalists. Based on the findings
presented above, this study suggests the following hypotheses:
1) There will be a difference in ethical development between
introductory and graduating broadcast journalism students,
2) There will be a difference in ethical development between
introductory and graduating print journalism students,
3) There will be a difference in ethical development between
graduating broadcast journalism students and broadcast journalism
professionals,
4) There will be a difference in ethical development between
graduating print journalism students and print journalism professionals, and
5) There will be a difference in the overall perception of working
journalists among introductory students, graduating students and
professionals in both broadcast and print journalism.
Method
Descriptive surveys were used for each part of the data collection,
as the researchers were not trying to establish causal relationships
between attitudes and behaviors. Instead, this study is interested in
the attitudes students and professionals hold about specific
journalism behaviors. Thus, the descriptive surveys used here offer
an excellent means of gathering large amounts of information about
opinions, beliefs, values and behaviors of journalism students and
professionals (Watt & van den Berg, 1995).
Each of the four surveys was conducted online. Researchers used
existing lists of introductory and graduating journalism students
from a large Midwestern university to recruit for the first two
surveys. The recruiting e-mail sent to the 400 introductory
journalism students asked them to choose whether they considered
themselves to be print or broadcast journalism track. The e-mail
contained links to both the broadcast and print journalism surveys
for them to select. A total of 100 introductory journalism students
participated in the surveys (n=33 broadcast, n=67 print) for a total
response rate of 25 percent.[1] Because the researchers had a list of
graduating journalism students, complete with what track they were
graduating from, they were able to send specific survey links to
broadcast (n=71) and print (n=136) journalism graduates. A total of
n=70 graduating print journalism students (response rate of 51
percent) and n=42 graduating broadcast journalism students (response
rate of 59 percent) participated in the surveys.
The random sample for both the broadcast and print journalism
professionals came from an online media directory of journalists and
media contacts across the U.S. A total of 3,371 e-mails were
successfully sent to newspaper journalists. A total of 876 newspaper
journalists participated in this study for a response rate of 24
percent. Due to technological error, 149 questionnaires contained
incomplete responses and were discarded, reducing the sample size to
727. In addition, a total of 1,255 e-mails were successfully sent to
broadcast journalists. A total of 256 broadcast journalists
participated in this study for a response rate of 20 percent.
Procedures for each of the four surveys were similar. Recruiting
e-mails were sent directly to individuals with reminder e-mails sent
one week later. Participation was strictly voluntary and no
incentives were given to participants. Responses were collected for
approximately three weeks. Consent was obtained through the
recruiting e-mails as participants were informed of the activities
and risks associated with participation. Those who participated in
each survey were indicating their acceptance of these risks and their
decision to participate in the study. Each online survey took
participants approximately 15 minutes to complete.
Study 1 – Broadcast Journalism Surveys
Subjects
A total of 33 introductory journalism students and 42 graduating
journalism students participated in the broadcast journalism survey
of ethical beliefs and behaviors. The introductory journalism group
mainly consisted of sophomores (n=20), with freshman (n= 11) and
juniors (n=2) following. Of these, nine were male and 24 were female
with an average age of 19. A total of five (15 percent) reported
having taken an ethics course.[2] In the graduating journalism
students group (all seniors), 12 were male and 30 were female with an
average age of 21. A total of 22 (52 percent) had taken an ethics
course during their course of study.
A total of 256 journalism professionals participated in the broadcast
journalism survey of ethical beliefs and behaviors. A total of 138
males and 118 females, with 190 (74 percent) having earned a
bachelor's degree and 212 (83 percent) receiving formal journalism
training. The majority of the participants had more than 20 years of
journalism experience (n=98), with 11 to 15 years (n=56), 5 to 10
years (n=55), 16 to 20 years (n=36) and less than five years (n=8)
following. Twenty-three percent (n=59) were anchors, 19 percent
(n=49) were producers, 17 percent (n=43) were news managers, 11
percent (n=29) were reporters, 11 percent (n=29) were assignment
editors and eight percent (n=20) were executive producers, with the
majority of respondents working in DMAs under 100 (75 percent).
Measures
The surveys were divided into three sections: demographics,
acceptability of journalism practices and perceptions of working
journalists.[3] Journalism students were asked their gender, course
sequence, year in school, age and if they had taken an ethics course.
Journalism professionals were asked their gender, age, number of
years as a journalist, highest degree of education, if they had
received formal journalism training (and where), job title and ADI
market rating.
Acceptability of Journalism Practices. Responses in the acceptability
of journalism practices section were on a 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (definitely acceptable) to 5 (definitely not
acceptable). A total of 21 single-item variables addressing
plagiarism, attribution fact-checking, quoting sources, interviewing
sources, using hidden cameras/microphones, re-enacting events and
misleading sources were asked. For example, participants were asked
if it was acceptable to use facts from previously broadcast stories
without re-confirming them; use anonymous sources; and coach sources
to improve sound bites.
Perceptions of Working Journalists. Three questions on 5-point,
Likert-type scales addressed the overall perception of working
journalist. Participants were asked if broadcast journalists were too
careless and not credible, if they tried hard to get their stories
right and if they were successful in getting stories correct. An
exploratory factor analysis using principal components analysis with
Varimax rotation was conducted on the three indicators of overall
perception of working broadcast journalists. The three items all
loaded heavily on one factor which accounted for 62 percent of the
total variance (alpha=.68).
Study 2 – Print Journalism Surveys
Subjects
A total of 67 introductory journalism students and 70 graduating
journalism students participated in the print journalism survey of
ethical beliefs and behaviors. The introductory journalism group
mainly consisted of freshman (n=47), with sophomores (n= 16) and
juniors (n=3) following. Of these, 13 were male and 53 were female
with an average age of 19. A total of nine (14 percent) reported
having taken an ethics course.[4] In the graduating journalism
students group (all seniors), 17 were male and 52 were female with an
average age of 22. A total of 41 (58 percent) had taken an ethics
course toward their degree.
A total of 727 journalism professionals participated in the print
journalism survey of ethical beliefs and behaviors. A total of 526
males and 201 females, with 500 (68 percent) having gotten a
bachelor's degree and 581 (80 percent) receiving formal journalism
training. The majority of the participants had more than 20 years of
journalism experience (n=395), with 5 to 10 years (n=105), 16 to 20
years (n=101), 11 to 15 years (n=85) and less than five years (n=40)
following. Forty-eight percent (n=346) were reporters and 37 percent
(n=272) were editors, with the majority of respondents working in
newspapers with circulations over 50,000 (82 percent).
Measures
The surveys were divided into three sections: demographics,
acceptability of journalism practices and perceptions of working
journalists.[5] Journalism students were asked their gender, course
sequence, year in school, age and if they had taken an ethics course.
Journalism professionals were asked their gender, age, number of
years as a journalist, highest degree of education, if they had
received formal journalism training (and where), job title, their
primary beat and newspaper circulation.
Acceptability of Journalism Practices. Responses in the acceptability
of journalism practices section were on a 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (definitely acceptable) to 5 (definitely not
acceptable). A total of 13 single-item variables addressing
plagiarism, attribution fact-checking, quoting sources, interviewing
sources and misleading sources were asked. For example, participants
were asked if it was acceptable to use items verbatim from magazines
or newspapers without re-confirming or attributing; write direct
quotes for sources; and mislead sources about stories.
Perceptions of Working Journalists. Three questions on 5-point,
Likert-type scales addressed the overall perception of working
journalist. Participants were asked if print journalists were too
careless and not credible, if they tried hard to get their stories
right and if they were successful in getting stories correct. An
exploratory factor analysis using principal components analysis with
Varimax rotation was conducted on the three indicators of overall
perception of working print journalists. The three items all loaded
heavily on one factor which accounted for 66 percent of the total
variance (alpha=.73).
Analysis
This study was guided by five hypotheses: 1) There will be a
difference in ethical development between introductory and graduating
broadcast journalism students, 2) There will be a difference in
ethical development between introductory and graduating print
journalism students, 3) There will be a difference in ethical
development between graduating broadcast journalism students and
broadcast journalism professionals, 4) There will be a difference in
ethical development between graduating print journalism students and
print journalism professionals, and 5) There will be a difference in
the overall perception of working journalists among introductory
students, graduating students and professionals in both broadcast and
print journalism. In order to examine these, a significance criterion
of p = .05 (two-tailed) was adopted for each analysis in order to
rule out Type I error. Furthermore, as noted above, a factor analysis
using a principal component analysis and Varimax rotation was
performed to ensure the internal consistency of the scales designed
to measure overall perception of working journalists.
Independent samples t tests were conducted to examine the first four
hypotheses as it was necessary to compare two groups' scores on the
same variable (i.e. statement).[6] Two separate Analysis of Variance
(ANOVAs) were then run to make comparisons between each of the groups
(introductory students, graduating students and journalism
professionals) in regard to overall perceptions of working journalists.
Tests of Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1 predicted that there would be a difference in ethical
development between introductory and graduating broadcast journalism
students. The t tests revealed that of the 21 statements, four were
significantly different between introductory and graduating broadcast
journalism students. Results showed that there is a significant
difference between the groups when it comes to using facts from other
stories previously broadcast without reconfirming, t (63) = -1.99, p
< .05. Introductory broadcast journalism students thought this
practice was significantly less acceptable (M = 4.11, SD = .91) than
graduating broadcast journalism students (M = 3.62, SD =
1.18). Results also showed that there is a significant difference
between the groups when it comes to using file video without
identifying it as file video, t (71) = -3.17, p < .01. Introductory
broadcast journalism students thought this practice was significantly
less acceptable (M = 4.41, SD = .64) than graduating broadcast
journalism students (M = 3.74, SD = 1.16). There was also a
significant difference between the groups for misleading sources
about a story to get information, t (73) = -2.38, p <
.05. Introductory broadcast journalism students thought this
practice was significantly less acceptable (M = 4.59, SD = .64) than
graduating broadcast journalism students (M = 4.10, SD = .95). In
addition, there was a significant difference between the groups in
terms of pre-interviewing or asking warm-up questions, t (45) = 2.33,
p < .05. Introductory broadcast journalism students thought this
practice was significantly more acceptable (M = 3.48, SD = 1.19) than
graduating broadcast journalism students (M = 4.11, SD = .96). The
results of the tests for hypothesis 1 are summarized in Table 1.
<< Insert Table 1 About Here >>
Hypothesis 2 predicted that there would be a difference in ethical
development between introductory and graduating print journalism
students. The t tests revealed that of the 13 statements, five were
significantly different between introductory and graduating print
journalism students. Results showed that there is a significant
difference between the groups when it comes to using phrases,
sentences and paragraphs from stories previously published without
re-confirming them, t (124) = -2.13, p < .05. Introductory print
journalism students thought this practice was significantly less
acceptable (M = 4.61, SD = .73) than graduating print journalism
students (M = 4.30, SD = .92). Results also showed that there is a
significant difference between the groups when it comes to using
phrases, sentences and paragraphs from their own previously published
stories without reconfirming them, t (121) = -2.75, p <
.01. Introductory print journalism students thought this practice
was significantly less acceptable (M = 4.14, SD = .99) than
graduating print journalism students (M = 3.60, SD = 1.23). There
was also a significant difference between the groups for writing
direct quotes for sources, t (101) = -3.45, p < .001. Introductory
print journalism students thought this practice was significantly
more acceptable (M = 3.92, SD = 1.50) than graduating print
journalism students (M = 4.69, SD = .92). A significant difference
also emerged between the groups for using anonymous sources, t (124)
= 4.51, p < .001. Introductory print journalism students thought this
practice was significantly more acceptable (M = 2.42, SD = .91) than
graduating print journalism students (M = 3.20, SD = 1.03). In
addition, there was a significant difference between the groups in
terms of showing or reading all or part of a story to sources to
confirm facts before publication, t (125) = 2.26, p < .05.
Introductory print journalism students thought this practice was
significantly more acceptable (M = 1.77, SD = 1.22) than graduating
print journalism students (M = 2.25, SD = 1.13). The results of the
tests for hypothesis 2 are summarized in Table 2.
<< Insert Table 2 About Here >>
Hypothesis 3 predicted that there would be a difference in ethical
development between graduating broadcast journalism students and
broadcast journalism professionals. The t tests revealed that of the
21 statements, five were significantly different between graduating
broadcast journalism students and professionals. Results showed that
there is a significant difference between the groups when it comes to
using facts from other stories previously broadcast without
reconfirming them, t (74) = -2.90, p < .01. Graduating broadcast
journalism students thought this practice was significantly less
acceptable (M = 3.62, SD = 1.18) than broadcast professionals (M =
3.07, SD = 1.39). Results also showed that there is a significant
difference between the groups when it comes to coaching a source on
how to respond or improve a sound bite, t (55) = 3.29, p < .01.
Graduating broadcast journalism students thought this practice was
significantly more acceptable (M = 4.00, SD = 1.17) than broadcast
professionals (M = 4.58, SD = .77). There was also a significant
difference between the groups for misleading sources about a story to
get information, t (54) = 4.25, p < .001. Graduating broadcast
journalism students thought this practice was significantly more
acceptable (M = 4.10, SD = .95) than broadcast professionals (M =
4.71, SD = .60). A significant difference also emerged between the
groups for presenting images or sounds that are re-enacted without
informing the public, t (50) = 3.36, p < .001. Graduating broadcast
journalism students thought this practice was significantly more
acceptable (M = 4.56, SD = .92) than broadcast professionals (M =
4.91, SD = .38). In addition, there was a significant difference
between the groups in terms of allowing a source access to questions
before an interview, t (299) = 2.18, p < .05. Graduating broadcast
journalism students thought this practice was significantly more
acceptable (M = 3.80, SD = 1.23) than broadcast professionals (M =
4.23, SD = .81). The results of the tests for hypothesis 3 are
summarized in Table 3.
<< Insert Table 3 About Here >>
Hypothesis 4 predicted that there would be a difference in ethical
development between graduating print journalism students and print
journalism professionals. The t tests revealed that of the 13
statements, 10 were significantly different between graduating print
journalism students and professionals. Results showed that there is a
significant difference between the groups when it comes to using
phrases, sentences and paragraphs from stories previously published
without re-confirming them, t (88) = -7.75, p < .001. Graduating
print journalism students thought this practice was significantly
less acceptable (M = 4.30, SD = .92) than journalism professionals (M
= 3.33, SD = 1.33). Results also showed that there is a significant
difference between the groups when it comes to using phrases,
sentences and paragraphs from their own previously published stories
without re-confirming them, t (80) = -5.70, p < .001. Graduating
print journalism students thought this practice was significantly
less acceptable (M = 3.60, SD = 1.23) than journalism professionals
(M = 2.68, SD = 1.41). There was also a significant difference
between the groups for using information taken verbatim from a press
release without re-confirming or attributing it, t (785) = -11.23, p
< .001. Graduating print journalism students thought this practice
was significantly less acceptable (M = 4.25, SD = 1.12) than
journalism professionals (M = 2.59, SD = 1.14). A significant
difference also emerged between the groups for changing direct quotes
to correct a source's grammar, t (69) = 11.92, p < .001. Graduating
print journalism students thought this practice was significantly
more acceptable (M = 2.94, SD = 1.20) than journalism professionals
(M = 4.74, SD = .75). Furthermore, there was a significant difference
between the groups in terms of linking quotes from different parts of
an interview, t (787) = -4.44, p < .001. Graduating print journalism
students thought this practice was significantly less acceptable (M =
3.54, SD = 1.13) than journalism professionals (M = 2.88, SD = 1.23).
Results also showed that there is a significant difference between
the groups when it comes to turning paraphrases into direct quotes, t
(121) = -15.52, p < .001. Graduating print journalism students
thought this practice was significantly less acceptable (M = 4.66, SD
= .67) than journalism professionals (M = 3.15, SD = 1.38). There was
also a significant difference between the groups for using anonymous
sources, t (67) = -14.93, p < .001. Graduating print journalism
students thought this practice was significantly less acceptable (M =
3.20, SD = 1.03) than journalism professionals (M = 1.26, SD = .59).
A significant difference also emerged between the groups for showing
or reading all or part of a story to sources to confirm facts before
publication, t (68) = 16.67, p < .001. Graduating print journalism
students thought this practice was significantly more acceptable (M =
2.25, SD = 1.13) than journalism professionals (M = 4.62, SD = .67).
Results also showed that there is a significant difference between
the groups for calling sources to check facts and direct quotes
before publication, t (138) = -80.20, p < .001. Graduating print
journalism students thought this practice was significantly more
acceptable (M = 1.09, SD = .29) than journalism professionals (M =
4.62, SD = .67). In addition, there was a significant difference
between the groups in terms of misleading sources about a story, t
(129) = -20.11, p < .001. Graduating print journalism students
thought this practice was significantly less acceptable (M = 4.55, SD
= .56) than journalism professionals (M = 2.88, SD = 1.23). The
results of the tests for hypothesis 4 are summarized in Table 4.
<< Insert Table 4 About Here >>
Hypothesis 5 predicted that there would be a difference in the
overall perception of working journalists among introductory
students, graduating students and professionals in both broadcast and
print journalism. Two separate analysis of variance comparing
beginning students, graduating students and professionals were
conducted to examine this.
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the
perception of working broadcast journalists with the three different
groups (introductory students, graduating students, and broadcast
professionals) as the independent variable. The perceptual
differences were statistically significant, F (2,328) = 5.20, p <
.01. Group differences accounted for approximately 3 percent of the
variance in perceptions of working journalists. However, the overall
strength of relationship was not substantial, as the partial eta
squared of .03 is less than the .14 cutoff (Cohen, 1977).
Due to the homogeneity of variance assumption violation (unequal
group sizes), comparisons of means were performed using the
Games-Howell approach. These comparisons indicate that broadcast
professionals thought that working journalists were doing a good job
(M = 10.85, SD = 2.29) significantly more than graduating students (M
= 9.81, SD = 1.94). Introductory students did not significantly
differ from either of the other two groups in terms of overall
perception of working broadcast journalists (M = 10.15, SD = 1.85).
The results of the ANOVA are summarized in Table 5.
<< Insert Table 5 About Here >>
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the
perception of working print journalists with the three different
groups (introductory students, graduating students, and print
professionals) as the independent variable. The perceptual
differences were statistically significant, F (2,817) = 3.15, p <
.05. Group differences accounted for approximately 1 percent of the
variance in perceptions of working journalists. However, the overall
strength of relationship was not substantial, as the partial eta
squared of .008 is less than the .14 cutoff (Cohen, 1977).
Due to the homogeneity of variance assumption violation (unequal
group sizes), comparisons of means were performed using the
Games-Howell approach. These comparisons indicate that print
professionals thought that working journalists were doing a good job
(M = 11.19, SD = 2.11) significantly more than graduating students (M
= 10.52, SD = 1.74). Introductory students did not significantly
differ from either of the other two groups in terms of overall
perception of working print journalists (M = 11.13, SD = 1.54). The
results of the ANOVA are summarized in Table 6.
<< Insert Table 6 About Here >>
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine whether broadcast and print
journalism students learn professional ethics during their
undergraduate educations (as opposed to learning them on the job),
and to compare the ethical beliefs of graduating journalism students
to those of newsroom professionals.
The results indicated that compared to graduating students,
introductory broadcast students said it was less acceptable to use
facts from stories previously broadcast without re-confirming them,
use file video without identifying it as file video, and mislead
sources about a story to get information. Also, compared to
graduating students, introductory broadcast students said
pre-interviewing or asking warm-up questions was more acceptable.
In comparing introductory print journalism students to graduating
print journalism students, results indicated that compared to
graduating students, introductory students said it was less
acceptable to use phrases, sentences and paragraphs from stories
previously published without re-confirming them, and to use phrases,
sentences and paragraphs from their own previously published stories
without reconfirming. Additionally, compared to graduating students,
introductory students said it was more acceptable to write direct
quotes for sources, use anonymous sources, and show or read all or
part of a story to sources to confirm facts before publication.
When comparing graduating broadcast students to broadcast
professionals, results indicated that compared to professionals, the
graduating students said it was less acceptable to use facts from
other stories previously broadcast without confirming them. The
results also indicated that compared to broadcast professionals,
graduating students said it was more acceptable to coach a source on
how to respond or improve a sound bite, mislead sources about a story
to get information, present images or sounds that are re-enacted
without informing the public, and allow a source access to ask
questions before an interview.
In comparing graduating print journalism students to journalism
professionals, there appeared to be the most differences in terms of
ethical and practical beliefs. Compared to journalism professionals,
the graduating students said it was less acceptable to use phrases,
sentences and paragraphs from stories previously published without
re-confirming them, use phrases, sentences and paragraphs from their
own previously published stories without re-confirming them, use
information taken verbatim from a press release without re-confirming
or attributing it, link quotes from different parts of an interview,
turn paraphrases into direct quotes, using anonymous sources, and
mislead sources about a story. Additionally, compared to
professionals, students said it was more acceptable to call sources
to check facts and direct quotes before publication, change direct
quotes to correct a source's grammar, and show or read all or part of
a story to sources to confirm facts before publication.
Finally, the results indicated that compared to graduating students
in broadcast and print, professional broadcast and print journalists
believe working journalists were doing a good job. The introductory
students did not significantly differ from the two groups in
broadcast or print.
In general terms, the introductory students in both broadcast and
print journalism appear to have the perception of higher ethical
standards than the graduating students in several areas. Although the
introductory students have not had journalism ethics courses, some
have had high school or college courses where basic ethical practices
are discussed. Additionally, the introductory students could have
been exposed to ethical codes established by a variety of
professional journalism organizations such as the American Society of
Newspaper Editors, the Associated Press Managing Editors or The
Society of Professional Journalists. They could have also been
exposed to newspaper codes of ethics following a highly publicized
ethical incident such as the Jayson Blair case. Knowledge of basic
ethics would allow the introductory students to make conclusions
about the appropriateness of plagiarism, misleading sources,
recycling previously published information and other ethically
questionable practices.
At this large Midwestern journalism school, the students, typically
juniors and seniors, are required to actively participate in
practicing journalism as part of their curriculum. The coursework for
broadcast and print students includes working in professional
newsrooms where ethics moves from theory to practice. In light of
these experiences, the graduating students might have developed an
alternative viewpoint that's been established with the additional
training of hands-on application. That renewed perspective does not
necessarily diminish the ethical standards of the graduating
students, but may have created gray areas in their ethical beliefs
that will be further established in the working world. When
journalism practice meets theory the individual journalist no longer
has the benefit of speaking in absolutes. What an ethics code firmly
establishes as a journalistic wrong can quickly be compromised in
light of deadlines, competitive pressures, demanding managers and
newsroom norms.
In their study of newspaper journalists, Reinardy and Craft (2004)
reported that 59.7 percent of the respondents said they were familiar
with the newspaper's ethics code, and 77.3 percent said they had at
least one ethical conversation in their newsroom within the past
year. The development of a journalist's ethical standard is an
enduring process anchored by journalism education, situational
experiences, newsroom norms and "war" stories told by other editors
and reporters. Which has the greater influence is difficult to
determine, but in this study the graduating students generally appear
to have a higher ethical standard than the professional journalists.
However, a closer examination might tell a different story.
For print journalists, this study indicates that the professionals
are more apt to recycle information from previous stories, utilize
information from press releases without checking it, link quotes from
different parts of an interview, mislead a source about a story, and
turn paraphrases into direct quotes. It could be argued that for
efficiency sake, recycling information and using press release
information is acceptable in order to meet deadline. Also,
experienced reporters are more adept at selecting the most important
quotes to include in a story and those quotes do not always fall in
succession during an interview. Beat reporters could argue that
familiarity with their sources allows them the license to turn a
paraphrase into a direct quote. As for the practice of misleading
sources to get information, because of the influx of public relations
practitioners, deception might be seen as a last resort to getting
pertinent information for a story.
The works of Reston (1937), Breed (1955), Weaver & Wilhoit (1986),
Shoemaker and Reese (1996) and others demonstrate that the newsroom
environment certainly plays a major role in establishing individual
behavior. It can be argued that practical and academic experiences –
from introductory to graduation, to graduation to professional – do
not necessarily diminish ethical behavior, but modify the perceptions
of what is ethical and what is not. Reinardy and Craft (2004) report
that older, more experienced reporters and editors consult ethical
codes and discuss ethics more often than their younger, less
experienced cohorts. They write, "However, those actions do not
directly translate to ethical behavior, but merely provide guidelines
for decision making" (Reinardy & Craft, 2004). As journalists move
from education into practice, the guidelines for making ethical
decisions expand through personal experiences, organizational codes
of ethics and newsroom norms. The definitions of ethics become more
convoluted as the journalist moves away from the education of ethics
and into the application of ethics.
One limitation of this study is that the results from the convenience
sample cannot be generalized to the population of journalism college
students. Also, because the students at this university are required
to work in a practical newsroom, it is difficult to determine which
influences ethical thinking more: classroom instruction or practical
training. Additionally, with an online, self-administered survey it
is difficult to determine exactly who is completing the
questionnaire. Also, there is always the threat that respondents,
particularly students, attempted to provide the most appropriate
answer that may or may not necessarily be reflective of their
beliefs. Additionally, the students might have had a heightened
awareness of ethical issues because they are in an environment that
routinely discusses ethics.
Additional research could include a pre- and post-study including
students enrolled in an ethics course, or a pre- and post-study
including students enrolled in their practical newsroom courses. That
might more clearly define where the shift in ethical thinking occurs.
References
Arant, M.D. & Meyer, P. (1997). Changing values in the newsroom: A
survey of daily newspaper staff members. Nieman Reports, Fall, pp. 55-62.
Associated Press Managing Editors (1994). APME statement of ethical
principles. Retrieved March 25, 2005 from http://www.apme.com/ethics/.
Branson, C. (2002). A look at the formation of ASNE. Retrieved on
March 24, 2005 from
http://www.asne.org/print.cfm?printer_page=%2Findex%2Ecfm%3FID%3D3460
Breed, W. (1955). Social control in the newsroom: A functional
analysis. Social Forces, 33(4), pp. 326-335.
Brooks, B.S., Kennedy, G., Moen, D.R., & Ranly, D. (2002). News
Reporting and Writing. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's.
Bugeja, M. (2000). Ethics are lived, not learned, Quill, 88(3), pp. 15-17.
Garcia, J. (2001). Ethics hotline, American Journalism Review, 23(2), p. 17.
Hachten, W.A. (2001). The troubles of journalism: A critical look at
what's rights and wrong with the press (2nd Edition), Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Hanson, G. (2002). Learning journalism ethics: The classroom versus
the real world. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 17(2), pp. 235-247.
Jennings, M. (2000). In search of journalistic ethics, USA Today,
July 129(2662), pp. 56-57.
Lambeth, E.B., Christians, C.G., Fleming, K., Lee, S.T. (2004). Media
ethics teaching in Century 21: Progress, problems, and challenges.
Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 59(3), pp. 239-258.
Mackay, J.B. (2004). The media ethics necessity. Paper presented at
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
Conference, Toronto, ON.
Mathews, C. (1994). Ethical codes and beyond. Nieman Reports, 48(1), pp. 73-76.
McBride, K. (2004). Journalists: More ethical than people realize?
Poynteronline, Dec. 17. Retrieved on Dec. 17 from
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=75962.
Mitchell, G. (2004). Reporters trail badly (again) in annual poll on
honesty and ethics. Editor & Publisher. December 7. Retrieved on
March 24, 2005, from
http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000732750.
Myers, J.S. (1922). The journalistic code of ethics : a collection of
codes, creeds and suggestions for the guidance of editors and
publishers. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press.
Patterson, M.J. & Urbanski, S. (2004). What Jayson Blair and Janet
Cooke say about the press and the erosion of public trust. Paper
presented at Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication Conference, Toronto, ON.
Peck, L. (2004). Misplaced confidence? The validity of a media
ethics course. Paper presented at Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication Conference, Toronto, ON.
Pritchard, D. and Morgan, M.P. (1989). Impact of Ethics Codes on
Judgments by Journalists: A Natural Experiment. Journalism Quarterly,
66(4), 934-941.
Reinardy, S. & Craft, S. (2004). The exception or the rule? How
journalists view the prevalence and acceptability of problematic
practices. Paper presented at AEJMC, August, 2004.
Robertson, L. (2001). Ethically challenged, American Journalism
Review, 23(2), pp. 20-29.
Rosten, L.C. (1937). The Washington Correspondents. Chapter X,
"Policy" and the Washington correspondents, pp. 219-236. NY:
Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Schudson, M. (1978). Discovering the news: A social history of
American Newspapers. Chapter 5, Objectivity, news management, and the
critical culture, pp. 160-194. NY: Basic Books, Inc.
Shaver, D. (2004). Newsroom ethics: Peeling the onion. Paper
presented at Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication Conference, Toronto, ON.
Shoemaker, P.J. & Reese, S.D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories
of influences on mass media content (2nd Edition). White Plains, NY:
Longman Publishers.
Smith, R.F. (1999). Groping for ethics in journalism (4th Edition),
Iowa State University Press.
Stark, K. (2001). What's right/wrong with journalism ethics research?
Journalism Studies, 2 (1), pp. 133-152.
Strentz, H. (2002). Universal ethical standards? Journal of Mass
Media Ethics, 17(4), pp. 263-276.
Trigoboff, D. (2000). News rules, Broadcasting & Cable, 130(38), pp. 52, 54.
Watt, J.H. & van den Berg, S.A. (1995). Research methods for
communication science. Allyn & Bacon Publishing.
Weaver, D.H. and Wilhoit, G.C. (1986). The American journalist: a
portrait of U.S. news people and their work. Bloomington, Ind.:
Indiana University Press.
Table 1
Differences in Ethical Development Between Introductory Broadcast
Journalism Students and Graduating Broadcast Journalism Students
Question
Journalism Level
Mean
SD
SEM
t
df
Sig.
Using information that has already been reported without confirming
or attributing it.
Introductory
Graduating
4.65
4.40
.69
.92
.13
.13
-1.25
72
n.s.
Using facts from my previously broadcast stories without re-confirming them.
Introductory
Graduating
3.85
3.55
.91
1.25
.17
.18
-1.18
68
n.s.
Using facts from other stories previously broadcast at my station
without re-confirming them.
Introductory
Graduating
4.11
3.62
.91
1.18
.18
.17
-1.99
63
.05
Using information taken verbatim from magazines and newspapers
without re-confirming or attributing it.
Introductory
Graduating
4.63
4.65
.79
.63
.15
.09
.10
73
n.s.
Using information taken verbatim from a Web site without
re-confirming or attributing it.
Introductory
Graduating
4.81
4.60
.56
.82
.11
.12
-1.32
70
n.s.
Using information taken verbatim from a press release without
re-confirming or attributing it.
Introductory
Graduating
4.37
4.04
.79
1.09
.15
.16
-1.37
73
n.s.
Using file video without identifying it as file video.
Introductory
Graduating
4.41
3.74
.64
1.16
.12
.17
-3.17
71
.01
Using file video or sound bites without identifying the source as files.
Introductory
Graduating
4.41
4.21
.69
.95
.13
.14
-.93
72
n.s.
Coaching a source on how to respond or improve a sound bite.
Introductory
Graduating
4.04
4.00
1.28
1.17
.25
.17
-.13
73
n.s.
Using anonymous sources.
Introductory
Graduating
2.44
2.61
.93
1.14
.18
.17
.63
71
n.s.
Showing or reading all or part of a story to sources to confirm facts
before broadcast.
Introductory
Graduating
2.00
2.49
1.03
1.38
.20
.20
1.72
67
n.s.
Misleading sources about a story to get information is.
Introductory
Graduating
4.59
4.10
.64
.95
.12
.14
-2.38
73
.05
Interviewing children without the permission of parents or guardians.
Introductory
Graduating
4.15
4.25
.99
.98
.19
.14
.43
73
n.s.
Presenting images or sounds that are re-enacted without informing the public.
Introductory
Graduating
4.48
4.46
.51
.92
.10
.13
-.14
73
n.s.
Contacting participants in violent situations while the situation is
in progress.
Introductory
Graduating
3.85
3.89
.99
.99
.19
.15
.16
71
n.s.
Using hidden cameras or microphones.
Introductory
Graduating
3.15
2.85
1.10
1.23
.21
.18
-1.04
72
n.s.
Using hidden cameras or microphones without telling the audience.
Introductory
Graduating
4.31
4.19
.74
.82
.14
.12
-.60
71
n.s.
Pre-interviewing or asking warm-up questions.
Introductory
Graduating
3.48
4.11
1.19
.96
.23
.14
-2.39
45
.05
Editing or distorting profanity or offensive language in a sound bite.
Introductory
Graduating
4.07
4.23
.92
.81
.18
.12
-.78
72
n.s.
Allowing a source access to questions before an interview.
Introductory
Graduating
3.00
3.37
1.00
1.31
.19
.19
1.387
66
n.s.
Using video produced by an outside agency for a company or group
without identifying the source to the audience.
Introductory
Graduating
4.38
4.25
.80
.73
.16
.10
-.73
72
n.s.
*Questions were scored on a scale from 1-5 with low scores indicating
that subjects thought these behaviors were acceptable and 5
indicating that these behaviors were unacceptable.
Table 2
Differences in Ethical Development Between Introductory and
Graduating Print Journalism Students
Question
Journalism Level
Mean
SD
SEM
t
df
Sig.
Using information that has already been reported without confirming
or attributing it.
Introductory
Graduating
4.68
4.50
.65
.73
.08
.09
-1.44
124
n.s.
Using phrases, sentences and paragraphs from stories previously
published in my newspaper without re-confirming it.
Introductory
Graduating
4.61
4.30
.73
.92
.09
.11
-2.13
124
.05
Using phrases, sentences and paragraphs from my previously published
stories without re-confirming it.
Introductory
Graduating
4.14
3.60
.99
1.23
.13
.15
-2.75
121
.01
Using information taken verbatim from magazines and newspapers
without re-confirming or attributing it.
Introductory
Graduating
4.85
4.83
.47
.49
.06
.06
-.28
125
n.s.
Using information taken verbatim from a press release without
re-confirming or attributing it.
Introductory
Graduating
4.41
4.25
.80
1.12
.10
.14
-.94
124
n.s.
Changing direct quotes to correct a source's grammar.
Introductory
Graduating
2.80
2.94
1.30
1.20
.17
.15
.61
124
n.s.
Writing direct quotes for sources.
Introductory
Graduating
3.92
4.69
1.50
.92
.19
.11
3.45
101
.001
Linking quotes from different parts of an interview.
Introductory
Graduating
3.27
3.54
1.10
1.13
.14
.14
1.33
125
n.s.
Turning paraphrases into direct quotes.
Introductory
Graduating
4.60
4.66
.66
.67
.08
.08
.55
125
n.s.
Using anonymous sources.
Introductory
Graduating
2.42
3.20
.91
1.03
.12
.13
4.51
124
.001
Showing or reading all or part of a story to sources to confirm facts
before publication.
Introductory
Graduating
1.77
2.25
1.22
1.13
.15
.14
2.26
125
.05
Calling sources to check facts and direct quotes before publication.
Introductory
Graduating
1.03
1.09
.18
.29
.02
.04
-1.37
108
n.s.
Misleading sources about a story.
Introductory
Graduating
4.56
4.55
.72
.56
.09
.07
-.09
125
n.s.
*Questions were scored on a scale from 1-5 with low scores indicating
that subjects thought these behaviors were acceptable and 5
indicating that these behaviors were unacceptable.
Table 3
Differences in Ethical Development Between Broadcast Journalism
Professionals and Graduating Broadcast Journalism Students
Question
Journalism Level
Mean
SD
SEM
t
df
Sig.
Using information that has already been reported without confirming
or attributing it.
Professional
Graduating
4.47
4.40
.94
.92
.06
.13
.53
299
n.s.
Using facts from my previously broadcast stories without re-confirming them.
Professional
Graduating
3.16
3.55
1.45
1.25
.09
.18
-1.92
71
n.s.
Using facts from other stories previously broadcast at my station
without re-confirming them.
Professional
Graduating
3.07
3.62
1.39
1.18
.09
.17
-2.90
74
.01
Using information taken verbatim from magazines and newspapers
without re-confirming or attributing it.
Professional
Graduating
4.68
4.64
.76
.63
.05
.09
.314
301
n.s.
Using information taken verbatim from a Web site without
re-confirming or attributing it.
Professional
Graduating
4.66
4.60
.73
.82
.04
.12
.479
302
n.s.
Using information taken verbatim from a press release without
re-confirming or attributing it.
Professional
Graduating
3.81
4.04
1.27
1.09
.08
.16
-1.33
73
n.s.
Using file video without identifying it as file video.
Professional
Graduating
4.00
3.74
1.16
1.16
.07
.17
1.45
299
n.s.
Using file video or sound bites without identifying the source as files.
Professional
Graduating
4.26
4.21
1.01
.95
.06
.14
.32
299
n.s.
Coaching a source on how to respond or improve a sound bite.
Professional
Graduating
4.58
4.00
.77
1.17
.05
.17
3.29
55
.01
Using anonymous sources.
Professional
Graduating
2.57
2.61
1.28
1.14
.08
.17
-.18
297
n.s.
Showing or reading all or part of a story to sources to confirm facts
before broadcast.
Professional
Graduating
2.86
2.49
1.37
1.38
.09
.20
1.70
299
n.s.
Misleading sources about a story to get information is.
Professional
Graduating
4.71
4.10
.60
.95
.04
.14
4.25
54
.001
Interviewing children without the permission of parents or guardians.
Professional
Graduating
4.36
4.25
.94
.98
.06
.14
.763
299
n.s.
Presenting images or sounds that are re-enacted without informing the public.
Professional
Graduating
4.91
4.56
.38
.92
.02
.13
3.36
50
.001
Contacting participants in violent situations while the situation is
in progress.
Professional
Graduating
3.95
3.89
1.14
.99
.07
.15
.34
294
n.s.
Using hidden cameras or microphones.
Professional
Graduating
2.49
2.85
1.26
1.23
.08
.18
-1.81
296
n.s.
Using hidden cameras or microphones without telling the audience.
Professional
Graduating
4.44
4.19
.86
.82
.05
.12
1.85
296
n.s.
Pre-interviewing or asking warm-up questions.
Professional
Graduating
4.15
4.10
1.09
.96
.07
.14
.28
299
n.s.
Editing or distorting profanity or offensive language in a sound bite.
Professional
Graduating
4.34
4.23
.96
.81
.06
.12
.73
299
n.s.
Allowing a source access to questions before an interview.
Professional
Graduating
3.80
3.37
1.23
1.31
.08
.19
2.18
299
.05
Using video produced by an outside agency for a company or group
without identifying the source to the audience.
Professional
Graduating
4.15
4.25
1.15
.73
.07
.10
-.76
98
n.s.
*Questions were scored on a scale from 1-5 with low scores indicating
that subjects thought these behaviors were acceptable and 5
indicating that these behaviors were unacceptable.
Table 4
Differences in Ethical Development Between Print Journalism
Professionals and Graduating Print Journalism Students
Question
Journalism Level
Mean
SD
SEM
t
df
Sig.
Using information that has already been reported without confirming
or attributing it.
Professional
Graduating
4.32
4.50
.89
.73
.03
.09
-1.61
783
n.s.
Using phrases, sentences and paragraphs from stories previously
published in my newspaper without re-confirming it.
Professional
Graduating
3.33
4.30
1.33
.92
.05
.11
-7.75
88
.001
Using phrases, sentences and paragraphs from my previously published
stories without re-confirming it.
Professional
Graduating
2.68
3.60
1.41
1.23
.05
.15
-5.70
80
.001
Using information taken verbatim from magazines and newspapers
without re-confirming or attributing it.
Professional
Graduating
4.77
4.83
.56
.49
.02
.06
-.90
788
n.s.
Using information taken verbatim from a press release without
re-confirming or attributing it.
Professional
Graduating
2.59
4.25
1.14
1.12
.04
.14
-11.23
785
.001
Changing direct quotes to correct a source's grammar.
Professional
Graduating
4.74
2.94
.75
1.20
.03
.15
11.92
69
.001
Writing direct quotes for sources.
Professional
Graduating
4.76
4.69
.61
.92
.02
.11
.63
68
n.s.
Linking quotes from different parts of an interview.
Professional
Graduating
2.88
3.54
1.23
1.13
.05
.14
-4.44
787
.001
Turning paraphrases into direct quotes.
Professional
Graduating
3.15
4.66
1.38
.67
.05
.08
-15.52
121
.001
Using anonymous sources.
Professional
Graduating
1.26
3.20
.59
1.03
.02
.13
-14.93
67
.001
Showing or reading all or part of a story to sources to confirm facts
before publication.
Professional
Graduating
4.62
2.25
.67
1.13
.02
.14
16.67
68
.001
Calling sources to check facts and direct quotes before publication.
Professional
Graduating
4.62
1.09
.67
.29
.02
.04
-80.20
138
.001
Misleading sources about a story.
Professional
Graduating
2.88
4.55
1.23
.56
.05
.07
-20.11
129
.001
*Questions were scored on a scale from 1-5 with low scores indicating
that subjects thought these behaviors were acceptable and 5
indicating that these behaviors were unacceptable.
Table 5
Analysis of Variance for Overall Perception of Working Broadcast Journalists
Source
SS
df
MS
F
p
Between
50.85
2
25.43
5.20
.828
.01
Within
1603.08
328
4.89
Total
1653.93
R squared =.031
Table 6
Analysis of Variance for Overall Perception of Working Print Journalists
Source
SS
df
MS
F
p
Between
26.36
2
13.18
3.15
.605
.05
Within
3419.42
817
4.18
Total
3445.78
819
R squared = .008
[1] This response rate was undoubtedly lower due to the fact that
many journalism students in the introductory course are
advertising/strategic communication or photojournalism track students
who did not fit into either the broadcast or print categories
specified in this study.
[2] The ethics courses taken by introductory journalism students
were probably either 1) taken in highschool or 2) taken in a
different program as the class recruited from is the very first class
required in the journalism program at the particular university of study.
[3] The broadcast journalism professionals survey also included
sections on news reporting and writing practices and policies and
standards, however this information was not used in this study.
[4] The ethics courses taken by introductory journalism students
were probably either 1) taken in highschool or 2) taken in a
different program as the class recruited from is the very first class
required in the journalism program at the particular university of study.
[5] The print journalism professionals survey also included sections
on news reporting and writing practices and policies and standards,
however this information was not used in this study.
[6] T statistics, df and significance levels using equal variances
not assumed were used for those groups that violated Levine's test
for equality of variances.
|
