Hank Koebler

Koebler.hank@gmail.com
(281)841-2906
Nov. 9, 2014
Journalism & Democracy Capstone Class
Ethics Essay Final Draft
My ethical dilemma came in the form of being torn between reporting on a policy issue
and offering analysis of that policys effectiveness. In short, even after adequately
fulfilling my journalistic responsibilities, I still felt an unease as if I didn't fulfill my
responsibilities as a person to urge for the"right" thing to be done. The lack of certainty
didn't lead to any direct conflicts of interest as much as it led to me being hesitant and
unsure of how to cover a story. My hesitancy in approach to the subject of marijuana
legalization, a policy I support, kept me from doing an in-depth story about what I think
would have been a great opportunity to explore a fascinating topic with its own unique
subculture.
The issue started when I was a reporter for the Columbia Missourian, a web-first
newspaper that serves the city of Columbia, Missouri. I covered public life, which was
the name of the paper's political beat, and during the period of time I worked as a public
life reporter I developed an interest in following political coverage. As I became more in
tune with the political goings-on of the day, I occasionally started developing feelings for
and against certain political ideas, usually based on theories learned from my sociology
classes and backed up by experiences I had seen in my own life. Normally these beliefs
were never strong enough to influence my opinion of a topic while I'm reporting on it, but
that changed when I ended up writing about the legalization of marijuana.
I was sitting in the office of my editor, John Schneller, when another editor came in and
let him know that State Representative Chris Kelly was going to be speaking at a town
hall meeting about legalizing marijuana. Sensing the opportunity to report on a subject I
found quite interesting, I volunteered to take the story. As part of the preview I wrote of
the town hall, I interviewed Kelly and marijuana activist and attorney Dan Viets for the
story, and discussed the chances of when we'd see marijuana legalized in Missouri. I
also included the technical aspects of what specifically the legal ramifications of
marijuana legalization entailed.
I felt like the story was written in an unbiased manner, as it was more of a preview of not
just what to expect from the town hall, but in marijuana news in Missouri in general as
well. I felt as if the story was incomplete, yet I couldn't put my finger on anything I had
done "wrong." In retrospect, I think what I would have wanted to add to the story would
have said something along the lines of:
"The legalization of marijuana would add Missouri to a list of states such as
Washington and Colorado that have recently legalized the plant at the state level. It
would be a major victory in the state for drug policy activists who are opposed to the War
on Drugs, which has resulted in drug crimes accounting for 48 percent of the sentences
in federal prisons..."
...and then continued to expound on statistics and sociological theories that, in my
opinion, show the War on Drugs to be harmful to the fabric of our society. At this point in
the article-writing process, I grappled with the decision of whether adding such

information would be editorializing too much. On one hand, I wouldn't have been actually
saying that the War on Drugs was bad. On the other hand, the sort of information I
wanted to include would have been specifically included for the purpose of convincing
the reader the War on Drugs is bad, even if I didn't say so outright.
Eventually the deciding factor in my dilemma wasn't some guiding ethical principle, but
time: John wanted the story done a day in advance before the town hall meeting, so I
turned in what I had. Still, the hesitation caused by
not knowing how to cover an issue on which I held strong opinions led to me pulling back
from going deeper into the subject. I wanted to report and write more articles about the
subject of marijuana legalization. I felt like the topic offered many questions to explore
and use as a lens through which many social issues could be examined. However, I
lacked story ideas aside from merely examining the issue at a sociological level and
determining if the War on Drugs was a failure or not. As someone who felt strongly about
the topic of marijuana legalization, I felt as if it would be too hard to balance the cold,
hard factual process of reporting when I already had a strong feeling of the conclusion to
which the research and reporting in my story would lead me. I let the story idea fizzle,
and I regret it to this day even though I knew it was the right decision for my level of
ability and critical thinking at the time.
With a year's time under my belt to reflect upon my decision-making, I believe my
hesitation was caused by what I perceived as a conflict between some of the main
principles outlined in Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel's The Elements of Journalism.
Kovach and Rosenstiel set up ten principles which are necessary to fulfill the "purpose of
journalism," "to provide people with the information they need to be free and selfgoverning" (Kovach and Rosenstiel 5). Out of the ten principles listed, I think four of
them weighed most heavily on my mind at the time of writing the one marijuana story
and choosing not to pursue the topic any further:
"1. Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.
2. Its first loyalty is to citizens.
...
5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
...
9. Its practitioners have an obligation to exercise their personal

conscience."

The way exercising one's conscience and serving as a monitor of power intersected with
the obligation of truth and serving the citizenry is what gave me pause in my coverage of
marijuana issues. Because of my views that the nation's drug laws are harmful to
society, I viewed the story's stakeholders as more than just activists on both sides of the
issue. I viewed the list of stakeholders as a more comprehensive group of people
affected by the War on Drugs: users, sellers, anyone living in a neighborhood
economically impacted by mass incarceration, police who risk their lives enforcing laws
that more and more Americans - as evidenced by the increasing popularity of marijuana
legislation across the country - wouldn't mind not being enforced, etc. To be fair to all of
those stakeholders would require more than just the presentation of the "pro" and "con"
arguments about the issue.
According to Kovach and Rosenstiel, "Balancing a story by being fair to both sides may
not be fair to the truth if both sides do not, in fact, carry equal weight... Balance, if it
amounts to false balance, becomes distortion" (Kovach and Rosenstiel 46). In order to

determine how much weight to give to opposing sides of an issue, journalists must
evaluate how much credence each side's arguments merit. In some cases, doing so is
an easy task - most journalists probably wouldn't seek out a hate group's comment on
an anti-discrimination bill, for example. In other instances, one must be able to judge if
his or her own personal convictions are inhibiting the ability to properly weigh the validity
of opposing arguments on an issue.
In the case of my marijuana story, if I had decided to pursue the bigger story about
legalization and the War on Drugs in Missouri, I probably would've been a lot less prone
to lend credibility to certain arguments from marijuana prohibition supporters. That
tendency would certainly indicate some bias, but in retrospect, I could have counteracted
that bias by presenting arguments I disagreed with, and making sure to back my article's
assertions with fact-checked statistics and solid logic if I disputed the claims of someone
whose assertions on the topic I considered false.
The line between offering facts to challenge weak claims and venturing into opinion
seemed to dangerous of a path for me to traverse at the time of deciding if I'd do a
reporting project on marijuana, so I eventually wilted away from the topic. Had I
continued onward with the story, I would have faced continued ethical difficulty in
providing balance while still following Walter Williams' axiom from The Journalist's Creed
that "a journalist should write only what he holds in his heart to be true" (Williams). The
difficulty comes not just in deciding which sides to give weight to the arguments of, but
also in the difficulty of knowing when and how to dispute claims that I felt I could provide
enough data to refute.
According to former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee, journalists struggle
to figure out how to call out bad information. In a speech he gave the University of
California in 1997, Bradlee said:
"No editor would dare print this version of Nixons first comments on Watergate, for
instance: 'The Watergate break-in involved matters of national security, President Nixon
told a national TV audience last night, and for that reason he would be unable to
comment on the bizarre burglary. That is a lie.' We wont dare do that. But that is what it
was..." (Bradlee np)
Even when flat-out lies aren't being told, journalists can sometimes be used to pass on
bad information. A key example of this is cited in Bradlee's speech and by Kovach and
Rosenstiel in the discrepancy between former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's
public and private assessments of the progress of the conflict in Vietnam. In 1963,
President Lyndon Johnson sent McNamara to tour Vietnam and assess the progress of
the war. In press conferences, McNamara told the public that the war was going well and
he was "greatly encouraged" (Kovach and Rosenstiel 35). However, the Pentagon
Papers later revealed that the account McNamara gave the public was far more
optimistic than what he told the country's leaders.
In essence, McNamara's public comments used the publicity from the press to spread a
message to bolster support of the Vietnam War. Kovach and Rosenstiel write that The
story even involves layers of truth and falsity. The press reported accurately what
McNamara said in his press conferences - but did not get at the truth of what he knew
(Kovach and Rosenstiel 36). Getting past reporting what's being said - and getting to the
bottom of the truth about whether certain policies are good or bad - was where I wanted

to go with my marijuana story ideas, but I lacked the sophistication to understand how to
navigate such a tricky territory for retaining impartiality.
Looking at the issue with the benefit of hindsight, I think a way I could've served both my
conscience and my journalistic responsibilities would've been by writing a piece with a
policy analysis angle. Instead of straight reporting, I could've done a more analytical
piece that examined data and sociologists' findings on the social effects of marijuana
criminalization and the War on Drugs. Doing so would've given me a venue in which to
poke holes in political claims which I found dishonest. I would have been able to stick to
fair, fact-based work while still feeling comfortable I was serving the public as Williams'
creed says journalists are bound to do.
On the topic of serving the public, Kovach and Rosenstiel write, "Promotion of any
private interest contrary to the general welfare, for whatever reasons, is not compatible
with honest journalism" (56). To me, that means that if a journalist honestly believes a
policy is harmful to society, as I feel about the War on Drugs, then that journalist should
be unafraid to point out the ways that policy is harmful. However, to keep their work in
the realm of journalism instead of activism, journalists offering criticism of policy should
do so in a factual manner that eliminates the possibility of letting bias hinder their
journalistic instincts. If I were faced with the same story possibility today and asked to
write about it, I believe I could do so by applying a balance between the ideals of sticking
to the facts and sticking to my conscience.
To counter my own potential bias against the criminalization of marijuana, I would make
sure to obtain as many anti-legalization voices as I could. If they provided arguments I
considered dubious, then when I wrote the article I would dispute them not in my own
voice, but by providing facts that offer the full context of the issue. I'd also apply greater
scrutiny towards the validity of pro-legalization statistics, as I'd most likely be more
inclined to believe them due to confirmation bias. The piece would be more in the vein of
policy analysis than plain reporting, and it would leave no doubt in the reader's mind that
I think the War on Drugs is a failure that entrenches societal inequalities. However, in
order to remain a work of journalism, it would convey my pro-legalization points not in
the form of opinion, but through the presentation of thoroughly researched and vetted
analysis that fairly measures the performance of the policy.
Applying such stringent standards would be difficult, but worth it. The whole hesitation
toward the subject and uncertainty about how to handle my opinions kept me from
exploring an interesting topic and possibly kept me from better informing the populace
about a policy that majorly affects our society. From that experience, I learned that
reporting on the subjects Im most passionate about means itll be incredibly difficult to
keep my opinions out of my work. However, reporting on those things and weighing out
the sides' validity is how I feel I can do the most good toward making voters more
informed on the effectiveness of policies.

Works Cited
Bradlee, Ben. "In His Own Words: Ben Bradlee on Liars." Washington Post. The
Washington Post, 22 Oct. 2014. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

Kovach, Bill, and Tom Rosenstiel. The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople
Should Know and the Public Should Expect. New York: Three Rivers, 2007. Print.
Williams, Walter. "The Journalist's Creed." Journalism.missouri.edu. Missouri School of
Journalism, n.d. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.