Saturday, November 25, 2017
Charlie Rose in 2006. (Flickr Creative Commons/Thomas Hawk)
Journalism organizations and institutions should not shy away from holding people accountable for their actions.
CBS News, Bloomberg and PBS cut ties with Charlie Rose on Tuesday after numerous reports of sexual misconduct. The allegations, which were first reported in The Washington Post, are the latest to strike a major figure in the world of journalism.
Unlike most of the previous journalists recently accused of sexual misconduct, Rose presents an awkward position for several organizations and institutions that honored him with awards to recognize his long career.
The Radio Television Digital News Association honored Rose with its lifetime achievement award in 2016. The Society of Professional Journalists’ Deadline Club inducted him into its hall of fame in 2015. Arizona State University awarded Rose with its excellence in journalism award in 2015. Other organizations undoubtedly honored him over the years, too.
ASU’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communicationannounced on Friday it is revoking Rose’s award in an “unprecedented action.” The Deadline Club is reportedly considering revoking its award.
Rescinding awards is often a divisive conversation, but it shouldn’t be in cases such as the one involving Rose, who apologized for his “inappropriate behavior” but said not all allegations against him were “accurate.” Organizations and institutions established to support and better journalism must not shy away from holding the field’s most powerful practitioners accountable.
The
SPJ Code of Ethics ends with the principle that journalists should “abide by the same high standards they expect of others.” If journalists fall short, there should be appropriate ramifications as would be expected in any other profession. In this case, there is no debate that sexual harassment is completely wrong and unacceptable.
Some people argued on social media in response to ASU’s decision that these honors are typically awarded for the journalism a person produces – not for the lives they lived. A person’s career does not occur in a vacuum, however. The journalism a person produces cannot be separated from the pain and damage they may have caused along the way.
Organizations must also consider the people these awards promote and hold up as the profession’s role models. Does the award honor people who created a safe and educational environment for other good people wishing to enter the field? Or, does the award honor people regardless of the work environment they created and the talented people they turned away as a result? The correct answer should be obvious.
Lastly, the element of power cannot be ignored in many of these cases of sexual misconduct. If power and prominence contributed to these actions, the profession must be proactive in removing those as catalysts.
The Washington Post, The New York Times and many other news organizations – including CBS News – must be commended for reporting on these types of behaviors in journalism and other industries. Those reporters and editors are living up to the SPJ Code of Ethics, which says journalists should “be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.”
The journalism industry and profession turned a proverbial blind eye to sexual misconduct for too long. These past few weeks of revelations present an opportunity to change that culture and create a better present and future.
Ultimately, these debates come down to the question: How much sexual misconduct is acceptable? The answer is none.
Andrew M. Seaman is the ethics committee chairperson for the Society of Professional Journalists.
Tags: arizona state university, ASU, Awards, Bloomberg, CBS News, Charlie Rose, Deadline Clube, Honors, PBS, Radio Television Digital News Association, RTDNA, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Misconduct, Society of Professional Journalists, SPJ, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication
Defending the First Amendment and promoting open government are more crucial now than ever. Join SPJ's fight for the public?s right to know ? either as an SPJ Supporter or a professional, student or retired journalist.
This entry was posted by Andrew Seaman on Friday, November 24th, 2017 at 8:12 pm and is filed under Credibility, Diversity, Journalism ethics, Journalist Safety, Media Trust, Minimize Harm, SPJ Code of Ethics.You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.