Some Stories Are Too Good to Pass Up 553.1
In one of my first programs as an ethicist, I was questioning a panel of journalists in front of an audience of about 400 radio and television news directors. The topic was journalism ethics, and it was shortly after Senator Gary Hart was forced to withdraw from the presidential race because of a sexual scandal.
So I posed the obvious question: "Is it proper for a journalist to report on a public official’s private life?"
Jack Anderson, a well-known investigative columnist, replied: "I don’t think we should report on the private behavior of a politician unless it’s relevant to his job."
As I turned to the audience to ask how this test would apply to Gary Hart, he added, "But we don’t always follow our own tests."
I asked him to explain. He said, "A few years ago, a woman came into my office and gave me an airtight affidavit that the mayor of Tucson had bit her on the thigh. I didn’t think that was relevant to his job, but some stories are too good to pass up."
This answer revealed a gap between stated values – the standards we say we apply – and operational values – our real standards as demonstrated by what we do.
If we ask people about their ethical standards, they usually state high-road platitudes. But if we look at their behavior, we often discover that their real standards are quite a bit lower.
Like Jack Anderson, many of us judge ourselves by our highest ideals and best intentions. What we have to remember is that others will judge us by our actions.
This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.
Comments
Dear Sir,
Your column today reminds me of a sadly ironic situation that came up a few years ago at my son's elementary school. Your institute's 'Character Counts' posters are all over the school, but the Principal found no problem in lying about her diversion of PTA donated funds to projects she preferred.
This gap between stated and operational values seems to be particularly glaring in those that make a big deal about ethics --- for example the recent Dept. of Education secretary who writes a large book on virtues, only to be revealed as a compulsive gambler.
I sometimes wonder if a sort of law of conservation of human stupidity is at work --- that a given person can only be so good before a bit of the other side must come out.
My question for you, then, is how do you guard against this sort of thing in your own life?
Warm Regards,
David Cooke.
Posted by: David Cooke | February 8, 2008 5:34 PM
What I see is that Jack Anderson answered the question incorrectly. The way that public officials conduct their private lives is unquestionably relevant.
First, what better way to judge their character than to evaluate their private behavior, specifically, what they do when they think no one is looking?
Second, the fact that we tend to overlook our public officials' character flaws gives us the level of leadership we deserve. We can't complain about corruption, graft, lying etc. if we knew about their character flaws in advance and voted for them anyway. But at least in this case we have the opportunity to make an informed decision.
Posted by: Adilson | February 10, 2008 4:16 PM
I wonder wich is worse: lying to your wife about sexual escapades (Gary Hart, Bill Clinton etc.), or lying to congress about selling weapons to Iran in order to fund the contras in Nicaragua (Ronald Reagan)
Posted by: Petra | February 15, 2008 12:46 AM
It's normally accepted that change usually starts by example and at the top. Whether that's the head of a family or head of a country. You talk a lot about being the head of the family or even a corporation, but let's take on the Leaders of our Country. They make their own set of rules, actually two sets, one for the public and one for themselves. The first is just for show, the second one is subject to interpretation any way they want it, and in most cases would land the man on the street in jail. Let's start at the top!
Posted by: Jim Thompson | February 15, 2008 8:03 AM
That's a trick question, Petra. Lying is lying and a liar is a liar. The relativity of the damages incurred is meaningless because you are acting as if those were the only transgressions but the people mentioned. I would submit someone who is inclined to lie in any situation is unreliable in most situations.
Posted by: Tom | February 15, 2008 12:18 PM
I have learned over the years that people teach that which they need to learn. I have also learned that people who have none or little tolerance for certain character flaws - these are the very flaws the person has and has not accepted in himself. My 2cents.
Posted by: Colleen | February 16, 2008 10:52 AM