“Senator Clinton, at a time when the world's two biggest examples of socialized medicine, Britain and Canada, are moving away from the system and the people who are in those countries on the lower economic rung, those systems hurt them most, why are you still insisting upon moving that system in here, particularly when it will hurt African American communities more than anybody else?”
Hillary Clinton’s remarks at the NABJ conference this August have been described by many as “evasive” and “defensive.” But, apart from whatever one's political feelings about Clinton are and even her attitude at the convention in general, was Kiara Ashanti’s question (quoted above) ethical and valid from a journalistic perspective?
The most important ethical responsibility for journalists is to honestly convey the truth to the our audience. To do this, reporters must distinguish between advocacy and reporting. We have to clearly label analysis and commentary and not misrepresent facts or context.
Kiara Ashanti failed to be honest with the audience and ended up imposing his values on others. How did he fail to meet the ethical standard?
For starters, Ashanti used unnecessarily inflammatory language. He referred to Clinton’s health care proposals as “socialized medicine,” knowing that more neutral terms could have easily been used.
A far more serious ethical breech was in the way Ashanti stated his own opinions as facts in the phrasing of the question. Whether or not Britain and Canada are “moving away” from their health care system is highly debatable and can’t ethically be treated as a forgone conclusion.
The assertion that Clinton’s health care proposals will hurt African American communities the most is even more heavily based in opinion. The proposals have not been put in place. One can predict what they believe will happen if they are implemented and who they might “hurt” in the future, but no one really knows for sure right now. And yet, Ashanti unethically stated his own predictions and conclusions about this as facts. This creates the false impression that Clinton is being defensive about the realities of the situation. This isn't true. It isn't a confrontation between Clinton and the truth, it's just a confrontation between Clinton and Ashanti's opinions.
Ashanti approached someone in a room full of African Americans and effectively asked her “Why do you want to hurt African Americans?” Who wouldn't be defensive? However one might feel about Clinton and her performance that day, we all have to admit it was accurate to call the question “rhetorical.” It wasn’t meant to be answered in the first place. It was really an attack on Clinton that was deceptively phrased as an interrogative.
Ashanti’s question could have easily been much more appropriate if he said something like “How do you answer critics who call your health care proposals ‘socialized medicine’ and predict that they will hurt African Americans more than other populations in this country?” Then, the question would properly be framing the opinions as the comments of “critics,” rather than as facts.
The audience would also have been better served by a question like this because it invites a clearer response from the subject. An attack forces her to defend herself; an honest question can elicit a response that provides information for the public. She could respond to a properly framed question by saying “They are wrong about my health care plan because it would… (fill in the blank).” Clinton could still have chosen to be evasive, but at least the journalist would have done his or her job to get honest information for the audience.
Ashanti's question reminded me of the sort of thing that is often asked on Comedy Central’s show, “The Colbert Report.” Colbert’s character prides himself on “nailing” guests by asking questions that others have difficultly answering and might make the guest look bad. The routine is funny because reporters shouldn't try to “nail” people and “beat” their subjects in a battle of wits so the reporter’s ideas look better. We should strive to draw meaningful information from subjects to better inform the public. Reporting really should be more interested in educating the public than in trying to be rhetorical.
~ Geoffrey Dobbins
You can view the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics at http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp.
Geoffrey Dobbins is the Vice President of the UC Association of Black Journalists.
