The incident did more than just put a dent in NBC’s distinguished journalistic tradition. It also raised delicate questions of what’s fair game in the growing sport of business exposes-and what should happen when somebody steps over the line. Exposing corporate scams and scandals has always been a mainstay of magazine programs. Yet recent months have seen a rise in business-bashing stories, with controversial investigations of such companies as Wal-Mart, Food Lion and makers of cellular phones. Such exposes “are definitely on the rise,” says one TV producer. “We love stories where you shoot the tape and then f— the guy.” Many executives believe that they’ve become victims of TV’s hunger for hype and ratings, especially during the “sweeps” period. As Wal-Mart vice president Don Shinkle says, “The moon is always full during sweeps month.”
That is painting with a broad brush. Tabloid shows like “Hard Copy” may rely on such ethically questionable techniques as re-enacting events, but programs like “60 Minutes” retain a reputation for playing tough and clean. Still, there’s no question that the proliferation of news shows–there are two high-profile entries from ABC and NBC coming later this year-has heightened pressure to get stories and ratings. And, laments CBS News executive producer Andrew Lack, it has changed the way some journalists do business. Many young TV reporters today rate the success of their stories by the overnight ratings: “I don’t hear a lot of discussion of the journalism of the stories the next day,” Lack says. Other veteran journalists are equally concerned. After the NBC debacle, Dan Rather of CBS met with his staff in small groups to remind them to guard against complacency. “The margin for error is thinner than the margin for error on high-speed racetracks,” Rather says.
Of course, journalists are supposed to be aggressive. While the rules aren’t etched in stone, most reporters know when they’re out of bounds and the consequences of such conduct. Just as evidence gained in an illegal search taints a legal case, dirty reporting taints a story. There are obvious differences between arranging to fake an explosion and, say, surprising a source with unexpected, tough questions. But there can also be considerable murkiness in between. Recent stories aimed at business-and the controversies they triggered-have highlighted some of the ethical shades of gray:
Sometimes the worst damage done by news hype is to the public’s nerves. When a Florida man filed suit against NEC alleging that the company’s cellular phone caused his wife’s fatal brain tumor, the print media barely touched the story for more than a month, largely because the hazards were unproven and considered remote. But TV programs-from Larry King’s CNN talk show to news shows including “20/20” and the “Faith Daniels Show”-sounded the alarm. Daniels even confronted cellular-industry spokesman Ron Nessen with a man who also claims his brain tumor was caused by phones. “The media are in the outrage business,” says Peter Sandman, a consultant who helps companies talk about risk. Sandman says that journalists often don’t help people sort out the degrees of risk to decide which are worth living with. Whatever the validity of the stories, the effects are quick and often expensive: stock in cellular-phone firms tumbled on the scare stories.
Will the NBC scandal cause journalists to pull back on business exposes? Don’t count on it. GM general counsel Harry Pearce says companies are reluctant to go after the media: “They’ve got the ink, the paper, the electrons.” But big business has its lawyers and public-relations firms–and now, GM’s win as a model. Already, one mattress company, accused by a Boston ABC affiliate of selling used mattresses, last week cited the GM retraction in a bid to bolster its own argument. But if the “Dateline” incident doesn’t make news organizations more timid, it is likely to make the best journalists even more careful as they go about the business of trying to keep companies honest and consumers alert. And that’s good news.
