On February 5th 2021 Nicholas Fandos displayed exemplary integrity when he wrote an article covering the most recent impeachment trials of Donald Trump. This trial is directly related to the First Amendment because Donald Trump and his legal team is arguing that his conduct around the January 6th riot at the capital is protected by the First Amendment. Fandos wrote this article reporting on what other lawyers have said about this strategy.
The journalist, Nicholas Fandos is congressional correspondent for The New York Times, based in Washington. He has covered Capitol Hill since 2017, covering two Supreme Court confirmation fights, two impeachments of Donald Trump, among other stories. Fandos is a Harvard graduate with a good record which would indicate that he has good credentials. His prior history would not lead one to believe that he would be involved in any unethical activities or unethical journalism.
Upon analyzing this article, I felt that the journalist was very ethical when reporting on this topic. The reason that I felt this way after reading was because of the writer’s voice. It is not easy to remain unbiased when writing about a topic that is divisive and potentially controversial. The writer and the article is clearly impartial to the story or any possible outcomes of the trial. The journalist simply reported on what other lawyers were saying about the trial and the First Amendment based upon a letter that the New York Times received. The display of integrity and lack of bias towards such a polarizing topic is something that really stuck out to me when looking at other articles that are related to the same topic.
By acting ethically, Fandos avoided potential issues and fulfilled his duty as a journalist the way it was always meant to be done. It is an obligation for journalists to act as watchdogs and report on facts to make sure that the public does not blindly trust those who are in positions of power. In this case Fandos is acting as a watchdog of the United States government and specifically President Trump. Roy Moore is the author of a book called Media Law and Ethics where he writes about the role of journalists and their obligations.
Moore writes, “But the work of everyday journalists trying to fulfill their obligations as watchdogs of government, corporations, and public institutions can be undermined by the threat of a multi-million-dollar lawsuit, by threat of imprisonment for disobeying a judges order, or by sources unwilling to talk to a reporter because they fear a promise of confidentiality will be broken under government pressure” (Moore, 88). Here Moore is discussing the role of journalists and the importance of the protections of journalists under the first amendment. Because of the first amendment, Fandos is able to act ethically and report on the impeachment trial of President Trump without fear of repercussions from the Trump administration.
While Fandos displayed extraordinary integrity, it is his duty to do so and to remain ethical. By doing this Fandos solidified the importance of ethical journalism in our democracy. Roy Moore, in Media Law and Ethics also wrote about the importance of ethical journalism in our democracy. Moore writes, “Another reason journalists must be ethical is defined by the roles of the news media. Any discussion of journalism ethics must include the role of the first amendment. While the courts have found that freedom of the press does not carry with it all the ethical responsibilities that its critics would like it to require, democracy requires a free press” (Moore, 109). The display of integrity that is presented by Fandos is exactly what is necessary for our system of democracy to work.
Remaining impartial and not being overly critical of the president or being overly defensive for the president is the key that makes this article live up to ethical journalistic standards. By writing this way it is shown that there is no structural problems present with Fandos or the New York Times such as a collusive relationship with the Trump administration. Tony Harcup is the author of a book called The Ethical Journalist which is a book that is highly applicable to this situation and goes over the ethics of journalism.
Harcup writes, “A similar argument about journalism today is that it fails to live up to its self-proclaimed watchdog role because of structural problems such as a collusive relationship between media corporations and politicians, the privilege of market values over social values, an over-reliance on elite sources and a limited ideological aperture through which events tend to be viewed” (Harcup, 29). The article written by Fandos shows that this argument that Harcup mentions is not always correct because it is used as an example of how journalism today can still live up to its watchdog role. The way that Fandos handled this situation is textbook ethical journalism which is supported by actual textbooks such as Media Law and Ethics and also The Ethical Journalist.
A similar article was written by Ian Millhiser of Vox that attempts to cover the same story as Fandos, however Millhiser leaves a distinguishable voice in his writing. I believe that this is still a good article however a job of a reporter is just to report the facts with no opinions and that is something that I think the New York Times article just does better about this specific topic. It is notable that the Vox article is actually longer but that does not always mean it is better. The Vox article veers off and talks about things that do not directly relate to the current Donald Trump story, but in other contexts can still be considered good academic information such as older unrelated court cases. Overall, the New York Times article I find to be more ethical due to the fact that the reporter is just reporting the facts without any noticeable bias at all.
This Vox article to me is an example of how unethical journalism is failing to fulfill the primary purpose that journalism was intended to fulfill. In the article written by the New York Times, Fandos is able to act as a watchdog and additionally check the government by reporting facts. Anthony Lewis wrote an article in the Hofstra Law Review that discusses journalism and the first amendment titled, A Preferred Position for Journalism? In the article Lewis writes, “Rather, the “Primary Purpose” of those who framed it was to create a fourth institution outside the government as an additional check on the official three branches”. (Lewis, 595). This theoretical fourth institution that provided a check for the three branches of government is a great way to explain how journalists are able to hold the government accountable for their actions. Specific to this situation Fandos was able to hold Trump and his team accountable for their claims while doing so in a nonbiased way.
Works Cited
Harcup, Tony. The Ethical Journalist. Sage, 2009.
Lewis, Anthony. “’A Preferred Position for Journalism?’.” Hofsta Law Review, 2017, pp. 33–66., doi:10.4324/9781315254999-10.
Moore, Roy L., et al. Media Law and Ethics. Routledge, 2018.
Christian's blog 