It was recently opined here that it is not the job of a reporter to challenge dogma. This was followed up with another opinion: That the job of a reporter is to find and present facts - that science reporters should find and present scientific fact.
Personally, I think challenging dogma IS one of the many jobs that an investigative journalist performs. Actually, I would like to believe it's the job of everyone to challenge dogma whenever they see it. Of course, one person's perception of "fact" often turns out to be another person's perception of "dogma", and, oh, what a squabble that can produce betwixt us all. Regarding journalism, the Society of Professional Journalism (the SPJ) has a lot of interesting things to say about the code of ethics that investigative journalists should follow. For details see: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp While on the subject of the ethics of investigative journalism, and for a more controversial debate concerning the limits of "Cotcha" investigative journalism, here is an article about a former ABC producer, Linne Dale, who performed an undercover investigation of a company called Food Lion, and the company's illegal practices which were endangering public health. The ABC article when it eventually aired helped destroy the company, but not after a protracted and expensive battle spearheaded, of course, by Food Lion's legal team. The doomed company attempted to obfuscate and deflect the original ABC claims by claiming fraud, trespassing and breach of loyalty. Most curiously, they did not pursue libel. Fortunately, for the sake media freedom, Food Lion's tactic didn't work: http://rsjsoup.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-ethics-of-investigative But getting back to the SPJ web site, a lot of sensible things are listed out there. Good sensible things that every investigative journalist ought to ponder carefully before practicing their trade. Incidentally, while pondering the dos and don'ts of investigative journalism nowhere did I read a commandment stating that those who pursue this profession should not challenge dogma. Actually "challenging dogma", isn't what really piqued my interest. What piqued my interest was wondering if anyone here really believes they have the right to determine for everyone else what "dogma" is versus what is "scientific fact." It seems to me that the polarity of perception, when placed on a scale where "dogma" resides at one end and "scientific fact" the other, often boils down to a difference of opinion. All too often when opposing opinions, including those of a journalistic nature, perform battle in the arena the results tend to generate a lot of rancorous debate, acrimony, hard feelings, broken friendships and strained alliances. What is often missed in the ensuing battle for dominance is the fact that ALL opinions, no matter what position they take, end up getting bruised and lacerated by the same double edged sword. This double edged sword is more often than not powered by the seductive emotions of outrage. The seductive double edged sword of outrage doesn't care whose opinion is being slaughtered. It simply strikes. It strikes repeatedly because it is addictively delicious to do so. I know that I am not immune to the sword's seductive power. I constantly try to remind myself of a concept attributed to another learned man whose credentials remain steeped in mythology: Let he who is free of imperfection, let he who knows he has freed himself from the clutches of dogma and the seductive emotions of outrage cast the first strike. At times I know I have failed miserably when I struck out at others when perhaps I should have held my tongue, and pen. At least I try to be aware of the sword's seductive presence in my life. That's half the battle. In conclusion, I could speculate that there might be a few lurking within the catacombs of the Vort Collective who may try to interpret the content of my little essay as possessing "hidden" meanings - or that I really meant to say this, or that, yadda, yadda, yadda. It was intentional on my part to remain neutral. Often there is no right or wrong answer. There are only actions and the consequences of those actions. It's best to make them those actions count. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
