It's unsatisfying to score points on Vice (or anyone really), but as a sample, I'd wonder if this larger question would benefit from being aired. Are we post-integrity?
Afterwards Anderson mentioned the required style of reporting at Vice negatively (the camera focusing on his reactions) but he stayed with them for a while. Not sure if he is still associated with them.
edit: Fixed timestamp & He left vice last year https://twitter.com/benjohnanderson/status/14273137210435215...
The argument, as I remember it, asserted that journalism is a semi-profession because journalists are expected to adhere to ethical principles widely practiced by reporters (e.g. fairness, accuracy, ethics). However, it's not a profession on the same level as physicians or lawyers because they don't require licenses or credentials (whether this is a good or bad aspect is up for debate, but it's a description of the way the field currently works).
Since the code of ethics aren't widely agreed upon (different unions of journalists and different newspaper publications have slightly different codes of ethics), there is a loss of professionalism in an academic sense (versus lawyers and physicians where the ethical codes are more standardized and may have legal or at least stronger moral binding). However, this does elevate journalism above a non-profession, as there are still ethical principles widely agreed with among credible journalists (e.g. if a source tells you information off-the-record, you protect their identity, even if threatened with imprisonment or personal harm).
Were we ever? What do you mean by "holding"? How does one hold any given media outlet or journalist to any standard?
An example were David Sirota's International Business Times articles Clinton[1] and Trump[2].
While head of the state department (which runs weapons deals), Clinton approved arms deals to controversial countries after they donated to the Clinton Foundation. This reporting was widely attacked online, often by other journalists. The article was very detailed and well documented.
Later he wrote another equally detailed article about how Trump ripped off investors through chicanery and the article was widely applauded by the same audience.
It was the same journalist doing the same level of investigation with the same rigor, treated completely differently by the same audience. In both cases it seems like the popular reception was not based on facts at all, in either direction! The reaction was largely based on which 'team' it supported.
1- https://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapon...
2- https://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/how-donald-trump-u...
Care to provide examples of "same audience", aka same people and organisations criticising one and applauding the other? I can easily see how some extremely biased "entertainment news" talk show hosts might do it, but I'm doubtful of actual journalist doing that.
Are we post-integrity?
I would argue when it comes to corporate decision making, making money has always come first ahead of integrity, and it's a little naive to consider this the straw that breaks the camel's back.
We have been for a long time
As far as I can tell only if the journalist/activist is a member of an opposing political ideology. If they are on "our side" we tolerate almost anything because you know the other side is nazis or communists.
> Gen. Singlaub started the U.S. Council for World Freedom, an affiliate of the World Anti-Communist League. Later, as president of the international organization, he made what the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith called “substantial progress” in purging the group of neo-Nazis, antisemites and Latin American death-squad leaders.
> ...
> In the early 1980s, as Congress began curtailing U.S. funding of efforts to overthrow leftist regimes in Nicaragua and elsewhere, Gen. Singlaub and his organizations remained an important conduit of materiel and financial assistance, reportedly with the help of deep-pocketed conservatives and foreign governments.
> He was often compared to Marine Lt. Col. Oliver L. North and other major figures in the Reagan administration’s Iran-contra affair. North was among the national security officials who had authorized illegal arms sales to Iran to win the release of U.S. hostages in the Middle East and used some of the profits to support right-wing Nicaraguan rebels known as the contras.
The same man being applauded for purging death squad leaders from an organization and for funding death squad leaders.
The writer isn't celebrating that he funded the contras, but is instead reporting how he was perceived by the American political class, and also mention key controversies he was involved with. The mention of his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair is an example of responsible reporting; in contrast, an irresponsible writer would have omitted the topic, and you would have never read it.