Every journalist is expected to follow a code of ethics in order to maintain a public discourse that is accurate and fair. Veteran journalist Katie Couric failed to do this in her interview with late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 

Couric’s new memoir “Going There” details her decision to edit Justice Ginsburg’s response to NFL player Colin Kaepernick’s controversial decision to kneel during the national anthem. Kaepernick’s actions were in protest against the treatment of African Americans and other individuals of color in America. 

In the 2016 interview, Ginsburg called the protests “dumb” and “disrespectful”, a comment that many would find surprising considering the Justice’s generally liberal viewpoints. In her memoir, Couric reveals the full quote she edited out in which Justice Ginsburg said the protests showed “contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and their grandparents to live a decent life.” 

Regardless of opinions surrounding the content of former justice Ginsburg’s comment, the journalistic integrity of the interview is severely lacking. To put it simply, Ginsburg offered up a rather controversial opinion that Couric later edited out in order to keep the general public from getting the wrong impression. 

The Society of Professional Journalists (SJP) Code of Ethics notes that journalists should “take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.” Couric wanting to “protect” Ginsburg by withholding her controversial statements is a direct violation of this. 

Ginsburg’s statement is no doubt surprising but her words are clear and it is safe to say that the Justice was fully aware of the context of the question she was being asked. Not to mention Ginsburg was a Harvard and Columbia educated Supreme Court Justice who was well versed in modern political topics. She was known for her dissenting opinions, Couric’s ‘protection’ was anything but necessary. 

Couric’s ‘protection’ also suggests her own personal influences affected her ability to report fairly on the interview. It is not her job to decide whether or not the public can handle an unexpected opinion. It is her job to report the news truthfully in order to allow the public to be completely and truthfully informed in order to allow the creation and exchange of their own ideas. 

In her TODAY interview with Savannah Guthrie, Couric said she “wasn’t sure what [Ginsburg] meant exactly, and [she] thought it was subject to interpretation.” Any journalist in this situation would be sure to follow up with their source in order to ensure clarity especially when dealing with such a high profile individual. 

The SJP Code of Ethics also includes a journalist’s task to take accountability for any mistakes made when reporting a story. Despite her lapse in judgement, Couric did eventually own up to her mistake and that fact should be taken into consideration. “Ultimately, I think I should have included it,” she said on TODAY.

While this is not the most unforgivable of offences, it does pave the way for the integration of slightly more unethical practices into mainstream media. Plus, these kinds of seemingly minor instances continue to destabilize the relationship between media outlets and their consumers. 

Justice Ginsburg was a beacon of hope for many people and she brought forth a fiery and passionate spirit to an overwhelmingly male Supreme Court but she too had opinions that her liberal following would have questioned. Ultimately, Couric and every journalist owe it to the general public to report the complete truth regardless of its effect on public reputation.

Photo from Flickr