Full disclosure: The survey had too few people and those few from too great a variety of backgrounds to have “validity,” but some of the patterns in the answers are suggestive. I was interested that:
· so many people wouldn’t laugh at lame jokes in the service of a good interview – though one respondent when questioned more closely said she would “smile, of course”
· as I’ve always thought, “off the record” means different things to different people
· asking journalists what objectivity means is very nearly a party game
· some folk do feel that there are certain people and/or topics they would refuse to write about. I would have thought the more hateful the topic, the greater the challenge and, thus, the greater the appeal of the topic
· nobody respects sportswriting “the most”
· just how often does one have an ethical dilemma? Not that often…?
Now if we just had a bigger sample collected more “scientifically” – and if I were willing to pay Survey Monkey so that I could tease out correlations between (let us say) age and certain attitudes or current job category and certain attitudes – well, this would be more than cocktail chatter. But it is pretty good cocktail chatter.
Ethics class: You are cheeky monkeys, but I liked you very much. (Oh. I made the mistake of blind copying some of your sources and thus discovered I don’t have a full list of those I sent it to. Forward it to your “professional” sources if you wish.)
Those who filled out the surveys: I like you very much, too.