Last weekend I finally escaped from the walls of the newsroom long enough to actually forget the daily spazzing out, yelling, deadlines and seemingly endless nights of double vision from computer-terminal burnout.

But taking my mind off of work was not that easy because even the movie I watched when I got home dealt with the tears and joys of journalism.

Early Friday night I sat down to watch the movie my roommates had rented which just happened to be “Broadcast News.”

But I couldn’t just sit and watch it. I had to analyze it, think about it and draw some conclusions. (Ever since my last semester’s film critique class I drive my roommates up the wall when we rent movies.)

Anyway, remember toward the end of the movie when Holly Hunter discovered that William Hurt staged a tear when interviewing a victim of date rape? He filmed the interview, made himself cry and then edited in the shot of his tear to enhance the emotion of the broadcast.

Poised on the edge of my seat with my eyes popped half out of my head and enraged at the thought of these actions, I heard my roommate say, “I don’t understand, what’s the big deal?”

This question is one to which there is no right or wrong answer, and journalists sit for hours discussing it: ETHICS.

Today’s standard of journalism is continually declining and ethics are becoming a rare commodity.

How easy it is for a reporter to “punch up a quote,” especially when the story says, “an official said,” or to use a good friend as a source.

These are the kinds of problems that, small as they might seem, really develop into much larger ones for journalists.

For example, several years ago a reporter wrote about a child heroin addict and the story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize. It was later found the story was entirely fabricated.

The only way journalists can eliminate this kind of activity is to be ethical. It’s a pretty general statement, but that’s the bottom line.

Every decision is left to the discretion of the individual reporter and ultimately the editor.

O.K., point well taken by all journalists reading this column, but what about our responsibility as members of the public?

After re-evaluating my own opinions about ethics, one thought led to another, and I got to thinking about how the news media affect our nation and the great number of people who depend solely on newspapers and television for the “truth” about what’s going on around them.

In a way, it’s scary when the only thing standing between a reporter’s made-up quote and the truth is personal morals.

Because of this, we must scrutinize and judge everything we read and watch.

Scrutinize by comparing stories in different media, by checking the facts with what we know from the past and by asking ourselves if both sides of the story are present.

In a society where the average person depends on some type of news medium or another, one cannot sit idly by and assume that everything he reads or hears is truth.

Ideally, it is of course the duty of the press to present the truth and facts, but human error sometimes steps in.

But at the same time while it is the role of the press to present facts in a responsible manner, it is the public’s responsibility to know how the press works, what makes it tick and why.

For example, the difference between editorial comment and a column must be understood in light of their purposes.

In a day and time where the media are so vital to the public, journalists have a specific responsibility to the public as the public does to itself. Check, doublecheck and scrutinize for facts.

Maybe things will swing around and more journalists will believe in themselves and the ethics which they represent.

We cannot afford an attitude of carelessness or disregard for what we know is the truth.