Blogging vs Journalism

The Information age has brought with it both advantages and disadvantages. Many critics believe that the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages in terms of the stress created by the sheer volume of information, much of which cannot be verified. However, there are also marked advantages for the world and time in which we live today. One phenomenon that is for example changing the face of journalism is known as citizen journalism in the form of online media outlets.

Increasingly, both professionals and amateurs in any field can use the Internet as an outlet for their products and ideas. This has resulted in a remarkable change in journalism, which spurred the debate over whether blogging can truly be seen on the same level as professional journalism. Even the debate is changing, as it is becoming clear that the Internet is increasingly integrated in all areas of life. Instead of debating the merits of journalism vs. blogging, researchers are now considering the integration between the two forms of news outlet, and their influence upon each other. This is a good thing, according to writers such as Jay Rosen.

One important factor that Rosen points out is that online journalism in the form of blogging, which is open to all citizens and all professionals, is also free from the ethical obligations of traditional journalism. This means that the traditional press was often subject to manipulation by powerful interest parties, which by definition made reporting inaccurate. Hence citizens were beginning to substantially lose their trust in the press. According to Rosen, this trust is to be reestablished by citizen journalism, not least because it is a much more interactive phenomenon than the traditional press. Online journalists can build their reputation by means of networking with their colleagues and their readership. As such, the value as well as validity of blogging is established by its readership. Most importantly, this also influences the way in which traditional journalism will operate in the future if it is to remain competitive.

The Importance of Ombudsmen

In addition to having a comprehensive (and enforceable) code of ethics and strong institutional knowledge and oversight, major media outlets benefit tremendously by having an Ombudsman. This person is charged with being a sort of spokesman/reporter for the reader. I wind up reading those for the New York Times and ESPN more than anyone else, but I am sure there are numerous other engaging ones.

Clark Hoyt of the Times is excellent at what he does. But Gawker Media wonders is he isn't getting a little soft in light of the newspaper's continued financial struggles. There's a lot of inside baseball contained therein, but basically they are contending that he was too soft on some major ethical breaches and too hard on ultimately inconsequential ones. And, the argument goes, he let a star columnist (Maureen Dowd) off easy, which is suspect.

While I agree with some of the minutia, for the most part I'm not buying Gawker's argument. First of all, for me it is not an Ombudsman's job to be a constant source of criticism and a thorn in the paper's side. He or she should be that, but they should also be a champion and cheerleader of great reportage. They should never be an apologist, but at the same time they should write with an understanding of the challenges journalists face -- now more than ever. Most importantly, an Ombudsman should be independent. That means they need not backhand slap every minor transgretion or always take the side of the critics. Not every mistake need result in a crisis of confidence. At the same time, Gawker is providing one more layer of oversight and analysis -- this time of the oversee and analyst -- and that's never a bad thing.

The chasm between

Excessive exposure on things like the affairs of Tiger Woods are completely over the top and not at all in sync with what is on the minds of citizens. Gossip is gossip and people chat about it as conversation filler - it moves us off the weather and the weekend stories.

But it's not real and the impact to our life is zero.

There is a tremendous chasm between information being provided by the media and what is on Mr. Citizen's mind.

The media does very well in coming together in times of strife. Reporting on large events gives a sense of purpose that is often absent in the day to day reporting of issues.

We need journalists that go after the daily issues of our society. Farming, education, and housing are just a few of the issues that get short shrift while party crashers and celebrity affairs are the main staple.

Dumbing down has became popular. It's like watching your child not achieve their full potential because they are lazy. You want to shake them because you know they can do better and you look forward to them realizing that and putting forth a better effort.

Innacuracy is a Concern even in Weather Reporting!

It is amazing how negligence  day-to -day reporting affects readers. The readers depend on and trust their favorite news media to give them accurate information even when it comes to weather. One may wonder, why should that be a big concern that the weather forecast in a given newspaper is accurate? Afterall, there are alot of other weather report options that can be refered to for  better weather report information and comparison.   In this New York Times article, (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/complaint-box-weather-forecasts/?scp=2&sq=NYT%20accuracy%20and%20credibility&st=cse ) a concerned reader is not bothered by the forecast being a forecast, but he is bothered by the fact that unlike in the past when weather reporters were referred to as forecasters, today they are referred to as meteologists which raises his expectations of their expertise. He also critique's the diction used in these weather reports and argues that some words and terms are increasingly being misused leading to misleading interpretation of the weather updates.

Accuracy or innacuracy in one section of a newspaper could affect the credibility of the entire newspaper. Hence, the importance of verification of data and diction before publishing even the "taken for granted" sections of the paper like the weather report.

Undercover work and "citizen journalists"

We all know the story by now. The pimp and the prostitute infiltrate ACORN and expose their shady practices, becoming heroes to the Right in the process. To some, they are doing the Lord's work; to others they are crossing a line and setting dangerous precedent when they call themselves journalists.

(Let it be known, first and foremost, that I think James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles have essentially put one over on people. No one in their right mind would ever believe that O'Keefe's fur coat was anything but a costume. My firm belief is that the ACORN employees caught on tape, corrupt as they may be, did not believe the premise for a second. But that's not the point of this post.)

Traditional journalism has long frowned upon undercover work that relies on deception and misrepresentation. It's OK to get into the nitty gritty; it's not OK to lie about it. Even local TV news, hardly a bastion of ethical cleanliness, generally relied on hidden cameras but not outright deception in its "investigative" reports.

What O'Keefe and Giles did was very different. As Kelly McBride of the Poynter Institute points out in this Politico article, "It can be very problematic if your first value as a reporter is to tell the truth, and the first thing you do is deceive. It’s very hard for the public to figure out when to trust you.”

O'Keefe, who is 25 and actually thinks he played a convincing pimp, begs to differ. He likens their work to the entrapment party "How to Catch a Predator," and I think that's a reasonable comparison. It's good entertainment. It's arguably important work. But it ain't journalism. Any story you have to lie to get is a story of dubious value.

The Less, the Better

One of the possible ways to improve journalism is to reduce the number of news organizations and collect the limited resources to produce better news.

The lack of resources is one of the main reasons for poor quality journalism. Seeking profit makes the owners of the news media cut cost; cutting cost makes the news organization become under-funded and under-staffed. Many news organizations can not afford to hire good journalists; journalists are busily working on using quick and easy stories to fill the newspaper space or TV airtime, instead of producing high quality news. Some newspapers publish stories without any editor even reading them in entirety. If the situation continues, the news media will further lose their respect and attraction for the public.

A possible solution is to reduce the number of news organizations, especially the small and local newspapers and TV stations, and concentrate the financial and staff resources to do better journalism. So many TV stations and newspapers report the same events and interview the same persons again and again. It is very common to see several local stations repeat the same traffic accident in their evening news. The low quality of news and the repeatability not only waste audiences’ time but also waste the society’s resources at large. Yes, we need more than one news organization in a certain region, so the media can compete with each other. But generally speaking, for a medium size city, two or three news organizations are sufficient. Theoretically, if ten small news organizations were consolidated into two organizations, each of them would have five times more money and staffers to work on the same amount of newspaper space or TV airtime. We can expect that, under that circumstance, the quality of report would be greatly improved. I hope that the media completion or a new model of news business can help merge the low quality small organizations into relatively big and better media.

FTC rule and blogs

The FTC's new rule on blogger disclosure of gifts unfairly targets bloggers, and is impossible to enforce uniformly.

If bloggers are going to be required to put readers on notice of every gift that makes it on to their sites, why not newspaper and magazine writers? Beauty and fashion writers squeal (double entendre?) through their pages about the stacks of samples their offices receive. We readers can only assume that these gifts are from which the lists of "Must Haves," "Must Buys," "Hot Trends," and "Editor's Picks" are plucked. In fact, I can't remember the last time a publication that derives revenue from advertiser content told me not to buy something. By comparison, a blogger's endorsement of a kitchen mixer is chump change.

Until the FTC puts the onus on the givers such gifts to document and report, the new regulation will not be evenly enforced. The sheer abundance of blogs versus the limited regulatory resources, and the ease of ignoring the rule, as well as plain old lying, are ingredients for the kind of spotty enforcement. A low risk of being caught means that bloggers will take their chances on a relatively higher reward, and apathy toward regulation will follow. For the music blogger in the Globe's article, it already has. If the gift-givers were instead required to report the goodies to the IRS, the incentive of a tax deduction would go further to ensure compliance.

Another note:
The class' discussion of the regulation's constitutionality didn't touch on the Supreme Court's treatment of commercial speech, but I think this aspect is worth mention. I would think that, while dependent upon how "commercial" a compensated blogger's message about a product turned out to be, the Court's position on commercial speech would uphold the regulation. The Court has held that otherwise educational messages are not automatically transformed to commercial ones simply because the speaker is economically motivated. However, if a blog could be shown to essentially be a commercial for a gift product, I think the Court would agree that the government has a substantial interest in regulating that type of a commercial speech, and that the rule was not overly broad.

Mountains or Molehills?

There exists a terrific graphic illustration of the global media scares during the past decade, called Mountains Out of Molehills. I originally saw this graphic a couple of months ago, so I don't know updated the H1N1 flu numbers are, but you can see from the image the relative number of stories about the swine flu as well as other media scares (such as avian flu, Y2k, SARS, etc.) in addition to the number of reported deaths related to each scare. All of this information is plotted along a timeline from 2000 to 2009, and the graphic elicits quite an impact on the viewer.

While it's impossible to verify some of the numbers used here, this image got me thinking: should we hold the media to be ethically responsible for some of these public scares? After all, they are the ones who publish these stories time and time again, keeping these topics in the public consciousness. How could any of us NOT be paranoid about the H1N1 virus lately when it is constantly in the news? I find it difficult to ascertain just how worried I should be, if the flu warnings are legit or if they have been blown completely out of proportion.

I think the media is at least partly responsible. I don't think it's fair to lay the whole thing on journalists, because this kind of information originates from scientists, doctors, and other public health officials. But the preponderance of not just unbiased information but fear-based warnings surely warrant some journalistic blame. Stories about H1N1 and the like feed off of each other; the media preys on the worrying public to devour any new information they have to offer. This stuff sells papers, or garners website hits, so it keeps getting published.

The Tiger Woods Drama

When I first read about Tiger Woods’ auto accident I really didn't think much of it. Like most I just thought it was a minor car crash and that's that. However the story continued to unfold and went from a simple car accident to a major scandal involving adultery. As I write this post the number of women Woods has been linked to is up to six.
Woods's original message on his website mentioned the crash and that any publication that his wife abused him was false and malicious. Fair enough I thought. More importantly he insisted it was a private matter and in the beginning. I agreed 100%. Then as the story continued to unfold I quickly changed my mind on the matter. I have great respect for Tiger Woods as a golfer and as a philanthropist. He has incredible work ethic and has done great things for charity. He has also been looked upon as a role model for many and a deity for what is great about golf itself as a sport. In other words many fans believe golfers are moral upstanding people who don't get into trouble like other professional athletes. That is what bothers me, and I believe many other fans of Tiger Woods.

Woods has made hundreds of millions of dollars in endorsement money not only for his golfing skills, but for his picture-perfect image as a moral dedicated family man. The fact that Woods has made so much money on his image I believe is why there are so many people displeased with his actions. It is also why his wall of privacy has imploded. Loyal fans that have purchased products from his endorser's are feeling cheated themselves along with his spouse. Woods has tarnished the image of golf and what it represents. It’s popularity has been dented and quite possibly irreparably damaged from this incident. Unfortunately for those fans this scandal could quite possibly make Woods more popular and watched by people than ever before.

Examiners

Real journalists objectively report stories of interest, and are not paid by the "click".  But examiner.com  pays its reporters, called "Examiners", one cent  for every unique page view.

The examiner.com derives from a newspaper, The San Francisco Examiner.  The Denver-based company has actively recruited many writers through viral networking by paying referral fees.

If a newspaper paid reporters based on advertising revenue generated by their stories,  would mainstream journalists cry foul?

Paying writers more if they trump-up facts proposes more ethical dilemmas. 


http://www.writersweekly.com/the_latest_from_angelahoycom/005364_05132009.html
 

A Death In Tehran

I watched a Frontline episode that showed a video of a woman protester being shot in the back. Her name was Neda Agha Soltan.

During the July 2009 presidential elections state media announced an early result of the election in Ahmadinejad’s favor. Later the media confirmed that Ahmadinejad did win the election by a record breaking 63% margin. This election result caused many of Iran’s citizens to take to the streets in protest.

Immediately government riot police on motorcycles tried to take back the streets by the use of violence. All the while people using camera phones recorded the events as they took place. Frontline commented that this was a new form of resistance used by the protesters. A new way of immediately showing the world what was happening to the Iranian citizens and how they were being treated by their government.

Neta was part of the protesters and understood the dangers of taking to the streets but decided to join the crowds. As she walked with her music teacher she was shot in the back by a member of the Bisiji, a private so-called “paramilitary” hired by the Iranian government to suppress protesters. While she lay bleeding it was all captured on a camera phone and ultimately uploaded to the Internet. The first news agency to show the clip was CNN. CNN showed the clip while blocking out Neta’s face in order to show her respect. However Frontlines episode showed the same clip without blocking out her face.

The clip showing this woman dying in the street was difficult to watch however it was released with good justification. Showing her face was significant because it seemed as if she was looking at the person filming and saying to them “keep filming don't stop”. In other words in a way it seemed as if she knew that she was a martyr. Neta was a part of a major demonstration and she was a willing participant of the uprising. Neta knew that the supreme leader of Iran essentially gave the green light to the Bisiji members to open fire on citizens participating in protests.

Frontline says this was the most-watched video making it outside of Iran. The power of the video shows how Iran could not hide or spin this particular incident. Its power was so overwhelming that it shows in a brief instant the type of suppression the people of Iran must live with.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/deathintehran/view/

The sorry state of medical news reporting

While we often give great attention to the way journalists report about politics and major issues of the day, there is a topic that often seems to fly under the radar - health & medical news. I'm referring to the many stories about possible new cures or treatments for various bodily ailments such as cancer, back pain, or heart disease. Frequent watchers of the network morning news shows, like "Today" or "Good Morning America" would probably notice that at least once a week, they will discuss a supposed miracle cure, promising new pill, or apparent breakthrough medical treatment.

I've often sensed that the quality and tone of these stories leaves a lot to be desired. The network morning shows, and often major newspapers also, run stories that seem to promise sudden alleviation of suffering through a wonder-drug or surgical procedure. While it's understandable to want to give hope to people dealing with chronic pain or serious disease, more often than not, the reported story over-emphasizes the apparent benefits of the new treatment and underplays the real risks, costs, and uncertainty about efficacy.

A recent segment in NPR's "On The Media" looked at this issue and discussed the rather shoddy state of medical reporting (at this link). They spoke with a journalism professor at the University of Minnesota who has been tracking and evaluating health/medical stories for several years, rating them on how well they meet some basic criteria for reliable reporting. This professor, Gary Schwitzer, publishes a website that is very worth reading - HealthNewsReview.org and writes a related blog that analyzes the quality of medical stories from several major news outlets. Giving each story a rating (1-5 stars), his reviews give a long-term average rating of roughly 2 stars, essentially considering the state of medical journalism as generally disappointing (roughly equivalent to C-minus for a school grade).

While the "ethics" of this situation are not obvious, it seems to me that it's another instance where the American news media is letting us down through their bad habits and loose standards. Rather than giving accurate and objective analysis of new medical findings and treatment options, they pander to our fears and hopes by suggesting great promise where little is warranted. It's especially disconcerting because of the importance of our being well-informed citizens during the health-care overhaul debate currently raging.

It is easier to claim not having received free stuff than to disclose having received them

It may be more practical for FTC to encourage bloggers to claim not having received free products or payment instead of asking them to disclose having received free things.

FTC’s new disclosure rule tries to educate and protect consumers. It requires bloggers who endorse certain merchandise or services to disclose when they receive free product or payment from the related company. But the rule is difficult to implement because it is impossible to oversee millions of bloggers. FTC also faces possible lawsuits, as Professor Ryan mentioned in class. Since the First Amendment protects individuals’ freedom of speech, FTC may be challenged by whether or not it can force bloggers to make the disclosure.

A possible solution is to do the opposite. Instead of asking bloggers to disclose when they have received free product and/or financial payment, FTC should encourage bloggers who are not sponsored or paid by anyone to claim they are independent. The latter approach, I called “the positive approach”, has several advantages:

First, it is almost always easier for people to announce the things they feel proud of rather than to disclose the things they don’t feel proud of. The best ethical rules are the ones which approach the positive side of human nature.

Second, in making the “positive approach”, the FTC can avoid possible lawsuits relating to freedom of speech.

Lastly, when bloggers state that they are not sponsored by any corporations or advertisers, it reminds naïve readers like me that other bloggers who do not make similar claims may be endorsed by their sponsors. Regardless, it is still possible to believe a blogger’s reviews or recommendations even though we know he/she receives free things from the related companies. For example, even though I am aware that Oprah Winfrey may receive free product samples from many companies, I still trust her judgment and objectivity when she recommends “Oprah’s favorite things” in her show, magazine and website. However, generally speaking, readers will be more skeptical when they know that a blogger has received free product and/or payment from the related company.

In what ever form the newspaper is way ahead of the alternatives

I decided to take this past week and change the way I got my information on the world around me. I only read newspapers both in their original form and online.

I did not listen to the radio on the way to work, watch television news or opinion shows at any point, follow blog accounts and, of course, there was not one moment of "social networking". I choose my national paper the Globe and Mail, an American paper The New York Times, and three other papers from different countries depending on my mood.

http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/

From different world news organizations, I followed four main news items to get a benchmark. Two were political. The trip of my Prime Minister to Asia and President Obama's Afghan strategy. The other two were new reports of the (un)employment numbers in all countries and climate issues relating to the upcoming Copenhagen summit.

Here are some of my observations.

It was quieter. No one was grand standing on the TV in loud tones to try to show that their opinion was better. I didn't wade through blogs where the writers rely on ALL CAPS to emphasize their point nor did I waste my time on sarcastic opinions of someone I don't know.

Marshall McLuhan was accurate. "The medium is the message."

The news was laid out in a way that the editor of the particular paper felt reflected the urgency of story. When you read accounts of the stories, different countries took angels that were missed when you limited yourself to one location.

Reading only newspapers also reduced words that have value judgements affixed to them. Certainly not all, but most articles were written without the hot button and teaser syndrome that so plagues the television media. It's a layer of human drama that isn't real yet it is added to the story as if it were.

I understand the instant gratification scenario. The sound bite or 140 character "tweet" has filled that desire to a T. But is it really gratifying to waste time and thought on a story when the information is in its infancy and is partial truth and/or innuendo?

I have no problem paying for online newspaper services when that day comes to pass. It was a great exercise and I highly recommend it.

Tech Blogosphere Strike Again

I have had my to do's with tech blogs and the bloggers that support them. It seems that in a world of one million and one blogs there is an ever increasing pressure to garner attention by breaking a big story at any cost. With the latest launch of a new microsoft product there was much to do about this black screen death sentence that was a factory defect. It seems that Prevx posted in a blog that there was a "big" problem with this black screen phenomena and put out the buyer beware. Prevx has since come out and claimed that maybe some information was "taken out of context" in there blog and claim to have apologized to microsoft. This is just another example where basic fact checking and diligent journalism would have prevented a stain on Prevx's reputation. There has has has to be a push for more clarity and ethics in these blogs.

http://www.tgdaily.com/software-features/44918-black-screen-of-death-outfit-slammed-by-users

Tiger Woods and Media Ethics

Are we now living in a world where big stories will more often than not be misreported by media outlets before being corrected? That's the contention of Eric Deggans of the National Sports Journalism Center, and there are several ethics matters to consider that relate to issues we've discussed all semester.

First is Deggans' feeling that the story "feels like a bit of a turning point; the moment when we accept that today’s sped-up, always-on media environment virtually guarantees that controversial, confusing stories like Woods’ car accident will be misreported in the early hours and corrected as time goes on."

I am hopeful that this won't always be the case, but it certainly seems to be the way things are going. One version of a story breaks, more facts come out, some of which contradict the early version, the story is revised and so forth. It's hard to know who this serves. Certainly not the players in the story. Not the reader, apart from perhaps titillating them. And ultimately not most media outlets themselves, aside from perhaps getting some web hits and being able to say they were on top of it.

I say most because clearly outfits like TMZ exist solely for this purpose. And that's the second question. Should national outlets like USA Today and The New York Times even be trying to compete with the Enquirer on stories like this? This one is a little more complicated because the initial reports implied Woods had been seriously hurt. But if we knew from the jump this was ultimately about an affair and a woman scorned, is that something really worth the attention of the Gray Lady? Conversely, I suppose, with gossip the only thing you can sell nowadays, can they afford to ignore it?

The whole thing seems like such a strange exercise. Yet, I'm not sure how it's to be avoided entirely. A story breaks. People are Twittering. How long can your paper wait to publish what it knows, even if all it knows amounts to little more than rumor? It depends on the nature of the publication of course, but even for the so-called Mainstream Media generally, it's hard to ignore the early rumblings entirely, wrongheaded though they may be. But the question of who that policy ultimately serves remains.

The newest media crashers

White House Crashers or not, the Salahis have certainly made their appearance known in the media during the past week. I hate to draw even more attention to them, but why are these folks getting interviews? And why are the media outlets lobbing them softballs?

The couple was on the Today Show this morning, and Matt Lauer pointedly asked who invited them, and they tap-danced around their answer. I didn't see the show, but read the NYT article, and this line of questioning doesn't appear to go much further.

Shouldn't it be fairly easy to determine if a couple was invited to the White House? This is getting drawn out to balloon-boy proportions, and I am frustrated to see more reality show hopefuls provoke the media into dragging the public's attention away from more important stories.

What Happens When the Truth Becomes Privatized

This week we are confronted with the frightening prospect that Comcast may take ownership of NBC. Of course, such events do not occur instantaneously, but the fact that this deal is in the works should alarm anybody who cares about diversity and the value of news as a public good. In less than three decades, we have seen media ownership consolidate from fifty corporations down to about six. One of those six is Comcast and it is truly gargantuan. We have grown complacent in America as we have watched our major industries transform into oligopolies. Even the most aggressive application of anti-trust laws seems to yield disappointing results. When I think about the breaking up of the Bell System (that used to be the phone company for all you youngsters out there), I am reminded of a scene in the movie, Terminator II, when the newer terminator is frozen with liquid nitrogen and shatters into tiny fragments only to reconverge back into its original condition. AT&T represents the corporate version of that phenomenon. More and more, our vital systems are falling into the hands of conglomerates so big that their failure, whether it's financial or fiduciary, would have catastrophic consequences.

My main interest here is the fiduciary part. As a society, we are dependent on news organizations to provide us with the information we need to exercise our responsibilities as free citizens. We have to be able to trust them. In recent years, we have seen a shift in priorities from providing information towards providing entertainment. If this trend continues, and there is little reason to expect it will not, our legacy media sources will not be able to perform their fiduciary responsibilities, at least not to the consumers. In fact, the consumers will cease to be consumers and instead will become product to be sold to advertisers. If you think the internet will come to the rescue, think again. Comcast is a major provider of internet service. With the acquisition of NBC, they will have additional muscle with which to fight against net neutrality. Some might recall that Comcast ran afoul of the FCC back in 2008 when they tried to block file sharing.

The world we live in today is a complicated one in which events happen very quickly. Globalization has created a set of conditions that require us to care about what is happening in the most remote places. That means that we need news which provides us with quality context and analysis. How can we control our own destiny if we are merely products?

It seems that every time there is a major development in technology, there is a process of corporate growth that results in a condition in which the harm that large enterprises cause out weigh the goods they provide. The Reform Era addressed the excesses of the industrial revolution. One hundred years later, we need to come to terms with the information age.

ABC received thousands of complaints about American Idol’s Adam Lambert. His performance on the American Music Awards last Sunday night included him groping a female dancer, kissing a male band mate and shoving a male performer’s face into his groin. ABC claims they didn’t know anything about this and Lambert admits it was a last minute change. ABC edited the broadcast before it aired on the West coast three hours later. Lambert is calling this discrimination. He said if it were two women there wouldn’t be so much controversy. He refers to Britney and Madonna’s kiss on the MTV Music Awards in 2003, however the Britney/Madonna kiss was on cable network MTV and his performance was on a major network. Maybe he lacked taste considering the young audience the AMA attracts (I heard about this from my 13-year-old niece) but I have to agree with him. Our culture is O.K. with risqué performances between two women but have a lot less tolerance when it comes to men.

So is ABC at the mercy of what Americans can tolerate, or are they discriminating because he is gay? By censoring Lambert's performance ABC is saying the content of his performance is wrong and telling us that free expression has a limit.

The Fall and Rise of Media

This isn't about ethics, per se, but David Carr's latest column makes anyone contemplating the field think long and hard about that choice. Ostensibly, Carr is lamenting the "feeling of age, of a coming sunset...in publishing." Media giants are falling, and some new paragidigm will join, if not replace them. Internet killed the print media star, and so forth. The theme is certainly nothing new, but Carr's immense talent and gift for words makes the take seem uniquely his.

Saying it's a lament is selling the column short, however. Yes, there is a bit of nostalgia and remorse, but also marveling at the Internet-driven media that has challenged the titans of the industry, and approval of a Google-like efficiency that the old paradigm lacked. But ultimately, it all comes down to this: Those of us who covered media were told for years that the sky was falling, and nothing happened. And then it did.

Indeed. At the end of the piece, Carr alludes to the entrepreneurs and young people who will surely reshape the industry; energetic youngsters who, armed with the tools of the day, will create smarter, better, faster media outlets. But while Carr says that what might appear to be a desolate landscape is for these budding journalists a New York media riding a "fresh, ferocious wave," one can't help but think there is institutional knowledge that we invariably lose when the Associated Press, The Times and others layoff longtime journalists.

In this respect, the piece does make me consider ethics. How will they change when the movers and shakers don't understand why it's so important to spell names correctly, or not to accept swag, or not to have coverage determined by business interests.

Perhaps that's insulting or dismissive or unnecessarily pessimistic. But I think it's very real, and it's the reason that all semester I've advocated looking at some of these issues through the lens of the current reality. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic might seem an overly alarmist analysis of the current media predicament, but with every layoff it seems just a bit more prescient.

Online Writing Resources

Dear Classmates,

While working on improving my English writing, I found some online writing resources. Maybe you are interested to have a look:

1)William Strunk's The Elements of Style: http://www.bartleby.com/141/

2)The online Writing Lab at Purdue University:
Purdue’s website provides pointed advice on the writing process, professional, technical and job search writing, general academic writing, and creative writing, etc. It includes condensed guides to MLA, APA, and Chicago documentation styles. It also offers information and numerous exercises for students looking to improve grammar and punctuation. http://owl.english.purdue.edu

"Tiger needs to explain everything, now" Why?

"Tiger needs to explain everything, now" says Steve Elling CBS Sports.com Senior Writer. http://www.cbssports.com/golf/story/12592105/tiger-needs-to-explain-everything-now.
This is the view of  many other journalists and the public. Tiger Woods' car recently crashed into a fire hydrant and a neighbor's tree in the wee-hours of the morning just after he left his house. Tiger Woods still hasn't given any explanation for the incident to the police the media. Speculations about the cause are being made, including his alleged extra marital affair.
The fancinating aspect of this story is that for the first time, the media has not been able to access the so much craved insider information of this very public figure and his immediate family. Not even the Police has been able to access the information sofar.  The media feels that Tiger Woods is denying the public  information it has a right to know. One wonders whether or not Tiger Woods' First Amendment Constitutional rights are being violated; or whether Tiger Woods' rights cannot take precedence over his status as a public figure, and therefore has no right to withhold information that the public requires of him. 
It may only be necessary that he release an explanation for this accident to the media if any criminal charges are filed against him, but sofar this is unlikely because he has been cleared of  any alcohol or other crime-related involvement at this time. It's at his own discretion that he may disclose the cause of the accident to the public and the media, but he shouldn't feel obligated to do so. His choice to withhold this information may be for the safety and privacy of his  family- safety from tabloid and traditional media gossip.

Blogs Got Hits and CBS Got a Black Eye!

Social networking’s many communications platforms are combining to create a new egalitarianism in news coverage, analysis, interpretation and reporting. At issue in the first part of the article is the legitimacy of blogs and their value or not. Quickly dismissed by traditional media with a patronizing tone, bloggers today are much more read and trusted than many of the traditional media producers, writers and newscasters are. To argue that there is not a vetting process for blogs and blogging is to miss the point. The issue is one of trust and transparency. Bloggers have no inherent financial gain for slanting the news, make their partisanship clear, and are aggressive about finding the essence, the truth of a story. Simply put, bloggers are more trusted, therefore more read, than traditional media in its many forms. Memogate, referred in the article, is clear proof that media luminaries including Dan Rather have no conviction about presenting as fact sources that have never been vetted. The irony of traditional media attacking bloggers yet one of their own allowing unvetted material to make it to 60 Minutes, potentially doing irreparable harm to a person’s livelihood, regardless of the victim’s political affiliation, makes blogging’s unvetted masses emerge all the more trustworthy. Memogate may have paradoxically propelled President George W. Bush to the White House as millions of Americans were enraged by the lack of ethics, and this clear violation of the public trust fueled his supporters with a renewed zeal.

The second segments of the article discuss access of the press to then Vice President Dick Cheney and the ability of traditional media to constrict dissenting voices. Clearly the ethics of restricting the New Your Times from enough access to the Administration, despite this papers’ renowned anti-Republican stance, is unethical. In keeping with the precepts of the Constitution and the ethics of democracy as defined as ideals by the United States, limiting access of dissenting voices just drives up the distrust of the public and the media. All of this tends to make entire branches of the government more insular, and in so doing they become less likely to concentrate on their service to other departments and citizens. It is unethical to limit access of dissenting voices from government-funded jets just for the comfort or convenience of the politician. Authenticity, transparency and trust are supposed to make the life of a politician, certainly a Vice President, continuously accountable. The Vice President is there to serve the people, not for the press and people to serve them. By in effect denying access, even if personally uncomfortable and even with traditional media they may not agree with, the Vice President is denying democracy what it needs to move forward. Truth and transparency and the fuel of democracy, to deny that through being highly selective about access is to limit its potential to keep a country’s politicians focused on serving rather than using their positions to serve themselves.

A Tale of Two Papers

Journalists and local newspapers can help serve justice or worsen injustice. Articles in Florida and Tennessee are cases in point. Last week, the Naples News noted that police were jailing innocent people because of identity theft and false identification, highlighting a growing problem the criminal justice system should address. In contrast, without obvious public benefit or interest, the Johnson City Press two years earlier parroted a sensational police press release leading to shame and suicide.

Johnny Smith, a 38 year old Naples Florida football coach, spent three days in jail because a battered woman he never met said the man who attacked her a year earlier was “Johnny Smith.” Aisling Smith of the Naples News reported that court records list 209 cases involving Johnny Smiths, and that the victim’s sister believes the woman gave a fake name and pointed to a random photo to protect the real attacker, her boyfriend.

In July, Anthony Falangas spent a day in jail after being arrested for felony fraud attempting to fill a prescription for opiate drugs. According to his attorney, Farangas was at work on June 26 when some one else used his stolen identification card at a pharmacy. The imposter fled the scene when the pharmacist phoned to verify the prescription. The store’s surveillance video was not working that day, and no physical evidence implicates Farangas, who now faces his fifth court appearance and up to five years in prison.

According to the Naples News police beat reporter Ryan Mills, the paper requests police reports every day -- including arrests and mugshots. The paper printed booking photos of Smith and Farangas. Although Mills faults the victim’s misstatements for Johnny Smith’s arrest, he told this reporter that something was “fishy or obviously false” in Smith’s case, and “it seems fair to ask why Jacksonville authorities didn’t connect the dots sooner.”

When asked about reporting on arrests based on no physical evidence where misidentification has not been ruled out, Mills said “Law enforcement should certainly be looking for physical evidence, but it would not be appropriate for them to withhold public records from us due to a lack of physical evidence.”….." I think as the local media, our job is to report the truth as best we know it.”

The Naples News served justice. It balanced public’s interest in knowing about arrests, problems with arrests and rights of those arrested. Naples highlighted the need for the justice system to grapple with the growing problem of identity theft and false identification putting innocent people in jail.

In 2007, the Police Department of Johnson City, Tennessee, released names, addresses and mugshots of 40 men arrested by undercover officers in a lewd conduct sting operation. Charges included disorderly conduct, indecent exposure and if a suspect touched an officer, sexual battery.

The Johnson City Press, a local paper, printed the names and photos the next day under the headline "Park sex sting nets 40 - Men targeted in investigations in two city parks." Of the 40 men arrested, several were prominent in the community. One soon shot himself to death.

Q-notes.com reporter Matt Comer criticized the Johnson City Press coverage:

"John Mosier, a local psychologist...says the community has not looked favorably on how the sting was reported. ‘People are in shock and disbelief, all across the political and philosophical spectrum,’ he stated. ‘Even fundamentalist Christians took issue with the way the event was reported.’ Calling the reporting of the sting ‘a widely perceived act of social injustice,’ Mosier says community response has ranged from calling the reporting ‘unconscionable’ to ‘sensationalistic.’”

In publicizing suspects' alleged sex crimes, Johnson City Police turned a park problem into injustice, costing lives and reputations. By covering the embarrassing details and printing names and photos, the Johnson City Press worsened that injustice for no compelling public interest.

To Screen or Not to Screen?

The new guidelines pushing the age of routine mammography testing in women to age 50 (instead of age 40) has resulted in a massive public outcry. Many media outlets have done nothing to assuage this negative reaction, and have in fact served to amplify it by printing stories slanting toward the public's disbelief. I don't think people are necessarily wrong to feel anger at the sudden shift in screening guidelines, but I do think both sides of the story should be discussed.

One of the few articles that delved into the reasoning behind the decision the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) made is worth a read. The author explains the risks of overdiagnosis--a real problem in this country--as well as false positives and overtreatment. We have been conditioned that more information is always better (thank you, Google), without properly identifying the repercussions of the true value, or lack of value, of that additional information.

Part of the problem is that issues such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment are difficult to study. However, just because we can't easily measure their effects on our quality of life, does not mean we should simply brush them off. This may make our decision on whether or not to get screened more confusing, but we deserve the option to understand the full complexity of our decision.

Like her or not, Newsweek was wrong to Run Palin Photo

Newsweek should not have run the photo of Sarah Palin wearing shorts on the cover of their magazine. While the photo was completely appropriate for a Runner's World story, it was completely inappropriate in the context of a story for a news magazine. Combined with the headline "How do you solve a problem like Sarah," the package was obviously placed to make Palin look idiotic and to sell magazines. As for the argument that Palin should have known better since she posed for the photographs, what abut the argument that news outlets should act responsibly?

Unfortunately when a formerly reputable magazine like Newsweek continues to take the low road, they bring down the rest of the media too. The buzz becomes, "the media has no scruples, rather than Newsweek has no scruples". Sadly, this is yet another example of Newsweek continuing to cross the line from serious journalism into the entertainment world. Furthermore, the photo was sexist and plays into the divisiveness of politics displayed in the media. Where are the photos of male democrats running in skimpy shorts?

Nigerian Follow Up

There has been some other news coming out of Nigeria in reference to my last blog post. If you recall there was new legislation being put into effect that was highly suspected as empowering the government to censor the media. There has been a response from the government where they state "said the bill was not aimed at gagging the media, but to enhance it as well as the wellbeing of practitioners." another interesting quote was stated as "“Every profession has ethics. This is the stage where we want contributions from everybody, not condemnation. We need inputs from the media. It is only unfortunate that people say it is about killing the media. Why would anybody gag the media in 2010? It has been committed to a committee headed by Prince Tony Momoh. Channels Television was closed down the other time. That shouldn’t happen again,” this is something that I am going to continue to watch. Working in and out of these countries I have a vested interest in knowing that the information I can find and consume is accurate and fair. This will be a step back for Nigeria (a country that has made considerable progress) if it passes.

http://www.thisdayonline.com/nview.php?id=160443

It’s a bad practice to name rape victims' names in reporting

While reading our textbook, I found that some newsrooms regularly name rape victims' names. According to Professor Geneva Overholser, naming names is essential for stories’ “accuracy, credibility, and fairness,” is helpful for the victims’ recovery, and can “serve society as a whole” (p. 230). I don’t buy this argument. Most readers just want to know some background information about the victim, such as sex, age, and school or community. We don’t have to know the full name of the victim. Giving the victim’s name may make a report a little bit more “accurate and credible” than the one without the name, but I cannot see how using a victim’s name would make a report more fair or serve society and the victim better. On the contrary, there are many reasons that, until the victims are willing to be identified, the media should not name their names and reveal the explicit details of the rape.

Making the victims’ names and rape details public will very likely traumatize victims a second time, making their recovery more difficult and possibly causing depression and suicide in victims. Based on the National Center for Victims of Crime (NCVC), nearly one-third of all rape victims develop Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The symptoms of rape-related PTSD include re-experiencing the trauma, social withdrawal, avoidance behaviors and actions, and increased physiological arousal characteristics. When the media reports a sex crime with explicit details and the victim’s name, the coverage and its consequence -- the attentions and comments the victim received – will become stimuli and clues that constantly remind the victim about the rape. This will worsen the symptoms of PTSD and make the victim more withdrawn from society. Many rape victims are very vulnerable. Data from NCVC shows that, compared with non-victims, rape victims are three times more like to become depressed and four times more like to have suicide ideation and 13 percent of them actually attempt suicide. Rape traumatizes the victims, as the crime violates the victims, humiliates them, and makes them feel a loss of control. When the media described the explicit details of the crime and/or used victims’ names without their consent, it very likely brings victims feelings of being humiliated and out-of- control. A bad reporting is almost as damaging as the crime, in terms of violating the victims.

If reporting victims’ names became a rule, many victims would not report sex crimes because they were afraid of the second-time harm caused by the reports. I agree with what Professor Benedict said, “As long as people have any sense of privacy about sexual acts and the human body, rape will, therefore, carry a stigma” (Ethics in Journalism, p. 230). She also said, “To name a rape victim is to guarantee that whenever somebody hears her name, that somebody will picture her in the act of being sexually tortured. To expose a rape victim to this without her consent is nothing short of punitive” (http://www.poynter.org/
column.asp?id=36&aid=4010). As long as the stigma towards rape still exists, the practice of naming the victim’s name will discourage victims to report the crime. These kinds of reports indirectly harm the victims and help the offenders.

General speaking, society as a whole should bring comfort to rape victims and help them recover, not expose their most vulnerable moment to the public and put salt on their wounds. Before the victims receive counseling and agree to be identified, journalists should be very careful of how to report the sex crime, at a minimum they should not include the explicit details of the rape and the victim's name.

"Senator John Kerry's daughter Alexandra arrested for suspicion of DUI"... So what?

The New York Daily News carried this article in its "Politics" section. That sends a red flag. It's evident that Alexandra Kerry's being a daughter to Senator John Kerry, a public figure, makes her arrest for suspicion of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) worth media attention.
Would it have made a difference if she was just an ordinary influence? Yes.  She is being featured not because of her own behavior, but because of her father's public status. One realizes how much family members of public figures cannot escape the media spotlight even though they may try to avoid it. This puts them under pressure to live to the public's expectations which can be very high, unrealistic and unattainable.
 Click this link to read more...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/11/19/2009-11-19_senator_john_kerrys_daughter_alexandra_arrested_for_suspicion_of_dui.html

Revive the "Fairness Doctrine"?

A recent Op-Ed piece in the Boston Globe brought up the question of possibly bringing back the so-called Fairness Doctrine. This was an FCC regulation that required radio and TV broadcasters to strive for giving roughly equal time to both/all sides of various political issues and topics. It was established in 1949 but revoked in 1987. The crux of the article is whether the doctrine is needed to restore some measure of equilibrium in the media world.

On it's face, the Fairness Doctrine is one of those admonitions that seems innocuous and not necessary - like saying "play nice" to children, which is probably why it was dropped. However, as so often happens when rules are removed, people take advantage by pushing the boundaries of appropriate behavior and statements. The article's author believes that the rise of ideology-driven talk radio is directly linked to the removal of this doctrine, and I think he's right. The doctrine doesn't bar anyone from expressing their views, but just requires the radio or TV station to give some time to opposing views.

In many ways, I think it's fair to say that dropping the Fairness Doctrine had similar consequences to the banking deregulation that occurred in the late 1990s, such as rescinding the Glass-Steagall Act, which for over sixty years had barred commercial banks from getting into investment banking. This action is considered one of the key factors that led to the financial implosion of the past two years. Both actions eliminated a rule that had become considered antiquated and unnecessary. However, the human tendency to take advantage of loose guidelines has occurred in both the banking world and broadcast media. Just as many banks started selling derivative investment options linked to excessively risky sub-prime mortgages, the lifting of the Fairness Doctrine essentially meant that "the gloves were off" in the derivative realm of news analysis and discussion, which made it possible for strongly-opinionated commentators on radio and TV to become widely heard and followed.

I would like to see this doctrine brought back into the media market, as a way to have some true "fair and balanced" examination of the complex public issues we face. Unfortunately, that goal doesn't seem likely, given the great income and attention that the commentators earn for themselves and their networks.

Sarah Palin = Herpes

Just when you think she's gone, BAM! There she is.

Sarah Palin, the nincompoop we've all come to love to hate. Once again, her mouth has gotten the best of her, and I'm sure some ridiculous excuse for the flub will soon follow.

This past Wednesday, Sarah Palin was a guest on Fox News, talking about Iran. When giving her expert opinion on what should be done to ensure Iran doesn't nuke Israel, she proceeded to talk about President Ahmadinejad and...Iraq. They do border on the map, so maybe that's why she confused the two. Must be, since Iran and Iraq share nothing more than the three matching letters in their name. Sarah Palin is an easy target for my question, but how do we control (or attempt to control) cultural insensitivity in the media? How do we educate the public, and do away with unfounded cultural stereotypes that do nothing but tarnish a country's reputation? How do we correct people when they use incorrect terms like "America" or "latino"? If the US prides itself on having one of the most influential and open-forum media on the planet, how are we not more careful to correctly inform our public? When a guest like Sarah Palin goes uncorrected on the air, how can a network pride itself on bringing the most accurate information to its audience?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM7Xhg0WIbU&feature=player_embedded

The Networks Needs a Reality Check!

If the viewing, listening, reading or surfing public thinks the mass media cannot be trusted, then it is high time they (the media) get their acts together. Perhaps this perception begun as a result of the news not being presented as it should be – in an unbiased and objective manner. This means that the mass media basically all belong to the profession of journalism wherein their main goal is to provide the information to the public at large. In doing so, this means that the news should be presented “as is” and unblemished. The moment the news reader or reporter suddenly incorporates his or her own opinion that stops being the news but a talk show that discusses ideas opinions and concerns.

The article itself is a case in point when the initial paragraph stated: “There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network news, and one of them, I'm more convinced than ever, is that our viewers simply don't trust us. And for good reason. (Goldberg, 2002)” This may even be applicable to the Internet news now when people would stop surfing the Internet news because they are already feeling some of the biases of the reporters and even the media giants. Whatever take the media has, it is up to them to get their acts together and start ”bringing the news as it is” and not how they want it to be to present something sensational or increase subscription. Most profession have their code of ethics that dictates how the professional should conduct himself or herself. For sure, the journalists and reporters have their set of ethos and it important for them to start heeding the words of their code so the trust of the public will be regained.

Bibliography:
Goldberg, B. (2002) Networks need a reality check. The Wall Street Journal [Internet] January 2. Available from: [Accessed 18 Nov. 2009].

Oh, Sarah

This story will probably inappropriately dominate the media news cycle in the coming days, so forgive me. The issue is that Palin and her supporters are alleging that Newsweek's cover is sexist because it uses a rather out-of-context picture of Palin -- originally taken for Runner's World -- on the cover to accompany a feature that pretty much eviscerates the politician.

(See the cover and Newsweek's statement here.)

Before we even address the charges of sexism, there are a lot of questions here. Is it unethical for Newsweek to use this photo? Sure, Palin posed for it, but certainly never expected it to be used in this c0ntext. This speaks to the conversation we had in class last week, where the consensus seemed to be that you shouldn't take stock photos and use them out of context.

I would argue that this is a little different. First, and perhaps most importantly, Palin is unquestionably a public figure, so those rules don't necessarily apply. Second, Palin voluntarily stood for this bizarre photo, with legs and BlackBerry and flags and all. This fits with the theme of Newsweek's story and bolsters its contention that Palin is very much into empty symbols and constructing her own rather bankrupt personal narrative. Palin (and her supporters) was fine with the leggy photo when it fit that narrative she wanted to project, but now that's being used for a critical story, it's sexist. There's something strange in that logic.

As the Columbia Journalism Review points out here, it's also a logistical fallacy to suggest that a photo is sexist just because it shows a little leg. More sexist than the photo. Gawker adds that Palin is fine with using her sexuality when it benefits her, but then quickly hides behind it when it does not.

The Newsweek cover is many things -- funny, ironic, mean-spirited, clever -- but not inherently sexist.

Nigerian Concern

A few weeks ago I addressed the journalism breakdown in Sudan. Having worked in and out of Africa for years I am consistently concerned towards the human rights situations (and abuses) that tend to arise on that continent. Now the Nigerian government is attempting to pass legislation that will in effect gag the media of that country. As quoted from the daily sun: "The new bill seeks to abolish the Nigerian Press Council and to replace it with a Council whose Chairman would be appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Minister of Information and Communication." This article is taken from a source with limited corroboration, however, I have the tendency to believe that there is a prevalence to conceal the activities of a great number of African governmental organizations. The article went on to quote: "doing nothing in the face of vitriolic criticisms against the press would be to 'encourage a predatory government to forge ahead with the sort of nonsensical bill now before the House of Representative’."

http://www.sunnewsonline.com/webpages/news/national/2009/nov/18/national-18-11-2009-09.htm

Sensationalized Headlines are Bad Business

Last week the New York Post published an AP story about a deer that jumped into a lion exhibit in a Washington D.C. zoo. The headline read “Lion kills baby deer as D.C zoo visitors watch” The AP article says the deer escaped from the lions alive but it couldn't survive it’s injuries so was later euthanized. So yes, the deer was attacked while visitors watched and yes, the deer did die but was not killed in front of visitors as the headline implies.

The New York Post is known for its sensationalized headlines. Compared to the famous “Headless Man in Topless Bar” (1983) the deer/lion headline is mild. We’ve become such syncs of the media it is hard to believe that the Post is still a top selling daily publication. The contorted headlines are the Post and other daily tabloids modus operandi, however these publication are hurting the credibility of all media. As we discussed in the first class trust in the media is on the decline. The Post is one of the longest running daily newspapers in our country but lacks quality journalism and practices questionable ethics. As long as papers publish tabloid style headlines we will continue to question the validity of all news. It seems as if this style of journalism is here to stay. So what, if anything, could bring down the tabloids? Will our insatiable desire for controversy and sensationalism keep papers like the Post in business? I don’t think so and it will all come down to business. Companies realize that portraying themselves positively with their advertising dollars is a way to keep and win customers. When advertisers decided to associate themselves with more reputable news outlets the tabloid newspapers will be in jeopardy. All for the better if it helps the media regain it stature.