What to Cover vs. How It's Covered

After reviewing the West and Hatfill stories, I am left with the opinion that it was the quality of the reporting, or lack thereof, that led to the horrific outcomes that resulted. In both cases there was legitimate news value. One may question the right of a politician to stay in the closet while promoting discriminatory policies. The West and Thurmond examples have this type of angle in common. It has relevance to the public debate over such policy issues if one side is demonstrably at odds with his stated position. The problem with the coverage of West by the Spokesman Review begins with the fact that their purpose was not to bring context to any debate over gay rights, but to destroy the reputation of the mayor. The coverage was intense and it was loaded with prejudices and assumptions. The coverage in the Hatfill case had the same characteristics. Although there was no initial objective of destroying Hatfill's reputation, he became a convenient target. Laziness and the demands of a sweatshop newsroom environment took care of the rest.

The hypotheticals deal, superficially at least, with the sexuality of political figures. The scenarios involve some deeper issues that are worth exploring. When electing public officials, there are certain things that the public has a legitimate right to know. There are questions of character that provide some insight on how a person will govern, how they make decisions, how they treat people. Many successful politicians have had affairs. In Gary Hart's case, it was not the affair, but his arrogant defiance and sense of entitlement that were at issue. I would argue that the case exposed Hart's similarities in attitude with Richard Nixon. Attitude matters. The John Edwards case is a bit more tricky. By the time the story broke, he was no longer a candidate for office. It is difficult to determine how the public may have been served by the exposure of his affair. There was no policy angle. From a personal standpoint he seems lonely and vulnerable. The same argument could be made for Schwartzenegger. There is little about this story that would add to what the voters already know about their governor. Once the story breaks, however, it is incumbent on the media to provide context and analysis in order for the public to make sense of the information they are being given. Finally, I would respect the privacy of a former president and vice-president in such conduct of a homosexual relationship. Sometimes it is better to let a story ride off into the sunset.

Journalistic Restraint and Identity Protection in the Annie Le case

Dan Kennedy's blog led me to this interesting story. It's about the process by which the editor of the New Haven Independent balanced her desire to break news in the Annie Le case with her judgment that the fiancee and ex-girlfriend of suspected killed Raymond Clark III not be named. Interesting choices, interesting process. Absolutely speaks to media ethics. Article is kind of long so I'm just going to link, not paste.

The Girlfriends of Raymond Clark

Ethics Breaches and Public Perception

One interesting part of the Phoenix's great expose of the Mike Barnicle debacle came in one of the story's sidebars. Recounting the Globe's tumultuous year, the story featured a quote for Washington Post writer Howard Kurtz, who said, "It's hard to make an argument that ripping off some jokes is as bad as falsely accusing US troops of a war crime, but in the public consciousness the Globe's difficulties simply become part of the litany of journalistic sins."

There are two parts to this that I find interesting. First, the idea that "journalistic sins," however minor, constitute a breach of the public trust. This seems fair, if not obvious. Though I wonder, in today's media climate, if it's even possible to avoid them completely. With the volume of content produced, and the speed at which it is expected, will there not be some ethical (or at least qualitative) lapses? And if not, will the unoffending copy be instead bland and stale and devoid of any tough decisions? Clearly standards should be followed regardless of climate, and I don't mean to excuse any of these "sins." I just wonder if it's even possible to remain relevant and cutting edge and current — without the occasional blip. (Though as the Barnicle story shows, it is not just the sin but how the sin is handled.)

(As an aside, can a competitive newspaper really insulate itself entirely from the Jack Kelley's of the world? Clearly there was shoddy fact-checking, poor oversight and even a lack of commonsense displayed by his editors. But don't we need to afford a certain amount of latitude and trust to some writers for them to deliver stories from dangerous locales? Mistakes were clearly made in the USA Today's handling of the case, but couldn't something similar very easily happen again? I think it could, and I think now manner or revised standards and procedures will completely protect a paper from this possibility.)

I also wonder two things about the aforementioned public consciousness. Did this notion of journalists as people not to be trusted result wholly from scandals like those of Smith, Barnicle, Glass, Kelley et al, or is that perception more a result of partisan politicking? Hard to know.

Finally, I just wonder if there are more mistakes, more ethical breaches, than in the past. Or if they're just easier to spot, with plagiarism-detection software and the Internet. I just have a hard time believing journalism fell off as drastically as people tend to think.

Changing Times

Hi Franklin and classmates,

Franklin, the scenarios you suggest here are very different from the Frontline piece we saw on Mayor Jim West. I felt the editor of the Spokesman Review acted unethically in the West story because he went to great lengths to “trap” him, even hiring someone to act like an interested lover. The goal of the newspaper in the story certainly was not to prove that West abused his office by notifying his lover of an internship at City Hall, but instead was to try to connect West’s sexuality to pedophilia. (Despite that there was no legitimate evidence to tie him to the earlier abuses). Their paper’s motives were clearly and ethically wrong. They also failed in areas of accuracy and transparency and never gave consideration to holding off on publication.

The scenario you presented about Gary Hart was of Hart’s own doing. He invited reporters to trail him. John Edward’s extra-marital affair directly contradicts his pure political reputation. In these cases there was no witch-hunt by the press.

For better or worse, voters make decisions based on the political and private life of the candidate. Assuming truth, accuracy and confirmation all pass grade, the next consideration is context setting. In the 1960’s President Kennedy’s infidelities were not reported by a press corp that knew about his extra-marital affairs. Times have changed and today the public demands to know all. Any contemporary daily newspaper not reporting a Gary Hart or John Edwards story will certainly lose readers.

Personally, I‘d like to see less celebrity news and more real news. Recently, I was dismayed to see the Kayne West/Taylor Swift story on page 1 of the New York Times, but it was what people were talking about and wanted to read that day. It may not qualify as journalism but it was “news” and for newspapers that are barely keeping their head above water it needs to be front and center.

Can't help but feel a little bit skeptical...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hPQy-KhEiByUr08TSesI5uRN0IHA

Although the life of some of the censorship protocol in the Sudan is always a good sign, this is a development that I will watch with consummate skepticism. Having been in a out of Sudan over the years in a professional capacity, my belief in the Sudanese to relinquish power is fairly jaded. Sudan is a country (in a region) where the ability to gather relevant and timely information is nearly impossible. It is incredibly tribal and at times petty. There is also in interplay of dynamic feelings that relate to both social-economic issues and religious matters. The ultimate question is if the journalists in Sudan understand what it means to be un-biased and to generate work that is truly newsworthy. You have to keep in mind that until this point (assuming that the government is genuine in there free press decree) the local journalist and publications have had a nice scapegoat to deal with any shortcomings. The government censor program was a nice curtain with which they could veil in impropriety or dis-information that they promoted. So as it is a nice development to pull government fingers out of the media pie, I would still be very wary of any press that comes from local journalists.

Two different approaches on mayor’s story

After I watched “Frontline”, I felt sad. The Spokesman Review not only destroyed the mayor’s political career, but also his personal life. As a person who grew up in a conservative culture, and a student majoring in psychology, I understand the mayor’s struggle for his sexual orientation and the deep pain in his soul. I totally agree with professor Herrin’s opinion, that the mayor’s double life was a good story, but the newspaper took the wrong approach.
One of the problems is that the newspaper had two pre-conceived agendas: first, the editors and journalists did not like the mayor, so they wanted to get him out of office; second, they believed that this sensational story would greatly enhance their newspaper’s popularity. So, they just went on without seriously considering the ethical issues. The editors and journalists seemed to be taking a liberal stance, because they supported the rights for homosexuals. But, they used the conservative community’s antipathy toward homosexuals to fulfill their agendas. This indecent crusade not only jeopardized the mayor, but also hurt local gays and the community as a whole. Even though the newspaper could not get enough evidence to prove that the mayor either molested children or abused his power, they continued publishing articles to humiliate him. They worked more on “assertion” than “verification”. This is an example of arrogance, unfairness and lack of responsibility on the media’s part.
But, it doesn’t mean that the newspaper should not cover the mayor’s story at all. I think the best approach would have been telling the mayor that they already knew he accessed “gay.com” and asked him if he could give an open, in-depth interview. During the interview, they could have asked the mayor about his personal life, political career and spiritual struggle. They could have asked him why he did not “come out of the closet”, or why he voted against homosexuals working in public schools, etc. This kind of approach would help public figures, not only mayor Jim West, but also Senator Strom Thurmond and Gary Hart, etc., to live a more honest, integrated life. It would also help the media maintain the kind of respect it should always strive for.

Annie

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Should the media release the names of those arrested for crimes for and they are put on trial? It may be great news for a journalist; however people's reputations hang in the balance. Bob Steele, a Nelson Poynter scholar wrote an article for Poynter online in 2001. In his article “In Pursuit of Ethical Standards” he discusses a case where seven video store customers were arrested for alleged solicitation of male prostitutes. The local police in Johnston Rhode Island held a press conference and released the names and mug shots of the individuals arrested. Consequently that information was published in the local press including the Providence Journal. Unfortunately a few days later one of the arrested men committed suicide.

The Providence Journal was criticized for its reporting, including being called unfair, unjust, and homophobic. The Journal responded that the sex business was an important issue being heavily debated before the arrests took place. The editor Joel Ralston believed that the bust by police was a “tactic to publicize and call attention to a particular crime”. Ralston continued to defend his call to publish the story by mentioning it was their policy to use the names of people arrested in their articles, in other words, “one level of coverage for all”. Ralston said he even used the names of his own papers executives and their family when they were arrested.

Bob Steele makes the argument that reporting the names of individuals who have been arrested is potentially damaging. He says by naming these people you are putting a “scarlet letter” on their fore head. The mark of misconduct is strong and even if the charges are dropped or the individual is found not guilty, that letter is hard or even impossible to erase. I couldn't agree more with Bob Steele. In a court of law you are innocent until proven guilty; in a court of public opinion you are guilty until proven innocent. Even if you're innocent it's too late. Your name is already out there and the press has labeled you guilty whether it was their intention or not.

The local press in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Manatee, and Sarasota Counties repeatedly release names and mug shots of those arrested for various crimes. It's unfair to do this for many reasons. It’s simply too early in the justice process to use the name of someone arrested. What if that person is not the one police are looking for? There have been cases of mistaken identity here locally in recent months. Secondly, the person arrested has not had their day in court. How will they plead? If they plead guilty than it's okay to report. If they plead not guilty they at that point have a trial to determine their fate. When someone is convicted of a crime is when names should be published in the press and not before.

Bob Steele’s article can be read here: http://www.poynter.org/dg.lts/id.3539/content.content_view.htm

Posted by Dennis Hendrickson

I Pondered and Posted and tried to get the George and Dick image out of my head!!

There are two issues here. One speaks to who someone is and the other speaks to how someone acts.

Everyone has gender, race, religion, and sexual orientation as part of who they are. Are any of these things newsworthy? Not so much.

In a culture hung up on labels, we all carry our own biases on any of the above permutations and combinations. We have all judged and have been judged. There is no catch all phrase for any of us, yet we seem determined to boil ourselves and others down to a few major points. Does who you are in life contribute to how you will approach a job? Probably. Do you do the job "less well" because you are male, female, black, white, straight, or gay? Probably not.

Cheating of any sort is different. It's always easier to not get caught no matter what the "cookie jar" is.
When politicians are found out it becomes news - these days more for the salacious details - and it speaks to a character baseline that is noteworthy. Ethics are easy things to espouse until the rubber hits the road.

When we elect someone we give them our proxy to do the job that we can't do. If we know that it is in their character to lie and cheat in their personal life, we can make a determination on whether we are comfortable with them doing that in their public life. So is that newsworthy? Absolutely.

"Whose Life is It Anyway? J.D. Salinger's Secret Love Letters Are For Sale At Sotheby's"

This article was featured in Newsweek May 24th 1999.  In this story a reknowned Writer and Journalist Joyce Maynard is planning to auction a  fan's note she recieved from then 53 year-old  J. D. Salinger, when she was a  Yale freshman, in praise for her article that the New York Times, then, had described as " 'An 18-year-old looks back on life' ". He had "begged her to guard his privacy" when he sent her the note. This had later developed into an affair between Joyce Maynard and J. D. Salinger. 10 months after moving in with him, J. D Salinger kicks Joyce Maynard out. 

27 years later, Joyce Maynard is considering auctioning this fan-note along with other letters she received from J.D. Salinger, during the affair, with this justification: "I'm a single mother of three children," explains Maynard, 45, from her home in California. "I don't feel any embarrassment at the financial reality of being a writer who's not J. D. Salinger." 

This story left me wondering about whether or not Joyce Maynard was in violation of journalistic ethics by;

• Violating the privacy of J.D. Salinger which had begged her not to do. Or was it okay for her to do so after she found out what his motives for this plea had been?
• Auctioning these letters to meet her financial needs even if they would damage J.D Salinger's image and reputation?
• Besides, she was an adult at the time the affair started and I assume that she had  made a conscious decision to leave school and live with him.

Just because things didn't work out between them does not give her reason to use her Journalistic celebrity to auction private information to the public for financial benefit.

   To read more about this article, go to this link...http://www.newsweek.com/id/88375

Freedom of speech is a necessary precondition for the ethical practice of journalism

I appreciate Professor Ryan bringing the case of New York Times v. Sullivan to our class. The Supreme Court's opinion on this case not only provided a guideline for America’s courts and media, but also set a good example for countries that have not had freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Without freedom of speech and of the press, there will be no truth and objectivity in journalism. In autocratic countries, governments control the media. The media is publicly claimed to be “the voice of government”, or even worse, “the voice of a party”. When the media’s loyalty belongs to the dominator, instead of the public, they can arbitrarily fake or distort the fact. For example, even now, the government controlled media in North Korea and China claim that the cause of the Korean War, in the 1950s, was South Korea trying to annex North Korea, and America attempting to invade China. They further claim that the Chinese army got involved in the Korean War because they had to protect their own country. Even for current affairs, news reports have to serve political purpose. For example, when an epidemic disease occurs (AIDS, SARS, H1N1, etc.), whether or not the media should report it, how to report it, and how much can be reported, all depends on the possible “social effect”, not what the truth is. On May 8th this year, China’s official Xinhua New Net published an article titled, “Experts say: when reporting the epidemic situation, the basic principle for the media is how to stabilize the public’s mood.”

In recent years, in some Asian countries, such as China, Vietnam, Laos, and Burma, the change to a commercial society and the emergence of high-tech have begun to hit back at the government and its media. Small commercial newspapers, radio and TV programs, websites and blogs have opened up some space for more “free” media coverage and discussion. But, quite often, when they criticize a local government or an official, the government or official will use their power to punish the media and the journalists. Sometimes, the officials use a more “democratic” way to punish the offenders: sue the media or journalist in court. Unfortunately, most of the time, the media or journalists are penalized by the accusation of “faking the news” or “libel”. Every year, there are journalists being put in jail for their criticism of government or an official. When a country’s political and legal system can not provide a basic safeguard for journalism, it is very hard for journalists in these countries to do their job based on their professional values. That is why I say, freedom of speech and of the press is a precondition for the ethical practice of journalism.

Annie

Hypotheticals to Ponder

Is it ever ethical to report on a public figure’s private sexual relationships and/or preferences?

Like many of you in class last night, I felt exceedingly uncomfortable about most of the Spokesman Review’s decisions regarding their coverage of Mayor Jim West. Their decision to equate pedophilia with homosexuality is beyond justification, and there was something particularly disturbing about the innuendo–laced suggestions for headlines from news-room editors after West lost the election.

By the end of class, many of you seemed to support a policy that would say that reporting on a public figure’s private sexual preferences and/or relationships is unethical unless they are criminal.

Because I am a deep believer in the Socratic method of teaching , I thought I would throw out a few hypotheticals (some true, some fiction) for you to ponder to see if that standard works.

1. Shortly after his death in 2003, the press reports that Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina had fathered a child with his African-American maid when he was 22 years old. Sen. Thurmond was an outspoken proponent of segregation during his term as a United States Senator. Was it ethical to report on this story? Alternatively, was it unethical for the press to not report on this story until after Sen. Thurmond’s death?

2. It’s 1988, and Gary Hart is considered the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for President. Rumors begin to circulate that Hart is having an extramarital affair. In an interview that appears in the New York Times on May 3, 1987, Hart responds to the rumors by daring the press: "Follow me around. I don't care. I'm serious. If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They'll be very bored." Three days later, reporters from the Miami Herald obtain a tip that Hart had spent a night in Bimini with a 29-year old model named Donna Rice. The reporters obtain a photograph of Rice sitting in Hart’s lap. Is it ethical or unethical to report on Hart’s relationship with Rice?

3. Two words. John Edwards.

4. You are the editor of the Boston Globe. The L.A. Times has just published a report that Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is involved in an extra-marital affair with a female body-builder. Do you publish a story about the affair? If you consider the initial L.A. Times report unethical, does the story lose its unethical taint if your paper merely reports on what the L.A. Times is reporting? Isn’t the practical effect of both stories the same thing?


5. And now for a descent into the truly absurd. Seven months after leaving office, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney discover they are deeply in love with each other and embark upon a secret love affair in the mountains of Wyoming. Miraculously, you are the first reporter to obtain proof of their secret relationship. Do you publish it?

As you go through your ethical analysis of these hypothetical situations, examine how and why you come to the conclusions that you do. Is it easier for you to find ethical justifications for publishing a story if the subjects of the stories are people you don’t like?

The slippery slope of image manipulation

Chapter six in our textbook details a variety of ways to fake the news. The section on manipulating photographs (page 110) highlights several dramatic examples of images that have been doctored to influence the viewer in some way or another, and I agree with the authors that this is unprofessional and harmful journalism. Since image manipulation via computers is so easy and common these days, apparently the National Press Photographers Association included the following in their guidelines:

"Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects" (from our text, page 114).

Certainly this is a good step toward mitigating the work of some of the more heavy-handed Photoshoppers out there. However, what about when photographers resist tampering with the finished image and instead manipulate the photo shoot? I'm thinking of the story that emerged last year--right before the presidential election--where photographer Jill Greenberg took a decent picture of John McCain for the cover of Atlantic Monthly (though apparently didn't work too hard to touch up skin/eye issues) but also took photos of him in extremely unflattering strobe lights. The images made him look mean and ghoulish, and while the Atlantic Monthly did not use those photos for their magazine, Greenberg put them on her own website (ironically enough, titled www.manipulator.com).

Technically, Greenberg did not tamper with the images; in fact, she was criticized by some for NOT tampering with them to make McCain look more favorable. She had the right to put her own photos on her own website (where she did end up tampering a bit, I believe). Yet this story still chafes at me (and I'm a staunch Democrat!). Perhaps because McCain was so blissfully unaware of her intentions that it comes across as devious and cruel? Or is it really just pure irresponsible journalism? Even if she isn't actually a journalist?

What are other opinions about this?

When Is It OK to Swear on the Air?

I am not a patron of the Fox News channel, but I do enjoy a 5-minute session replaying their on-air bloopers. As I floundered around YouTube, I came accross yet another episode of questionable journalism. News anchor Ernie Anastos boasted a little too much well-wished enthusiam onto a colleague during a news segment this past Thursday. In the last week, we have also ripped a celebrity apart for stealing another's thunder, wondered if the President's reaction to said event was acceptable, discussed whether it was OK to fist-bump the Dalai Lama, and implored the media gods to just let Anna Nicole rest in peace. But when it comes to the use of profanity in (especially, televised) journalism, are we too quick to judge?

In a nation that censors audio and visual material to children and teens, it is no wonder that audiences become enraged when a reporter lets one slip on a family-oriented network. However, this is also the same society that has no short supply of diarrhea-mouthed teenagers, and adult role models to match. In a world caught between both tangents, when is it acceptable to swear on the air? When is an intended gesture of support a slip-up, when does a remark taken out of context become grounds for a full-on brawl?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss8LDBNcsWc

Banks are Businesses too - Part Two

Follow-up from Common Sense: Banks are Businesses too - September 9, 2009 - Adam Hamilton

Chase and Bank of America Revise Fee Policies - September 23, 2009

"Two banks are changing their debit card programs to end some charges that have enraged consumers." - Ron Lieber

Is this a case of Journalism leading to legislative hearings leading to business backing down? And should the article have mentioned the earlier article, even if in a back patting way?

Sweet, but is it Serious?

The Lynn Item ran a front page story today about the efforts of local politicians to have some locally made products officially recognized. The article by Chris Stevens and Thor Jourgensen was accompanied by two large color photographs of Marshmallow Fluff rolling down the assembly line of the Durkee-Mower plant in Lynn. If such recognition legislation is passed, the Fluffernutter would become the official sandwich of Massachusetts. Also vying for recognition is the Necco Wafer as the official wafer candy of the Bay State. Given the tough economy, I can see why politicians would seek to assist their local industries in any way they can. As a consumer of news, I can't help but feel a little degraded by this kind of advertising being dressed up as news. For the politicians, this seems to be quite self serving as a way of ingratiating themselves with their constituents that costs them nothing. Sure, what is the harm? Looking at the bigger picture, civil society seems to be coming apart over the rising cost of health care and our differences on how to address it. We're already fat and diabetic. What's a few extra gobs of sugar and peanut butter on enriched white bread going to do? That may be too abstract, but is the idea that there may something wrong with politicians using free media to suck up to large constituent groups too abstract? 

Financial Focus

I have been following the controversy surrounding the columnist David Pogue and his technological writing. (http://www.cjr.org/news_meeting/whose_line_is_it_anyway.php) He has been a huge proponent of the Mac operating system for some time and it has recently come to light that he has a considerable personal financial stake in Apple. As a long time reader of David Pogue I now have to reflect on all the decisions that he has influenced through his expert technological opinion. It amazes me that these people still tread into these dangerous waters when it seems so obvious that they will eventually be caught. However, the pessimist in me must ask, would these people take the risk if at least some of them were not getting away with it. Especially with all the recent financial debacles, I think that it would be prudent to beef up efforts to verify journalistic opinions. The task would be huge considering that there are no shortage of 24/hour financial networks and publications galore of personal finance. I feel that at least a dialogue on this is very relevant.

Fakes and frauds

While reading the book chapter and articles about fakery in journalism for this week, it made me ponder the rather thin line that separates real news from fraudulent reporting. Jack Kelley certainly crossed that line several times in USA Today when he fabricated certain stories or embellished the facts to be more dramatic. Whatever one thinks of that newspaper, it does generally follow basic journalistic guidelines for accuracy and reliability. Whats even more disturbing about his situation is that he denied any culpability or poor judgment after confronted with solid evidence of his frauds.

The Mike Barnicle situation is similar but a bit more complex. As a columnist whose role is more about telling stories and expressing opinion, he has more latitude for creativity in his writing, but because his approach is less formal, it also is more important that we can trust that the anecdotes he describes really happened and that he accurately convey the statements or opinions of people he interviewed. As the Boston Phoenix piece explains in great detail, on several occasions he hedged the facts or bent the statements of people to support the story he wanted to tell (it looks like most of his transgressions occurred in the early 1990s, which may or may not be significant).

My own take on Barnicle is that I liked his columns for a while, in his early years at the Globe, but over the last few years there he became very predictable and more annoying than insightful. I sense that he became rather complacent and comfortable in his role as a highly visible and "respected" pundit for Boston and New England, so laziness crept in. The columns seemed more phoned-in than heart-felt and he seemed to coast on his credentials. The Globe was quite justified in forcing him to resign finally in 1998, and should have done so sooner. However, he had attained a certain superstar status of the local media scene, seemingly too valuable to fire, but much like Manny Ramirez with the Red Sox, management finally reached the breaking point and found the guts to get rid of him.

Both situations reveal that journalists are all too human, as they say -- susceptible to taking shortcuts and making things up when reality isn't quite appealing or interesting enough. I'd like to think that I wouldn't do those things, but in all honesty it probably would happen. It makes me realize that the daily or weekly requirements for journalists/columnists to write interesting and compelling stories will mean that sometimes the material they have in their notes might seem a bit skimpy and in need of poetic license to make it have more impact on the printed page. I also come to appreciate more that the work of a foreign correspondent is somewhat like a doctor or policeman, where you can do your job well 99% of the time, but having a few instances of poor judgment or questionable ethics will draw attention and possibly permanently stain your reputation.

doctored Iraq photo

BRIAN WALSKI'S DOCTORED IRAQ PHOTO

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2009

Brian Walski's doctored image (top photo)

Hi Franklin and Classmates,

About six years ago Brian Walski, a photojournalist covering the Iraq war as a staffer for the L.A. Times doctored a photo. He Photoshopped two consecutive images to make one very dynamic image. This shocked the photojournalism world. Brian had worked in Boston for several years before heading out to LA. so the buzz in Boston was just as loud as there. Ethically, I can't think of many other incidents as wrong as this one. But at the same time I sympathize with Brian because of the stressful conditions under which he working. here is a quote from an interview he gave shortly afterward. (The full posting is listed at the URL below) "The Times is such a high quality operation. Nobody would think of doing this. I wake up in the morning and can't believe that I did it, that it's happening to me. But I did, and I can't blame anybody but myself. We were in Iraq at that point for six days. We were sleeping in our car. It was the most intense kind of--we didn't have any place to stay. There was no safe haven of any kind where you could kind of relax and get a good night's sleep. It was constant tension. Maybe that led to it, but I can't say that it did".

I think I would have made some very bad decisions under those circumstances, too. But having worked with Brian, and thinking back,

I remember that he occasionally acted a little defiant toward the editors, so it makes me wonder if getting away with some lesser infractions led to this much bigger one. Either way his actions were quite wrong and he deserved to be fired.

http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-retail-stores-not/4450879-1.html

'Jackass' Comment Stolen

I hesitate to bring up this topic again, there are obviously much more pressing matters in politics these days over Obama’s opinion of Kanye West. What is relevant to our class however is how the “off-the-record” comment became public. According to the Columbia Journalism Review, CNBC was doing the interview but someone at ABC snagged the pre-interview small talk from a live wire shared by Bloomberg, NBC and ABC. Apparently this is an unwritten no-no among the networks. So, is this a question of disrespect, bad judgment (on ABC's part) or unethical journalism considering the President was the main subject?

http://www.cjr.org/transparency/pinning_down_the_jackass_tale.php

What came first - the chicken or the egg?

On Sunday September 20, President Obama was interviewed by several media networks.

Each interviewer asked the question about why the tone of the [health care] message is so contentious. The President made the comment that the best way to get on the 24 hour news cycle “loop” was to be rude. He went on to say that folks who had strong opposition to an issue and stated it without being disagreeable, rarely got the airtime.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/32930361#32930361

It is an observation on both our news organizations and society that the more dramatic type of journalism does seem to prevail.

It is the responsibility of journalists to present stories in the most truthful unbiased fashion, and it is the responsibility of the public to make choices on how we wish to see news versus opinion presented. “Garbage in, garbage out.” (George Fuechsel, IBM, NYC)

Running "tempest in a teapot" issues to sell more papers, airtime, or advertising space, is not only about the ethics of the news organization. Media is like any consumable good. Everyday we accept or reject a product by voting with our wallets and our time. The relationship between the media and the public is co-dependent. This phenomenon isn’t new, but what has accelerated in the last 10 years or so is a public apathy towards disrespectful reporting. We have lowered the bar for ourselves.

What is on the airwaves and in print is a representation of who we are. In order to elevate the issues and conversations back to a level that most of us are at, shouldn’t we all be more pro-active in demanding that accountability from our journalists?

Is Health Care Reform a Political Issue?

Los Angeles, CA – Sunday evening I was asked to attend a debate with friends to discuss the health care reform. The invitation read “an exciting dialogue about the health care reform debate….” This exciting dialogue soon turned into an intense political debate amongst a diverse group of intelligent professionals’. It appears that this topic has also become a political catalyst for the mass media.

Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal discussed this agenda; however doesn’t clearly recall any objective information. Mr. Frank reports a biased account of his political views while demonstrating sensationalism in broadcasting.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574415232884495424.html?mod=wsj_share_digg#articleTabs%3Darticle

If you’re looking for a clear account of how to either support or hold constituents’ responsible, this report will not prove valuable. The only value I see in this tale is how to lose my job if I work for the WSJ.

(Yesterday’s Los Angeles Times published an unbiased piece stating objective and factual information. )

‘U.S. Census Bureau data on the medically uninsured simply can't be denied’

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik17-2009sep17,0,1400353.column

Re The Crimson & the Holocaust (or not)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/09/09/massachusetts.harvard.holocaust/index.html


Far worse than the ad itself was the confusing and disingenuous response by the Crimson to enraged readers. Sloppily thrown together with a heavy dose of desperation, the attempt at damage control only weakened appearance of competence and moral authority that the paper was trying to maintain.

President Maxwell L. Child's claim that a previously rejected ad innocently "fell through the cracks" is an abdication of responsibility for his paper and his staff. It is difficult to believe that proofing practices at "the nation's oldest continuously published daily college newspaper" are so poor that none of its "strong body of undergraduate staff volunteers" caught the error. (http://www.thecrimson.com/info/about.aspx) But if that is indeed the case, well, shucks. I've seen high schoolers and a gravely ill cancer patient work more attentively in a newsroom, and I would've expected even better from an Ivy League staff. (Especially one that fusses frequently over the unsophisticated "faux-students" of HES; http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=528709)

More puzzling is Mr. Child's equivocating mea culpa. While he states that the Crimson had no intention of running the ad since receiving it in July, Mr. Child goes on to assure readers "that the rest of the ad's planned run has been terminated..." (emphasis added)(http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=528828)

Holocaust denier Bradley R. Smith, who submitted and paid for the ad, claims he made a deal with the Crimson in July, and was never told of any plan to pull the ad. As of 9/9, he said, his money had not been refunded. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/09/09/massachusetts.harvard.holocaust/index.html)

Given the messy circumstances created by the Crimson for its readers and would-be advertiser, Mr. Child's account appears less than entirely accurate--but who is tasked with keeping a reporter honest? The incident reveals a sloppy news operation of questionable integrity, which sadly, is the norm these days. (http://people-press.org/report/543/)

Rather than respond to the uproar with a clear and impartial assertion of its press freedom, the Crimson adopted a bizarrely moralistic tone. It condemned the ad as "wrong," and a promotion of "hate" that "could actually jeopardize the psychological and emotional well being" of the descendants of Holocaust survivors. Out of concern for public health, the Crimson urged other college newspapers against publishing similar ads, and even threw in a word about defamation, for some reason. (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=528840)

Um, thanks? But next time, guys, save the sermon for Sunday; it's the Crimson's ad policy and execution that truly needs help.

Obama's blurb...

There seems to be a lot of buzz going around in both print and TV about the comment President Obama made about the musician Kanye West. I really don't have an opinion about the specific incident, but it does raise some interesting implications about an "off the record" conversation with Obama and an anchor. I really don't think the President has a leg to stand on in being angry due to the fact that it was the crew on the set that "tweeted" the comments. Not the journalist drawing from an off the record conversation. I do think that people working for journalist should be a little more discreet about what they hear and see around interviews, even if they are not conducting the interview. You would think that media outlets would require some form of non-disclosure to prevent these kinds of mishaps. The President should have been a little more cautious with his words, but these outlets should simultaneously be a little more cautious with the moral compass possessed by there employees.

Tough Libel Laws

I read a short blog post yesterday on the New York Times website, and it fits in nicely with tonight's discussion about defamation. Apparently the libel laws in Britain and Wales are incredibly difficult to defend (but easy to bring/charge). This encourages science journalists NOT to write or publish articles that could potentially hurt health organizations. This is incredibly dangerous, as the article points out, because scurrilous health claims can have enormous impact on the public.

Check it out here:

http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/cracking-the-spine-of-libel/?scp=1&sq=libel%20singh&st=cse

New York Times vs. Sullivan Links

For those of you who are eager to get a little more in depth on New York Times vs. Sullivan, please see the following links:

The ad that started it all:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/documented-rights/exhibit/section4/detail/heed-rising-voices.html

The legal briefs submitted to the court:

http://law.jrank.org/pages/11587/Brief-Petitioners.html

Listen to the oral argument in front of the court:

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_39/

The Supreme Court decision (with links to the concurring opinions):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0376_0254_ZO.html

The books referenced in tonight's lecture are "Freedom for the Thought that We Hate" and "Make No Law" both by Anthony Lewis (by the way, anything by this author is worth reading):

1. http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Thought-That-Hate-Biography/dp/0465039170/ref=pd_sim_b_2/179-7627169-1293755

2. http://www.amazon.com/Make-No-Law-Sullivan-Amendment/dp/0679739394/ref=pd_sim_b_1

The link to the Berkman Center is now located under the Journalism links section on our blog.

CBS and Super Bowl Ads

Does anybody remember the controversy surrounding CBS's refusal to run an ad that was critical of the Bush administration during the 2004 Super Bowl? You can read Peter Henderson's article here. It seems that the threshold is pretty low when it comes to refusing an ad and pretty high for being prosecuted for defamation. That should make it easy for news providers to do the right thing. Given this set of circumstances, it is quite surprising that the Crimson would display such a lack of judgement with regard to the Holocaust denial issue by running that ad.

Jackasses and Sexual Conquests

Earlier today, I read about a comment allegedly made by President Obama that was overheard by ABC news staff, and 'tweeted' on the internet. This wasn't a comment about Afghanistan or about reform on wallstreet. No, according to the LA Times, President Obama was allegedly overheard prior to the start of an interview responding to Kanye West's outburst on the MTV VMA awards, calling West a 'Jackass'. This is pressing news, folks. While this news tidbit has not been verified, and its significance is debatable, one has to wonder what is sacred when it comes to the 'offline' statements that public figures make. More importantly, should those comments be weighed in a public forum? A potential challenge to that question would be the example of Orange County Assemblyman Michael Duvall, who resigned last week after a tape was released of him discussing his sexual conquests with a colleague near an open mic. While it could be argued that Duvall's comments weigh heavier against the alleged offline comment by the President about a pop star, the issue is raised as to what level of scrutiny should one be held on comments intended not just 'off the record', but natural conversation. Both cases presented here are the types of comments that occur at bus stops, bars, and water coolers all over the country. Just because someone is in the public spotlight, does that mean that they should be held accountable for everything they say? I am not sure about the answer to this question, and would love to hear input from the group. See the links below to articles on both the jackass comment and the resignation of Michael Duvall..

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/09/obama-calls-kanye-west-jackass.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/assemblyman-duvall-resigns-amid-recorded-sexual-comments.html

***Update!!! This just in- Oh, that TMZ.. so reliable to scoop up the crud and fling it onto the internets. Here's a recording of Obama's comment:

http://www.tmz.com/2009/09/15/obama-calls-kanye-a-jackass/

OTM story on wounded Marine photo

In case you don't know about it, the NPR program "On The Media" is an excellent weekly 1-hour show examining the current issues of journalism. I listen to it nearly every week, either on the radio (WBUR, Sundays, 2-3pm), or the podcast. They did a piece about the wounded-Marine AP photo recently, which is worth reading or hearing:
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/09/11/03
It's an interview with a D-o-D spokesman and an AP photography editor, and explains both sides of the issue very succinctly. After hearing it, I still feel that it was appropriate and justified for the AP to publish the photo.

This story/situation makes me wonder whether this will affect the arrangement of journalists and photographers being embedded with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just a few weeks earlier, OTM also had a story about how the Pentagon apparently is evaluating each of the embedded journalists for the tone and content of their published stories:
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/08/28/01
The Pentagon claims that the reporter-assessments are done to help the journalists better cover the wars' developments and stories, but it appears to be more about keeping close tabs on the reporters and what they are writing about the conflict.

A Necessary Evil

There are two sets of questions that run through my head when I deliberate whether or not I would run this photograph, most of which were covered in class last week:

1) Does running the dead marine photo add something to the story? Is it aesthetically or emotionally compelling? Is it a particularly good time to run it?

2) How much harm or damage does running this photo cause? And who takes the biggest hit? How much do we care about that person or group’s feelings/opinions?

In regards to the first set of questions: despite the fact that this particular photo probably isn’t going to win a Pulitzer Prize, it remains a powerful image. Partly because images of such serious context are powerful regardless of their quality, and partly because it serves as a potent reminder of how deadly the month of August was in Afghanistan. No matter if we like it or not, humanity—both as a whole and as individuals—responds so viscerally to images that they are almost unparalleled when it comes to getting a point across. In this situation, that point is the danger of war, and that is pretty heavy symbology.

There certainly is a price to pay for publishing such a controversial photo, however. While I suppose it’s plausible that some families would not object to allowing the AP to run a photo of their dead son, I would guess that most people would say no. If that is true, how would we ever see images that show the tolls of war? I agree with whoever in class wrote that this is a necessary evil. You better believe I wouldn’t want it to be my kid’s photo published, but that’s good old-fashioned human hypocrisy for you: often what benefits society is not the same as what benefits the individual.

As for the government, I have very little sympathy for them as a stakeholder. Perhaps I’m just jaded, but Robert Gates couching his anger in sympathy for the family’s wishes smacks of political sneakiness. I place my bets on the fact that he doesn’t want the media adding to public outrage about the war after such a deadly month in Afghanistan.

I see both points of view

I am going to exercise the right not to pass judgment on the AP photograph. I know it may seem weak or spiritless to not take a stance either way, but how can any of us really decide one way or another on this subject?

How many of us can honestly say we have been put in the same position as this soldier and his family? It is true that the photo/interview package tells a greater story of the US military's loss of control in Afghanistan, but if it were my child I don't know if I want my son's violent death to tell it.

On the other hand, if I were put in that position, I may feel as though the use of my sons’ death in the story may give his passing greater meaning. The attention to the story memorializes him to a larger extent and it would give me solace to know he died for the greater good of the country.

Which begs the question what good does this story bring? It's not good enough to say it sells more papers or its compelling news that people want to read. The story needs to make people's emotions boil over. Readers should put down the paper and be angry or emotional enough to call their Congressman or Congresswoman and tell them to get their stuff together and give the troops what they need to crush the Taliban and for good. The package needs to tell a story that by making the right decisions, the war can end swiftly and without more unnecessary bloodshed of our young troops.

Public Trust in News Media Continues to Slide

Pew Research just released their most recent polling data on how the public assesses the news media for fairness and accuracy. Editor and Publisher ran their analysis here. If this gets much worse, the media will be right down in the cellar with Congress. How can we turn this around? Could it be that the public actually wants some bias? Today we all have the means to find the reporting that reinforces our biases. This could be an example of the way people might condemn others for their bias while saturating themselves with expressions of their own opinions. Since a news outlet cannot please everyone, it would seem to make good business sense to pander to a particular group. If there is an example out there in which this strategy failed, please post it and restore my faith in humanity.

Update: Robert Jensen, professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin, had this to say.

Ethical Debate over Recent Classroom Discussion

Los Angeles – It was an early start to my day as I ponder the on-going decision whether to publish the story of Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard, 21, who subsequently died from his sustained injuries.

The story is of great political importance to our society in that it depicts gruesome acts in Afghanistan as our Military fight for us and war has shifted geographically, but never come to closure. We have been coddled as a nation in believing that the worst is over.

In my twenty eight years on this earth – I have heard this expression far too often, but since the horrible factors that exist within this world never conclude in discussion, shall I assume they just don’t exist? I haven’t heard much about the ‘oil crisis’ or the ‘Environmental Overcrowding’, so I guess they have been taken care of. I hear more about the ‘Swine Flu’ than the ‘AIDS Epidemic’ – so I guess I will be fine if I can just miss that strain of flu.

The release of this image with Corporal Bernard as the subject is a necessary evil. It may seem that subjecting the family of the deceased as intolerable cruelty; however as a nation, we can remember that Family Planning and Environmental research are still problems; condoms are necessary; war is painful.

General Patton quoted in 1947, “Officers must set the example.” I perceive this as a direct loss of anonymity amongst the wishes of Corporal Bernard’s family regarding his passing. These officers are leaders when they enter the Military and will always be honored.

Adam Hamilton

WHO SHOULD WE BELIEVE AND WHY SHOULD WE?

“The Girl Who Cries Blood”...  this story covered by the National Geographic is now under scrutiny...

 http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/32797753/ns/today-today_health/?GT1=43001

David Lindorff Would Publish

Here is what syndicated columnist, David Lindorff had to say about the Bernard photograph:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/10-5

Something tells me this controversy will be around for a while.

Update: Here's a piece by Michael Winship from Salon.

I suppose I would be a bit of an anomaly regarding some of these photos being that I knew personally the men that were hung from that bridge in Fallujah, and I saw many of my friends rolled into the "CASH" in Baghdad on those green gurneys with there consistently flattened tires and stench of effluence. Conflict is certainly a loaded scenario, but no matter what our personal feelings, the public appetite for war and its processes are insatiable. There is hardly an experience more enduring in the human condition than that of warfare, therefore it only stands to reason that the public would have an appetite to consume the imagery that is generated in these far away lands.

That being said, and being an economist at heart I tend to automatically assume that anywhere there is a market a vendor will emerge to fill it. However, whether or not that vendors products are ethically viable is another issue all together. In this case the AP is acting as a vendor and trading on tragedy to build buzz and attention. When I really consider this issue rationally I would choose to publish the photos. Mainly for the reason that the happenings of the world are the domain and property of the world at large, and it is a slippery slope when you begin to limit what may or may not be consumed by the public at large. There are exceptions to this rule (as there are exceptions to all rules). I would not publish pictures, under any circumstances, that would increase the danger to U.S. troops. I can make this distinction being that I view journalism as a reactionary profession, one that should report the news and information truthfully, not endanger lives over mistakes made. I don't feel like these photos meet that criteria. There is emotional content in these photos, but in my opinion not inappropriate material.

Using the thought process I mentioned in the last paragraph I would choose to run the photos from previous wars, and from future wars. Lack of information or ignorance to subject matter is hardly a good alternative to a little discomforting material. Especially when the consumer of the news material still holds the ultimate choice in what they consume. Let the choice be made at an individual level, not an institutional one.

Attention to What Matters

My problem is I can't take a definitive side. It is hard to conceptualize unless you are a parent of a soldier or know someone . Now that I'm a parent I see everything differently. I don't think I'd want a photo of my child's last horrific moments of life published for everyone to see. I would hope that the media would respect the feelings of my family. Journalist and editors are parents too and have to make these tough decisions. But from a journalism side I think the AP made the right choice. There are some moments when a photograph can provide us with what is really happening better then words. How long has it been since we have gone to war with Iraq? A soldier that has died in combat gets what, a twenty second mention on a local news channel? They are just a bunch of numbers and repetitive stories. I'm probably not the only one that doesn't pay attention, not on purpose but it’s not in the forefront of my mind anymore. Until a photograph depicting the horror of war jolts me back to reality. We get to a point where we tend to overlook and forget and a telling photo gets us talking again. I think this is the role of the media. People forget about the tragedy of war if they are protected from its actuality.

Outrage over sports column, kidnap victim

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many odd things have happened in sports the past 18 years

Whicker column: Here's a primer for someone who has missed nearly two decades.

Mark Whicker

Columnist
The Orange County Register
mwhicker@ocregister.com

CLICK HERE TO READ MARK WHICKER'S APOLOGY FOR HIS COLUMN ON JAYCEE DUGARD.

---

It doesn't sound as if Jaycee Dugard got to see a sports page.

Box scores were not available to her from June 10, 1991 until Aug. 31 of this year.

She never saw a highlight. Never got to the ballpark for Beach Towel Night. Probably hasn't high-fived in a while.

She was not allowed to spike a volleyball. Or pitch a softball. Or smack a forehand down the line. Or run in a 5-footer for double bogey.

Now, that's deprivation.

Can you imagine? Dugard was 11 when she was kidnapped and stashed in Phillip Garrido's backyard. She was 29 when she escaped. Penitentiary inmates at least get an hour of TV a day. Dugard was cut off from everything but the elements.

How long before she fully digests the world she re-enters? How difficult to adjust to such cataclysmic change?

More than that, who's going to explain the fact that there's a President Obama?

Dugard's stepfather says she's going to need a lot of therapy — you think? — so perhaps she should take a respite before confronting the new realities.

So, Jaycee, whenever you're ready, here's what you've missed:

•Barry Bonds, who was just leading the Pirates to their second NL East title, wound up breaking Henry Aaron's home run record. How did such a skinny guy manage that? We'll deal with that later.

•Well, actually, some baseball players began taking drugs in order to hit more home runs and throw faster fastballs. Football players, who had cornered the market on most of their drugs, began driving drunk, slapping their wives, selling drugs, and killing people. The baseball players caught more grief.

•Michael Jordan did indeed win the big one, and five others.

•Yeah, this golfer really is named Tiger Woods.

•Stock car drivers now marry international models and are invited to the White House.

•Domed stadiums, like the ones in Houston and Minneapolis, are considered obsolete, or at least unfit for baseball.

•John McEnroe became a respected television analyst, just as tennis adopted a replay system that eliminated the need for McEnroe to argue.

•Magic Johnson is a billionaire businessman, and most of us have forgotten just why he had to retire.

•You missed absolutely no Servite victories over Mater Dei in football.

•Or World Series championship for the Dodgers.

•Or Stanley Cup championships for the Kings, even though Wayne Gretzky took them to the Finals in 1993.

•Mike Tyson now makes fun of himself in movies.

•The Anaheim Ducks won the Stanley Cup in '07. Yeah, a hockey team came to Anaheim. Yeah, they built an arena in Anaheim.

•I know you've had trouble digesting all this so far, but they also built a basketball arena at USC. Honest to God.

•A guy from East L.A. named Oscar De La Hoya now makes boxing contenders rich and famous. Just as he did when he was boxing.

•The Angels won a World Series. When you learn who they beat, you'll understand why.

•Speaking of the Giants they did not move, but they did get a new stadium downtown. The Florida Marlins, who did not exist when you left, won two World Series and are getting their own ballpark. Even if you were there, it's hard to believe.

•For the most part, fans have stopped doing The Wave.

•In fact, you don't see many beach balls in Dodger Stadium or Angel Stadium anymore.

•The two NFL teams that we used to have? They've been gone for 15 years. You haven't heard anyone complain about that? Neither have we.

•Jackie Autry isn't in charge of the Angels anymore, as you might have surmised by looking at the standings.

•Joe Torre now manages the Dodgers, after a fruitful detour through New York. Tommy Lasorda? Sure, he's around. He hasn't called?

•You disappeared a couple of months before John Daly came into our lives at the '91 PGA. Who's John Daly? Never mind.

•Todd Marinovich showed why careers aren't played on paper.

•USC is one of college football's elite programs, three coaches later.

•The Red Sox won two World Series, which proves that history is bunk. The White Sox even won one. But not the Cubs.

•Cal Ripken Jr. broke Lou Gehrig's record for consecutive games played but never threatened Vladimir Guerrero's record for most consecutive swings.

•One blessed constant remains: Vin Scully.

•And ballplayers, who always invent the slang no matter what ESPN would have you believe, came up with an expression for a home run that you might appreciate.

Congratulations, Jaycee. You left the yard.