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.
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.
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" 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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].
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.
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.
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’."
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.
Recently, two so-called “disgraced” figures were invited to give speeches at two universities: former NYT reporter Jason Blair in Washington & Lee, and ex-Gov. Eliot Spitzer in Harvard.
Unlike some blogers and commentators, I don’t have a problem with them giving lectures at universities. Of course, it all depends on what they talk about. If they wanted to give moral admonition, it would not be valid. However, if they talked about the lessons they have learned from their mistakes, they could be good speakers.
When studying ethical issues, we learn, not only from principles, rules and positive examples, but also from other people’s mistakes. It’s easy to say that “I have nothing to learn from them, because I will never cheat,” but based on our text book, cheating is not uncommon with college students, nor among journalists. Sometimes, even “solid reporters” are tempted to “fudge the facts” (Ethics in Journalism, p. 102). So, Blair may be the right person to answer some questions related to journalistic ethics, such as: Did he always have problems with honesty, or had some norms of journalistic writing given him temptation to cheat? Was his deceit character-based, or situation-based? Why would a talented journalist like him plagiarize and fabricate stories? Was he under too much pressure? Did he feel incapable? Was he just being lazy? Did he think he was just too smart to be caught? And, what are the consequences of doing unethical things? … A lesson by negative example can be valuable.
Notice that one of the four couples in 'Couples Retreat' are missing from the right poster launched to UK movie goers. Further, the couple omitted, Faizon Love and Kali Hawk. are not listed with their co-stars.
Courtesy of: Ar1as Ent. 2009 "*photos, posters, views & videos are all courtesy of their respective owners. all rights reserved" `
Compassion goes a long way in journalism, and should be emphasized more than it is. I have been on the receiving end of tragic news when I lost my best friend to a plane crash in Afghanistan. One reporter who called badgered my friend and me with questions only a couple hours after we found out what had happened. Another reporter--one who waited until the next day to call--approached my friend and I with a sympathetic tone, and we actually talked to him because of that. The first reporter got a mouthful of angry words and a hangup.
I think we can not only be better human beings but also better journalists if we drum up some compassion for the subjects of our stories. The same is true for privacy; journalists don't always have to name names in order to publish an important story.
The rules differ a bit when dealing with a public figure, most notably a politician and/or celebrity. (Of course, this delineation of who exactly counts as a 'public figure' can get muddled, as we have discussed in class before.) Compassion still counts, but privacy can be more difficult to maintain. There tends to be more interest in public figures' lives, so a story that wouldn't be newsworthy for an ordinary citizen would certainly be newsworthy for a public figure.
For example, Massachusetts State Senator Anthony Galluccio made the news today when a police report publicized his brush with the law last month regarding two incidents: driving while intoxicated and crashing into another car the very next day (full story here). Little has been published about the story, and Galluccio isn't admitting much at this point.
While I do feel he deserves just as much compassion as any citizen, I think any 'breach of privacy' claim he makes is less valid. As a public figure--a state lawmaker, even--he gives up a certain amount of privacy over his public actions. He is paid with taxpayer money, and citizens deserve the right to know how their politicians conduct themselves publicly.
As I watched the story develop about the Ft. Hood massacre, I got a sinking feeling that the narrative was following a familiar pattern. Even on the venerable old NewsHour, the gunman was being described with words like "loner" and "odd." Whenever something like this happens, we need to establish the otherness of the perpetrator. As if on cue, the spinning and the demagoguery ensued. There were claims that political correctness in the military was to blame or that it was an act of terrorism. As Caroline demonstrated in her post, there was much misinformation available to feed anybody's prejudices.
I was not sure at first what it was in particular that was wrong with the story. I just knew there had to be something more to it that was not getting any attention. Then, an article in Salon by Mark Benjamin caught my eye. Its title, "The Media's Silly Ft. Hood Coverage" offered confirmation for my suspicions. In the article, Benjamin attributes the incident to the failures of the military health care system and blames the media circus on the interest in boosting ratings over reporting the mundane truth. The story itself is not entirely unique. Hasan is not the first military figure to go on a lethal shooting rampage. In 1966, Charles Whitman killed a comparable number of people at the University of Texas. Like Hasan, Whitman had a history of inappropriate behavior and had served time in the military. Lee Harvey Oswald shared these characteristics as well. The difference is that Hasan is a Muslim and this fact offers itself to those who would construct an easy narrative. Why is it that easy stories are so attractive? For a serious journalist, it should be exactly opposite. Any time a story seams too easy, a journalist should assume there is a missing angle to it. It is the ability to do this kind of detached thinking that in many ways defines a true journalist.
If someone in a news story reviews and edits it before it goes to press, will it be a fair report? Or will it suffer “spin” by sources and others aiming to shape public opinion in favor or against them or their ideas?
Last month, Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s office asked to review an article about him before publication by a newspaper, The Daltonian. The paper is written by students at Dalton School, a prestigious Manhattan private school where Kennedy spoke on October 28. No other press was allowed to cover the event.
Justice Kennedy or his “spin doctors” asked for changes to the article before print. Although the edits were called “minor tweaks” that “tidied up” the reporting, the editors at The Daltonian allowed a story to be delayed and spun.
Reporters should not allow sources to review stories before print. At stake is journalistic independence. Reporters must insulate stories from manipulation and spin, whether by persuasion, revisionism or strong-arm threats. A spun report is not factual news coverage but propaganda.
The Times was right to fire this shot across the bow on Page One penned by Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak:
Reporter Liptak, who describes Kennedy as “one of the court’s most vigilant defenders of First Amendment values,” asked Kennedy for comment. Kennedy declined.
There have been several accounts over the last week about the Fort Hood killings. Most of the initial ones were wrong.
As what happened came to light, the differences in the first stories and what is believed to have happened are startling.
1) The man who shot the soldiers wasn't dead as originally reported for hours after the event. 2) The woman believed to have "brought the killer down" didn't. 3) The condition of the wounds of those in hospital were stable - not so as some have yet to be upgraded to stable 4) Major Hassan was distraught about being shipped overseas and there was no planning to this act - it was later reported he had moved out of his apartment several days prior and had ordered "special" business cards with his rank removed 5) There was more than one shooter - not correct - there was one shooter
If I made this many errors in my job I wouldn't have one. The standard that used to be upheld for journalism is more than fraying at the edges as social networking is being given credibility and being mistaken for "at the scene" reporting.
While it was difficult to get information from a base that was on lock down, random speculation did not serve the public good.
If journalism is to go back to being a "trusted source" it would behoove us separate news reporters from random commentators and to make that distinction clear.
Although the readings on bias were a few weeks ago, it's taken me a while to digest the articles and try to put my thoughts into words about this complex topic. Actually, I had read both Goldberg's and Alterman's books shortly after they were published a few years ago, and found both very compelling and well-written.
Bernard Goldberg has become very well known from the WSJ article and then the full book about the apparent liberal bias in mainstream news reporting. I sense that he honestly felt that the major newspapers and network TV journalists had been acting unethically for many years by letting their personal views and attitudes influence their reporting. His stance is not that of a conservative ideologue, but rather (no pun intended) as a veteran journalist who became disillusioned by the pervasive tendency to report favorably about issues important to liberal-minded people, such as affirmative action, and unfavorably on issues advocated by conservatively-leaning people, like tax relief. I do find it disturbing that he was shunned by the network news anchors and many other colleagues in his field after his initial article came out. This tends to gives more creedence to the view that he was exposing a dirty secret or viewed as a traitor/informant by the news industry.
Eric Alterman's article and book also make very compelling points about the modern media from the opposite direction. He points out how many conservative politicians and activists like to frame the news outlets as being heavily biased toward the left, which provides a way to position themselves as the underdogs and beleaguered keepers of the flame. Whether they actually believe the bias exists, or use that belief as a way to manipulate the media, is a very fair question.
What I found most interesting in Alterman's book is his discussion of how there is one bias that one can say likely influences modern media - the strongly pro-business attitude. He extensively shows how this is most significant media trend over past two decades - how basic business interests have become the main guiding force - for both newspapers and broadcast media. While for many years, media company stockholders were content to have a paper make a modest profit, most now want a highly-profitable enterprise, so increasing revenue and restraining costs is the major priority for managing editors.
After pondering the points of their books, my distilled take on this is that they're both right. This probably sounds indecisive and hedging, but it's really how I feel. It's like many thorny questions where both sides have a lot of truth behind what they say and their perceptions are valid for the most part. However, one usually finds after analyzing the views of each side that one is a bit "more right" than the other, with more facts, logic, and reasoning behind them. On this issue, I feel that the Alterman viewpoint is the better informed and closer to the truth of the matter.
The news that Northwestern journalism students paid witnesses in the hopes of freeing a convicted murder is stunning. I'm still in disbelief that one journalism student with the Innocence Project paid a witness in cash for his testimony. (The student paid a cabdriver $60 to pick up a witness- $40 more than the price of the cabfare itself, and reportedly the witness pocketed remaining $40 and used it for crack cocaine.) I do wonder however, if just the act of sending a cab and paying for his fare was an ethical breach in and of itself. Are smaller acts- such as buying coffee, lunch or a drink for a source during an interview- unethical?
There have been some arrests in the murder case that I profiled in one of my recent blog posts. The murder was of two human rights workers/journalists in Russia. I have just been continually dismayed by the progression of brazen censorship by countries and government that are attempting to enter the "1st world." Any reasonable society is going to identify the fact that a free media is the lynch pin to democracy and transparency. As long as news is factual and verifiable, there are few convincing reasons why it can be suppressed. This trend in Russia (as well as the caucuses and now in South America), is alarming and needs to be addressed by the international community and cooperative organizations such as the UN. As the world, through communication and technology, becomes smaller and smaller, these problems will soon become our problems. I vote that we nip them in the bud.
ESPN Analyst, Steve Phillips, had sexual encounters with ESPN colleague, Brook Hundley- a Production Assistant at ESPN. Steve Phillips threatened to get her fired if she ever said anything about it to anyone. According to Brook Hundley, he threatened to "ruin more than my reputation," . http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/10/23/2009-10-23_steve_phillips_mistress_brooke_hundley_filed_restraining_order__day_after_fatal_.html
Interviewed on ABC television this morning, Brook Hundley justified her decision to write a note to his wife about the affair so there could be someone equally as angry as she was to bring the scandal to public attention. According to Hundley, she decided to write his wife the letter because Human Resource department at ESPN had not done alot about her situation when she approached and told them about the affair and the threats from Steve Phillips. The ethical concerns here range from whether or not this relationship should ever have existed, to Steve Phillips initially denying the claims, then threatening Hundley with getting her fired, to ESPN suspending Brook Hundley from her job , but keeping Steve Phillips on his job until a few months later.
All the parties involved are media persons who violated media ethics!
I have been following a video blog for some time now and noticed something interesting. Some of the posts were not too bad with foul language but others were a bit much to the point that every other word was fu**. Don't get me wrong cursing is really not a big deal to me, but when it is used constantly it just gets in the way of the point is trying to be made by the speaker. In other words it devalues the opinion of the person that is trying to get their point across. However in most of the video blogs, cursing was infrequent but it was still there. But it didn't bother me that much and let me know that the person I was watching was being real. What I noticed that was intriguing was when I went back to older posts up to two years back there was no foul language at all in those videos. In fact, if someone used to curse word it was bleeped by the videographer and the speaker seemed legitimately embarrassed. At that point I realized something. There is a delicate balance between someone getting their point of view across and doing it in a way that makes them seem real to the viewer. I believe that is why the Internet has become so popular. Watching the NBC nightly news has become boring and mundane. You can see how many networks have changed their anchors in order to spice things up. In the long run it's never going to work though. On the Internet people can act and be themselves and not have to put on a façade in order to please viewers. The blog I have been following also indicates how quickly this idea has shifted. Only within a couple of years had the blog changed from being censored to no censorship at all.
As the Internet becomes the primary source of news and blogging the primary way we express our own, and learn others' ideas, I have become worried about our future. It seems as if the Internet, as opposed to traditional media is the outlet where anything goes. I think we as a society have become so desensitized over death that we have lost the meaning of life and how delicate it is. It seems to me younger people find it easy to just say “life goes on” and don't appreciate how death is so important and permanent. When journalists and editors decide to put pictures of people that have died from violence, accidents, or anything else, to me it is a huge mistake. Not only does it desensitize readers but it is also disrespectful to the person who has died as well as to the family of the victim. Journalists have a responsibility to put themselves in the shoes of those they decide to publish. How would they feel if it were them lying dead in the street or one of their loved ones? I believe as we move to the Internet more and more there will be less checks and balances when it comes to these types of photos. The devaluation of other people's lives, it seems to me, will only get worse as time goes on.
Journalists and law enforcement officers should serve the public, obey the law and follow ethical guidelines. But should these two roles with similar duties share the same ethics?
On September 11, 2009, students made recordings while posing as a pimp and prostitute asking representatives of ACORN, a publicly funded social service organization that explains laws and benefits, how to advance their fictitious illegal scheme. Hannah Giles, 20, posed as the ‘prostitute’ in the recordings. The undercover investigation documented advice from ACORN representatives on how to launder the sex-worker earnings and conceal wrong-doing. When exposed, the ACORN workers were fired.
On November 6, 2009, AP reported that Pennsylvania state police used tax money to pay an informant to visit a prostitute. The focus was a massage parlour operated by Sun Cha Chon, later charged with prostitution. The investigation began when the informant approached law enforcement saying he was offended by being offered sex after a massage. The police followed up by budgeting government funds for the informant to go back for further sex. Pennsylvania police provided payment for four additional visits. Later, a Pennsylvania court dismissed the charges based on police misconduct.
The police exercised poor judgment paying for the informant to buy criminal sex, but was the student exposé also wrong? Giles did not identify herself as a journalist. But was this investigative report a biased piece?
Serving the public interest, reporters function as “auxiliary police” according to New York University’s School of Journalism's Code of Ethics. But to what standard, if not to the ethics imposed on police and prosecutors, should these journalistic “auxiliary police” be held? Can they probe dozens of community organizations, and report only the sensational sex-work advice that got the ACORN staff fired? Or are they missing and playing into a larger story about efforts to discredit community service itself?
In keeping with my international theme, it is beginning to appear that a trend is being set in Latin America towards media censorship. In an article published a few days ago, by an associated press writer, contends that there is a stark trend towards state sponsored media and reporting in multiple South American countries. He cites, and quotes journalist as his sources. Although this is hardly surprising in response to countries like Venezuela and/or Colombia, there is some troubling implications with countries like Argentina. There has to be a push to keep the western hemisphere as above board as possible.
I was a little puzzled that fox news sunday named Jayson Blair their Power Player of the Week. Newsworthiness aside ( how could they choose to focus on a six-year old news scandal on the week of the congressional vote on health care reform and the ft. hood massacre is beyond me), i find it still hard to take Blair at face value for anything he says. I wasn't able to find a link to his full talk, but I guess I generally with what he said. Still, he couldn't even do those small things when he was a college reporter. (He fabricated fan quotes from college football games when he wrote for the University of Maryland's Diamondback newspaper.) I think his story is as much about the NYT (and others) letting him lie on for so long as much as it is about his own failings.
MSNBC runs a Week in Pictures slideshow every week that captures the week's news in photographs. Viewers have the chance to vote on their favorite picture every week, and the photos range from beautiful scenery to human despair. One of the policies they use (that I think works very well) is to warn viewers when a disturbing photo is in the lineup. Viewers have the option to click on the warning to see the photo, or merely continue the slideshow without looking at it. (A good example of this was from last week's archive, photo #6 called 'Deadly Blast', about a car bomb explosion in Peshawar.)
While I do agree that journalists have a responsibility to print sometimes disturbing photos (and articles) about the darker aspects of our world, I appreciate the warning that a powerful image is on the horizon. It gives readers a chance to brace themselves prior to viewing, as well as grants them the option of skipping it entirely. This type of warning really works best in online slideshows, as creating this option in print is more difficult to do.
In a perfect world, a whistle blower would have been taken aside, sat down and his or her story documented and analyzed to ensure that once the veracity of which has been proven, the culpable will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Unfortunately, ours is not a real world and most whistle blowers know that they are on an uphill battle against giants and behemoths who control and command people and vast resources. For sure Bernard Goldberg felt he was fighting hell and high water when he finally blew the whistle on the media and its biases whether for or against something, someone or whatever.
Goldberg’s 2003 published book Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News says it all about how the various mass media reported or presented the news not as objective and unbiased entities but had self-serving inclinations. Goldberg knew what he was talking about considering “in his thirty years at CBS News, this Emmy Award winning reporter earned a reputation as one of the preeminent reporters in the television news business. When he looked at his own industry, however, he saw that the media far too often ignored their primary mission: objective, disinterested reporting. (Goldberg, 2003)” The book is filled with facts and truths and it is especially disheartening to read how his own network and colleagues at the network made him feel like a pariah after he “wrote an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal criticising his employer for broadcasting a put-down of the ‘flat tax’ (a conservative fad of the mid-1990s) as though it were straight news (Frank, 2002).”
Instead of facing the issue head on, the media truly distorts the real issue and spins it for its own benefit or interest. Goldberg’s book is a goldmine of information and though written several years ago, the lessons therein are as valuable now as before – and the book is quite difficult to put down once one starts reading.
Bibliography:
Frank, T. (2002) “Let’s talk class again.” London Review of Books, vol.6, no.21. [Internet] Available from [Accessed 8 November 2009].
Goldberg, B. (2003) Bias: A CBS insider exposes how the media distort the news. New York, HarperCollins Publishers. [Internet] Available from [Accessed 8 November 2009].
Interesting as Project Implicit is, I doubt that the so-called 'implicit' bias it tests for is very relevant to journalism. The test reveals a knee-jerk, reactionary type of bias, which has little bearing on the journalist who thoughtfully and reflectively researches and writes a story. That I may instinctively lock my car door or tighten my grip on my purse when a black man passes by does not mean that I will exclude black sources, or malign blacks in my reporting.
The article subtitle summarizes the point quite succinctly: "Lazy Journalists Love Pictures of Abandoned Stuff". It looks at the trend of many journalists and photographers going Detroit in the past year to write about that city's severe economic hardship. While there is much to say and show about the dire situation there, this article points out that most of the stories and pictures have focused disproportionately on the crumbling buildings, shuttered factories, and other scenes of blight. Many of these pictures have narrowly shown only the decrepit buildings but left out some background that undermines their premise - commercial buildings still actively used and containing vibrant businesses.
This provides another example of how many photographers and their reporter colleagues tend to include only anecdotes and pictures that support their story theme, in this case, the sharp decline of a major manufacturing city. The death of GM and Chrysler has undoubtedly caused great hardship in Detroit, with ripple effects still occurring, but it doesn't help the readers when the stories show only scenes of decay. The photos seem to almost revel in the disturbing pictures - it's not too much of an exaggeration to call some it this "ruin porn".
What also seems a bit odd to me is that Detroit has been in bad shape for a long time now (since the early '80s), so it's current plight is nothing really new. The severity of this recession and it's impact on the city is probably much greater now, but that point is often overlooked in most of the news stories. The recent series in TIME magazine is an interesting one - it does show a lot of the problems, but also gives some discussion on ways the city can recover. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1887864,00.html
Although the 'Vice' article is a bit snarky in tone, it does provide another example of how some journalists can manipulate pictures to support a story's theme.
This week we are discussing whether or not to and how to publish disturbing news and photos. This reminds me of another challenging issue: the reporting of suicides. As a student majoring in psychology, I’d like to present some ideas from the perspective of suicide research.
Suicide studies have shown that there is a phenomenon called “suicide contagion”. It means when giving attention, especially inappropriate attention, to one suicide, it is very likely to trigger other suicides in the community. Many studies demonstrated that extensive media coverage of a suicide is associated with a significant increase in the suicide rate. One typical case is the suicide of Hong Kong movie/singing star Leslie Cheung. On April 1, 2003, Cheung committed suicide by jumping from a high building. Many Chinese media covered this incident as headline news, providing many details of his suicide location and method. The follow-up coverage about his glorious career and the mourning of the public and fans further dramatized and romanticized his suicide. The dense report lasted for more than a month. In Hong Kong, during the same month, there were a total of 131 suicides, which was a 32% increase from the previous month. In April 2003, 32% of the suicides died from jumping from buildings.
On the other hand, the media can also play a positive role on preventing suicide. When the media covers suicides in an appropriate fashion, they can educate the public about the risk of suicide and change the public’s attitude toward suicide. In 1987, Austrian Association for Suicide Prevention established a media guideline for suicide reporting. After the media implemented the guideline, Austria’s suicide rate decreased 7% within the first year and nearly 20% in the 4-year period. American mental health and media experts are working on forming a national consensus guideline for the coverage of suicides. Here are some interim recommendations:
1) Question if the suicide is newsworthy. Suicide is a common cause of death. Indeed, it account for more teen deaths than all natural causes combined.
2) Do not misrepresent suicide as a mysterious act by an otherwise “healthy” or “high achieving” person.
3) Indicate that suicide is most often a fatal complication of different types of mental illness, many of which are treatable.
4) Do not present suicide as a reasonable way of problem solving.
5) Do not present suicide in a heroic or romantic fashion.
6) Exercise care with pictures of the victim and/or grieving relatives and friends to avoid fostering overidentification with the victim and inadvertently glorifying the death.
7) Avoid providing a detailed description of method and site.
8) Limit the prominence, length, and number of stories about a particular suicide. Avoid front page coverage.
9) Try to oversee headlines. Some responsibly written stories are spoiled by sensational and inappropriate headlines.
10) Provide local treatment resource information.
(Source: Gould, M. S. 2001. Suicide and the Media. Annals of the NY Academy of Sciences, 932, 200-221).
Please see the website of American Foundation for Suicide Prevention for more details about how to report suicide. www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewPage&page_id=7852EBBC-9FB2-6691-54125A1AD4221E49
As we've all been informed, there was a mass shooting at a military base in Texas yesterday afternoon. We've learned this morning the name of the shooter, and that he was in fact a Major, and has been in the Army since 1995. And his name is Nidal Malik Hassan. As I'm reading the news on my iPhone, still in bed this morning, I realize I'm going to need a lot more than tea to get my blood pressure under control today. The article prefaces itself by accounting the "no religious preference" the Major has listed on his official paperwork, and that he was born and raised in the US. Two paragraphs later they are interviewing Muslim organizations in the US and claiming Hassan yelled the "Allahu Akbar" phrase (which this country has somehow agreed to associate with terrorists) while on his shooting rampage. I find it incredibly insulting, but not surprising, to see that this country and its media have yet to move past the stereotype that Arab=Muslim=terrorist. There is no one at fault here other than the journalists' for promoting this ridiculous idea even further. Simply because the man has an Arabic and Muslim name does not mean he is Muslim, and most definitely does not present a plausible defense for his actions. When the press felt a need to mention his lack of a religious preference, they should have left it at that. Whether the assailant is Muslim or not should have no place in the context of this tragedy. Being Muslim does not motivate people to kill, in this or any other country. Terrorists from all walks of life, for centuries, have cloaked their missions in religion, but it is their person that commits these acts and not their religion. Journalists who insinuate otherwise are the cancer that is preventing this country's prejudices from healing.
As we consider the essential elements of responsible journalism, we are being confronted by a changing model for news gathering. The most visible example of this is coming from international news. At the Future of Journalism forum last week, there was a general consensus among the panelists that city newspapers will continue to narrow their coverage to local issues and away from international news. This would be consistent with the closing of foreign bureaus that has been occuring in recent years. Much of the international news that does appear in newspapers comes from the wire services. Such information tends to lack depth and analysis.
One panelist, Charles M. Sennott, referred to it as "industrial information." I spoke with Mr. Sennott, co-founder of Global Post, after the forum. Global Post is a website that is entirely committed to international news. According to Mr. Sennott, the reporters are required to live in the countries that they cover. This allows them to provide the perspective and analysis that is lacking from the wire services. It is international news for Americans by Americans. The site offers basic service for free, but requires a subscription for premium service.
My interest was piqued, so I had a look for myself. My first thought was to examine their coverage of a country I knew something about. I went to the section on Japan. My wife is Japanese, I have been there seven times, and I get news from Japan on television through NHK TV. What I found was a collection of expatriates who held other jobs and were providing feed on a part time basis. I have seen advertisements for freelance writers from on-line organizations that offer pay per story. I have not confirmed that this is the model they are using, but it seems to be the most likely. The level of journalistic skill also varies between reporters. Some of them clearly do not meet a recognizable standard of professionalism. My reaction to this is that the on-line model is still so new that there has not been enough time to clean up the rough edges. It is something like the Wild West. The reach of law and order needs to be extended before we see consistent quality international news gathering again. The problem is, if we are going to rely on random expatriates rather than sending professionals, how can we uphold those standards of quality. Perhaps, in the future, there will need to be a greater emphasis on journalism education.
