Blair and Spitzer speak in universities. Why not?

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.

Race, Region, Ratings

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 and Privacy

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.

The Ft. Hood Fiasco

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.

Spin Cycle

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:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/us/11dalton.html

Reporter Liptak, who describes Kennedy as “one of the court’s most vigilant defenders of First Amendment values,” asked Kennedy for comment. Kennedy declined.

It should matter

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.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1410/fort-hood-the-online-conversation

Thoughts on bias

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.