Deliberately planting false or misleading stories with the public in an attempt to solve a crime is a questionable tactic that should be used rarely if ever, law enforcement and media experts said Wednesday November 7. An article written by Robert Moore, a journalist from the Coloradoan, questions the ethics of law enforcement, as well as, journalists. A request for a new trial in a Fort Collins, Colorado, murder case is raising a variety of ethics issues, including a controversy about whether it's proper for police to plant false or misleading stories in the press in order to further an investigation. The Fort Collins Coloradoan reports that some law enforcement officials and media experts planted a false story in the local news paper implying that progress was being made in a murder case, when in actuality the case was stalled. The Coloradoan claims that the fake article that was planted in the local news paper, was aimed at Tim Masters. Tim Masters was the prime suspect, who was later convicted and imprisoned for murdering Peggy Hettrick in 1988.
Fort Collins police Lt. Deryle O'Dell wrote a Jan. 8, 1988, memo to his superiors saying investigators had "exhausted all of the leads" in the Hettrick slaying. He requested approval from Glasscock for several new steps, including planting a story that would say police had made significant inroads in the investigation. Under a heading titled "F.B.I behavior science recommendations," O'Dell's memo outlined a plan that called for "preparing our own newspaper articles" and "making sure the suspect is aware of newspaper articles." To make sure Masters saw the story, the plan called for police to deliver the Coloradoan to his home for a month leading up to the Feb. 11, 1988, anniversary of Hettrick's slaying. The plan also called for "anonymously placing and mailing the newspaper articles on the suspect's vehicle/residence." The plan called for several days of round-the-clock surveillance of Masters as the story came out to see if he did anything incriminating, such as visiting the murder scene or Hettrick's grave. If the plan didn't work, "we would essentially close the books on the case," O'Dell wrote.
According to the memos, authorities:
Fed a local reporter phony information that police were closing in on a suspect
Delivered newspapers carrying the fake story to Masters' trailer
Had one of Masters' friends deliver him a copy of his mother's obituary
The false story was written by Cara Neth, who was working her first newspaper job a few months after graduating from Colorado State University. She said she was naïve at the time, but other, more experienced reporters suspected something fishy after her story was published.
The Fort Collins police tactics in 1988 raise troubling questions for both investigators and journalists, said Bob Steele, an ethicist at the Poynter Institute, a Florida-based journalism education program. "It is exceptionally rare to have a law enforcement agency or government agency try to plant a patently false story in order to then generate a specific action, in this case on the part of a crime suspect," Steele said. "It can corrupt and corrode the essential trust that must exist between law enforcement and journalism, even while there are different values and different purposes for the professionals involved.” Steele said the 1988 Coloradoan story is an example of what can happen when reporters and editors don't approach stories skeptically.
I feel that it is unethical for law enforcement to plant false news stories in newspapers no matter the circumstances. False stories can corrupt the essential trust that exists between the reader and journalists. According to the SPJ code of ethics, Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. They should also test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible. Therefore, I feel that Cara Neth was being unethical and naïve by publishing a false article. By publishing a fake article, she was not being honest or fair. Neth should have questioned her sources motives. Journalists are supposed to seek the truth, and publish the facts.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Washington Insiders Weigh in on Shield Legislation
In this article written by Leann Frola it addresses the issue of the establishment of a shield law for protection of journalist and their sources in regards to federal cases. The Washington Post stated that the Senate Judiciary Committee has postponed consideration of the shield legislation after the Justice Department raised objections. In order for there to be a provision of the bill the department of justice would have to convince the judge that it would be a leak in national security information that would hurt the government more than helping the public. ABC's Sam Donaldson said, "balancing national security and the publics right to know would be tricky. Also another problem with the bill would be deciding who would be protected by it. In the past numerous journalists have been jailed for disclosing their sources. On Thursday, a federal judge sentenced San Francisco Chronicle reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada to 18 months in jail. The reporters had refused to reveal who leaked to them secret grand jury testimony alleging steroid abuse by top athletes. News analyst Robert Cokie said, "Confidential sources are crucial for reporting sensitive stories that may put a source's career at risk."
I feel that there should be a shield law when it comes to sources of federal cases. I am looking out for the best interest of the source. If the sources got leaked in high profile cases it would not only put these peoples careers at risk but possibly their lives as well. Yes, it is the journalists job to state their sources so that the public can see that they are credible. However, I feel that when it comes to jeopardizing a persons life all for the sake of a source, I do not feel that it is necessary and that journalists should be able to provide information about the source with out leaking the name in cases such as these.
I feel that there should be a shield law when it comes to sources of federal cases. I am looking out for the best interest of the source. If the sources got leaked in high profile cases it would not only put these peoples careers at risk but possibly their lives as well. Yes, it is the journalists job to state their sources so that the public can see that they are credible. However, I feel that when it comes to jeopardizing a persons life all for the sake of a source, I do not feel that it is necessary and that journalists should be able to provide information about the source with out leaking the name in cases such as these.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Undercover, under fire
This article was written by Kevin Silverstein, and it is about journalists going undercover in order to get their "story". The journalist the story is talking about is a man who posed as a representative for a London based energy company with interests in Turkmenistan.
He used the fact that the lobbyists in Washington knew that Turkmenistan is a run by a neo-Stalinist regime, and they did not pay attention to this fact, because the money they were going to be receiving was going to be over $1.5 million year. "they offered to send congressional delegations to Turkmenistan and write and plant opinion pieces in newspapers under the names of academics and think-tank experts they would recruit. They even offered to set up supposedly "independent" media events in Washington that would promote Turkmenistan (the agenda and speakers would actually be determined by the lobbyists). "
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post's disagrees with the tactics that Kevin Silverstein took in order to get his story. "No matter how good the story," he wrote, "lying to get it raises as many questions about journalists as their subjects," said Kurtz.
This can be done quietly because there are little to no restriction on lobbyists. Although the author went "undercover" in order to gain this information; he would not have gotten the story without it. Lobbyists are not going to come out with information that they are participating in scandalous behavior.
There are times in life when we all need to make ethical decisions. Silverstein was able to exposed the unethical behavior of Washington lobbyists. Going undercover has been a common practice that journalist have taken throughout time. For example, ". . . there's a long tradition of sting operations in American journalism, dating back at least to the 1880s, when Nellie Bly pretended to be insane in order to reveal the atrocious treatment of inmates at the Women's Lunatic Asylum on Blackwell's Island in New York City. "
Silverstein is forced to defend his actions, when others are praised for them. "In my case, I was able to gain an inside glimpse into a secretive culture of professional spinners only by lying myself. I disclosed my deceptions clearly in the piece I wrote (whereas the lobbyists I met boasted of how they were able to fly under the radar screen in seeking to shape U.S. foreign policy)." He was not harming anyone in the process of his undercover work. He was bringing to light the irresponsible actions of others; therefore he was completely within the realm of being ethical.
He used the fact that the lobbyists in Washington knew that Turkmenistan is a run by a neo-Stalinist regime, and they did not pay attention to this fact, because the money they were going to be receiving was going to be over $1.5 million year. "they offered to send congressional delegations to Turkmenistan and write and plant opinion pieces in newspapers under the names of academics and think-tank experts they would recruit. They even offered to set up supposedly "independent" media events in Washington that would promote Turkmenistan (the agenda and speakers would actually be determined by the lobbyists). "
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post's disagrees with the tactics that Kevin Silverstein took in order to get his story. "No matter how good the story," he wrote, "lying to get it raises as many questions about journalists as their subjects," said Kurtz.
This can be done quietly because there are little to no restriction on lobbyists. Although the author went "undercover" in order to gain this information; he would not have gotten the story without it. Lobbyists are not going to come out with information that they are participating in scandalous behavior.
There are times in life when we all need to make ethical decisions. Silverstein was able to exposed the unethical behavior of Washington lobbyists. Going undercover has been a common practice that journalist have taken throughout time. For example, ". . . there's a long tradition of sting operations in American journalism, dating back at least to the 1880s, when Nellie Bly pretended to be insane in order to reveal the atrocious treatment of inmates at the Women's Lunatic Asylum on Blackwell's Island in New York City. "
Silverstein is forced to defend his actions, when others are praised for them. "In my case, I was able to gain an inside glimpse into a secretive culture of professional spinners only by lying myself. I disclosed my deceptions clearly in the piece I wrote (whereas the lobbyists I met boasted of how they were able to fly under the radar screen in seeking to shape U.S. foreign policy)." He was not harming anyone in the process of his undercover work. He was bringing to light the irresponsible actions of others; therefore he was completely within the realm of being ethical.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Sexuality and Equality: 'Balance' Is an Act
This article was written by Cindi E Deutschman-Ruiz of the Poynter website. Ruiz presented the argument of journalists no longer writing articles that are always fair and balanced because there is always more than two sides, and often the journalist if forced from gaining access to one of the other sources. Ruiz argues that she should have the freedom to include personal opinion and to write about things that will become socially acceptable in the future, but are not write now.
She raises this ethical argument from interviews she has given over the years, dealing with the subject of homosexuality and a number of others. The author being a homosexual herself, said
“I interviewed by phone the leader of Colorado for Family Values, the organization that had spearheaded the campaign in favor of the amendment. My feelings on sexuality were no different then than they are today, and it severely tested me to keep my voice neutral and to ask non-judgmental questions.”
She brings up the argument of race, saying that if we look at race today, it is widely accepted truth among people that racism is bad and that all races of people are equal. She said that 100 years ago, this would not have seemed possible, but it is now today, for the most part. She brings up this point to reinforce her views upon writing about the gay community. Much of the American public view homosexuality as something negative or sinful. They don’t see homosexuals as on the same standards as heterosexual people. She explains that in the future, due to recurring social themes in history, that the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle will become common.
Her main point is that she should be able to write about homosexuality in a way that she personally chooses, without being held to regards of what society deems as safe to write about. Ruiz says that journalists can be seen as more than just sources of information, but can be storytellers as well. She says that such a system would acknowledge that our own personal beliefs affect the approach to our work. Ruiz says that it would change the way journalism functions, all the way from the questions you ask to the types of stories your willing to report on. She is not saying to abandon the other side’s point of view, but to add your own personal touch.
I personally disagree with her opinion. I think many positives for journalists would appear; to be able to write their own personal views and bring in information that would not normally be included. The negatives that would fall upon the audience out weighs the good. When I read a newspaper, I want just the facts. I do not care what the writer’s personal views on the subject are. The only benefit I can see to this, is introducing readers to views that they might not have known of or appreciated before.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Can a picture be worth too many words? -Journalists Decide
Monday, November 12, 2007
Can a picture be worth too many words?- Journalists Decide
There are times when pictures can pose more of a controversy than a written story. This has become especially true with the war in Iraq. Since there is not a set of rules stating what images are appropriate and which are not, it is all varied. This is when the Pentagon tries to set the rules. In the article "Which words is a war photo worth? -Journalists must meet the standard" posted by Barbara Zelizer, this very problem is discussed. She talks about when it is appropriate to use war photos. "The images of the war in Iraq have drawn a sustained degree of public attention, as pundits, military and government officials, journalists and members of the public have debated the very issue of image display -- whether to show an image, where to show an image, and how to show an image."Zelizer discusses these very issues and looks at who should be responsible for making the executive decision.
A primary discussion point for the time being is the discussion over the value, or lack thereof, for those involved in the war and their families. She gave points on both sides of the argument when thinking about the betterment of those involved as well as the impact the images have had (such as times when documentation was not allowed and when the images arose after the wartime, it gave people an idea of what it was like and supplied them with a visual they would have otherwise not had). Some images were contributors to understanding historical war periods, such as the First Gulf War.
In the closing of her post, Zelizer summed up the argument best by stating; "when assessing the appropriateness of an image or the relevance of its display, we should ask which words an image stands for in times of war. For it may be that only those words that are big enough, bold enough, and direct enough can correct the nearsightedness with which images of war are displayed and consumed."I agree with her completely, the journalists themselves should be responsible. Through reading her post I found good reasons for using images and the impact they have.
A journalist should evaluate whether the picture will be effective in a positive or negative light. They need to ask themselves the questions about appropriateness and effectiveness and make the executive decision rather than allowing the government to do so as they might want to hide things that should be shown. Images help to give a visual but I agree that we need to have one set of standards, set by journalists themselves, so there is no confusion or controversy over different visuals.
Can a picture be worth too many words?- Journalists Decide
There are times when pictures can pose more of a controversy than a written story. This has become especially true with the war in Iraq. Since there is not a set of rules stating what images are appropriate and which are not, it is all varied. This is when the Pentagon tries to set the rules. In the article "Which words is a war photo worth? -Journalists must meet the standard" posted by Barbara Zelizer, this very problem is discussed. She talks about when it is appropriate to use war photos. "The images of the war in Iraq have drawn a sustained degree of public attention, as pundits, military and government officials, journalists and members of the public have debated the very issue of image display -- whether to show an image, where to show an image, and how to show an image."Zelizer discusses these very issues and looks at who should be responsible for making the executive decision.
A primary discussion point for the time being is the discussion over the value, or lack thereof, for those involved in the war and their families. She gave points on both sides of the argument when thinking about the betterment of those involved as well as the impact the images have had (such as times when documentation was not allowed and when the images arose after the wartime, it gave people an idea of what it was like and supplied them with a visual they would have otherwise not had). Some images were contributors to understanding historical war periods, such as the First Gulf War.
In the closing of her post, Zelizer summed up the argument best by stating; "when assessing the appropriateness of an image or the relevance of its display, we should ask which words an image stands for in times of war. For it may be that only those words that are big enough, bold enough, and direct enough can correct the nearsightedness with which images of war are displayed and consumed."I agree with her completely, the journalists themselves should be responsible. Through reading her post I found good reasons for using images and the impact they have.
A journalist should evaluate whether the picture will be effective in a positive or negative light. They need to ask themselves the questions about appropriateness and effectiveness and make the executive decision rather than allowing the government to do so as they might want to hide things that should be shown. Images help to give a visual but I agree that we need to have one set of standards, set by journalists themselves, so there is no confusion or controversy over different visuals.
Parties seeking special probe on Samsung
A group of liberal presidential canidates from South Korea, agreed to submit legislation Wednesday about allogations of bribery from the Samsung Group to various governement officials, judges, prosecutors, lawmakers and journalists.
Presidential candidates of the United New Democratic Party, the Democratic Labor Party and the Create Korea Party agreed to submit legislation for probing Wednesday and pass it by early next month, said Yu Eun-hye, a spokeswoman at the United New Democratic Party, the largest liberal party in South Korea. The three parties have a combined 150 seats, a majority in the single-chamber 299 member parliament.
Samsung, which has strongly denied the allegations and offered detailed rebuttals to the claims, said it would cooperate completely.
The investigation followed the filing of a criminal lawsuit last week by two civic groups against three top Samsung executives. The lawsuit was based on claims last week by a former top Samsung legal affairs official, that Samsung Chairman Lee Kun-hee masterminded the payoffs.
In latest allegations said that two current prosecutors, including a prosecutor-general appointee, and a former one regularly took bribes from Samsung. All of those cited have denied the allegations.
Among the claims last week was that Samsung manipulated evidence and witnesses in a court case over alleged shady deals said to be aimed at transferring corporate control from Lee to his son.
For decades, South Korean conglomerates have been accused by critics of separates dealings between subsidiaries and affiliates to help controlling families evade taxes and transfer wealth to heirs through a complex ownership structure.
I think this is the right decision for the government to probe into this issue and keep the corruption out of the economy. The allogations against Samsung seem to add up and something needs to be done about it otherwise the bribery will continue thus maintaining a shady business.
Presidential candidates of the United New Democratic Party, the Democratic Labor Party and the Create Korea Party agreed to submit legislation for probing Wednesday and pass it by early next month, said Yu Eun-hye, a spokeswoman at the United New Democratic Party, the largest liberal party in South Korea. The three parties have a combined 150 seats, a majority in the single-chamber 299 member parliament.
Samsung, which has strongly denied the allegations and offered detailed rebuttals to the claims, said it would cooperate completely.
The investigation followed the filing of a criminal lawsuit last week by two civic groups against three top Samsung executives. The lawsuit was based on claims last week by a former top Samsung legal affairs official, that Samsung Chairman Lee Kun-hee masterminded the payoffs.
In latest allegations said that two current prosecutors, including a prosecutor-general appointee, and a former one regularly took bribes from Samsung. All of those cited have denied the allegations.
Among the claims last week was that Samsung manipulated evidence and witnesses in a court case over alleged shady deals said to be aimed at transferring corporate control from Lee to his son.
For decades, South Korean conglomerates have been accused by critics of separates dealings between subsidiaries and affiliates to help controlling families evade taxes and transfer wealth to heirs through a complex ownership structure.
I think this is the right decision for the government to probe into this issue and keep the corruption out of the economy. The allogations against Samsung seem to add up and something needs to be done about it otherwise the bribery will continue thus maintaining a shady business.
Monday, November 12, 2007
David Holwerk: A peek inside a Sac State foundation
In an article published in Sunday's paper, David Holwerk, discussed a few interesting points about the audit made on the CSU system the past week. According to Holwerk, the $295,000 that CSUS president Alexander Gonzalez made did not bother him as much as loans given to Gonzalez for his mortage payments and the money given for his kitchen remodel.
Holwerk had read that the money given to Gonzalez did not come from the University, but from a non-profit University foundation. That foundation turned out to be University Enterprises Inc.
The University Enterprises is "a dynamic and innovative non-profit corporation. It creates and manages an array of programs and services, which support and strengthen the University's mission of teaching, scholarship and public service."
In an attempt to discover where the money came from and who decided to spend it the way it had been Holwerk tried to use California's open record's law to find out.
His attempt was unsuccessful, as was an attempt made by another bee reporter. They were told that University Enterprises Inc. was not part of the University.
I agree with Holwerk. The information regarding where and how the money was distributed to Gonzalez should be available for the public to view. If University Enterprises is working in strengthening the University's mission for public service, then the information and data should be public. It's the right of everyone to know why tuition continues to rise on campus, we have the right to know where and how that money is being spent.
Holwerk had read that the money given to Gonzalez did not come from the University, but from a non-profit University foundation. That foundation turned out to be University Enterprises Inc.
The University Enterprises is "a dynamic and innovative non-profit corporation. It creates and manages an array of programs and services, which support and strengthen the University's mission of teaching, scholarship and public service."
In an attempt to discover where the money came from and who decided to spend it the way it had been Holwerk tried to use California's open record's law to find out.
His attempt was unsuccessful, as was an attempt made by another bee reporter. They were told that University Enterprises Inc. was not part of the University.
I agree with Holwerk. The information regarding where and how the money was distributed to Gonzalez should be available for the public to view. If University Enterprises is working in strengthening the University's mission for public service, then the information and data should be public. It's the right of everyone to know why tuition continues to rise on campus, we have the right to know where and how that money is being spent.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
NEWS FLASH: FEAR DU JOUR
What ever happened to the killer bees that were supposed to kill us all? Or the Asian bird flu that seemed to be assassinating the unvaccinated masses? They disappeared, faded into the background as the next big virus or potentially deadly disease fueled the ugliest part of modern journalism: fear driven journalism.
This is the topic presented by journalist Leonard Pitts, of The Sacramento Bee, in an article posted last Saturday. Pitts specifically targets the latest epidemic in our “United States of Fear,” that being the “superbug,” or Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a staph infection.
For no apparent reason, all interest has been turned to a strain of the staph infection that does not respond to common antibiotics. In the first two weeks of October, U.S. newspapers mentioned the virus 155 times. As soon as it caught the attention of the readers, specifically from the 15th to the 31st, the “superbug” was mentioned over 1,650 times.
“So did staph somehow become deadlier in the last two weeks than it was before? No,” writes Pitts. "Staph is not new," says Nicole Coffin, a spokeswoman for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. "Even MRSA is not new. In the hospitals it's been around for 30 years. In the general population, it's been around for at least 10 years."”
Pitts finishes his article by saying in no way is he trying to make light of staph infections themselves. He is, however, trying to show some light on the “journalists” that bring us, “shark attacks! Poison gases in your home! Bacteria lurking in hotel sheets! The pedophile next door!” and ridicule them for work that causes more collective worry than life saving awareness.
I could not agree more with Mr. Pitts opinions on fear driven news. I think it is an easy way to turn out an article that will do nothing, but prey upon the “fight or flight” instinct in all humans. Furthermore, when looking at the SPJ Code of Ethics, I think it directly violates the principle of a journalists attempt to “Minimize Harm.” These headlines of “Superbug kills another” and “Superbug can’t be stopped” only inflame present situations and corrupt the mentality of the masses to a point of absolute, and unnecessary, panic.
The code says that journalists should, “Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiousity,” and under the heading “Seek Truth and Report It,” journalists should, “not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.” As Pitts reported, this form of staph infection has been around for at least 10 years, it is nothing new.
If the news could focus on dispersing helpful information instead of hyping the latest ailment, maybe society as a whole could share in a moment of calm instead of waiting for a dooms day that never comes.
http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/469042.html
This is the topic presented by journalist Leonard Pitts, of The Sacramento Bee, in an article posted last Saturday. Pitts specifically targets the latest epidemic in our “United States of Fear,” that being the “superbug,” or Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a staph infection.
For no apparent reason, all interest has been turned to a strain of the staph infection that does not respond to common antibiotics. In the first two weeks of October, U.S. newspapers mentioned the virus 155 times. As soon as it caught the attention of the readers, specifically from the 15th to the 31st, the “superbug” was mentioned over 1,650 times.
“So did staph somehow become deadlier in the last two weeks than it was before? No,” writes Pitts. "Staph is not new," says Nicole Coffin, a spokeswoman for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. "Even MRSA is not new. In the hospitals it's been around for 30 years. In the general population, it's been around for at least 10 years."”
Pitts finishes his article by saying in no way is he trying to make light of staph infections themselves. He is, however, trying to show some light on the “journalists” that bring us, “shark attacks! Poison gases in your home! Bacteria lurking in hotel sheets! The pedophile next door!” and ridicule them for work that causes more collective worry than life saving awareness.
I could not agree more with Mr. Pitts opinions on fear driven news. I think it is an easy way to turn out an article that will do nothing, but prey upon the “fight or flight” instinct in all humans. Furthermore, when looking at the SPJ Code of Ethics, I think it directly violates the principle of a journalists attempt to “Minimize Harm.” These headlines of “Superbug kills another” and “Superbug can’t be stopped” only inflame present situations and corrupt the mentality of the masses to a point of absolute, and unnecessary, panic.
The code says that journalists should, “Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiousity,” and under the heading “Seek Truth and Report It,” journalists should, “not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.” As Pitts reported, this form of staph infection has been around for at least 10 years, it is nothing new.
If the news could focus on dispersing helpful information instead of hyping the latest ailment, maybe society as a whole could share in a moment of calm instead of waiting for a dooms day that never comes.
http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/469042.html
Monday, November 5, 2007
CORRECTING THE RECORD; Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception
A reporter resigned after years, in 2003, of deceiving his audience by writing fabricated and false stories for The New York Times. Jayson Blair worked for The New York Times for nearly four years and decided to resign because of "personal problems". He falsely wrote about the emotional experiences of recent events and soldiers dying in Iraq war. He also lied about where a story was taking place. A spot check of more than 600 articles that Blair wrote had fabrications. His technological devices allowed him to lie about his where abouts and what he was doing. Among the journalistic deceit he was also having emotional and personal problems at work that resulted in a serious warning.
Blair used the reputation of The New York Times to control what the public believed. The public Reading the paper trusted him and believed everything he published. Until this incident, The New York Times was known as a very honest and trust worthy source. In just a short time Blair has ruined that and his own reputation. He broke the code of ethics in so many ways. I cannot believe he was not noticed and caught sooner but because he failed to communicate with his senior editors and his clever ways of covering up his tracks, it was only a matter of time until he was suspicious. This article is a good reminder to read very critically and not believe everything you read just because it comes from a "reliable" source.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E1DB123FF932A25756C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
Blair used the reputation of The New York Times to control what the public believed. The public Reading the paper trusted him and believed everything he published. Until this incident, The New York Times was known as a very honest and trust worthy source. In just a short time Blair has ruined that and his own reputation. He broke the code of ethics in so many ways. I cannot believe he was not noticed and caught sooner but because he failed to communicate with his senior editors and his clever ways of covering up his tracks, it was only a matter of time until he was suspicious. This article is a good reminder to read very critically and not believe everything you read just because it comes from a "reliable" source.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E1DB123FF932A25756C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
United Arab Emirates Newspapers Violate Codes of Ethics
Newspapers of UAE in Abu Dhabi continue to publish police provided pictures of defendants in a case that has not yet reached the court. This means that there has been no final verdict. The code in violation is that the newspapers do have to give the public the right to information, but they have to do it responsibly. The code bans the publishing of names and pictures of suspects before a final court ruling. The article states that the editors-in-chief have signed the code of ethics of most papers, meaning that the newspapers are aware and agreed with the code.
The newspaper that published the pictures is in complete violation of the code of ethics. This can be an issue for the Journalists Association if they provide a code and people sign it and do not really take it seriously. What is the point of the codes is they are not followed? The newspaper should retract the pictures or issue some kind of apology. This leaves a bad example to the trustworthiness of the media if this goes unpunished. The editors signed the code of ethics and this should mean that they fully adopt all the rules and should be aware of them. The pictures may bee good for the public to know but if they defendants are proven innocent, the public may still criticism them and see them as criminals. The reputation of the defendant could be falsely ruined by this newspaper. The bottom line was that the newspaper was aware of the codes and deliberately violated one of them. It is good that another journalist recognized the issue and brought it to attention.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
In Inquiry, ABC News Clears Work of a Fired Consultant
By BRIAN STELTER
Published: October 23, 2007
ABC News said yesterday that it had ended an investigation into a consultant whom it fired for falsifying his résumé and concluded that the reporting he had contributed to the network was sound.
In response to the incident, ABC will make changes to its system of hiring consultants, reviewing claims of prior employment and academic credentials more thoroughly, David L. Westin, the president of ABC News, wrote in a memorandum yesterday. Also, the network's news practices unit will be involved in all hiring decisions and reporting situations involving consultants, he wrote.
The changes stem from the case of Alexis Debat, a terrorism analyst who had been on the payroll of ABC as a consultant since 2001. Mr. Debat was suspended in May and fired in June after questions were raised about the legitimacy of his résumé; the network determined at the time that his claim of having earned a doctorate at the Sorbonne was false.
Three months later, after a French news Web site reported that an interview Mr. Debat had purportedly conducted with Senator Barack Obama was not authentic, ABC began a second review, combing through the news reports in which Mr. Debat had played a role to see if they contained any falsehoods. That investigation found no instances of false reporting, ABC said, but did uncover four details about operations and meetings in Pakistan that could not be confirmed.
''None of these discrepancies would rise to the level of a formal, on-air retraction because none of them was material to the substance of our report,'' Mr. Westin wrote.
ABC, which is part of the Walt Disney Company, and other television news organizations pay dozens of experts to serve as consultants on subjects.
''You're hiring these people not because they are skilled journalists, but precisely because of their subject expertise,'' said Tom Rosenstiel, the director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. ''I think it would seem obvious that a network would verify that the expertise is genuine.''
After reviewing this article, I was extremely appauled. Yes, this genetlemen lied on his resume. Lying should not be accepted and it is ethically wrong. However, he was doing an excellent job as a reporter. After six years of working wuth ABC, now his reporting is a problem? I agree with Rosenstiel, people should get hired by their
subject of expertise. I think it is too late in the game for this reporter. In my opinion, he should not have been fired.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402E0DB1F38F930A15753C1A9619C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/E/Ethics
By BRIAN STELTER
Published: October 23, 2007
ABC News said yesterday that it had ended an investigation into a consultant whom it fired for falsifying his résumé and concluded that the reporting he had contributed to the network was sound.
In response to the incident, ABC will make changes to its system of hiring consultants, reviewing claims of prior employment and academic credentials more thoroughly, David L. Westin, the president of ABC News, wrote in a memorandum yesterday. Also, the network's news practices unit will be involved in all hiring decisions and reporting situations involving consultants, he wrote.
The changes stem from the case of Alexis Debat, a terrorism analyst who had been on the payroll of ABC as a consultant since 2001. Mr. Debat was suspended in May and fired in June after questions were raised about the legitimacy of his résumé; the network determined at the time that his claim of having earned a doctorate at the Sorbonne was false.
Three months later, after a French news Web site reported that an interview Mr. Debat had purportedly conducted with Senator Barack Obama was not authentic, ABC began a second review, combing through the news reports in which Mr. Debat had played a role to see if they contained any falsehoods. That investigation found no instances of false reporting, ABC said, but did uncover four details about operations and meetings in Pakistan that could not be confirmed.
''None of these discrepancies would rise to the level of a formal, on-air retraction because none of them was material to the substance of our report,'' Mr. Westin wrote.
ABC, which is part of the Walt Disney Company, and other television news organizations pay dozens of experts to serve as consultants on subjects.
''You're hiring these people not because they are skilled journalists, but precisely because of their subject expertise,'' said Tom Rosenstiel, the director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. ''I think it would seem obvious that a network would verify that the expertise is genuine.''
After reviewing this article, I was extremely appauled. Yes, this genetlemen lied on his resume. Lying should not be accepted and it is ethically wrong. However, he was doing an excellent job as a reporter. After six years of working wuth ABC, now his reporting is a problem? I agree with Rosenstiel, people should get hired by their
subject of expertise. I think it is too late in the game for this reporter. In my opinion, he should not have been fired.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402E0DB1F38F930A15753C1A9619C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/E/Ethics
Ethics or Not? That is the question!
Response to the ethical questions from Professor Fox
1. As a responsible journalists, one should turn the offer down. However, if the reporter was a critic then this would be a different situation. As a journalist, we have a ethical responsibility to be fair and just. We should not be able to be bought or sold for any price. As a critic, it would be our job to report on the accommodations of a hotel but as a journalists that is not our job.
2. This reporter should reject the free gift or donate it to someone else. They were at the Convention Center to report on the job fair. They were not there to be entered into a raffle. It would not be a smart ethical decision to keep that free gift.
3. As an editor, I would have the advantage of sampling the promotional items. I believe I would have to listen to the music, watch the movies, and even wear a few t-shirts as part of the job. An editor’s position is different than a journalist’s position. As an editor, I have the freedom to report on my opinion and my views.
1. As a responsible journalists, one should turn the offer down. However, if the reporter was a critic then this would be a different situation. As a journalist, we have a ethical responsibility to be fair and just. We should not be able to be bought or sold for any price. As a critic, it would be our job to report on the accommodations of a hotel but as a journalists that is not our job.
2. This reporter should reject the free gift or donate it to someone else. They were at the Convention Center to report on the job fair. They were not there to be entered into a raffle. It would not be a smart ethical decision to keep that free gift.
3. As an editor, I would have the advantage of sampling the promotional items. I believe I would have to listen to the music, watch the movies, and even wear a few t-shirts as part of the job. An editor’s position is different than a journalist’s position. As an editor, I have the freedom to report on my opinion and my views.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Journalists Ordered To Reveal Source By High Court
In Ireland last week, the editor of the Irish Times, Geraldine Kennedy, and her public affairs correspondent Colm Keena were ordered by the High Court to appear before the Mahon tribunal (also know as The Tribunal of Inquiry Into Certain Planning Matters and Payments) to reveal the identity of a source. The source in question provided information that the Mahon tribunal was investigating payments made to Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Bertie Ahern in 1993. The Irish Times ran the story in September of 2006.
The Mahon tribunal sought the help of the High Court after Kennedy and Keena would not comply with their initial request to identify the name of their source. The journalists have been warned that if they do not comply with the courts orders, they will be found in contempt and may face jail time. Kennedy has already been criticized by the court for destroying the documents sent to her regarding payments made to Bertie Ahern.
The National Newspapers of Ireland (NNI) said that the ruling is a threat to the practices of all journalists because protecting one's sources is a central principle of journalism.
I agree with the decision made by Kennedy and Keena to not reveal the name of their source. By deciding to print the article, they made a promise to their source that they would keep their identity a secret. Any trouble that comes from the article is their responsibility now, because they could have easily chosen to disregard the information given to them.
I also don't belive the court should have the authority to force them to reveal the name of their source. There are countless stories printed everyday where sources ask not to be named for fear of punishment by their employers, etc. There would be no news if people had to worry about consequences for revealing information.
The Irish Times
The Boston Globe
The Mahon tribunal sought the help of the High Court after Kennedy and Keena would not comply with their initial request to identify the name of their source. The journalists have been warned that if they do not comply with the courts orders, they will be found in contempt and may face jail time. Kennedy has already been criticized by the court for destroying the documents sent to her regarding payments made to Bertie Ahern.
The National Newspapers of Ireland (NNI) said that the ruling is a threat to the practices of all journalists because protecting one's sources is a central principle of journalism.
I agree with the decision made by Kennedy and Keena to not reveal the name of their source. By deciding to print the article, they made a promise to their source that they would keep their identity a secret. Any trouble that comes from the article is their responsibility now, because they could have easily chosen to disregard the information given to them.
I also don't belive the court should have the authority to force them to reveal the name of their source. There are countless stories printed everyday where sources ask not to be named for fear of punishment by their employers, etc. There would be no news if people had to worry about consequences for revealing information.
The Irish Times
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
What's Wrong with "To Catch a Predator"?
“What’s Wrong with ‘To Catch a Predator’?” – Some say journalists and cops working together blur the lines of ethics.
The point of argument in this article is the fact that journalists are working side by side with police forces, and their jobs are intermixing with each other, sparking a conflict with the ethics of journalism.
NBC’s “Dateline” series launched the investigation that seeks out online sexual predators, and arrests them. In the series, Journalist Chris Hansen and his camera crew stay behind the scenes until the predator is lured in by an offer from an underage teen online. Upon arrival, the predator is greeted by Hansen and his camera crew, and ultimately, a police squad is there for his arrest.
The show has proved successful. However, after an article published in Esquire magazine about the series, it has become a case study for journalists. It depicts how difficult it can be for journalists and investigators to work together with such a controversial matter because both groups are operating off of different goals and values.
It ultimately comes down to the lines of the jobs of the journalists and cops being blurred together. Esquire magazine said that it “makes it appear almost impossible for the journalists, the citizens, and the cops to stay true to their own goals and not to assume the work of the other.”
Some argue that the Dateline NBC production relies on the cops to draw their guns and tackle the predators in the end in order to capture dramatic video.
I am a fan of the show, but I had never thought of “To Catch a Predator” as taking advantage of the police force to profit for exciting, evening television progamming. I feel that journalist Chris Hansen and his crew do violate the journalistic code of ethics in a way. It is not a journalist’s job to take the law into his or her own hands, especially when the police are already involved in the situation. It makes me re-evaluate what the show is actually trying to accomplish – telling a story or trying to take down sexual predators. I would think that a journalist’s number one job is telling the story, and that it is the police’s job to “clean up the city” and keep things safe.
Either way, I feel it is definitely a thought-provoker.
New York Times
Poynter Online
The point of argument in this article is the fact that journalists are working side by side with police forces, and their jobs are intermixing with each other, sparking a conflict with the ethics of journalism.
NBC’s “Dateline” series launched the investigation that seeks out online sexual predators, and arrests them. In the series, Journalist Chris Hansen and his camera crew stay behind the scenes until the predator is lured in by an offer from an underage teen online. Upon arrival, the predator is greeted by Hansen and his camera crew, and ultimately, a police squad is there for his arrest.
The show has proved successful. However, after an article published in Esquire magazine about the series, it has become a case study for journalists. It depicts how difficult it can be for journalists and investigators to work together with such a controversial matter because both groups are operating off of different goals and values.
It ultimately comes down to the lines of the jobs of the journalists and cops being blurred together. Esquire magazine said that it “makes it appear almost impossible for the journalists, the citizens, and the cops to stay true to their own goals and not to assume the work of the other.”
Some argue that the Dateline NBC production relies on the cops to draw their guns and tackle the predators in the end in order to capture dramatic video.
I am a fan of the show, but I had never thought of “To Catch a Predator” as taking advantage of the police force to profit for exciting, evening television progamming. I feel that journalist Chris Hansen and his crew do violate the journalistic code of ethics in a way. It is not a journalist’s job to take the law into his or her own hands, especially when the police are already involved in the situation. It makes me re-evaluate what the show is actually trying to accomplish – telling a story or trying to take down sexual predators. I would think that a journalist’s number one job is telling the story, and that it is the police’s job to “clean up the city” and keep things safe.
Either way, I feel it is definitely a thought-provoker.
New York Times
Poynter Online
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
