Should Journalists Publish False Stories?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Poynter

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Newspapers 'violating code of ethics'

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

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.

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

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

Removing Content: When to Unring the Bell?

The reason this article is seen as controversial is because news organizations are facing growing questions about whether, how and when to unpublish articles. More specifically, are there times when the best solution is to wipe something off a site completely?

An increasing number of people are complaining to Times editors saying that “they are being embarrassed, are worried about losing or not getting jobs, or may be losing customers because of the sudden prominence of old news articles that contain errors or were never followed up.”

Google and other search engines are making these individuals worried since old news content can be found with a few clicks.

It is always important to decide on what news stories to publish, but it is also an important decision to think of the stories that should be unpublished. Times editors do not only think about the individuals who want the article removed. It is essential to take into consideration “the subject of the coverage, others who may have been involved in the incident or controversy, readers, etc.”

To decide on whether or not a story should be removed from a website, I think it depends on what the story is about and who is asking for the story to be removed. For example, no stories which are historically significant or play a key role in society should be erased. No matter who is asking for their removal. I also believe that stories involving know people should not be removed. One should be able to type into a search engine the names: O.J. Simpson, Barry Bonds, Scott Peterson or Andrea Yates and be given a list of news articles about these individuals and the crimes they committed. Anyone anywhere should have access to these articles.

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=101&aid=129083

Munhwa Ilbo Ordered to Apologize for Nude Photos

The controversy of this article is based on the printing of nude photographs of a person who was accused of a crime. The paper that ran the article was Munhwa Ilbo, a Korean daily. They ran the nude photographs of Shin Jeong-ah. Shin was accused of creating a fake Yale University diploma and having an "inappropriate relationship" with a secretary.

The paper ran these photos because they thought the photos may be clear evidence of Shin offering sex to authorities for career opportunities. The Korean Press Ethics Commission has stated the photos are not evidence in the case, and that the paper printing the photos has damaged the dignity and reliability of all print media.

I do not know much about foreign media, but I am presuming that running a nude photo of a person without there consent is a bad idea in most parts of the world. So, ethically, I think running the photos was a poor choice in the first place. Also, at this point, Shin was only charged with allegations. He was not convicted of anything, so running the photos that you believe might show his guilt is a risky move. If he ends up innocent, the paper could have ruined his reputation for nothing.

If I was in the editor's position I wouldn't have ran the photos. I say it was irresponsible to run them because he was nude and because he may be innocent.

Is an Imus return appropriate?

Last year following the NCAA women's basketball championship game, nationally syndicated radio-host and media member Don Imus shocked the nation after making what many perceived as racist and misogynistic. He was immediately pulled off the air and since has not hosted a radio show.

However, six months later it is beginning to look like Don Imus may be back on the air entertaining thousands of people across the country. There are rumors that Imus may be given a nationally syndicated talk-show over one of the satellite radio stations.

These rumors are beginning to spark controversy across the country. Some people believe that Imus' comments were so inappropriate and foul that he should never be allowed into the public limelight again. These people also believe that because he is a member of the media he should be held to a higher standard because many people would be depending on him to bring them their news. However, others see that he did apologize for what he said and if a network is willing to risk their name by broadcasting his show then let them.

I completely agree with the second opinion. I believe that what Don Imus said was wrong, but then again, it was his job to be edgey and controversial with his comedy. He crossed the line, and once he realized that, immediately apologized. Too many times, people make an accident in the public eye and are forever condemned because of this. We need to look at ourselves and ask if we have ever done anything that we regretted and how it felt if people would have denied us that. Don Imus is a human being, just like anyone of us.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21254125/

Life or Eth(ics)

Over the summer two journalists illegally entered Lebanon to get a better sense of how the people felt about the war and what was actually going on in the country. This was an ethically illegal maneuver and the journalists were only concerned with producing a good story. The reason this was so frowned upon was because the writers were endangering the lives of the citizens making this an unethical matter. This broke the laws of the country, falsely entered the country which is fabricating the truth, and jeopardizing the lives of the people they came into contact with during the duration of their stay. There is a thin line between going too far and ruining a journalists credibility or going just far enough for a story. These two journalists clearly went too far and were not thinking ethically, which is the number one rule of journalism. Also, they could have died but many innocent citizens who had no idea these men were not being truthful about their stay in the country could have died. Journalists need to remember their limits and keep in mind that they can destroy the lives of others over a story that is not dire to their, or many others, own lives.

The Daily Star

Ethical dilemma for Journalism 30 students

Please comment and take a stance on the issue of accepting any of these gifts or freebies as a reporter:

1. A business reporter is offered a free trip to Catalina Island for the weekend if she will write a story on the new bed & breakfast that the company just opened in Avalon. The trip includes a flight from Sacramento to Long Beach and a ferry ride to Catalina, accommodations for two for the weekend. What do you do?

2. A reporter is covering a job fair at the Sacramento Convention Center. Vendors are giving out pens, notebooks, candy and various goodies to encourage people to stop and talk. Everyone is given a raffle ticket when they arrive --- the reporter wins the new Flip Video, worth approximately $175. What do you accept, or reject?

3. You are the entertainment editor and you receive a huge shipment of promotional materials, including CDs, DVDs, T-shirts and posters from a company that wants you to review their new product. What do you do with all the free stuff?

Your assignment is to look over multiple ethics guidelines posted online for reporters and take a stand in the comment area of the blog.

Prof. Sylvia Fox

Senseless Media Mobbing

Is it wrong for the media to pray on those who are in misery? That's the big question that posed by Ed Wasserman of the Sacramento Bee. In days of school shootings, bridge disasters and mine cave-ins, is it right to focus on those most hurt by the events and basically live off their tragedy. It's an interesting topic. Now I want to know what you think.

--That's not a ridiculous question. Largescale, violent loss of life leaves hundreds of victims behind. Some have visible signs of injury, but all are torn and all are suffering. Their lives will never be what they were.

Yet the public is accustomed to thinking it's fine to summon these achingly vulnerable people, many of them bewildered and half-insane, to the microphone and the camera. Whatever their other needs, they first take part in the spectacle called news.

What if this is bad for them? Suppose the cameras and questions, the act of providing raw accounts of harrowing events whose full import they haven't begun to fathom, actually harms them -- and slows their recovery from trauma.

Moreover, suppose the media mob thwarts their community's overall response by preventing survivors from gathering privately to grieve and make sense of what has befallen them.
What prompts these speculations was a conference panel I attended last month in Washington that comprised reporters who worked the aftermath of last April's murders at Virginia Tech, where 32 students and their killer died.

Because a disaster site is basically a vast trauma center; just about every potential news source is injured, highly susceptible to further injury and probably shouldn't be talking to the media.

Because media mobbing may destroy the private space a community needs to gather itself quietly and tend to its wounds.

Handling those matters responsibly is impossible unless media agree to restrict their own access. Media pools are nothing new; journalists traditionally pool their efforts and accept feeds from one another when they must. If they can share when courtroom seats are limited, they can share to respect the needs of the grievously hurt.

A cardinal tenet of the ethics journalists subscribe to is minimizing harm. It's time that injunction took practical form in dealing with people who are already severely harmed.

Will you be my Facebook Friend?

The Canadian Broadcast Company is prohibiting its journalists from adding sources as “Facebook friends.” They are being told to not post any political leanings on their facebook profiles. There is a document given to journalists with the policy explained. In the document it states that being friends with a source on facebook may compromise your work and it may not be in your interest to say that you are a friend of a source. It also states that in reporting you do not want your conversations with a source to be out there for everyone to see. Also the CBC says that it will not accept facebook comments as quotes. The full policy is available upon request of the News and Current Affairs producer.

This brings up some questions. Should CBC be prohibiting their journalists from being friends with sources on facebook? Should this be an issue at all? Is it an invasion of privacy if the CBC does facebook checks on their employees? I feel that our friendship and our work are two separate things and this is a good thing to have in place.

I understand why it is not okay to use their comments as quotes especially without them knowing that you are quoting them. Journalists are supposed to be fair and honest in their reporting. If a journalist is using quotes off facebook, they would not be being honest and fair to the person they are quoting. Journalists are required to avoid undercover methods of gathering information, getting information such as quotes off of a website would lead to incredibility and would be unethical.

Another thing journalists should do is steer clear of associations and activities that may damage credibility. This means that they should not have any real connections with sources outside of working. They should not be talking to people they know for quotes because that could put a bias on their story. This creates incredibility. Being friends with a source could easily damage the credibility of a journalist.

I feel that what they are trying to accomplish makes sense but checking up on this will be pretty difficult. Maybe the employees just should not have facebook at all which would potentially solve this problem of who people are “friends” with. What they are really getting at is that there should still be a professional relationship between journalist and their sources. Using a website such as facebook would get in the way of this professional relationship. This could lead to incredibility because they already have a relationship with this person if they are their friend on facebook. It really takes away from the professional aspect of reporting. I think that CBC is right in doing what they are doing and more companies should look into this because with the spread of online websites like facebook and myspace, who knows what can happen.

Lawyer: Missing mayor was at clinic

Mayor Robert Levy of Atlantic City, NJ had been missing for almost two weeks after taking a sick leave. On Tuesday, October 9, 2007 his lawyer reported that he was in a Somerset County clinic being treated for substance abuse and mental health issues. Levy was already under scrutiny for lying on his account that he was a member of the Green Berets. Even further, this led to a federal investigation of whether he was embezzling money on the behalf that he was war veteran.

This story seems irrelevant to me as a young American. How many politicians are working in the government that commit the same acts as this man has? Politicians are humans and make mistakes as the common person does. To report on a disappearance of man just because he is a politician makes it seem as if the average person’s struggle is insignificant. I believe it was wrong for the reporter to investigate so deeply into another’s man’s life without justification. If anything, he should back off and let the man go to rehab, without media attention, and return to office healed. It’s obviously the mayor has psychological issues and needs medical attention. The medium reporting this story only urges more stress on the life of the mayor. This can be compared to the attention that a celebrity such as Lindsey Lohan receives. If we left her alone and let her heal without the extra attention and questioning maybe she would be normal.

Report on stories that are interesting and have purpose in the common person’s life. Maintain your credibility and do not use irrelevant facts from the past to bring a man down in the present. Especially, help the man when he is trying to help himself. Aim for positive influence.

CNN

Front Page or Op-Ed?

In late September, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University, sparking a heated debate between pundits on the benefit (if any) of providing Ahmadinejad a platform from which to speak. The President of Columbia University, Lee C. Bollinger, opened with a speech laced with scathing commentary on Ahmadinejad, even stating that the Iranian President "exhibit[s] all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator." The overall content of the Iranian President's speech ranged from his controversial stance on the Holocaust, to his refusal to rein in Iran's nuclear power programs. The President also made comments about Iran, at one point stating that there were no homosexuals in the country, and that women in Iran enjoy many freedoms and are treated equally.

On September 25th, the Sacramento Bee* ran a front page story on the speech, which extended to the back page. While the article itself was fair in presenting both sides of the speech as best as it could, what was included alongside the continuation of the article on the back page was a point of contention for this writer. In a separate column was a piece that examined the major comments or claims that Ahmadinejad made during the Columbia speech, and provided facts and data to either refute those claims or to show that Ahmadinejad wasn't being as upfront as he was portraying himself to be. While the article itself was accurate in providing evidence to the contrary of the President's claims, it seemed like it belonged in the Op-Ed section of the Bee, and not right next to a major story.

The fact that the Bee ran such a column providing a point and counter-point look at the speech is great. Would that they would use the same sort of scrutiny for our own leaders and politicians. However, the main article off of which this article was based did a well enough job in the first place to show that the Iranian President wasn't as forthcoming as he appeared to be and that he subscribed to views that just seemed nonsensical and rather ignorant of world history. Does running an additional piece like the one in the Bee serve in informing the reader in any way that the main article could not? Is doing so remaining objective? When one covers the speech of a leader from a country whose relationship with our own is best described as adversarial, it is this writers opinion that maintaining objectivity and neutrality is of the utmost importance. Just report on the event and leave the point and counter-point style pieces for the Op-Ed, not the front page news.

*Note

The original article in the Bee could not be found online, nor could the accompanying article that provided a "fact check" on Ahmadinejad's claims and commentary. The link to the New York Times article contains roughly the same content as was found in the Bee article on the 25th of September.

Shield law must advance

When you are reporting the news, one of the last things that may be on your mind is whether or not you will be going to jail for the information you have discovered. As journalists, we need to seek out all the information that allows us to report an unbiased, fact-based story. To get these facts, we need reliable sources. Unfortunately, sometimes the sources and information we have, are also wanted by authorities. So in times where we need to keep our sources confidential and protect ourselves, what does a journalist do?

Within in the last year, two reporters were faced with prison time when they would not release their source who had given them information regarding the Bay Area Laboratoy Co-operative (BALCO) case. The journalists had cited testimonies that were given to a grand jury about problems of drug use in baseball. A Shield Law is currently in the hands of the government, waiting to be approved. This law would make it legal for journalists to keep their sources private. It would further support the First Amendment's freedom of the press.

I think that the Shield Law is necessary for journalists. Journalists should be allowed to do their job without having to worry about the consequences of knowing information. As long as the information isn't harmful to national security or the public, journalists should be able to keep it confidential. If journalists were not allowed to keep sources private, no one would release information. The news would be kept quite because no one would want to get in trouble. Journalists should be able to report the facts and give all the information the public needs without compromising their sources. The SPJ code of ethics states that sources should be revealed when suitable for the situation.

SFGATE

Buck Fush

The media’s coverage of a college newspaper’s profane two-word editorial deserves more than a few curse words.

By Michael Roberts
Published: October 4, 2007
Denver Westword News

"I think it's been really disheartening," says J. David McSwane about press coverage that's swirled around the Rocky Mountain Collegian, the Colorado State University-based student newspaper he edits, since an opinion banner reading "FUCK BUSH" was printed in its September 21 edition. "As a journalist, I'm extremely frustrated."

He should be. On September 25, for example, Channel 4's late newscast led off with anchor Jim Benemann stating, "The editor at the student newspaper up at CSU says he will sue if he's fired." As McSwane, who recently turned twenty, pointed out in an item he affixed to the Collegian's website, he did no such thing, since he hadn't been interviewed for the piece. Indeed, the person doing the talking was McSwane's attorney David Lane, who enjoys delivering provocative declarations; in this situation, he proclaimed, "If I can make a case that the government is putting a gag in David McSwane's mouth, they're going to federal court."

Nonetheless, Channel 4 news director Tim Wieland isn't troubled that Benemann's intro cited McSwane rather than his counsel, saying, "I'm comfortable with that" — and neither does he think the station blundered by failing to mention in this report and numerous others that McSwane helped the CBS affiliate win a prestigious Peabody Award in April 2006 and worked at the outlet as a paid investigative producer (not just an intern). Full disclosure is typically deemed a journalistic necessity, yet Wieland maintains that staffers initially felt McSwane's previous association with the outlet wasn't "germane" to the Collegian brouhaha, and only decided that it might provide "context" in some instances after skipping over it during three full days of reporting.

Westword has a McSwane connection as well. In September 2005, the paper ran his feature "An Army of Anyone," which built upon the investigation that earned Channel 4 its Peabody: As a student journalist at Arvada West High School, McSwane posed as a pot-smoking dropout interested in joining the Army in order to document the dubious lengths to which recruiters were willing to go to get him into uniform. He was awarded with an Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE) prize for his high-school efforts and the Westword offering, which ran alongside a companion article written by yours truly that focused on recruiting in the wake of the scandal McSwane stirred. I also guested alongside McSwane on a KHOW talk-show segment hosted by Peter Boyles.

Is any of that germane? Damn right it is — because it gives news consumers the maximum amount of information, rather than treating them like children incapable of putting details into perspective. Then again, McSwane understands why Channel 4 took the tack it did. "Of course they're distancing themselves from me," he says. "If I was them, I'd distance myself from something like this, too."

McSwane and many of his Collegian colleagues set out to cause a commotion, albeit not as large a one as developed: "I didn't think it would go national," he admits. Too bad their concept was so clumsy. They were incensed about a September 17 incident in Florida in which disruptive college student Andrew Meyer was forcibly prevented from quizzing Massachusetts Senator John Kerry; a video of Meyer's "Don't tase me, bro!" plea to security officers quickly became a YouTube sensation. But after penning the ardent defense of free speech that appeared on the September 21 Collegian cover, they felt they should underline their point by exercising this right in the boldest way possible. Hence, the "FUCK BUSH" line, which McSwane says was intended as a "wake-up call" to students who passively accept the status quo instead of voicing their views, as college enrollees have in decades past.

Predictably, the decision to target George W. Bush, who was only peripherally related to the Florida dust-up (Meyer wanted to know if Kerry and the president had been in Yale's Skull and Bones society), transformed the editorial into a culture-war blast of the sort that sucks up far too much of the media's attention these days. "Fuck Bush" bumperstickers have been around for years, and the profane part of the expression is extraordinarily commonplace in settings like college campuses. But that didn't stop CSU student Republicans such as student Chelsey Penoyer from taking advantage of this golden opportunity for attention-getting by organizing protests against McSwane and hitting the media circuit.

Penoyer turned up on Rush Limbaugh's syndicated radio show and local outlets such as Channel 4, where, on September 21, she made a series of statements that ranged from dunderheaded to disingenuous. When she saw the phrase in question, she said, her first thoughts were, "Is it legal to put in the paper? Profanity?" (Answer: Fuck yes.) She followed up that remark by insisting, "It doesn't even matter, the word after that. It could have been 'trees.'" Truth be told, CSU student Republicans would have only protested the line "FUCK TREES" had the president been a Republican named Mr. Trees. Still, Penoyer came off better than McSwane, who looked shell-shocked and tentative on screen. He sat for a slew of interviews on September 21 in the name of "transparency," but he says that after a Channel 4 package took a random remark out of context in a way that twisted its meaning, he changed his mind. "That was the moment I decided I wasn't going to talk to people anymore," he reveals.

He wasn't the only one at CSU keeping mum. On September 26, hours prior to a forum in front of the university's board of student communications that attracted hundreds of McSwane supporters and detractors, I visited the campus to participate in a long-planned panel discussion moderated by Collegian advisor Holly Wolcott and featuring Dr. Brian Ott, a CSU professor and communications-board member. Neither of them would comment on the McSwane contretemps, and when a question about it was raised near the end of the session by student Bobby Carson (editor of the Ram Republic, a conservative newspaper that's slated to launch this month as an alternative to the Collegian), my attempts to engage attendees on the subject were quickly shut down — as was the presentation as a whole. Oh, yeah: The topic of the discussion was radio blabber Don Imus, whose tale also touches upon issues of free speech.

The board meeting that evening was "overwhelmingly positive," in McSwane's view. He was caught off-guard by the level of support he received, and so was his mother, Shelly Hansen — which explains why she found the next day's coverage to be so lacking. She was dismayed that most news outlets said CSU Republicans had gathered over 500 signatures on a petition urging McSwane to step down but neglected to include the fact that student Kris Hite collected more than 700 signatures from those backing him. She also felt that outlets made it seem as if most speakers excoriated McSwane when the breakdown was actually nineteen pros versus just twelve cons.

An exception was an article by the Rocky Mountain News's John Ensslin that appears only on the tabloid's website. But space was found in the physical paper for "Student's Woes Not a Big Surprise," which juxtaposes a few nice remarks about McSwane courtesy of Hansen and Wieland with oodles of biting quotes from an array of former Collegian colleagues, who portrayed him as an arrogant fame-seeker. Take the comments of Collegian vet James Baetke, currently an intern for a branch of E.W. Scripps, the Rocky's owner. He said that McSwane wanted to incorporate information about the news-gathering process that he, Baetke and cohort Vimal Patel went through to complete a first-rate January-February series of reports about unlocked campus buildings as a way of "shining the spotlight on themselves," only to have other students veto the idea.

In reality, omitting at least one part of the backstory was a significant journalistic mistake that had negative repercussions down the road. Specifically, Patel and McSwane were caught by university police inside a campus building during the course of their reportage, and McSwane says the cops threatened to charge them and Baetke, who was found nearby, with burglary and trespassing. In the end, no charges were filed, but Patel, McSwane and Baetke served brief suspensions from the Collegian. This information should have been made public, and it was — but not by the Collegian. It formed the basis of an embarrassing February 2 piece in the Coloradoan, a Fort Collins daily.

Not that the Coloradoan got off scot-free in the mortification department. JP Eichmiller, the author of the Coloradoan article, used to work at the Collegian, and Coloradoan editor Robert Moore says he subsequently learned that "there was some antagonism" between the parties. This bad blood boiled over after Collegian types called the Coloradoan to complain about Eichmiller having been given the assignment. Moore confirms that Eichmiller responded by leaving an angry phone message for then-Collegian editor Brandon Lowrey. The harangue, highlighted by the line, "I guess ruining everyone else's life isn't always what it's cracked up to be, is it?," was later reprinted it its entirety by the Rocky Mountain Chronicle, a Fort Collins weekly that needled the Coloradoan over the perceived conflict.

Moore acknowledges that Eichmiller probably shouldn't have been on the earlier story, and when a Collegian staffer complained about letting Hallie Woods, another onetime staffer on the college paper, report about the present controversy for the Coloradoan, he removed her, too. (Woods says she worked with McSwane only briefly and didn't have a negative history with him.) But Moore, who misspelled McSwane's name in one piece he wrote, doesn't want anyone to see this last move as a concession that the Coloradoan erred. "I think what's happening here is that some folks at the Collegian are trying to create a smokescreen," he argues. "It's a classic diversionary tactic. When you're under attack, divert attention elsewhere."

As for McSwane, he insists that he wants the media to focus on free speech, not him. "This story's turned into 'Here's this kid who used the F-word. He's either the ballsiest kid in the world or the dumbest,'" he says. "But what really happened is, the editorial board felt passionately that we needed to get students thinking — and I agreed with them. So we did what we did, and now my ass is on the line."

Since the editorial's publication, the Collegian has reportedly lost plenty of advertising, although it's unclear how much. Figures ranging from $30,000 to $50,000 have been bandied about, but pinning down the actual sum is complicated by such factors as a dispute over actions related to the CSU Bookstore. A Coloradoan article about the September 26 forum quoted Pam Jackson, described as a technical journalism instructor, complaining about the bookstore yanking its ads over the "FUCK BUSH" ruckus, and McSwane says he, too, understood that the bookstore withdrew support that's rumored to be in the neighborhood of $20,000 per annum, only to return to the fold at a later date. If that happened, the act smacks of stealthy institutional punishment meted out before an official determination of wrongdoing. But in an e-mail, CSU spokeswoman Dell Rae Moellenberg writes that "to the best of our knowledge, no university businesses have made a decision to pull advertising," and stresses that a bookstore ad was part of the October 1 Collegian.

Whatever the case, McSwane says he and some staffers have received pay cuts, and on September 24, bloggers such as Jason Moses were told by the Collegian's web editor, Whitney Faulconer, that their positions had been slashed because of shortfalls. (A September 25 Rocky Mountain News article referenced another blogger who shared an identical account.) But according to McSwane, the bloggers' cuts had been in the works for weeks, and in an e-mail, Moses writes that Faulconer belatedly told him, "McSwane was going to lay us off soon regardless of whether or not the Bush editorial ran."

Right now, it's unclear whether McSwane will follow Moses out the door; the CSU communications board has scheduled an October 4 hearing to determine his future at the Collegian.But Dr. Horace Newcombe, director of the Peabody Awards program, which is attached to the University of Georgia, doesn't see the hullabaloo as a professional death sentence. "Student journalists occasionally take an opportunity to be provocative," he says. "I don't know that this will be any more significant for a long-term career than his earlier work. Certainly the Peabody association is on his resumé, and will always be."

Brant Houston, acting executive director of IRE, concurs. "I think his more significant work will eventually overshadow this particular controversy," he allows, adding, "Younger journalists learn all the time, and I would say David's learned something, too."

That's a fact — but McSwane continues to struggle with the lesson. When he's asked if the highly erratic quality of the coverage he's received has made him more or less likely to pursue the journalistic life, he says, "I don't know. I mean, I love journalism. There are so many opportunities to do so much good for people and to keep the powers-that-be accountable. It's a huge part of democracy. But at the same time, it's disgusting to see how some people have taken it for granted."

Is It Appropriate for Reporters to 'Lurk' in Online Chat Rooms?

Nowadays the Internet is a popular place for teens and young adults to join chat rooms or blog on a website. Many times these teens and young adults disclose information about themselves to others and become friends with complete strangers. With other people able to see the conversations the potential risk of their information leaving the chat room is likely.

What exactly is a lurker? According to the article a lurker is someone who joins a chat room to solely read the conversations of other members rather than actually participating in a conversation.

The problem arises when a reporter from a news source joins the chat room to obtain information without making themselves known and using the privileged information without the member or member’s knowledge. The ethical question being considered is if the reporter should notify the chat room of their presence and quote the conversation. In an example a reporter went in to a chat room for gay and lesbian teens. The reporter lied about her age to get into the chat room and then began to 'lurke'. What made this situation different is after being in the chat room for a while the reporter notified the chat room of her occupation and her reasoning behind being in the chat room. This situation can be considered both ethical and unethical.

I believe that being an invisible lurker is completely unethical. By not notifying the members of who you are and your reason for being in the chat room this violates the SPJ Code of Ethics. The Code of Ethics states, "Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story." By not identifying yourself as a reporter you are violating the Code of Ethics. As far as identifying yourself and making it known to the members what you purpose is that is completely ethical. The members now know there is a reporter in the chat room and that they may potentially use information from the conversations with consent. By making the members aware the reporter has allowed for the members to make the choice to continue to participate or leave the chat room.

I feel that you treat people the way you want to be treated. I know in my personal opinion I would notify anyone that I was participating in the conversation and my purpose for doing so.

Paige Kirchubel

To see this article, click http://www.ojr.org/ojr/ethics/1065048923.php

Six ethical cases from SPJ

An Inside Look at Six Ethical Issues
This time each year, about 1,000 journalists get together to discuss journalism ethics at the SPJ Conference. This year, SPJ's top ethicists are releasing their findings on some of the past year's biggest lapses.

By Christine Tatum

NEW YORK (October 04, 2007) -- This time each year, about 1,000 journalists get together to discuss journalism ethics.

Yes, journalism ethics.

As humorous as that may sound to some, these news gatherers — attendees of the Society of Professional Journalists’ annual national conference — are serious. SPJ, the nation’s largest journalism-advocacy organization, is the guardian of an ethics code widely considered the news industry’s gold standard.

The code is a guide aimed at helping journalists practice their trade ethically and responsibly. Those who honor it do so voluntarily. They believe trust in journalism starts with journalists’ commitment to ethical news production, which is, above all, accurate, fair and independent of special interests.

The Society doesn’t conduct hearings about code violations, much less issue sanctions. Its leaders believe everyone is qualified to interpret the code — not just journalists.

It was in the spirit of educating the public and helping journalists make more ethical decisions that SPJ’s top ethicists — a committee composed of members representing a variety of media, journalism specialties and experience levels — reviewed ethical lapses that occurred since September 2006 and stirred some of the most passionate debate within the industry.

The committee grouped lapses into larger categories where journalists appear to have had the most trouble. For the first time, the committee is publicizing its findings. The categories, supported by specific examples, are listed here in no particular order and may be viewed fully by clicking here.

Political Activism
A commendable MSNBC.com investigation revealed that at least 140 journalists contributed to political parties, movements or candidates. SPJ’s ethics code states that journalists should “remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.” The code also encourages journalists to shun “ political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.”

Journalist/Source Relationships
Journalists must maintain a healthy distance from people they cover.

A former Telemundo anchorwoman reported about Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s marital difficulties without mentioning that she was dating him.

Getting too close to sources sorely compromises a journalist’s ability to “act independently,” as SPJ’s code instructs.

Plagiarism
It’s unclear whether the number of violations of this fundamental of responsible journalism is on the rise — or if technology is making plagiarism easier to find. In a video segment on her blog, CBS News anchor Katie Couric read an essay after it was ripped off from The Wall Street Journal. A CBS producer wrote the item for Couric, who read the piece as if sharing her personal thoughts. That’s worth questioning, too.

News/Advertising Relationships
Times are tough economically for the news industry, and many organizations are responding with problematic news-advertising hybrids. For example, the Philadelphia Inquirer runs a business column under a Citizens Bank label. Though the paper says the bank won’t have a say in the column’s content, the appearance suggests otherwise. “Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived,” the code states.

Fairness
Last year, SPJ awarded several journalists at the Santa Barbara (Calif.) News-Press an ethics award for resigning in protest of co-publisher Wendy McCaw’s influence on news content. That battle reached a new low when the newspaper ran an unsigned front-page story implying that the paper’s former editor downloaded child pornography on his office computer. The story fell far short of an airtight case and appeared to be bent on attacking the former editor more than serving readers with truth. “Test the accuracy of information from all sources, and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error,” the code instructs.

Photo Manipulation
After the shootings at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, news organizations may have thought they were doing the right thing by altering photos that appeared to show a wounded student’s genitals. They weren’t. The image organizations edited out was actually a tourniquet. Photographs should be respected as a form of truth. “Never distort the content of news photos or video,” the code instructs. “Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible.”

The blur of news and entertainment. NBC’s “To Catch a Predator” series is fraught with ethical problems, such as the hiring of a crusading nonprofit group to set up stings. “Avoid staged news events,” the code states. It also urges journalists to “deny favored treatment to special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.”

While these problem areas are cause for concern, they are, thankfully, exceptions to the rule. Thousands of journalists make ethics a top concern, and we commend them.

---

Christine Tatum is national president of the Society of Professional Journalists and an assistant features editor at The Denver Post.

Links referenced within this article clicking here http://www.spj.org/ethics

Now you see it, but you don't.

It's always been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. News writers are often condemned if even a single world in their article is proven to be a lie. But how much worse is it (or not) if the accompanying photograph is a fake?

More often than not, a photograph is used in conjunction with a news story to illustrate in visual effect what words alone cannot express: humanity. They can illicit a variety of emotions that can color a reader's perspective well before they are able to delve into the article itself. We should all be familiar with these scenes as they all have, at one point, graced the covers of newspapers nationwide: the low angle shot of a plane a split second before colliding with Tower 2 during 9/11, the picture of a military airplane dropping a massive load of bombs and missiles in the middle of Beirut, the burnt carcass of an Iraqi baby being pulled from the ruins after an American air strike.

Out of those pictures, one of them is a fake, or least has been misrepresented to the point where it has detracted from the truth and the reality of the matter. A Lebanon reporter named Adnan Hajj doctored his photos of an Israeli F-16 dropping more bombs than what was actually dropped and described the flares it let off as an additional payload of missiles. He also blatantly (and poorly) doctored a photo of a post-bombed out Beirut to show thicker and blacker smoke than in the original photograph.

In cases like that, it is obvious that trickery was involved to obscure the truth.

But with the advent of digital photography and the dreaded Photoshop, where should the line be drawn that clearly establishes the line between cleaning up and doctoring. After all, for the sake of saving space, pictures are often cropped and cleaned for dust or smudges. Certain angles, shutter speeds, apertures, and light manipulation techniques are often used by photographers to capture the emotion of a certain situation. Where should the clear difference be established?

Personally, I am under the belief that no sort of post-processing technique should ever be employed by photojournalists. What is taken in that moment in time should be observed from that perspective and not by any jaded views that would later alter the spirit of that photograph. Photojournalists have that added responsibility now to make sure their photos are in tune with the spirit of the moment it is taken in. Anything else is a lie and a discredit akin to a reporter falsifying a news source in order to get a story pushed through.

Anchor Reports on L.A Mayor's Extramarital Affair- She's the Other Woman

The story is an update to a news story that broke in July. Reporter Mirthala Salinas had the political beat and was fill-in anchor at KVEA-TV in Los Angeles, which is the Spanish Language Telemundo affiliate. She was assigned to cover L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. During the time she was covering him, Salinas and Villaraigosa began having an intimate relationship. Salinas said she told her superiors at KVEA and Telemundo that she was in a relationship with Villaraigosa and asked to be reassigned. She said her bosses told her to continue covering him. Salinas even had to break the story that Villaraigosa and his wife were separating due to his extramarital affair. She did not mention on air that she was the one having a relationship with the mayor. That part of the story leaked out over the next few days. After an investigation by the company, she and her News Director were given two month suspensions and Salinas was to be transferred to another Telemundo affiliate. The president of Telemundo was also reprimanded. Salinas was suspended for a flagrant violation of the network's ethics guidelines. This follow-up says that rather than show-up to her new station this week, Salinas resigned.
Salinas has been linked to others she has covered in the past, including Speaker of the California State Assembly Fabian Nunez. Having personal, intimate relationships with important people she covers seems to be a habit for her. She has to know that this violates the ethics of almost every major news organization. Knowing that she is attracted to powerful politicos, at the very least she should make sure that she is not assigned to cover them. If she does have to report on them, then she should use self-restraint and not become involved with these men. In this case she did tell her superiors at KVEA and Telemundo and requested to be reassigned. Her bosses insisted she keep covering Villaraigosa. Did they think it would give them the inside track to Villaraigosa? It seems like it would be difficult to do the right thing as a reporter in that situation when company management is encouraging the unethical behavior. Their behavior is more reprehensible because instead of dealing with the issue correctly when they were informed of it, Salinas' bosses had her continue to cover the mayor. It seems as if the entire KVEA and Telemundo organization need a primer or refresher course on the ethics of journalism.

Library Employee's Illegally Overbill

This story details the controversy surrounding the Sacramento Library's security chief, James Mayle. Mayle, whose wife runs two companies who were billed for extensive library maintenance, is being audited. While the subject matter is of public concern the ethical matter at hand is whether or not the Sacramento Bee should have dug into records. It is reported by the Bee that "the library called for the probe after The Bee submitted a public records act request in May to inspect the company's records". After this request was submitted it was discovered that the library maintenance director was also involved in the controversy. While it was believed that Mayle and his wife were running the scam it's been discovered that Dennis Nilsson, the director, was the one directing the bills to Mayle's wife instead of the library, as is customary.
I believe that as a journalist one has every right to venture into an area that is of public concern. While it is controversial as to whether or not it was necessary to bring embarrassing matters to the attention of the public, I believe it is necessary. It is a journalist’s responsibility to report to the public what is going on under their nose. Many believe that the Bee should have allowed matters to come into light at their own time, but I disagree. When a reporter finds a lead that can potentially bring about a positive outcome, in this case less money being billed to taxpayers for unaccomplished work, they should report on it, no matter the embarrassment it brings to the community.

Ethics and Idaho

The pre-packaged, glossy images presented to the public often are the antithesis of the real people under that shiny topcoat. The men and women constructing legislation and voting on issues that affect everyone’s life in some way or another have private lives that, at times, counter exactly what they object to publicly and politically. Recent news outlets have seen a rise in gray area ethics stories. Some interesting stories have been presented about the recent case of Sen. Larry Craig and his sexual escapades in Minnesota airport bathrooms. Morals and ethics are the core of every person’s being, and politics affect every person’s life in some way. The ethical question arises after reading these stories: Is it any of our business if a politician is a closet homosexual? There seem to be five reasons why these stories are ethically sound to publish, according to Kelly McBride’s article on ethics.
The first reason why someone’s sexual orientation can be “outed” is if the person in question is a hypocrite. Because Craig publicly proclaimed the “sanctity of marriage”, he is a hypocrite. McBride says that it’s “fair game if a certain politician has consistently voted on public policy issues that appear to undermine the rights or the political agenda of gay and lesbian citizens and if there is evidence that he is gay himself.” In Craig’s case, this seems to be one of the main reasons the story was published.
The resounding reason his story came to the public’s eyes and ears seems to be the alleged, and later claimed truthful, restroom game of footsie with an undercover copper in a Minnesota airport bathroom. Under McBride’s reasons is a section on criminal behavior. “If a politician is engaged in or charged with behavior that is deemed to be against the law, then we usually care.” Here we go, Statesman; here is your “GO!!!” The case against The Statesman doesn’t seem viable considering the fact that they chose to publish their story only after Senator Craig pleaded guilty to the airport bathroom incident. Their integrity was held up at that point. They took the ethical approach of waiting until they were sure the story was accurate before publishing it.
When we talk about Senator Craig, we are dealing with a public figure that built his career “on a platform of morality and family values”, according to a Washington Post article by Howard Kurtz. Tarnishing his career would be a pleasure for some journalists. There is nothing more irritating and disappointing than a politician that hides under a veil of lies. This also happens to be one of the most predictable things for politicians to do.
Something to think about in regards to stories like these is the difference between the acceptability of infidelity in society. Would this story be newsworthy if Craig was soliciting a call girl? Probably. But, it would not be nearly as shocking. Thomas Patrick McCarthy wrote a riveting article for The Nation that questioned the hypocrisy of straight versus gay affairs. Congressman and Evangelical Reverend Ted Haggard “--named as one of the nation's "25 most influential evangelicals" in a 2005 Time cover story -- stepped down as head of his 14,000-member mega-church after a gay prostitute claimed the pastor had repeatedly solicited him for sex and drugs.”
He contrasts what happened when Louisiana Senator David Vitter who was named on the list of a “multi-million dollar escort service in Washington, DC”. Vitter has once before been accused of affairs with prostitutes. Vitter is still in office and he remains “a proud supporter of "mainstream conservative principles"’.
What does this tell society? Is it possible that one day we can live in a world where public figures, including politicians and celebrities, can live their lives and be who they are without having that glossy veil? Perhaps we must always retain that veil. Perhaps that veil is a safety net society needs. If we are going to have it, and there is no way around it, McCarthy brings to the table is the idea that “If you're going to be a hypocrite, it pays to be a straight hypocrite.” All sarcasm aside, McCarthy is making a valid point.

Sources
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=67&aid=129197
http://www.sacbee.com/325/story/366740.html
http://www.sacbee.com/breton/story/368436.html
Kurtz, Howard. “For Idaho Paper And Reporter, Craig Story Posed a Moral Dilemma”. Washington Post. 30 August 2007

Ethics of News post October 1, 2007

A confidential report leaked

This article discussed a confidential incident report detailing the events that took place on the September 16 Blackwater attack that was released. The report included a maps, witness statements, documents and a police video and was obtained by Newsweek. Although the report was made accessible to US military and civilian soldiers, it states that it is meant to be confidential.

Although I believe that we as civilians have the right to know what is going on in the war in Iraq, I can't help but wonder if it was ethical of Newsweek to release it to the public when it so clearly says confidential.

While this issue may test the ethics of some, I feel that Newsweek is in the right. American citizens are often denied the real truth and I think it is appropriate that we are entitled to know exactly what goes on.

MSNBC News

Not the last word on CSU editorial

Even after a week of the infamous headliner, "F--K BUSH" people are still talking about. Personally, I do not see anything wrong with the article. People have been very dissatisfied with his performance in the oval office.

In addition, the editor should not be reprimanded for using free speech. He had approval of other newspaper constituents. Therefore, if he is being held in contempt so should they. It can only be fair.

In the end, I believe that CSU got the notoriety that they wanted. Even though they lost 30,000 in advertising they received more fans in the long run!

Don't be too friendly with sources

By: Charles Glover

Sources are a journalist's best friend, but they could also could bring into question the neutrality of those said journalists. Reading an article entitled "Drawing the line between the press and the source" which featured an example of the problem and solution through The New York Times and its refusal to attend the White House Correspondents Dinner.

What the story points out is something that every journalist, at least in my mind, should remember at all time when dealing with a source. They are great, but a journalist must be aware of how to interact with them. If said journalist becomes too cozy, that journalist is not serving the public so much as his or her self, or the business that they represent.

It doesn't look good in the public eye if a journalist is seen as being too friendly with the source, and this in turn can hurt the credibility of both the journalist and the establishment that a journalist works for. So, I agree with the idea that is presented in the article, with keeping a source at a distance. It's just the right thing to do.


_Charles Glover_


To see the article click HERE

University Fences In a Berkeley Protest, and a New One Arises

By: Andrea Richardson

The controversy at the UC Berkley campus is going on between protesting tree lovers and the university. Since December people have been living in the trees on the school campus to protest against the university who wants to cut down the trees to build a $125 million athletic center. The university built a fence around the trees in August, that cut off the tree dwellers from supllies. The university is doing everything they can to get the people out of the trees, including getting a court order and involving police. Michael Kelly, one of the protesters against the buliding of the stadium said, "I am appalled. I cannot believe that the institution that gave birth to the Free Speech Movement had done this."
I believe that they can come up with some sort of compromise. If the best spot fot the athletic center truly is where the trees are, then many the university can agree to plant the same amount of trees elsewhere on the campus. Whatever happens, I'm sure the tree dwellers probably want to get down sometime soon to take showers.

Journalist not seen as superheroes

In the defense of the press media, Ken Paulson, editor of USA Today steps up to redeem the villification of journalists by referencing the First Amendment.

Not the last word on CSU editorial

A student editor will defend students' actions that published slander about President George Bush, but could his lose job. Rocky Mountain Collegian at Colorado State University printed an editorial that referenced a University of Florida student who was shocked with a Taser after disrupting a forum featuring U.S. Sen. John Kerry.

"The four-word editorial stated only: "Taser this . . .. Fuck Bush."

The college newspaper editor, J. David McSwane defends his newspaper and is risking his job in the process. The Collegian, is a self-funded, student-run publication. Under state law, university officials are prohibited from censoring or regulating its content. CSU's Board of student Communications claims that the editorial violated student media policies.

The article was supposed to spark students thoughts about free speech; mission accomplished. The editorial did exactly what it was intended to do, make people think. However the editorial did not need to include profanity to accomplish its goals.

Editor defends actions
Story in Rocky Mountain News

Conflict of Interest

In response to the blog "Reporter Leaves NBC 5 amid Stebic Controversy" its believed that a female reporter was involved in foul play. Apparently she went to a suspects house who was still under investigation for the disapperance of his missing wife.

This is obiously a wrong doing by the reporter. It doesn't matter if there was foul play or not, it's simply a conflict of interest as stated in the blog. She shouldn't have been over there meddleing with someone who was in the public eye in a negative way. It makes the reporter look bad, and more importantly the news station for whom she works. It is definatly unethical and if I were her boss I would have let her go too. The breaking news put some kind of a strain on the station. They were left no choice but to fire her because the company didn't want their name tarnished.

Reporter Leaves NBC 5 amid Stebic Controversy

By: Tim Wheeler: September 20 2007

A story involving a Chicago reporter’s seemingly unethical visit to a suspect in a disappearance case’s house drew critical media attention in mid July. Amy Jacobson was caught on video at the home of Craig Stebic, whose wife recently disappeared, dressed in a bikini top and beach towel. Since the leak of the video Jacobson has received a significant amount of negative media attention regarding her ethical conduct. After a short time Jacobson’s resignation was received and she is no longer a member of the channel 5 NBC news team of which she was previously employed.

Whether or not foul play was involved or not Jacobson had no business, as a distinguished reporter, socially meeting with a suspect of an ongoing investigation. The argument can be made that Stebic and Jacobson had developed a relationship, but this argument is overshadowed by the idea that the scene is a primary example of a conflict of interest. In Jacobson’s case she is caught on video meddling in the like likes of an open and serious investigation. An action like this not only damages the credibility of Amy Jacobson as a reporter but casts a negative light on WMAQ-TV channel five news as an organization.

A Newspaper Defends Naming Jurors

By: Jo Blaine: September 19, 2007

This New York Times article reports a conflict over a recent Connecticut newspaper's front page publication that identified jurors on a high profile murder case. Unless judges specifically order that jurors' identifications be withheld, no law prohibits making the information public. The judge in the reported case did not specify that jurors' anonymity be protected. Those on the Connecticut newspaper's staff responsible for the published information claim each juror understood what the article's drift would be.

Since the publication, one juror and one alternate have been excused after expressing concern for their safety. The New York Times reports that reason for such concern may be validated by the nature of the murder case. The jury must decide whether to sentence the defendant to life in prison or to death by lethal injection.

The possibility of passionate responses by members of the public combined with information exposing the jurors to that public drives the criticism of the Connecticut newspaper's conduct.

The defendant's lawyer, journalism professors, involved jurors, and now, even the newspaper's editor understand the better choice would have been to shield the jurors from the public, regardless of the legal green light to do otherwise.

A scenerio like this poses good question(s) for those entering the journalism field as there may be times when we'll have to gauge the appropriateness of releasing certain information. Even when our sources have given their permission, even when the law technically allows it, we have a responsibility to use discretion by considering probable dynamics that could be set in play by publicizing the information. Like the mental rule concerning plagiarism that suggests 'when in doubt, leave it out,' perhaps it's wise to exercise the same caution before reporting questionably sensitive information. The main question is: Is it worth it? If it's unethical, then by definition it should not be worth it to a news reporter. Potentially endangering others is an unethical move if made willingly. While your information might really add to the substance in your story, the downside could be more profound. Another question is how you might use the information alternately in a professionally ethical manner. The scenerio with the Connecticut paper allows for some creativity in understanding what alternatives might be. The names, hometowns and occupations of the jurors were shared. As suggested by a journalism professor referenced in the article, describing the jurors from a standpoint that preserves their anonymity but allows the public some general insight into the demographics of the jury is a possible way to use the information.