Tuesday, November 6, 2007

NEWS FLASH: FEAR DU JOUR

What ever happened to the killer bees that were supposed to kill us all? Or the Asian bird flu that seemed to be assassinating the unvaccinated masses? They disappeared, faded into the background as the next big virus or potentially deadly disease fueled the ugliest part of modern journalism: fear driven journalism.

This is the topic presented by journalist Leonard Pitts, of The Sacramento Bee, in an article posted last Saturday. Pitts specifically targets the latest epidemic in our “United States of Fear,” that being the “superbug,” or Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a staph infection.

For no apparent reason, all interest has been turned to a strain of the staph infection that does not respond to common antibiotics. In the first two weeks of October, U.S. newspapers mentioned the virus 155 times. As soon as it caught the attention of the readers, specifically from the 15th to the 31st, the “superbug” was mentioned over 1,650 times.

“So did staph somehow become deadlier in the last two weeks than it was before? No,” writes Pitts. "Staph is not new," says Nicole Coffin, a spokeswoman for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. "Even MRSA is not new. In the hospitals it's been around for 30 years. In the general population, it's been around for at least 10 years."”

Pitts finishes his article by saying in no way is he trying to make light of staph infections themselves. He is, however, trying to show some light on the “journalists” that bring us, “shark attacks! Poison gases in your home! Bacteria lurking in hotel sheets! The pedophile next door!” and ridicule them for work that causes more collective worry than life saving awareness.

I could not agree more with Mr. Pitts opinions on fear driven news. I think it is an easy way to turn out an article that will do nothing, but prey upon the “fight or flight” instinct in all humans. Furthermore, when looking at the SPJ Code of Ethics, I think it directly violates the principle of a journalists attempt to “Minimize Harm.” These headlines of “Superbug kills another” and “Superbug can’t be stopped” only inflame present situations and corrupt the mentality of the masses to a point of absolute, and unnecessary, panic.

The code says that journalists should, “Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiousity,” and under the heading “Seek Truth and Report It,” journalists should, “not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.” As Pitts reported, this form of staph infection has been around for at least 10 years, it is nothing new.

If the news could focus on dispersing helpful information instead of hyping the latest ailment, maybe society as a whole could share in a moment of calm instead of waiting for a dooms day that never comes.

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/469042.html

Monday, November 5, 2007

CORRECTING THE RECORD; Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception

A reporter resigned after years, in 2003, of deceiving his audience by writing fabricated and false stories for The New York Times. Jayson Blair worked for The New York Times for nearly four years and decided to resign because of "personal problems". He falsely wrote about the emotional experiences of recent events and soldiers dying in Iraq war. He also lied about where a story was taking place. A spot check of more than 600 articles that Blair wrote had fabrications. His technological devices allowed him to lie about his where abouts and what he was doing. Among the journalistic deceit he was also having emotional and personal problems at work that resulted in a serious warning.

Blair used the reputation of The New York Times to control what the public believed. The public Reading the paper trusted him and believed everything he published. Until this incident, The New York Times was known as a very honest and trust worthy source. In just a short time Blair has ruined that and his own reputation. He broke the code of ethics in so many ways. I cannot believe he was not noticed and caught sooner but because he failed to communicate with his senior editors and his clever ways of covering up his tracks, it was only a matter of time until he was suspicious. This article is a good reminder to read very critically and not believe everything you read just because it comes from a "reliable" source.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E1DB123FF932A25756C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1