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.