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
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Monday, November 5, 2007
CORRECTING THE RECORD; Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception
A reporter resigned after years, in 2003, of deceiving his audience by writing fabricated and false stories for The New York Times. Jayson Blair worked for The New York Times for nearly four years and decided to resign because of "personal problems". He falsely wrote about the emotional experiences of recent events and soldiers dying in Iraq war. He also lied about where a story was taking place. A spot check of more than 600 articles that Blair wrote had fabrications. His technological devices allowed him to lie about his where abouts and what he was doing. Among the journalistic deceit he was also having emotional and personal problems at work that resulted in a serious warning.
Blair used the reputation of The New York Times to control what the public believed. The public Reading the paper trusted him and believed everything he published. Until this incident, The New York Times was known as a very honest and trust worthy source. In just a short time Blair has ruined that and his own reputation. He broke the code of ethics in so many ways. I cannot believe he was not noticed and caught sooner but because he failed to communicate with his senior editors and his clever ways of covering up his tracks, it was only a matter of time until he was suspicious. This article is a good reminder to read very critically and not believe everything you read just because it comes from a "reliable" source.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E1DB123FF932A25756C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
Blair used the reputation of The New York Times to control what the public believed. The public Reading the paper trusted him and believed everything he published. Until this incident, The New York Times was known as a very honest and trust worthy source. In just a short time Blair has ruined that and his own reputation. He broke the code of ethics in so many ways. I cannot believe he was not noticed and caught sooner but because he failed to communicate with his senior editors and his clever ways of covering up his tracks, it was only a matter of time until he was suspicious. This article is a good reminder to read very critically and not believe everything you read just because it comes from a "reliable" source.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E1DB123FF932A25756C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
United Arab Emirates Newspapers Violate Codes of Ethics
Newspapers of UAE in Abu Dhabi continue to publish police provided pictures of defendants in a case that has not yet reached the court. This means that there has been no final verdict. The code in violation is that the newspapers do have to give the public the right to information, but they have to do it responsibly. The code bans the publishing of names and pictures of suspects before a final court ruling. The article states that the editors-in-chief have signed the code of ethics of most papers, meaning that the newspapers are aware and agreed with the code.
The newspaper that published the pictures is in complete violation of the code of ethics. This can be an issue for the Journalists Association if they provide a code and people sign it and do not really take it seriously. What is the point of the codes is they are not followed? The newspaper should retract the pictures or issue some kind of apology. This leaves a bad example to the trustworthiness of the media if this goes unpunished. The editors signed the code of ethics and this should mean that they fully adopt all the rules and should be aware of them. The pictures may bee good for the public to know but if they defendants are proven innocent, the public may still criticism them and see them as criminals. The reputation of the defendant could be falsely ruined by this newspaper. The bottom line was that the newspaper was aware of the codes and deliberately violated one of them. It is good that another journalist recognized the issue and brought it to attention.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
In Inquiry, ABC News Clears Work of a Fired Consultant
By BRIAN STELTER
Published: October 23, 2007
ABC News said yesterday that it had ended an investigation into a consultant whom it fired for falsifying his résumé and concluded that the reporting he had contributed to the network was sound.
In response to the incident, ABC will make changes to its system of hiring consultants, reviewing claims of prior employment and academic credentials more thoroughly, David L. Westin, the president of ABC News, wrote in a memorandum yesterday. Also, the network's news practices unit will be involved in all hiring decisions and reporting situations involving consultants, he wrote.
The changes stem from the case of Alexis Debat, a terrorism analyst who had been on the payroll of ABC as a consultant since 2001. Mr. Debat was suspended in May and fired in June after questions were raised about the legitimacy of his résumé; the network determined at the time that his claim of having earned a doctorate at the Sorbonne was false.
Three months later, after a French news Web site reported that an interview Mr. Debat had purportedly conducted with Senator Barack Obama was not authentic, ABC began a second review, combing through the news reports in which Mr. Debat had played a role to see if they contained any falsehoods. That investigation found no instances of false reporting, ABC said, but did uncover four details about operations and meetings in Pakistan that could not be confirmed.
''None of these discrepancies would rise to the level of a formal, on-air retraction because none of them was material to the substance of our report,'' Mr. Westin wrote.
ABC, which is part of the Walt Disney Company, and other television news organizations pay dozens of experts to serve as consultants on subjects.
''You're hiring these people not because they are skilled journalists, but precisely because of their subject expertise,'' said Tom Rosenstiel, the director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. ''I think it would seem obvious that a network would verify that the expertise is genuine.''
After reviewing this article, I was extremely appauled. Yes, this genetlemen lied on his resume. Lying should not be accepted and it is ethically wrong. However, he was doing an excellent job as a reporter. After six years of working wuth ABC, now his reporting is a problem? I agree with Rosenstiel, people should get hired by their
subject of expertise. I think it is too late in the game for this reporter. In my opinion, he should not have been fired.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402E0DB1F38F930A15753C1A9619C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/E/Ethics
By BRIAN STELTER
Published: October 23, 2007
ABC News said yesterday that it had ended an investigation into a consultant whom it fired for falsifying his résumé and concluded that the reporting he had contributed to the network was sound.
In response to the incident, ABC will make changes to its system of hiring consultants, reviewing claims of prior employment and academic credentials more thoroughly, David L. Westin, the president of ABC News, wrote in a memorandum yesterday. Also, the network's news practices unit will be involved in all hiring decisions and reporting situations involving consultants, he wrote.
The changes stem from the case of Alexis Debat, a terrorism analyst who had been on the payroll of ABC as a consultant since 2001. Mr. Debat was suspended in May and fired in June after questions were raised about the legitimacy of his résumé; the network determined at the time that his claim of having earned a doctorate at the Sorbonne was false.
Three months later, after a French news Web site reported that an interview Mr. Debat had purportedly conducted with Senator Barack Obama was not authentic, ABC began a second review, combing through the news reports in which Mr. Debat had played a role to see if they contained any falsehoods. That investigation found no instances of false reporting, ABC said, but did uncover four details about operations and meetings in Pakistan that could not be confirmed.
''None of these discrepancies would rise to the level of a formal, on-air retraction because none of them was material to the substance of our report,'' Mr. Westin wrote.
ABC, which is part of the Walt Disney Company, and other television news organizations pay dozens of experts to serve as consultants on subjects.
''You're hiring these people not because they are skilled journalists, but precisely because of their subject expertise,'' said Tom Rosenstiel, the director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. ''I think it would seem obvious that a network would verify that the expertise is genuine.''
After reviewing this article, I was extremely appauled. Yes, this genetlemen lied on his resume. Lying should not be accepted and it is ethically wrong. However, he was doing an excellent job as a reporter. After six years of working wuth ABC, now his reporting is a problem? I agree with Rosenstiel, people should get hired by their
subject of expertise. I think it is too late in the game for this reporter. In my opinion, he should not have been fired.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402E0DB1F38F930A15753C1A9619C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/E/Ethics
Ethics or Not? That is the question!
Response to the ethical questions from Professor Fox
1. As a responsible journalists, one should turn the offer down. However, if the reporter was a critic then this would be a different situation. As a journalist, we have a ethical responsibility to be fair and just. We should not be able to be bought or sold for any price. As a critic, it would be our job to report on the accommodations of a hotel but as a journalists that is not our job.
2. This reporter should reject the free gift or donate it to someone else. They were at the Convention Center to report on the job fair. They were not there to be entered into a raffle. It would not be a smart ethical decision to keep that free gift.
3. As an editor, I would have the advantage of sampling the promotional items. I believe I would have to listen to the music, watch the movies, and even wear a few t-shirts as part of the job. An editor’s position is different than a journalist’s position. As an editor, I have the freedom to report on my opinion and my views.
1. As a responsible journalists, one should turn the offer down. However, if the reporter was a critic then this would be a different situation. As a journalist, we have a ethical responsibility to be fair and just. We should not be able to be bought or sold for any price. As a critic, it would be our job to report on the accommodations of a hotel but as a journalists that is not our job.
2. This reporter should reject the free gift or donate it to someone else. They were at the Convention Center to report on the job fair. They were not there to be entered into a raffle. It would not be a smart ethical decision to keep that free gift.
3. As an editor, I would have the advantage of sampling the promotional items. I believe I would have to listen to the music, watch the movies, and even wear a few t-shirts as part of the job. An editor’s position is different than a journalist’s position. As an editor, I have the freedom to report on my opinion and my views.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Journalists Ordered To Reveal Source By High Court
In Ireland last week, the editor of the Irish Times, Geraldine Kennedy, and her public affairs correspondent Colm Keena were ordered by the High Court to appear before the Mahon tribunal (also know as The Tribunal of Inquiry Into Certain Planning Matters and Payments) to reveal the identity of a source. The source in question provided information that the Mahon tribunal was investigating payments made to Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Bertie Ahern in 1993. The Irish Times ran the story in September of 2006.
The Mahon tribunal sought the help of the High Court after Kennedy and Keena would not comply with their initial request to identify the name of their source. The journalists have been warned that if they do not comply with the courts orders, they will be found in contempt and may face jail time. Kennedy has already been criticized by the court for destroying the documents sent to her regarding payments made to Bertie Ahern.
The National Newspapers of Ireland (NNI) said that the ruling is a threat to the practices of all journalists because protecting one's sources is a central principle of journalism.
I agree with the decision made by Kennedy and Keena to not reveal the name of their source. By deciding to print the article, they made a promise to their source that they would keep their identity a secret. Any trouble that comes from the article is their responsibility now, because they could have easily chosen to disregard the information given to them.
I also don't belive the court should have the authority to force them to reveal the name of their source. There are countless stories printed everyday where sources ask not to be named for fear of punishment by their employers, etc. There would be no news if people had to worry about consequences for revealing information.
The Irish Times
The Boston Globe
The Mahon tribunal sought the help of the High Court after Kennedy and Keena would not comply with their initial request to identify the name of their source. The journalists have been warned that if they do not comply with the courts orders, they will be found in contempt and may face jail time. Kennedy has already been criticized by the court for destroying the documents sent to her regarding payments made to Bertie Ahern.
The National Newspapers of Ireland (NNI) said that the ruling is a threat to the practices of all journalists because protecting one's sources is a central principle of journalism.
I agree with the decision made by Kennedy and Keena to not reveal the name of their source. By deciding to print the article, they made a promise to their source that they would keep their identity a secret. Any trouble that comes from the article is their responsibility now, because they could have easily chosen to disregard the information given to them.
I also don't belive the court should have the authority to force them to reveal the name of their source. There are countless stories printed everyday where sources ask not to be named for fear of punishment by their employers, etc. There would be no news if people had to worry about consequences for revealing information.
The Irish Times
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
What's Wrong with "To Catch a Predator"?
“What’s Wrong with ‘To Catch a Predator’?” – Some say journalists and cops working together blur the lines of ethics.
The point of argument in this article is the fact that journalists are working side by side with police forces, and their jobs are intermixing with each other, sparking a conflict with the ethics of journalism.
NBC’s “Dateline” series launched the investigation that seeks out online sexual predators, and arrests them. In the series, Journalist Chris Hansen and his camera crew stay behind the scenes until the predator is lured in by an offer from an underage teen online. Upon arrival, the predator is greeted by Hansen and his camera crew, and ultimately, a police squad is there for his arrest.
The show has proved successful. However, after an article published in Esquire magazine about the series, it has become a case study for journalists. It depicts how difficult it can be for journalists and investigators to work together with such a controversial matter because both groups are operating off of different goals and values.
It ultimately comes down to the lines of the jobs of the journalists and cops being blurred together. Esquire magazine said that it “makes it appear almost impossible for the journalists, the citizens, and the cops to stay true to their own goals and not to assume the work of the other.”
Some argue that the Dateline NBC production relies on the cops to draw their guns and tackle the predators in the end in order to capture dramatic video.
I am a fan of the show, but I had never thought of “To Catch a Predator” as taking advantage of the police force to profit for exciting, evening television progamming. I feel that journalist Chris Hansen and his crew do violate the journalistic code of ethics in a way. It is not a journalist’s job to take the law into his or her own hands, especially when the police are already involved in the situation. It makes me re-evaluate what the show is actually trying to accomplish – telling a story or trying to take down sexual predators. I would think that a journalist’s number one job is telling the story, and that it is the police’s job to “clean up the city” and keep things safe.
Either way, I feel it is definitely a thought-provoker.
New York Times
Poynter Online
The point of argument in this article is the fact that journalists are working side by side with police forces, and their jobs are intermixing with each other, sparking a conflict with the ethics of journalism.
NBC’s “Dateline” series launched the investigation that seeks out online sexual predators, and arrests them. In the series, Journalist Chris Hansen and his camera crew stay behind the scenes until the predator is lured in by an offer from an underage teen online. Upon arrival, the predator is greeted by Hansen and his camera crew, and ultimately, a police squad is there for his arrest.
The show has proved successful. However, after an article published in Esquire magazine about the series, it has become a case study for journalists. It depicts how difficult it can be for journalists and investigators to work together with such a controversial matter because both groups are operating off of different goals and values.
It ultimately comes down to the lines of the jobs of the journalists and cops being blurred together. Esquire magazine said that it “makes it appear almost impossible for the journalists, the citizens, and the cops to stay true to their own goals and not to assume the work of the other.”
Some argue that the Dateline NBC production relies on the cops to draw their guns and tackle the predators in the end in order to capture dramatic video.
I am a fan of the show, but I had never thought of “To Catch a Predator” as taking advantage of the police force to profit for exciting, evening television progamming. I feel that journalist Chris Hansen and his crew do violate the journalistic code of ethics in a way. It is not a journalist’s job to take the law into his or her own hands, especially when the police are already involved in the situation. It makes me re-evaluate what the show is actually trying to accomplish – telling a story or trying to take down sexual predators. I would think that a journalist’s number one job is telling the story, and that it is the police’s job to “clean up the city” and keep things safe.
Either way, I feel it is definitely a thought-provoker.
New York Times
Poynter Online
Monday, October 22, 2007
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
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
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
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/
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/
Monday, October 15, 2007
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
The Daily Star
Thursday, October 11, 2007
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
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.
--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.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
