Presentation Evaluations, Week 1

Group 8

This presentation focused on the ethics of reporting on high-profile court cases. With case examples including George Zimmerman, Aaron Hernandez and Richard Jewell, the group explored issues with “trials by media” and coverage influencing court decisions. Including each high-profile case on the handout and asking the class what their impressions of each were was a good way to introduce the cases, though it did seem a bit rushed. I was a bit surprised to find how many people in the class still thought Zimmerman was guilty, even after he was acquitted. Based on the facts of the case, I thought the jury made the right decision. He may be stupid and prejudiced, but those things aren’t against the law in and of themselves.

Ultimately, I thought the group gave a lot of good information but needed more focus in their presentation. I agree with their conclusion that journalists need to follow guidelines that prevent them from compromising the audience’s perception of the truth in court cases. However, I feel that they would have had a stronger argument if they used fewer cases, or even just one, to support their conclusion.

 

Group 5

This presentation started out strong with an enlightening, humorous video about internet privacy. The fact that it was done by BuzzFeed was a bit ironic, since the presentation was about the ethics of data mining and privacy on media websites. The group was correct to clarify that this is not necessarily a legal issue, stating that privacy is not explicitly guaranteed in the US Constitution.

Despite starting with data mining and targeted advertising, the presentation quickly changed gears to discussing the privacy concerns of mugshots on media websites, as well as their status as clickbait. This was somewhat jarring. While there were privacy concerns addressed regarding the mugshots, they were distinct from those addressed in the introductory video.

The group concluded that journalism is at a critical juncture where economic concerns and evolving technology must compete with the need to protect citizens’ privacy rights. While this group was engaging and presented good information (including an engaging handout with mugshots), the presentation felt somewhat disorganized and seemed to drag a bit.

 

Group 2

This group focused on the ethics of using anonymous sources in news stories. They began with a worst-case scenario: that of Jayson Blair, who fabricated sources under the guise of anonymity. This led into a discussion of the arguments against using anonymous sources. However the group also gave equal time to arguments in favor, such as making the watchdog role of journalism easier to accomplish.

The group concluded that anonymous sources can and should be used when the situation calls for it, but advocated stricter rules regarding their use. They argued that anonymous sources should only be used when there is no way to accurately tell the story without them, which I though was a great rule of thumb. This presentation was organized well and very information rich. However, I did find it a bit dry, as it didn’t foster much discussion and there wasn’t much multimedia used.

 

Group 1

The final group of the day discussed one of the most obvious modern ethical issues: citizen journalism. The group identified the different kinds of citizen journalism, and discussed issues such as lack of verification and poor editing. I thought the chart organization of identifying each type and presenting the issues endemic to each was an effective way to present the information. Ultimately, the group concluded that a code of conduct should be standardized for citizen journalists to follow. While I think that this scenario would be ideal, it doesn’t seem very practical, as it would be very difficult to enforce.

This was easily the most visual and interactive of the day’s presentation, with a colorful presentation, videos and audio, and an introduction that allowed the class to decide which of two stories was written by a citizen journalist or a “real” journalist. The handout was also a nice departure, presenting the basics of the presentation on a mockup of an iPad. This presentation had a lot of good information, and while I think it could have been a bit more focused, I would argue that it was the most engaging of the day.

 

Blog Essay Week 14

EJ  Chapt. 11

Here we are. The final blog essay. The final EJ chapter. The Final Countdown. Who ever thought we would make it this far? Well, I suppose we all probably did, but I digress. 

This chapter finally took a real, hard look at the role of citizens in modern journalism. It starts the discussion with crowdsourcing, the outsourcing of certain tasks to essentially anyone in the world who is up to the task, usually via the Internet. Say what you will about citizen journalism in general, but I think crowdsourcing, when used correctly, is definitely a good thing for journalism. Think of any big event in the 20th century, and imagine what it would have been like with crowdsourcing. Tweets of reactions to King’s “I Have A Dream” speech as it happened. Vine videos of Woodstock antics. You may disagree, but I think it would have changed the way we remember these events.

 The authors touch on the benefits that members of the community can bring to journalists in a sort of symbiotic relationship. They state “the community brings a diversity of viewpoints, subject expertise, and real-life experience to the news that journalism alone cannot match.” This is a good perspective on the basic role of citizens in journalism. I feel like, generally, when you think of citizens in regards to journalism, you just think the average person on the street. But the cancer researcher or the political analyst should be considered just as much a citizen as anyone else. Their expertise does not separate them from their community.

We eventually get to the “Citizen’s Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.” How helpful this is to non-journalist citizens in a book read almost exclusively by journalism students, I do not know. Nevertheless, as the authors say, we as journalists are citizens as well. The “Bill” basically states each right or responsibility as it relates to an element from previous chapters, but it leaves out verification and conscience. The one right that seems to be violated most is the citizen’s right to get proportional, engaging coverage of major news from journalists. The fault for this violation shouldn’t be placed all on the journalists, though, since it raises the question of how much is a result of citizens’ violating their responsibility to seek out the “critical, challenging information.” This dichotomy speaks to the necessity of having guidelines for both the journalists who produce news and the citizens who consume it.

In the end, the authors take a stand for the rights of citizens, even if it means negative consequences for journalists. If citizens rights are violated and their concerns go unaddressed, they say, the citizens should do everything in their power to make themselves heard, including canceling subscriptions and publicly criticizing news outlets. In the precarious economic environment of modern journalism, it’s a testament to their devotion to the core principles of journalism that they would call for such things if journalists are not fulfilling their roles. I can respect that.

 

DQ: Did the authors do an adequate job of summarizing the elements of our profession? Was there anything they omitted or over-emphasized?

 

Ethical Issue 

This was just begging to be used in a blog post: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/04/11/marathon-bombing-survivor-walks-off-set-of-meet-the-press/. Adrianne Haslet-Davis, a dancer who lost a foot in last year’s Boston Marathon Bombing, walked out on an episode of “Meet the Press” when she learned the names of the bombers would be said. On the one hand, I can definitely see why she would be upset if they said they wouldn’t say it. NBC should have never made that promise. However, I think it’s unreasonable to expect the subject of the bombers not to come up in a serious discussion of the tragedy. I’m all for focusing on the victims, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore the fact that there were real people behind the bombing, one of whom is still alive to be held responsible for the act. As Hermione said, “fear of a name only increases fear of the thing itself.”

 

In Conclusion

Well, I would say it’s been fun, but then I would be violating my journalistic responsibility to the truth. Ethics aren’t supposed to be fun though. They are supposed to be hard. But, as unenjoyable as it may be to think about them, they are absolutely necessary for a journalist. Nothing in life is certain except for death, taxes and the fact that MH370 is on CNN.com’s front page at any given moment.  Ethics is how we as humans deal with these gray areas. When the big dilemmas come up, it’s important to have a solid system of ethics to help you through them in journalism, and in life. 

So, do I feel that I have such a solid system in place, now that this class is almost finished? Not exactly. It’s not the fault of the books (though I’ve had my criticisms), the class structure, or you, Dr. Rogers. While this class was a good starting point, I don’t think we can fully develop journalistic ethics until we are out in the field, continuously experiencing dilemmas like the ones discussed in class for ourselves. What this class did well was to give us the basic tools and knowledge to start with. 

 

-Jovahn Huertas, jhuertas@ufl.edu

Blog Essay Week 13

EJ Ch. 10

This penultimate chapter discusses the principle that journalists have an obligation to exercise their personal conscience, and it begins with a notorious violation of this principle: the Jayson Blair scandal. Howell Raines actually came to UF to speak while I was in Reporting, and he confirmed much of what was discussed here, especially the outrage expressed by New York Times reporters at the perceived failure of leadership.

This seems like the most relevant chapter to this class, as it focuses on the idea that “every journalist…must have a personal sense of ethics and responsibility—a moral compass.” Since this is not an ethics book per se, the authors don’t seem to have as firm a grasp on ethical concepts as those of the other major text in this class. For example, in the previous sentence, they appear to equate ethics with morality, despite the fact that we established a clear division between the two in the first few weeks.

In the section titled “Exercising Conscience is Not Easy”, the authors state the glaringly obvious. If the answers to dilemmas of conscience and ethics came easy, they wouldn’t be called dilemmas. The key point being made here is that, with the increasingly precarious financial positions that publications are in, it becomes more desirable to make ethical compromises to increase profits or save a few bucks. This pretty much sums up what is likely the biggest ethical issue in modern journalism.

This chapter returns to an idea discussed in weeks prior: the goal of intellectual diversity in the newsroom. Since the authors discuss the journalist’s moral compass, I though this goal brings up an interesting conflict. People of different cultural and ideological background are bound to have different morals. It would have to be common guidelines in journalistic ethical reasoning that unites these diverse individuals, rather than some moral ideal.

The chapter concludes with an almost cursory mention of the role of citizens. It is essentially a rehash of the idea of dilemma of making compromises for financial sake: more specifically, what extent journalists should conform to the desires of readers and viewers. Yet again, the authors seemed to give very little time to the role of citizen journalists. I hope they discuss this more in the final chapter.

 

Two Short Articles On Advocacy Journalism 

I don’t think the first article is necessarily about advocacy journalism. Alana Moceri’s central point seems to be that journalists should include information about what readers and viewers can do about things in the news that affect them. She is not calling for journalists to advocate these actions, but merely to present information should citizens desire to take such actions. This doesn’t seem to be much of a deviation from journalistic standards. If an area is under a tornado warning, any good journalist would provide information on what those affected should do to protect themselves. It stands to reason that if, say, a politician is revealed to be a part of a scandal, so too should a journalist provide information on how to voice concerns or vote him or her from office.

The second article is much more specifically focused on advocacy journalism, which it defines as “coverage with a clearly stated worldview.” The calls these writers “almost-journalists,” holding issue with the fact that they often fail to report opposing viewpoints and facts. However, he says, he’s ready to drop the “almost”, because these writers are still providing in-depth coverage of vital issues. While this is a positive aspect, I still hold this type of reporting below the more objective variety. How can journalism be certifiably accurate if it comes with a purposeful slant? Rather, I think this is a sign that “traditional” journalists need to focus more on the underreported issues that the advocates are bringing light to.

 

DQ: Does advocacy have any place in journalism, and if so, to what extent?

 

Ethical Issue of the Week

I thought the recent Colbert Report Twitter “scandal” presented an interesting media ethical issue outside of traditional journalism. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/cancel-colbert-stephen-colbert_n_5068592.html. The major question here is whether satire can really be criticized for things like racial insensitivity, especially when the point of the quote in context was to itself criticize actual racial insensitivity. This also ties into the larger argument of whether comic personalities like Colbert and Jon Stewart who, at times, report on actual news stories should be held to any of the ethics of “real” journalism.

 

-Jovahn Huertas, jhuertas@ufl.edu

 

Blog Essay Week 12

EJ Ch. 9

            This chapter is essentially a follow-up to the previous one about making news coverage engaging and relevant. While that chapter discussed how to cover stories, this one focuses on what journalists should cover in the first place. The principle at hand is that journalists should keep the news they cover in proportion and make it comprehensive.

            The authors characterize journalism as “our modern cartography. It creates a map for citizens to navigate society.” Extending the analogy, they discuss how, in the past, the most popular maps filled in the unknowns with sketches of sea serpents and gold mines. This is a good metaphor for how sensationalism often helps sell newspapers and garner page views, even if it is just based on unfounded speculation or outright fabrication.

            The authors proceed to set up a golden mean of sorts for the content of news stories. A front page filled with entertaining stories with new real news value is just as unbalanced as one filled with hard data and Big Stories without any attention to human interest. This relates to the people-powered front-page experiment from a few weeks ago. The front pages generated by page views skewed too far in favor of the former, though the exercise may well have shown that editors of major newspapers today make a few too many choices for the latter.

            I agree with the idea that targeted demographics in journalism aren’t a great idea, and especially that journalism should include news of all communities.  This reminds of the local situation of the Gainesville Guardian. The Guardian is a separate newspaper published by the Sun that is meant to serve the predominantly African-American East Gainesville area. My issue with this has been that it seems a lot like segregation. Why aren’t the Guardian’s stories worthy of the Sun proper? And if they are, what is the necessity of a separate publication?

            The dichotomy between broadcast news becoming more entertainment-based and fictional television shows becoming more grounded in reality, as Robert Krulwich observed, was very interesting. I’ll take a moment here to shout-out my favorite podcast, Radiolab, in which Mr. Krulwich and Jad Abumrad spend an hour or two every month making similar mind-bending observations, usually involving science or philosophy (www.radiolab.org) Also, for an interesting ethical issue involving the show, check out the Yellow Rain incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_rain#2012_Controversy).

            The authors propose that the solution to resisting sensationalism is keeping journalists separate from the realities of the media marketplace. They’ve brought it up before, and it’s great in theory, but it’s quite unrealistic in practice. In a lot of journalism classes and writings on the state of the modern journalistic landscape, I’ve often heard that a journalist should treat him or herself as a one-person business. With fewer publications hiring full-time staff, journalists must resort more and more to freelance work, especially in my area of interest: science writing. With that in mind, separating reporter from marketplace seems virtually impossible.

            For the authors, the mapmaking metaphor of journalism ends with the subjectivity of the question “what is news?” that is not found in cartography. This is reasonable, since, as they state, a big story for some is unimportant to others. There is a time and place for speculation and entertainment in journalism, but they should not overly encroach on the news center.

 

Case Study 10-B

1. The major ethical issue here is whether NBC should have omitted the seemingly incriminating segment of Bob Costa’s interview of Jerry Sandusky.
2. NBC could have aired the segment. On the surface, this may have made many viewers uncomfortable, as Sandusky is basically admitting his criminal acts, and even laughs at one point during the exchange. Furthermore, it could be seen as a “trial by media” incident, in which the media, and by extension, the public, are condemning Sandusky based on his comments before he can get a fair trial by law. Alternatively, by choosing not to air the clip, NBC avoided further disconcerting comments on primetime TV, at the expense of valuable information that would directly contradict the comments that were broadcast.
3. NBC should have aired the edited section of the interview. While it may have made viewers uncomfortable, it was necessary for a complete picture of Sandusky in the interview. If NBC did not want to air these comments for fear of trial by media, it should not have aired the prior comments in which Sandusky professed his innocence either, as these could be just as detrimental to a lawful trial

 

Case Study 10-G

1. The ethical dilemma here is a bit difficult to peg. Obviously, Lehrer’s fabrication of quotes is unethical and against journalistic standards. A more difficult issue here is whether his self-duplication should be considered plagiarism. Therefore, the ethical issue I will focus on is whether The New Yorker should have punished Lehrer for his self-duplication.
2. By allowing Lehrer to remain on staff, The New Yorker implied that self-duplication is not nearly as egregious as plagiarism. While it does not have the same effect as stealing another’s work for profit, it is still a form of deception and demonstrates a lack of original reporting. If The New Yorker had fired him, it would have made a statement that self-duplication is at least as bad as plagiarism. This may be two harsh a penalty for a victimless transgression. However, there may be other consequences, such as demotion or suspension that could also be used as punishment.
3. The New Yorker should not have let Lehrer off so easily for copying his own writing. While it is not as bas as true plagiarism, is still dishonest to editors and co-workers if not to the readers. While I don’t think firing him would have been the best course of action, some repercussions should have occurred. Furthermore, investigating his past work more may have uncovered his more serious ethical violations sooner.

 

Case Study Sports vs. Journalism:

1. In 2013, ESPN teamed up with PBS’s “Frontline” to present a documentary on brain injuries in the NFL. Before it aired, however, ESPN pulled it’s branding from the documentary amid accusations that the NFL was pressuring the media company. The NFL is ESPN’s biggest television partner, allowing them to broadcast games and use NFL branding. Despite this, most of the film is based on the work of two ESPN investigative reporters. The ethical dilemma here is whether ESPN should have pulled support for the piece under pressure from the NFL.
2. By taking this action, ESPN gave the image of favoring profits and comfortable business partnerships over journalistic integrity. However, this calls into question whether ESPN is primarily a news organization or a sports entertainment broadcaster. Based on the amount of sporting events broadcast by the network, I would lean towards the latter. People across the US rely on ESPN channels to broadcast sporting events that they wouldn’t be able to access otherwise. Even SportsCenter largely consists of commentary. Another alternative would have been for ESPN to maintain its support of the project. This likely would have tarnished relations with the NFL, though I wouldn’t go as far as to think the NFL would terminate its partnership with ESPN. However, the move would lend ESPN credibility as a journalistic network. Even if it is focused on entertainment, it has journalistic elements, which means it also has some commitment to the truth, even if it puts the NFL in a bad light.

3. If the decision where mine, I would have maintained ESPN’s support of the documentary. Knowing the relationship between ESPN and the NFL, I doubt it would have seriously affected their mutually beneficial business partnership. The NFL would lose a major source of viewers, and therefore, advertising revenue, by cutting ESPN out of the loop. From a purely ethical perspective, the news of brain damage in professional football is important enough to trump the NFL’s ire. If ESPN has any journalistic integrity, it should favor the wellbeing of players over the minor repercussions that the network might face.

 

DQ: Is creating a separate, targeted publication the best way for a metro newspaper to address an underreported community? If not, what might be a better alternative?

 

Ethical Issue

I wanted to complain about CNN refusing to take Flight 370 off the top of their home page for three weeks, but then I realized I already did that. Poynter tends to be good for an ethical issue, so here’s one from Monday: http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/244808/advance-defends-bonuses-for-reporters-who-post-frequently-and-join-comment-chains/ The Oregonian has a bonus system that rewards reporters for posting a lot and commenting on stories. This is a good example of how not to separate reporters from the media marketplace, and it’s basically asking for quality over quantity. However, if a news organization wants lots of traffic-getting posts and increased social interaction, there’s probably no more of an efficient way to get it than by paying the writers.

 

-Jovahn Huertas, jhuertas@ufl.edu

 

 

 

 

 

             

 

Blog Essay Week 11

EJ  Chapt. 8: Engagement and Relevance

This week’s element of journalism is probably the most interesting one so far: that journalists must make the news engaging and relevant in their stories, newscasts, and photography. To introduce this idea, the authors give the example of an 1,100-page book on an urban planner written 40 years ago. In a journalistic landscape that currently focuses on brevity and up-to-the minute news, that seems like the polar opposite of “engaging”. Their point, which is justifiable, is to show how focusing on power struggles and telling one person’s story to explain something larger can make newswriting more compelling. However, it still seems like a somewhat poor choice to get the conversation started.

The authors discuss what they portray as a fall dichotomy of engaging vs. relevant: that the important stories are at odds with the interesting ones. I definitely agree with the sentiment that storytelling and information are not contradictory. Any journalistic story needs some sort of relevant information to qualify it as news, just as any information-dense story should be made engaging, lest it be just a bunch of facts and numbers randomly splayed out on a piece of paper or web page.

Despite it’s seemingly out-of-touch introduction, the chapter does eventually get down to some modern implications. Specifically, the authors discuss how cutbacks in the newsroom are affecting the quality of news stories for the sake of quantity, something we saw discussed in the “Page One” documentary of the New York Times. This obviously damages both the ability of a news organization to gather relevant information, as well as the ability to make it engaging. Additionally, the authors argue that space is a factor in limiting engagement of news stories. I would say that, while the attention span of the audience has supposedly gotten smaller, the Internet as a medium allows for more in-depth storytelling when used correctly.

The Lewinski/ABC News example clearly shows the quest for engagement trumping relevance, as talk of whether President Clinton is “passionate” and “a good kisser” overshadows the legal and political aspects of the interview.  Sex certainly sells. While I think there is a place for this kind of information, (the public does care about it, after all) it should not have taken center stage in the interview.

I like the characterization of infotainment as basically a self-fulfilling prophecy. If news organizations shift too much towards entertainment and trivia, they lessen the appetite of the audience for real news and drive away those he genuinely still want it.

The many alternatives the chapter gives in response to the call for more relevant and engaging news are all good ideas. I especially liked the Hour Glass structure, as it flies in the face of what they drilled into our heads in Reporting class about the inverted pyramid. I like breaking down preconceptions. Anyway, for any of these to work, however, news organizations must simultaneously clear out much of the infotainment and junk news.

 

ME Chapt. 9: New Media: Continuing Questions and New Roles

Billie Joe Armstrong, of Green Day fame, said he did not want a nation under the new media. (He also said some decidedly unpatriotic things about America in the same breath, but that’s beside the point.) Unfortunately for Mr. Armstrong, the new media—websites, podcasts, blogs and, likely in near the future, telepathic messages—is here to stay, and that’s what this week’s Media Ethics chapter discusses.

As seems to often be the case, the chapter begins by eulogizing the old guard of trained journalists for major publications, their places being taken by tweeters and bloggers. Fortunately, the chapter focuses on some positive aspects of citizen journalism, such as the live recording of the 2011 Arab Spring protests. Even at the height of foreign bureaus, now news organization would have had the manpower to cover the protests as extensively as a bunch of people with cell phone cameras did.

The authors claim that citizen journalism lacks information verification, and that this is where professional journalists come in. I would argue that citizen journalists certainly have the ability to verify information. They just don’t have a structured organization of editors to make sure that it happens.

The hypothetical about cutting a photo into pixels and rearranging them into a new photo is intriguing, but ultimately flawed. A pixel is literally just a tiny dot of a certain color. You could probably rearrange a big enough picture into practically anything. A photograph is the arrangement of pixels, not the sum of the pixels themselves. Claiming the end product as copyright infringement would make about as much sense as trying to claim infringement on some pop song because it’s in the same key as that song you wrote for your garage band in 9th grade.

It sort of blew my mind that the forerunner for Google News was created more than 30 years ago. I didn’t even think the Internet existed in the early 80s. I thought people just communicated via messages tied to luftballons back then, or something. I found it even harder to believe, however, that interviewing was once considered a controversial practice in journalism. Did writers just get their information by divine providence before that?

 I can see how the Internet would bring issues of anonymous sources to the forefront. Who knows whose behind that Reddit username? How can we know if @Lord_Voldemort7 on Twitter is really the Dark Lord? In the case of anonymous Internet sources, I think the same standards used in traditional reporting should apply: journalists should use whatever means necessary to verify a source’s identity and publish it, unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise, such as to protect the source’s safety.

I don’t think the Internet’s origins as a government communications medium hamper its potential as a journalistic medium. Most web space today is on private servers and computers, and the connective infrastructure is largely owned and controlled by private utility companies. Of course, come to think of it, that could be even worse for journalism than if the government owned the Internet infrastructure. We are a democracy, after all, something that corporations cannot call themselves.

In the chapter’s conclusion, I think the authors do too much line-drawing between citizen journalists and “professional” journalists. It’s quite a broad assumption to say that bloggers aren’t interested in education and city councils. The line between the two supposed camps is already blurred, and that blurring is just going to continue as we move forward.

 
Case Study 9-A

1.                    The case concerns the reporting done on the 2012 Supreme Court case on the constitutionality of “ObamaCare.” The issue at hand is whether Fox and CNN should have focused on getting the news of the case out as quickly as possible without adequately verifying the facts.

2.                    By acting as they did, the news organizations may have been able to get the news out as quickly as possible, but risked sacrificing accuracy, as was the case. Alternatively, the organizations could have waited to confirm the initial rumors, potentially losing their ability to report the news before competitors, but while saving face if the initial reports were inaccurate and making sure the public was well informed.

3.                    The organizations should definitely not have acted as they did. This was an issue that had been anticipated for weeks in advance, and would not have any real effects until years later. There was no tangible reason to report it in the manner that they did. Doing so only hurt their audiences and their own credibility.

Case Study 9-B

1.     The major issue in this case is whether it is ethical to aggregate news stories by other news organizations and journalists if proper attribution is given.

2.     One option would be to not aggregate at all. This would take care of any ethical considerations, but jeopardize the existence of publications like the Hartford Courant. Another option would be to aggregate with proper attribution. This calls into question the ethicality of republishing the work of another, even if it is attributed. Is a byline the only line between plagiarism and fair use? Finally, one alternative that can be decisively crossed out is aggregating without proper attribution.

3.     It is ethically sound to aggregate news stories on the Internet, provided that thorough attribution is used and the original story is linked when possible. This can be beneficial to both the aggregator, allowing its continued existence, and the original authors, bringing increased readership.

 

Ethical Issue: Last week, the NPR ombudsman released this (http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2014/03/19/291479274/ethics-morality-and-a-ticking-clock-for-how-to-report-on-the-r-skins) epic tome detailing its stance on using the name of the Washington Redskins in its programming, despite the racial controversy surrounding it. The piece followed an incident in which the host of Weekend Edition refused to say the name, causing varied reactions from listeners. Despite having “bleeped” the name out in the title, the author does not appear to come to a meaningful conclusion about NPR’s stance by the end of some 5,000 words or so.

 

Discussion Question: What is the best method for news organizations to make the telling of news more engaging without sacrificing relevance?

 

Vocabulary

Spin alley: the meeting area for press members to interview public policy experts after political events. Notably criticized by Jon Stewart on his infamous Crossfire appearance.

 

Fair use: Uses of authored material that do not constitute copyright infringement, such as for criticism or educational purposes.

 

Echo chamber: a situation in media where ideas are simply repeated and reinforced while drowning out opposing views. 

 

Take-home exam proposal

Advances in robotics and computer technology are likely to cause large increases in job automation during the next few decades. Creative jobs like journalism may seem immune, but in the last few years, that notion has also been challenged.

The Chicago-based company Narrative Science has created a computer algorithm that can write news stories. The algorithm is able to scan large sets of data, pick out the important facts, and create a cohesive written story based on them. The stories aren’t just lists of factoids, but cohesive, well-written stories that are often difficult to distinguish from human writing. While the algorithm focuses on data-based stories like sports and finance, advances in technology like voice-recognition software could someday allow computers to conduct interviews.

New developments in automated journalism raise issues found in any similar situation, whether we should allow unpaid automatons to put paid humans out of work being the main one. But automated journalism also raises it’s own questions. Can a computer really show creativity without human intervention? Can a robot be trusted to get the facts right? But the most important question concerns the nature of journalistic ethics itself: how can an algorithm-based computer program make the same ethical calls a human reporter would make?

For this issue, I have identified three major alternatives. The journalism industry can wholly reject automation, dodging the question of computer ethics and allowing humans to keep their jobs, but potentially making the industry lag behind technologically and economically. On the other extreme, journalism can wholeheartedly adopt automation, allowing computers to take human jobs and possibly causing an ethical crisis. Finally computerized journalism and human reporting can coexist and complement each other. This seems like the most likely option, but the question of the extent and scope of automation in this scenario create issues themselves, which I intend to explore.

           

            

Blog Essay Week 10

EJ, Ch. 7

This chapter focuses on the public forum element of journalism. However, before even mentioning this, it begins with an anecdote about this principle being abused in the modern media environment, with a freelance journalist being falsely accused by Chris Matthews and Rush Limbaugh of threatening a woman involved in the Clinton scandal of the late 90s. And this was before Twitter and the blogosphere. While the news media may be an appropriate place to call a person such as Shearer into question, the rush to get the story should not lead journalists to hasty conclusions or even outright libel.

This anecdote begins a decidedly cautious take on a journalistic principle throughout the chapter. The authors also note early such precautions as not focusing on the extremes of an argument simply to create the illusion of balance. This approach makes sense, since, as the authors state, the public forum principle is probably where the technology-vs-journalism debate is most divisive.

 One particularly frustrating issue with debates in modern media that the chapter points out is the “food fight” style of debate that occurs on cable news. I can’t count the number of times I’ve tuned in to CNN or MSNBC for a news update, only to get a bunch of talking heads taking over each other. I think the big irony of it is that, come election season, some of those same talking heads are moderating candidate debates.

The authors say that exchanges in the media should drive at resolutions, which is pretty much the heart of the entire issue: within the so-called “Argument Culture” of modern media, we see argument for the sake of ratings and filling-time, rather than for the sake of meaningful resolution. This essentially creates a façade of dialogue, behind which the public forum principle is barely at work, if at all.

The primary takeaway from this chapter seems to be that, despite new technology presenting all kinds of opportunities for expanding of the public forum role, it has so far done the opposite. Unfortunately, this chapter doesn’t offer much in the way of possible solutions.

 

ME, Ch. 8 

For me, this chapter focuses on the aspects of journalism that I am perhaps least familiar with: audiovisual. While I’ve worked with photography and videography in class, I don’t consider myself particularly adept at either, so I tend to avoid them when possible. However, with the changing media landscape, we can’t really avoid it, so this may be one of the more important chapters for “word people” like myself.

The chapter jumps right into citizen photojournalism, which is probably the most common form of citizen journalism. I remember the first video I saw of the Boston Marathon bombings came from a 7-second vine on Twitter. However, the average person on the street holding an iPhone likely isn’t thinking about ethics when they’re faced with an event like that.

Garry Bryant’s checklist for tragedy photography seems like a very good guideline to keep in mind when having to make quick decisions as a photographer. The disclaimer, too, is important. A photographer may, in the process of capturing a tragic event, take some photos that would violate ethical guidelines, but that doesn’t mean they will go to print. To capture the event, the photographer often just has to keep hammering the shutter.

In the case of staging photographs or reenacting events, I think these things should definitely be used sparingly and be labeled as such. If a photograph or video is the equivalent to a written article, than a staged photograph is equivalent to a fabricated quote or anecdote.

Of course, the chapter focuses on the most obvious ethical considerations specific to visual journalism: photo manipulation and editing. When I took a photojournalism class last semester, I was a bit surprised to discover that some editing was allowed, and even encouraged. The point, however, was not to necessarily make the photo look better, but to compensate for mechanical limitations or improper settings on the camera, thus bringing the final product as close as possible to the naked-eye reality of the photographed subject.

The eyewash issue is probably the fuzziest, ethically speaking. It seems wrong to pass off a photo of a child injured from an accident as an example of child abuse, but simply placing unrelated photos that wouldn’t be associated directly with a story by most rational people isn’t as clear-cut. If anything, it seems more like a journalistic quality issue than one of ethics.

 

 Case Study 8-A

1. The primary ethical issue here seems to be whether a news organization should purchase and publish photos or video of Scott’s suicidal jump from the Vincent Thomas Bridge. Since non-journalists took the photos, this isn’t really a question of whether the photos should have ethically been taken or not.
2. One option would be to publish the visuals without question. This would certainly help to tell the story of a prominent individual’s death, but it would also expose the audience to graphics that are unnecessarily graphic (I doubt this would pass the “Post Toasties Test”) and disregard the desires of Scott’s family. Consulting the family first might be a good option, but it still leaves the issue of the graphic images. Alternatively, a news organization could opt not to use the images. This would be most ethically sound, but it prevents the publication from presenting a unique visual angle to a major story.
3. A news organization should not publish these photos. Not only does it make sense ethically, it also falls in line with journalistic standards. Suicides in general are often not covered by most news sources. While this does fall into the category of a notable death, it still doesn’t justify publishing photos of the death itself.

Case Study 8-B

1. The major question here is whether Herbert should have taken the steps he did to help the women or put journalism first.
2. Herbert could have taken photos without helping the women, maintaining the role of an objective observer. He could have taken photos first, then helped, likely changing the outcome for the worse. In doing what he did, Herbert saved the women, but did not get photos of the car fire and put himself in the story. If he had simply helped without taking any photos, the story, which went nationwide, would simply not have been published.
3. Herbert took the best course of action here. While the role of objectivity is important, it should not trump one’s role as a human being. He knew there was something he could do to help the women, so he should have taken those steps, and did. While he may have thereby documented a story he was a key part of, he focused on the roles of others in extinguishing the fire and extracting the women.

Case Study 8-C

1. Hey, it’s the Alligator! The issue here is whether the good folks at America’s finest college publication should have run the photos of the detectives with the miscarried baby.
2. The editors could have opted not to run this photo. This would have prevented them from using the photo in a public service role, such as showing the potential realities on a college campus. However, it would also prevent a rather disturbing photo from running. Alternatively, by publishing it, the Alligator was able to covey the desired messages, albeit at the expense of readers’ tastes and, potentially, the mother’s sensitivity.
3. The editors should not have allowed this photo to run. While it is certainly a good photo, and it does have legitimate reasons for being published, it certainly doesn’t pass the breakfast test, and it doesn’t take into account a woman who is likely emotionally compromised from miscarrying, only to possibly see the body of her baby in a newspaper.

 

Case Study 8-E

1. The issue here is whether the Register-Guard the photo of officers trying to resuscitate 2-year-old Shelby McGuire.
2. The Register-Guard could have declined to publish the photo. This would have been a clear-cut response to the paper’s policy of not publishing photos of dead children, and it would have avoided the huge, emotional public response to the photo. However, it would have robbed the story of a spectacular photo that encapsulates the situation and shows the hard work of the officers. By publishing the photo, the paper was able to show a great photo, but at the expense of potentially violating it’s own ethics code and upsetting a large part of its readership, as well as those involved in the story.
3. This one isn’t as clear-cut as the other “to publish, or not to publish” issues. However, in the end, the best course of action would again be to not publish the photo. As great as the photo is, running it is not worth alienating readers and harming the paper’s credibility, or causing emotional distress to the surviving members of the family.

Case Study 8-G

1. The issue in this case is which major publication made the best decision in publishing the Nielson photo, or whether not publishing the photo at all would have been the best option.
2. This case study neatly lays out the major alternatives. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch published the photo on page A10. This prevents a potentially disturbing photo from going right on the front page, but still keeps a journalistically good photo in with the rest of the main Katrina coverage. The LA Times published the photo in the center of A1. This elevates one of the photos that best captures the situation in Katrina to a visible position, but also presents a disturbing image on the front page. The Chicago Tribune ran the photo two days later in a special section of the paper. This probably has the least effect of disturbing readers, but it delays a highly newsworthy photo and relegates it to a less-traveled section of the paper. Another alternative would be to not publish the photo at all, eliminating the ethical issues but preventing a newsworthy photo from being published.
3. The Dispatch made the best decision in this case. By publishing the photo in the A Section, but not plastering it on the front page, the Dispatch kept a powerful photograph in it’s ongoing coverage of the situation in Katrina while working to prevent reader’s sensibilities from being offended. In any case, this photograph should definitely have been published in some way. Although it shows death, it is not in an overtly graphic way, it encapsulates the reality of post-Katrina New Orleans.

 

People-Powered Front Page

            My group was assigned the Washington Post. The people-powered front page replaced economic and foreign policy issues with human interest ones, such as lion cubs being born taking the place of coverage on the Ukraine crisis. I do not think that a front page based on readership or sharing of stories online should be instated. Rather, editors should take reader interests into account when laying out a front page, but also maintain focus on other factors, such as need-to-know information and balance of topics.

 

Question: Should photos of dead bodies or dying people be excluded from publication? If not, how is that ethically justified?

 

Ethical Issue of the Week

 On this snapshot of CNN.com from yesterday http://web.archive.org/web/20140317111052/http://www.cnn.com/, we see two of the biggest stories of the last few weeks featured: the crisis in Crimea and the search for Flight 370. The story receiving top billing, however, is the latter. Despite the subhead advertising “Big developments, major questions,” nothing had really changed much in the past 24 hours. The story from the previous day was largely the same: http://web.archive.org/web/20140316003613/http://www.cnn.com/. In Crimea, however, the official vote tally had come in just recently indicating that Crimea was on the fast track to secede from Ukraine and get annexed by Russia, a move that was denounced as breaking international law by many world leaders. So you have a story that affects exponentially more people, is certainly timely, and is even a bit physically closer to CNN.com’s readership, trumped by an overblown rehash of a story that, to it’s credit, sounds like the plot of an action movie. I thought this tied in well with the people-powered front page experiment, as it showed what appears to be something similar in action on an actual news site.

 

Vocab

Post Toasties test or Wheaties test: A test for photos or video accompanying morning news stories that asks, “should this be shown at breakfast?” Essentially, is an image so graphic or disturbing that it might make someone nauseated?

 The public sphere: The social area in which the public at large can engage in discussion. The press functions as a key forum of the public sphere.

 Argument Culture: a media trend characterized by artificial debates intended to provoke and titillate, functioning primarily as a method of filling time and maximizing profits.

 

-Jovahn Huertas, jhuertas@ufl.edu

 

            

Blog Essay Week 7

EJ Chapt. 5

This chapter of Elements of Journalism discusses the importance of journalistic independence. In doing so, it introduces the next key principle: journalists must maintain an independence from those they cover. The chapter makes it clear that this should not be mistaken for neutrality. I’ve discussed this distinction in previous blog posts: journalists can and should have opinions, so long as they do not affect reporting.

An interesting point of discussion is the idea that opinion writers are still creating journalism that must stand up to the same ethical standards as straight fact-based reporting.  This makes sense, but it is not something I gave much thought to previously, having just assumed that the editorial section should be held to different guidelines. But who is to say that people like the late Roger Ebert are any less important to journalism than reporters? Reviewers like Ebert maintain their journalistic integrity, not by refraining from expressing their opinions, but by expressing them without influence from film studios, producers, theaters, and the like.

The authors disregard the validity of the question “is a person a journalist?” in favor of “is a person doing journalism?” This is an important distinction to make, especially in light of the modern environment of bloggers and citizen journalists. Credentials and ties to a major news organization should not be the defining factors of journalism. As I said in a previous blog post: a citizen journalist should be treated the same as any other journalist if they report the facts and adhere to ethics and standards of journalism.

As the chapter discusses, many major news organizations forbid both reporters and editors from engaging in political activism. Given the idea that independence should not equate to neutrality, these policies seem pretty ludicrous to me. Just as journalists should be allowed to express opinions outside of journalistic work, they should also be clear to participate actively in politics, provided it does not conflict with their work. Of course, this brings about questions of whether writers who focus on politics can effectively cover issues they are personally involved in. However, my point is that rules like these should be differently to different cases, rather than just sweeping all journalists under the Rug of Non-Participation.

Some criticize journalism as becoming self-confined from society, and the chapter speaks of two possible solutions: public journalism and partisan journalism. While partisan journalism is obviously not the answer, I was a bit taken aback by the authors’ consistent use of Fox News as the exemplar of this. While Fox deserves the criticism to an extent, other major news organizations, namely MSNBC, engage in this kind of partisanship, sometimes to an even greater extent. To single out Fox may indicate some of the authors’ bias creeping into the writing. That is really not such a great thing in a journalism text.

The chapter ends with a discussion of independence from economic, racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds in the newsroom. I really like the idea that, rather than having diversity in the newsroom for the sake of numbers, we should ideally work in an environment of diverse backgrounds and mindsets united by the common goal of journalistic independence.

 

ME Chapt. 6

 This chapter in Media Ethics discusses the role of mass media in political society. It starts out by comparing traditionally news media to political comedy shows like the Daily Show. As the chapter discusses, while many young people get their news from comedy shows, they are shown to be less poorly informed on the issues. This flies in the face of claims from years past that Daily Show viewers were better informed than, say, Fox News watchers. However, when both the comedy shows and the talking heads are scrutinized under Bruce William’s four-part test for political relevance, the results are less clear. In this analysis, the neglect of factuality and poor signal-to-noise ratio in mainstream political shows causes them to be less relevant than comedy. This says a lot about the state of media today, since this sort of thing dominates major 24-hour news sources like CNN.

The chapter also discusses the various roles media organizations play in political society. These include providing an alternate to the political mainstream, functioning as a watchdog, facilitating political discussion and actually promoting the state’s agenda. Of these, the monitorial and facilitative roles seem most important, as they can have a large, direct effect on politics at any level. The collaborative role seems contradictory to journalistic values and more like a role of public relations, but the broadcasting of benign information like weather forecasts from the government makes sense. I’m not sure how this role can really affect political society without becoming more sinister, however.

It’s really unfortunate that people have to turn to political ads to get information on candidate issues. When the media focus solely on poll data, political tactics and scandals, it detracts from the role of journalism as providing the information necessary for citizens to make political decisions. A candidates standing in the polls won’t help me decide whether to vote for him, but his position on healthcare might.

An interesting ethical case in this chapter is in whether a journalist should reveal private facts about a politician if an unequal power balance is involved. The chapter actually advocates violating usual ethical standards if a public person is involved in an unequal relationship while also being in a position to do harm.  This seems to fall in line with utilitarian principles: potentially bringing harm to the powerful individual to affect the greater good.

The idea that terrorism would not exist without the mass media is both intriguing and, well, terrifying. Is it really true that the field we are all trying to join is responsible for one of the biggest problems in the modern world? It would appear so. Of course, the media can’t simply ignore acts of terror when they happen. But I would imagine 9/11 would not have been as earth-shaking if videos and photos of the burning towers hadn’t been plastered over every news channel for weeks afterwards. By covering the terrorism, news sources are inadvertently furthering the terrorists’ primary goal of causing terror.

 

Case studies:

6-A

1. In this case study, I think the ethical issue is whether PolitiFact should fact check sources that are not necessarily intended to be credible sources of news and discourse, such as comedy shows, and whether this fact-checking constitutes journalism.
2. The PolitiFact writers could choose to ignore comedy shows and the like completely, on the basis of the idea that they have no expectation of truthfulness. As this chapter shows, however, many people now get their news from this type of program. One could argue that scrutinizing these shows with the same criteria as “real” news could give them undue credibility.
3. PolitiFact should continue to fact check comedy shows along with other news sources. Since many people do use these shows as news sources, it is important that they have a resource to check the factuality of what is being said. In doing this, PolitiFact could help viewers separate real information, jokes and partisan punditry disguised as these.

6-B

1. There appear to be two major ethical issues in this case: whether WikiLeaks should obtain information exclusively from at-risk whistleblowers, and whether the organization should publish any classified information from states.
2. WikiLeaks could continue getting information from people like Bradley Manning, which puts these sources at risk of criminal and personal repercussions. WikiLeaks could also work to get information independently, such as through undercover reporting, but this runs into new ethical issues. Additionally, WikiLeaks could limit the information it publishes, potentially keeping the public in the dark, or it could continue publishing all the information it receives, potentially jeopardizing state security and diplomacy.
3. In regards to sources, WikiLeaks should continue using whistleblowers as a primary source of information. The whistleblowers themselves decide to provide the information, and must deal with the potential consequences. However, the organization should make reasonable efforts to protect these people. In regards to the policy of leaking everything, the organization should be more judicious about what gets published. If a piece of information has no public use or shows no injustice, but does jeopardize security or diplomacy, it should not be published solely on the basis that all secrets are bad.

6-F

1. The ethical issue here appears to be whether the Spokesman-Review was justified in hiring someone to misrepresent himself and using deception to uncover unlawful activity by the Spokane mayor.
2. In doing what it did, the Spokesman-Review may have uncovered misconduct by a public official, but used tactics generally considered unethical to do so. On the other end, the publication could have taken no action, even if it suspected wrongdoing. This would have avoided direct ethical issues, but brings into question the journalistic responsibility to seek the truth. A third option would have been to report suspected illegal activity to law enforcement rather than the publication taking action itself. This would have helped expose wrongdoing if it were there, but at the expense of the journalists’ opportunity to break a story.
3. This seems to be a case of the ends justifying the means. As stated in the chapter, it is sometimes justifiable to violate usual ethics if a person in an unequal power relationship has potential to cause harm. In the case of a mayor suspected of manipulating underage men, this seems to meet those criteria. This is justifiable on the same grounds that undercover reporting can be justified if injustice is occurring.

 

DQ: How should journalists and media organizations work to mitigate their role in facilitating terror while remaining committed to the truth?

 

Ethical Issue of the Week

This week, I thought I would explore something related to my favorite field: science journalism. This (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/10644805/Asteroid-to-hurtle-past-the-Earth-at-27000-mph.html) is one of the many stories going around this week about an asteroid that “hurtled past Earth” Monday. In this particular story, the biggest issue is blatant sensationalism. The article plays up the scary aspects of the asteroid early on: it’s speed, size, and “potentially hazardous” status. It even includes what can be assumed to be an illustration of the thing about to burn up in Earth’s atmosphere. Of course, the most important information comes after all this: the asteroid is nearly 2 million miles away, and scientists say it poses no threat to the planet. Other than an interesting science story and a way to open discussion about real threats in the future, this is essentially a non-issue. However, if the writer discussed this in the headline and lede, rather than making it sound like such a close shave, she wouldn’t have much of a story.

 

Vocabulary:

Disinterested: The state of being neutral or having no interest in a given issue. Journalists should not be disinterested, but rather, maintain independence when covering issues.

 

Partisan journalism: Journalism presented from a certain political or ideological viewpoint.

 

Journalism of affirmation: journalism based on affirming the beliefs of the audience rather than on accuracy and verification.

 

Civic journalism: journalism designed to reconnect journalists with the community.

 

Mass media: media, such as print, broadcast, or online communications, used to transmit messages to a large audience.

 

Audience fragmentation: In mass media, the division of the audience of a given publication or medium into groups largely based on geographic location.

 

-Jovahn Huertas, jhuertas@ufl.edu

Blog Essay Week 6

 EJ Chapt. 4

In this week’s chapter we explore the “essence” of journalism: verification. On first glance, that seems suspiciously like a rewording of our first Element of Journalism: journalism’s first obligation is to the truth. I suppose, however, that this is more like the practical application of the first element. Verification is basically the method through which truth is sought. So, if we are obliged to the truth, verification is the essence of what we do as journalists. After last week’s new element, journalism’s loyalty to the citizens, which seemed in conflict with the first even after closer scrutiny, this week’s element makes a lot more sense.

I wasn’t crazy about the authors stating that “journalism alone” is focused on accurately recording events as they happened. Of course, that is true out of the few professions that they listed, but there are plenty of others that have this as a focus. The disciplines of science and history would be nothing without accurate recording and verification of the facts.

The chapter also touches on the confusion surrounding the term “objectivity.” I definitely agree with the original definition as given in the chapter: that objectivity is not absence of personal bias, but rather a method through which journalists can prevent the influence of bias in their work. As I brought up last week, there’s nothing wrong with journalists having opinions, as long as they don’t let them affect the journalism.

I thought the authors’ five intellectual principles of reporting made sense. Each of the first four is simply a permutation of the Prime Directive: tell the truth. The fifth, “exercise humility”, seemed out of place with the others at first. Why can’t a journalist be honest and transparent, as well as proud of his or her talents? The chapter does a good job of clarifying this: not only should one strive to verify and report the facts, one should also be skeptical of one’s own ability to know and interpret said facts.

ME Chapt. 5 

This chapter deals with privacy, and especially, privacy issues pertaining to the modern world of technology and globalization.  I had always seen privacy through a fairly narrow lens: one’s right to not be watched without consent. As the chapter states, invasion of privacy today actually manifests in four different ways: intrusion, public disclosure of private facts, false-light publicity, and misappropriation of a person’s name or likeness. Additionally, the idea that privacy is an inherent “right” is not universal, nor is each of the manifestations of privacy treated equally in all places and contexts.

The chapter discusses the difference between interpreting privacy as a right and a need. As a right, privacy is something everyone should have. However, as a need, privacy is something everyone must have to live. From the standpoint that one cannot make free and rational decisions without privacy (how could you choose to vote out those in power if you knew they were constantly watching you), as well a from a purely mental health standpoint, I would definitely argue that privacy is more of a need than a right, at least in a democratic society.

Just as there are four different types of privacy invasion, there are four different harms that could come from invasion of privacy. The authors make the case, somewhat sardonically, that American constitutional law as it stands does not adequately address all these harms in the modern age. While this may be true, the point of the court system and the legislature, at least ideally, is to bring our government up to date with modern issues, and that includes privacy.

Privacy can be seen as a right and a need, and certainly a want, but there are also rights, needs and desires to know things.  The conflict between privacy and public knowledge seems to be the basis of most ethical dilemmas that might arise involving privacy, especially in the context of journalism.

Lute Olson reading

The sports editor committed serious ethical violations in this case. If we use the five principles outlined in this weeks EJ reading as guidelines, he appears to have broken every single one. The editor added information that was not there in the form of speculation, deceived the audience by publishing baseless accusations as, neglected transparency by writing under a false byline, relied on the original reporter’s (albeit flawed) fact-gathering, and showed incredible lack of humility by publishing such allegations without fear of consequences.

PoynterVision

Ellen Shearer said the hardest part of reporting on drones is choosing what stories best suit audiences. She distinguishes between the popular view of drones as war machines, versus the reality that there are wide variety of unmanned aircraft and vehicles that can be defined as drones. She emphasizes that journalists must understand the implications of drones and the growing drone industry to properly report on the issue.

Privacy Test

The site knew what OS I was using, what my screen resolution was, what site I just came from, and where I was located. This didn’t surprise me, nor did it make me think my privacy was compromised. I could prevent my browser from storing cookies, making it impossible for the site to know my recent browsing history, but I think cookies are too useful to disable completely. I could hide my IP, and therefore my location, by using a proxy, but the inconvenience of doing this outweighs my desire to be geographically anonymous.

Case studies:

5-B

1)    Since this case is rather broad, I am going to focus on the ethical dilemma of whether Facebook should engage in the outlined violations of privacy.

2)    Facebook could continue to infringe on user privacy. This could make the user experience better by integrating information about a person seamlessly into the site without need for action by the user. It could also make public information that the user did not want publicized. Nonetheless, Facebook’s legal terms outline what the site can and cannot do, and it is mostly due to improper reading of these terms that people are outraged when they discover Facebook’s privacy violations. With this knowledge, they could simply elect to opt-out of Facebook.

Alternatively, Facebook could stop infringing on privacy, strictly allowing only what information a user preselects to be made public, and allowing users to choose exactly who see said information. This could allow users full privacy, but at the potential cost of user experience.

3)    I conclude that Facebook should continue to make reasonable infringements on privacy to enhance user experience, but only with the consent of the users. It’s legal terms should be simplified and made easily readable, so users know exactly what they are signing up for and can choose to opt out if they please.

5-C

1)    The dilemma in this case is whether journalists should publicize the identities of high-contributing donors or decline to out of respect for privacy.

2)    Journalists could publish the names of high-profile donors. This is potentially valuable information, as it gives the public insight into how politicians’ campaigns are being supported, and it allows people to potentially denounce or boycott certain public individuals or organizations if they disagree with them. This falls in line with the utilitarian principle. However, this violates the donors’ privacy rights.

Alternatively, journalists could refuse to publish names of donors. This allows the donors full privacy, but at the expense of potentially valuable information to the public. Respecting the needs of each individual person without regard for the greater good could fall in line with the Categorical Imperative.

3)    I conclude that journalists should continue to publish the names of high-profile donors. Most of these people are public individuals to begin with, and have thus relinquished a good portion of their right to privacy. As said in the case study, getting financially involved in modern politics also has the effect of bringing one into the public spotlight. Additionally, the public informational value of donor identities trumps what privacy is left.

DQ: In journalism, at what point does the need to tell the truth outweigh a source’s need for privacy, and vice versa?

Ethical Issue of the Week

Every two years, NBC’s monopolistic Olympic coverage in the U.S. creates a goldmine of things to complain about, starting with the Opening Ceremonies:

(http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists/wilbur/2014/02/despite_improvements_nbcs_olympic_coverage_remains.html). Of the multiple issues here, I think the ones that stand out are whether NBC should even editorialize its coverage of the Ceremonies in the first place. If not, should they only give minimal descriptive commentary on the events, or should they just shut up altogether and let the potentially historically events play out? Even if you can justify the commentary, can you really justify its utter lack of meaningful content? If NBC must be the sole television source of all things Olympic, it should at least make an attempt to be objective, or at least engaging.

Vocabulary

Harm Principle: The philosophical idea that one should take an action, such as violate a person’s privacy, if not doing so would cause greater harm.

False light: Publically distorting the truth about a person’s image, either in a positive or negative way.

Discretion: Journalists must carefully decide when the needs of public information necessitate a violation of privacy.

Objectivity: the method through which journalists can limit or eliminate their personal biases from the reporting of news.

False equivalency: Presenting two opposing sides as equal when evidence clearly supports one over the other.

Blog Essay Week 5

EJ Chapt. 3

This chapter discusses who journalists work for, which ties in quite nicely to our Media Ethics reading on loyalty. In this text, the authors make another definitive statement on loyalty: journalism’s first loyalty is to citizens. So, we now have our first loyalty to go along with our first obligation (the truth). My question is: which of these elements belongs at the top? Would there be any case in which a journalist would have to choose between the truth and the citizens?

The chapter gives considerable time to fleshing out the evolution of journalism from partisan press to public service and editorial independence to detached isolationism to a more community-minded media. As can be seen, these developments coincide with sociocultural changes throughout the years. This leads me to wonder if it’s really such a good idea to make such hard statements of principle like the one above, even if the opposite was the case a century or so ago.

Ever the sucker for a good analogy, I like Luce’s comparison of the separation the news and business sides of a media company to the separation of church and state. Of course, while the metaphor is good, the idea itself is shown to be fairly baseless today. Of course journalists have some stake in profitability: most of us aren’t doing this for free (or, at least, we don’t want to be for much longer). Acknowledging this would allow us to better prevent issues like the ones discussed in the chapter from occurring.

In the end, while I agree that journalism’s loyalty to the public should be paramount, after reading the Media Ethics chapter, I feel like this one fails to address the other loyalties that journalists must balance. I get that this is a book of basic journalistic principles, but sometimes it feels like the authors are putting these principles on a pedestal without acknowledging the grey areas that might surround them.

ME Chapt. 4

This chapter of Media Ethics states that most ethical decisions come down to the question of loyalty. In my experience, that sounds about right. Most ethical dilemmas I have seen or faced in journalism have involved balancing loyalties between sources and editors, among different publications, or even between oneself and one’s readers. Given the importance of loyalty to ethics, one would think the authors would have mentioned it earlier in the book, but as usual, I digress.

I like Royce’s “Hamlet option” statement about how choosing not to decide is not an option in dilemmas of loyalty. In the example of the PR professional having to choose between loyalty to an employer and loyalty to the truth, choosing neither would be self-serving. He or she is not only betraying both the employer and the cause of truth, but casting loyalty to his or her own self by making the “easy” choice of not choosing. As for Royce’s theory of loyalty as a whole, I agree with the criticism that he provides no means of balancing conflicting loyalties. His ideas make plenty of sense, but they don’t have much use if there is no clear way to apply them to reality.

With Fletcher’s identification of the two poles of loyalty—not betraying someone and completely throwing in with them—I see a tie-in, at least in basic concept, to the Golden Mean theory of earlier chapters in that, for any given question of loyalty, the best answer lies somewhere between the two extremes.

While the chapter discusses the idea of competing loyalties at length, it makes the relatively definitive statement that “virtually no situation in media ethics calls for inhumane treatment or withholding the truth.” This basically says that, if journalistic loyalties lie on a hierarchy, truth and humanity are at the top. Additionally, I would say journalists should rarely find themselves reneging on loyalty to objectivity.

The Potter Box is structurally quite similar to Bok’s model in that one begins by stepping back and examining a situation, assesses alternatives, and finally, makes a decision. The difference lies in the fact that, while Bok’s model seems to fall in line with a specific philosophy (the Categorical Imperative), The Potter Box is a more generalized decision-making system that weighs multiple philosophical views. It is comforting to me that, as the book states, the Potter Box allows you to sustain a variety of loyalties. While holding seemingly conflicting loyalties may create some cognitive difficulties, that situation still seems far better than having to completely abandon certain loyalties for the sake of others.

 

Case Studies:

4-A

I. The dilemma in this situation is whether Barrett Tryon should have removed his link and pull quote on Facebook. In accordance with the Potter Box, the facts of the case are these: Freedom Communications has a byline against posting negative statements about the company, which the post was construed as; the post did not show Tryon’s views, but merely quoted the news article; Tryon’s refusal to remove it resulted in admonishment by the company and administrative leave (with eventual reinstatement, though he resigned anyway); Tryon’s compliance would have necessitated him to censor himself.

W. The values in this case, from Tryon’s perspective, are his job, his freedom of speech, the truth, and his credibility. Utilitarianism would suggest that Tryon delete the post, as it allows him to keep his job and keeps the company happy. From the Golden Mean perspective, the mere post of a news story seems to be a reasonable compromise between outright criticism of the company and complete silence. The duties of veracity and justice in keeping the post might outweigh duty to beneficence and fidelity in deleting it. As for the third step of Bok’s model: keeping the might cause harm to the company and its members.

C. Tryon was right to keep the post and protest the company’s actions. His loyalty to truth and his value of free speech outweigh his obligation to the company. Even so, the company’s rule was, in itself, unethical, and his post did not appear constitute a violation of it anyway.

4-C

I. In a breaking news situation, should a reporter break news instantly via Twitter, or publish it later through his or her news organization? The facts are as such: reporters have an opportunity to personally tweet breaking news instantly; doing so would rob their publication of breaking the news, thus robbing the publication of potential business; a reporter could get fired for doing this; the brevity of tweets limits the amount of depth and context one can go into.

W. The values in this case are the journalist’s job, company loyalty, getting the story first, and publishing a complete story. Utilitarianism appears to favor waiting, as it benefits the publication without substantial loss to the reporter. Between the extremes instant tweeting and publishing in the future, the Golden Mean might suggest a middle ground of discussing the news with editors before tweeting about it. From a Kantian perspective, tweeting might harm the publication, but not doing so might harm a reporter’s reputation.

C. Given the situation, I would attempt to publish a comprehensive story of the breaking news via the publication I work for, rather than instantly tweet it, unless given clearance by the publication to do so. In doing this, I maintain loyalty to the publication and the truth without really doing damage to myself. I may not get the story first, but that is of relatively low personal value compared to the others.

4-D

I. The main dilemma in this case appears to be whether Jessica Luce should have dated someone she knew could become a source or could present a conflict of interest. The facts: Luce and Schenck appeared to be dating purely out of mutual attraction, rather than ulterior motive; Luce neglected to tell her editors about the relationship until it became an issue; Luce lives in a small community where everyone is a potential source; even though no conflict of interest appears to have come about, one very well could have, and readers could perceive it that way.

W. The values in play here are Luce’s relationship, her credibility, and her obligation to her publication. From a pure utilitarian perspective, Luce should not have engaged in the relationship as it benefits the most people, even if it’s at the expense of her own happiness. Kant would say otherwise: Luce’s own feelings should play into the equation as well. A pluralist approach might weigh the duty of self-improvement against that of justice.

C. Luce was right to maintain her relationship. As the facts show, it would be nearly impossible to have any real human relationship in such a small community if one neglected to have relationships with potential source. Furthermore, though it appeared to be a potential conflict of interest, none really existed. In this case, Luce’s loyalty to her own personal desires and sanity should triumph. It would, however, have behooved her to disclose her relationship to her editors earlier.

Discussion Question: Could a situation arise where loyalty to citizens and obligation to truth come into conflict? If so, how should it be addressed?

 

Ethical Issue of the Week:

On Sunday, the New York Times took a look at one of Japan’s largest new broadcasters. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/world/asia/news-giant-in-japan-seen-as-being-compromised.html) The article characterizes the Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK) as the BBC of Japan. In spite of the network’s prestige, NHK has been racked by controversy recently, most notably regarding accusations that the network is essentially a government puppet. This seems to be an excellent example of a news organization facing competing loyalties. It would appear that NHK’s loyalty to the government is compromising its loyalties to the public and the organizations own vow to report the news truthfully an objectively. As a BBC-like public broadcaster, NHK may owe its existence to the Japanese government, but it will lose all credibility (and likely, relevance) if it becomes the PR outlet for the government.

 

Vocabulary: 

Social Contract: The idea, asserted by philosopher Thomas Hobbes, that loyalty is a social act that forms the basis of political society.

Loyalty: Journalists have competing obligations to various groups, including readers, the general public, sources, and the companies they work for. Theologian Josiah Royce defined loyalty as devotion to a cause, rather than to oneself or any one party.

-Jovahn Huertas, jhuertas@ufl.edu