Ethic Edge:Ethics and Journalism

Cooperating With the Government

2009-12-16T19:32:00.003-05:00

I didn't cheat! I found the case study after I turned in my final paper.

This has been a great class and I've enjoyed the lively discussion and thought provoking case studies like this one. This has also been my first experience with blogging and I think I'm hooked! Thank you all and Happy Holidays!

Nuance Updates Dragon Dictation App To Let You Keep Your Contacts Secret

2009-12-16T17:20:00.002-05:00

Well known Dragon software maker has created an application for the iPhone that allows users to speak emails, texts and such that are transcribed for you. Great idea, right? They made one minor mistake -- users were not aware that the contacts were uploaded to the Dragon servers. Dragon says they were doing this to improve accuracy, but they never asked for users consent!

Police Looking for Serial Rapist

2009-12-16T17:10:00.002-05:00

October 31, 2009 another rape occurred, this time in Prince William county VA. There have been a string of rapes in states up and down the east coast, and dna at all crime scenes point to the same man that has so far eluded the police.

The first rape was in June 1999 in Virginia. In 2006 and 2007 there were reported rapes in new Haven, Connecticut.

Descriptions of the attacker vary slightly, but he's described as a black male, between 5-foot-6 and 5-foot-10, with a medium to muscular build. In the New Haven attacks, some victims said he spoke with an accent that sounded as though he may have been from the West Indies.

Roy E. Disney, a Power at His Uncle Walt’s Studio, Dies at 79

2009-12-16T17:05:00.003-05:00

Roy Disney, nephew of Walt Disney died after a year of battling stomach cancer. He is cited as the reason Michael Eisner departed Disney and the reason for the animation divisions success. He worked on "True-Life Adventures” features, “The Living Desert” and “The Vanishing Prairie” which went on to win Academy Awards.

Uninvited tourists attend White House breakfast, meet Obama

2009-12-16T16:54:00.003-05:00

Dumb luck, or is the Secret Service not paying attention? On Veteran's Day the Darden's of Hogansville, GA came to the White House to attend a tour. To their surprise they were led into the East Room where breakfast was being served for veterans.

Harvey Darden approached a White House staffer and told him they thought they were in the wrong place, the White House staffer asked Harvey if he was a veteran and when Harvey told him he was the White House staffer told him to go with the flow!!

The Darden's stayed put and got to meet the President, First Lady and the Vice President! Turns out the tour was the next day, the Darden's had the wrong day. When the Secret Service was questioned they said the Darden's passed the security checks and did not "crash" the event. Instead White House staff said occasionally they take members of the public to attend such events.

Celebrate with the SPJ

2009-12-15T21:17:00.003-05:00

As we are rounding out our final exam and our great Ethics & Journalism course, I thought it would be nice to end the semester with this article by the SPJ:
SPJ celebrates passage of shield law bill from committee

Woohoo!

Thank you classmates for a wonderful dialogue, thanks to our instructors and most importantly - thanks Jeanne for the blog!

Have a great break and an even better new year!

-Crystal

The Standards of a Columnist

2009-12-09T17:12:00.003-05:00

This is a piece published by the New York Times ombudsman, Clark Hoyt. He touches on how the expectations held for a columnist is different than that of a journalist. The specific areas of expressing opinion, endorsing political ideas, taking stances, and utilizing more casual language are explored within.

Letters to the Public - the Columnist's Voice

I always wonder just how far a columnist can take expressing their views if said views are unorthodox or somewhat taboo. What if a columnist begins talking about some of the ideas of Brian Moore, the 2008 Socialist Party of America presidential candidate? Certainly within the bounds of free speech, but just how far can they bend?

Glen Beck's Conflict of Interest

2009-12-08T19:14:00.003-05:00

Glen Beck's Conflict of Interest.

I have no words for this. It is simply self explanatory in my opinion. However, my one question is: How does he get away with this? He makes the entire journalism community look bad, despite, in my opinion, him not being a journalist himself. In fact, I'm not sure exactly what you could refer to Glen Beck as, a pundit perhaps? But do pundits misrepresent themselves as much as he does? Also, with the FTC cracking down on full disclosure for bloggers, I think Glen Beck should watch his step. Maybe they will add him to the list of no-no's.

Tiger and the Media

2009-12-08T08:34:00.002-05:00

I have an observation. After Tiger Woods' accident the media seems to have become obsessed with him. First, they want him to speak about what happened. Great. I get that. When he releases a statement on his website and refuses to go public and the police don't press criminal charges, the media go bonkers with anger. Now, it seems, out of revenge, they are obsessed with bringing him down completely by chasing after mistresses from his past having decided they were the reason he landed himself in a tree.

Is this right for the media to make assumptions and then run with them without having the entire story? Is Tiger Woods' "extra-curriculars" really that important that we need to interview mistresses on just about every news network--- making sure that they support the running theory created by the media that Tiger was a big cheater and his wife had enough, and so he wrecked his car???

I just don't get it. Then the media wonders why people don't trust them. Right now they are being way too nosy for comfort. It's not like he's an elected official.

When do we cross the line from cartoon to hurtful?

2009-12-06T10:49:00.002-05:00

Aunt Jemima Cartoon angers Ohio lawmakers backers.

Would you run an editorial cartoon that depicts an African American lawmaker as Aunt Jemima? Is doing so, really racist or it fair game since she is a politician and in the limelight voluntarily? What is acceptable in this type of circumstance? What does this say about the editors that decided to run something like this without thinking about the double meaning or implications of it?

I realize lawmakers have to have tougher skin when it comes to criticism, but where is the line drawn between fair game and just plain rude/vengeful? I am not even sure where the parallel between Aunt Jemima and a lawmaker is, other than both are African American. According to the editor, it was not meant to be harmful, however, if it was meant to be funny or imply something about this lawmaker, I seemed to have missed the punch line and don't understand the parallel meaning.

Disclosures and the Salehi's: the drama continues

2009-12-04T11:30:00.002-05:00

In NBC interview, a Failure to Note Network Ties

If NBC and Today did nothing wrong as they claim by having the Salehi's on the Today show, how come they did not adhere to THEIR OWN standard practice and disclose the Salehi's connection to their network?

Swiss Authorities to Place Roman Polanski Under House Arrest Friday

2009-12-03T23:20:00.002-05:00

Since Feb 1, 1978 famed director Roman Polanski has lived in France and has avoided extradition for the rape he committed against a then 13 year old girl. He had apparently given her champagne and a Quaalude to rape her. Polanski was indicted on 6 felony charges, but only plead guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse. The judge dropped all other charges, sent Polanski to jail for a 90 day psychiatric evaluation but released him after just 42 days!!

Polanski was supposed to go back to jail to serve out the rest of his time, but instead fled the US to France (which does not extradite) and since not paid for his crime. Was this because of his social status? Why did the authorities not press harder to extradite him?

31 years later Polanski was arrested again when he flew to Zurich to receive a lifetime achievement award. Though he's been in jail since Sept 26, 2009 he will be placed under house arrest Dec 4, 2009 where he will remain with an electronic ankle bracelet while the authorities decide what to do.

Can the law keep up with technology?

2009-12-02T17:14:00.002-05:00

Should a person be sued for something they tweet? Courtney Love is being sued by fashion designer Dawn Simorangkir for just that. Dawn alleges that Love made derogatory comments about her..

The laws were not set up to cover such a thing as technology changes and evolves quicker than the laws in the US. Amanda Bonnen tweeted about her former landlord " Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon Realty things it's okay." Horizon management sued Bonnen for libel and wants $50K in damages. Is this ok, are we in the US becoming too litigious? What about free speech? Is anyone really harmed by such comments?

The article brings up a good question -- is the web a unique space or an extension of real space? Which laws apply?

Amanda Knox lawyer makes emotional plea for acquittal

2009-12-02T17:02:00.002-05:00

A US student studying in Italy has been accused of murder and held in Italian prison since earlier this year. Initially the US media was covering the story and false allegations have surrounded the case from the start.

Knox's Italian attorney blames the news media for tainting public opinion and committing character assassination. " Calling Knox a victim herself, Carlo della Vedova said the police had rushed to judgment following the murder, leaving Knox to fend off a myriad of false media reports regarding the crime."

Spate of suicides by foreign maids in Lebanon sheds light on abuse

2009-12-02T16:32:00.002-05:00

Since 2008 about 1 foreign worker has died each week. These women are mistreated-- denied time off, work in excess of 10 hours daily and in some instances are denied food and physically abused. Upon arrival their passports are confiscated leaving these women with no way out.

The absence of government regulation and labor laws in the Middle East leaves these women more vulnerable. Recently however the Lebanese government issued a uniform contract for all maids which calls for 1 day off per week. Even with this contract, enforcement is difficult as racism against the poor and darker skinned population is rampant.

Transgender obituaries, he, she, or both?

2009-12-02T12:31:00.007-05:00

I came across Mike Penners (late Los Angeles Times Sports writer) obituary (a.k.a Christine Daniels) on Stinky Journalism . The ethical question is whether or not we should refer to transgender individuals by their sex before or after their sex-change surgery in their obituaries.

Some journalists referred to Mike Penner as he and some called her she in her obituary. I think this case raises a serious question because it is unethical to call afamily or friends after the loss of their loved one and ask "What is Mike or Christines gender?" But how do we know, how the transgender individual, their family, friends, and colleagues want their loved one to be remembered?

Personally if I were assigned to write Mike Penner's obituary, I would have referred to him as Mike because he was born male and wrote his sports articles in the LA Times using his name Mike Penner in 2008. Unless I was told otherwise to refer to her as Christine Daniels. Further I would be much more remorseful if I released an erroneous obituary. Anyway I have never written an obituary. If you were assigned to write a transgender persons obituary, what ethical precautions would you or could you take before releasing it? And how would make your final decision?


The above photos show the late former LA Times sports journalist, Mike Penner on right. His transformation into Christine Daniels, is on left. (Credit: Gawker)

Couple didn't crash White House dinner, husband says

2009-12-02T12:31:00.005-05:00

In the DC Area, and perhaps in some of the larger cities in the US the hottest story is the now infamous couple that crashed the first White House State dinner hosted for the Indian Prime Minister.

Tareq Salahi and his wife Michaele Salahi state that they showed up to the dinner, to check in and see if their names were placed on the attendee list and the Secret Service let them in. They assumed they had succeeded in receiving an invitation through a contact at the Department of Defense.

But, Department of Defense employee Michele Jones released a statement that she did not try to get the Salahi's into the State dinner, since then several emails have surfaced indicating the contrary -- she was trying to get the Salahi's invitations but appears was not successful.

If in fact she wasn't successful how did they get in? How could the Secret Service cause such a security breach? Someone isn't being honest here, it remains to be seen who that is.

Can Adobe and Apple Play Nicely When–And If–The Tablet Shows Up?

2009-12-01T14:27:00.002-05:00

This is in line with a discussion we had at our last class of online publishing using tablets. Both Apple and Conde Naste are reported to be producing a tablet device that will allow publishers (assuming magazines and newspapers and not just books?) to deliver content to users easily.

Apple's is so secretive and won't acknowledge a tablet exists, won't open their platform so Adobe can develop content for it and could potentially miss out on this burgeoning market!

MA police question newsman who saw checkpoint arrest

2009-12-01T14:10:00.003-05:00

Here is an interesting article that happened where I live in North Andover. I see the picture posted but what I'm not sure of is what really happened. For instance, is this photographer keeping quiet because he doesn't want to get involved or is it something else? If he did see something, should he report to the very police that are in question?

MA cops question newsman who saw checkpoint arrest

Releasing Detainee Photos

2009-11-30T22:34:00.005-05:00

The Supreme Court overturned a ruling that required the government to release pictures showing the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Supreme court sent the case back down to the 2nd Circuit of the Court of Appeals in New York, in light of a new law that allows the secretary of defense to exempt certain photos from disclosure.

The Obama administration is concerned with inciting anti-American sentiment and is clearly working to create a new image abroad. But does this create enough of a danger to block the release of the pictures?

There are issues of freedom of information, but we are given vivid descriptions of what the pictures involve. Does the public really need to see these images? I question the value that the release of these pictures can have now. Isn't this just trying to sensationalize something that this administration had nothing to do with?

Hartford Courant Sued for Plagiarism

2009-11-30T11:43:00.002-05:00

I thought I would post this link since it hits pretty close to home. i.e. Connecticut. But I also think it further confirms what we have been saying all semester: something needs to change in the news industry and how its reported. The lack of credibility in print right now does not help the fight for a future containing print newspapers. And overall, across all media, the future of the quality of news we receive is looking bleak.

Suit Accuses Hartford Courant of Plagiarism

Criminal journalists and their status...

2009-11-27T17:55:00.000-05:00

We have come to learn in a number of lectures that some reporters embellish or even invent stories in order to better their career. Acting in this manner is unquestionably a betrayal of trust and a criminal act. It seems there is trend in glorifying such “former journalists” such as Stephan Glass, whose life as a crooked journalist was made into a sympathising film “shattered glass”

Below is a link to an article pertaining to the former New York Times journalist Jayson Blair. Washington & Lee University in Virginia invited Blair to speak about journalism. What are other people’s thoughts about letting former journalists like these speak at conferences and furthermore make films about their lives?

http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/1555673.html

Small Town Coverage

2009-11-25T07:18:00.002-05:00

It was very interesting to hear the perspective of a small town newspaper contributor in the 11/18 lecture. I think the public involvement and feedback related to coverage in their local papers is much more intense than response to say coverage in the Boston Globe. Somehow, the editorial teams seem more accessible to the lay person. Would you agree that this is the perception?

href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>

MSNBC uses fake Sarah Palin Photos on Air

2009-11-24T09:02:00.003-05:00

Will they Apologize? I think Jon Stewart has a point, MSNBC is actually becoming akin to Fox, and this proves it.

Update: They did apologize, somewhat. This is the link to their apology

Why does it take someone like Stewart to point out these mistakes, first Fox, then CNN, and now MSNBC. What can we trust anymore?

Jon Stewart rips apart CNN for not fact checking.

2009-11-24T08:58:00.002-05:00

Daily Show destroys CNN for fact checking SNL but not their own guests.

This article is pretty self explanatory. CNN was more concerned about what SNL was doing and then wound up dropping the ball on themselves. Where does this leave CNN?

Fort Hood Massacre opinion racist? Or right?

2009-11-22T21:03:00.011-05:00

Forbes.com columnist and professor at NYU's Stern School of Business Tunku Varadarajan, wrote a column 'Going Muslim' about the Fort Hood massacre, "which, he noted, appears to have been a religiously motivated "act of messianic violence." According to a response in the Wall Street Journal, NYU's Muslim alumni and students thought the column by Varadarajan was offensive and inflammatory.

Varadarajan claimed that Americas openness to diversity could be a strength and weakness since it can become detrimental if we remain welcoming to people of all culture and ethnicities. Therefore Americans should examine Muslims risk profiles further, since we might be deceived by people preparing to commit terrorism and murder. Like the Ford Hood Massacre incident where the perpetrator suddenly showed disturbing signs such as giving away his possessions and discretely built his trail to terrorism. I am personally against racism because I believe human beings deserve to be treated equally. Although I agree with Varadarajan's argument in his Forbes Column 'Going Muslim', I think he could have shared his opinion in a more sensitive manor which did not emphasize as much conflict amongst Americans and Muslims. Do you think the column in 'Going Muslim' is racist? Or right?

Also several people claim opinion columns are not news, I believe that columnists and journalists should adhere to the same level of integrity. As well as taking an equal amount of discretion while developing stories or opinions. For example Muslim students perceived the column 'Going Muslim' as offensive and they're also a human race, since a Muslim perpetrated the Fort Hood Massacre is this column okay? Regardless, do you think the same set of ethics should be applied toward news stories and opinion columns? Are columnists really entitled to their own opinions or would it cause too much ethics dilemma?

Justice Kennedy censors H.S. paper

2009-11-19T08:20:00.004-05:00

Ok, so I am a bit horrified by this article and what happened. Justice Kennedy, a champion of the first Amendment, gave a speech and then would not allow the H.S. paper where he gave it to print the article without his approval. While I realize it is a good practice to let the subject check an article about himself for accuracy, what Justice Kennedy did is exactly what the director of the Student Press Law Center said it was: an exercise of IMAGE CONTROL, not the teaching of journalism.

Justice Kennedy (or his law clerks, doesn't matter as far as I am concerned) seemingly wanted to CHANGE what he said to make himself sound better, not make sure what was printed was what he said. To me this is simply blatantly unethical in journalism to allow a subject to completely change what they said after the fact. I worked for a place that practiced this (and everyone would be horrified by where it was), either way their reasoning is that the subject doesn't need to check for accuracy, we simply need to change what they said to make them sound better (and sell-able).

Here's the article: From Justice Kennedy, a Lesson in Journalism

Also, here is a link to something written for USAToday about this incident, its the second part of his article and I completely agree. Scrubbing quotes

Selling Lesson Plans

2009-11-18T22:28:00.010-05:00

This article looked at ethics from a slightly different view point. Some teachers are now selling their lesson plans online and making hundreds and thousands of dollars in extra money. Some believe that the respective school boards should have a cut of the income while others believe that online selling cheapens the value of what teachers do.

I thought this was an interesting argument considering how undervalued good teachers are. I think it's fair for teachers to pay for any additional school resources they use in creating and selling these plans, but why should teachers be prevented from making extra money from their work and creativity? Especially when they use some of the money to put back into their classrooms? Unlike journalists, who endeavor to create unbiased coverage of issues, teachers create learning tools.

This is simple capitalism in America. And I think teachers are long overdue.

Social Network Sites Criticized on Bullying

2009-11-18T18:19:00.002-05:00

We've all heard stories in the US about internet bullies but no formal laws have been passed to address it. The UK is doing something about it -- they have jailed 18 year old Keeley Houghton for internet bullying . She spent 6 weeks in Eastwood Park prison in Gloucestershire, because she posted a threatening message about another girl on her own Facebook profile. "Part of the message read: "Keeley is going to murder the bitch," according to the Press Association."

"In a poll of 2,094 young people across England conducted by the charity, 30 percent of 11 to 16-year-olds who had been "cyberbullied" had been targeted on Bebo. "In response to this Bebo has posted a panic button on their site which allows children who are fearful to report abuse.

Facebook on the other hand which has over 300M users worldwide said they dont think a button will help, and that they have other measures in place. I have a facebook account and the only option I see is "Remove from friends". Shouldn't a measure be put in place that is also easy to find?

Mom chooses son over service

2009-11-18T17:59:00.004-05:00

Spc. Alexis Hutchinson is with an Army unit in Georgia, and was put in a situation where she would have to leave her 10 month old son without child care while deployed to Afghanistan.

Initially her mother, Angelique Hughes was going to care for her son, but after spending a week with the infant she realized it would be too much and she told Hutchinson she was was unable to provide child care.

Hutchinson informed the Army and received a 30 day extension --it is incredulous that the Army believes this is enough time to find child care for an infant! During this time Hutchinson was unable to find child care, and didn't report on the day of deployment.

Hutchinson's attorney says "That's when it put her in this horrible situation of having to choose between abandoning her child or disobeying her superiors," Sussman said.

Hutchinson is now under arrest, but has not been charged with any crime while her attorney continues to fight for her.

Photojournalism: More fun with Palin

2009-11-18T16:51:00.004-05:00

I'm happy to be the first one to post on this (link in title)! It's a pretty hot topic on photojournalism and ethics. The short of it is that Sarah Palin did a photo shoot and interview for Runner's World for the August 2009 issue. Newsweek legally purchased this photo and ran it on their cover with their own headline.

Palin says it is "sexist" and "out of context."

The editor of Runner's World has issued a response, stating that this photo was purchased as a stock photo, without endorsement by Runner's World. (http://www.runnersworld.com/photo/sarahpalin/home.html - editor's note)

"On the cover of this week’s issue of Newsweek is a photo that was shot exclusively for the August 2009 issue of Runner’s World, in which Sarah Palin was featured on the monthly “I’m a Runner” back page. The photos from that shoot are still under a one-year embargo, and Runner’s World did not provide Newsweek with its cover image. It was provided to Newsweek by the photographer’s stock agency, without Runner’s World’s knowledge or permission."

Although my knee-jerk reaction to whether or not this is ethical use was "absolutely not," a quote from a documentary photographer points out that they are using a "propped photo where Palin is an obvious participant ... to show how far out she is willing to travel on the road of self promotion." I think this is an important issue even if an extreme tactic.

What would you do??

2009-11-17T09:59:00.002-05:00

Read this article published in the NYT today. Journalists Kept in Court after Jackson MD Leaves.

My question is what do you do in this type of situation, as a journalist that is LAWFULLY pursuing a story??

I admit, I have no idea what you can do. It seems that in this very instance the journalist has little power until they leave the premises. At which point reporting on it seems the most likely response. I mean would be right to simply create a wall of journalists, banding together, and push past an armed court marshal? I doubt it.

Did Palin hinder her reputation? Or was it Couric's and the medias fault?

2009-11-16T18:59:00.005-05:00

I read an article in Time Magazine, "Palin on Oprah: Can You See the Real Me?".

It is about Palin's interview with Oprah this morning regarding her new book "Going Rogue". And the various topics they covered during the interview including Palin resigning from her position as Alaskan Govener, the family drama with Bristol's pregnancy, McCain's campaign, etc.

I thought it was erroneous that Palin blamed negative media interviews for ruining her reputation and campaign platform, especially Palin's infamous interview with Katie Couric. Couric showed no bad intentions during their interview, I got the impression that Palin was intimidated and failed to receive sufficient media training. With a background in PR, I don't think Palin, should gossip about blaming not only Couric, but the media in general for her poor interviews. And then announce, "she is launching her book, so American's can gain a better understanding of who she is." Instead she should be sincere and do something to gain respect since talking is meaningless, unless it is supported with actions.

For example, Obama and every president in political history probably suffered from negative coverage during poor interviews. In fact, I recall Obama saying "I screwed-up" on national TV within three weeks after his inauguration, and Clinton denying and confessing to his affairs with Monica Lewinsky. Regardless, I have never seen political figures solely blame a journalist nor media outlets for destroying their reputation or family drama.

According to CBS, "just 23 percent of those surveyed in a new CBS News poll have a favorable view of the former Alaska governor." Is Palin's reputation, a result of the medias fault for poor interviews? Did the media place an unethical bomb on Palin and treat her poorly? Or should Palin blame herself for her unfavored reputation?

The NYT creating lesson plans?

2009-11-16T12:42:00.002-05:00

So this weekend I came across some articles in the Times; apparently, they have a column every couple of weeks which creates lesson plans for teachers to teach their students the fundamentals of journalism.

For example, last month there was an article for National Writing Day. This month there were a series of proposed exercises for teachers to conduct in class about things such as when is news news, or issues involving sources, etc.

It was rather interesting seeing what they think aspiring (high school) journalists should be doing to prepare themselves.

To Shoot or Not to Shoot

2009-11-16T07:05:00.002-05:00

I have been reflecting on all the graphic photos that we shared in the last class before the Veterans Day break and I think that photo journalists are a different breed than journalists. I have been a free lance news correspondant for >10 years and I don't view my role as a decision maker. I get the facts and am obligated to report on the facts as comprehensively and objectively as possible. The reason I think that photo journalists are different is that they make a decision-when to shoot the photo. And their decision of when to shoot the photo has the potential to significantly change the depiction of the events. It was mentioned that there are resources for photojournalists to address the trauma that they are exposed to in their jobs. But I am wondering if there is any specific ethical type schooling for them?

href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>

Rainy Weekend

2009-11-16T07:00:00.002-05:00

This weekend I watched the thriller "State of Play" with Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams and Helen Mirren, which depicts the tale of two journalists working to "break" a story. They come up against ehtical issues both with relationships outside of their role as journalists and also in balancing the drive to "break" a story with obligations to the criminal justice system. The themes of the movie are very relevant to the ethcial issues we have been exploring in class. I recommend it.

href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>

Media Controversy in the Olympics

2009-11-15T23:28:00.006-05:00

The Winter Olympics are coming to Vancouver, BC in February 2010. Canadian journalists are constantly bombarded with emails pitching Olympic festivities in all sectors. As a part-time fashion journalist, I received media kits from HBC (Hudson's Bay Company - official uniform sponsor) regarding the athletes uniforms with samples of the apparel for myself. I was very excited!

However I am appalled that CTV chose 27 members of their broadcast journalism team to carry the Olympic Flames across Canada. I think it is unethical for CTV's journalists, to shine in the spotlight as Canadian Olympic torch bearer's and cover the events. It's providing the media with the opportunity to be exclusively recognized representing the Olympic brand and convey the meaning of the Olympic spirit -- it's conflict of interest.

Instead I believe Canadian athletes and volunteers deserve to be honored- as our torch bearers for their dedication and hard work. The Winter Olympics are a huge deal, since winter sports are an integral component of Canadian culture.

Realistically, do you think it is ethical for journalists to gain exclusive access to convey the meaning as torch bearers and identify themselves with the Olympic brand? Or not? Further, if you were a renowned sports journalist, leveraging the Olympics and your boss asked you to represent your country as a torch bearer, would you accept or decline the opportunity?

For more information on the CTV torch bearer broadcast team please view the announcement in the Toronto Star and for further info on the Vancouver 2010 Olympics click here.

Do Ethics Apply In An Unofficial Capacity?

2009-11-13T20:29:00.005-05:00

I found this story interesting and pertinant to some of the ethical issues being discussed. Former Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson was convicted of bribery and money laundering and sentenced to 13 years in prison. (Title is the link.) The jury found him guilty based on the evidence they heard, but the defense tried to argue that the acts "were not criminal because they did not qualify as 'official acts' under public corruption laws."

What qualifies as an official act may be questioned, but is it ever ethical use your position in office for personal enrichment? And similar to our discussions about journalists, can public and ethical and obligations be separated from personal actions when working in a professional capacity? In many cases, journalists aren't dealing with criminal implications, however crossing ethical lines to break the career-making story or taking sides in a protest after covering the story can be part of the same issue.

Is it News and Why

2009-11-13T13:28:00.002-05:00

I find myself constantly clicking on human interest pieces that adorn the CNN.com website. Today, I couldn't help but click on the face of a little boy with the headline "The Odds are Against Little Noah Biorkman making it to Christmas, so strangers are sending him gifts and cards." I instantly felt bad for the little guy, and was heartbroken.

My question is this- Where does this fit into News. Why are we inundated with stories like Noah's? Is it that daily heart-tug we need? Is this exploiting the impending death of this little boy?

Thoughts?

Pheeew - CNN gets a reprieve

2009-11-13T11:51:00.006-05:00

Lou Dobbs quits CNN:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/lou-dobbs-to-depart-cnn_n_354623.html
and John King will be taking his place
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/12/john-king-to-replace-lou_n_355199.html

Hopefully this is a step in an unbiased direction.

Where do we draw the ethical line between journalists and private investigators?

2009-11-11T13:41:00.018-05:00

I came across an article in the Wall Street Journal titled "Did Students Pay Witnesses?"

The article is an update regarding the unrelenting battle between Northwestern's journalism students involved with Medill's Innocence Project, investigating Anthony McKinney's case and Illinois prosecutors.

"Prosecutors Allege Journalism Class Sought Testimony to Overturn Murder Conviction"

According to the Wall Street Journal,"Prosecutors said in the court filing that Mr. Drakes recanted his videotaped confession and claimed it came in exchange for $40 he was given by a cab driver hired by someone from the Northwestern team. Mr. Drakes had the cab stop near a crack house, where he spent the $40, according to the filing."

I believe exchanging money for a recanted videotaped confession is unethical on behalf of both the journalism students and witness. But I also think it is erroneous that prosecutors found Mr. Drakes crack cocaine purchase relevant to their case, since the students never advised the cab to stop at the crack house. And it is unrelated to Drakes recanted confession pertaining Anthony McKinney's lifelong prison sentence.

I agree with prosecutors on how it's unethical the "students were acting as private investigators, not journalists." I don't understand "why" investigative journalism students are investigating wrongful convictions. I think it is our obligation to ask authorities and lawyers questions to further our stories and provide the public with accurate information. Not prove whether convicted felons are guilty or innocent.

The only correlation I see between Medill's Innocence Project investigations and journalism is that wrongful convictions are newsworthy, since innocent people don't deserve to suffer indefinitely in a prison cell nor await their turn on death row, regardless we are not investigators. How do you feel?

I also think prosecutors are placing subpoena's on irrelevant information such as "the students' unpublished notes and grades, evaluations of their performance and private emails between the students and Mr. Protess." Because the ultimate goal is to prove a convicted felon Anthony McKinney, is an innocent man.

However "prosecutors alleged the students were not seeking to publish their findings, but to collect evidence exonerating the defendant." They claimed "the distinction is important because, as journalists, the information sought by prosecutors would be protected under the Illinois Reporter Act."

I think this persistent conflict raises questions regarding ethical journalism practices since it puts the case and Medill's Innocence Project into a whole new perspective.

Where should we draw the ethical boundary between practices of journalists and private investigators? Is it ethical for journalists to dedicate their job to gathering evidence to prove a person in prison or on death row, is infact innocent? Or should we only report on the investigators findings?

A book goes case by case

2009-11-11T08:18:00.001-05:00

Here is an interesting article that pretty much reiterates everything we have learned in class thus far. Its from a former professor, and was written in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

I have no comments really. Just thought I would share.

Ethical Journalism: a book goes case by case

Bias

2009-11-07T20:21:00.002-05:00

So...I did some of the bias tests at the Harvard Implicit site. Wow, it was so interesting, if you haven't done it you should try it. While we all like to think we are objective and most journalists I trust make a concerted effort to do so, we are all also products of our environment and by default have bias.

href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>

Greyhound Beheading: When should we interfere?

2009-11-07T14:04:00.017-05:00

I recall a tragic story we covered last year and it makes me wonder, when is it ethical to intervene?

On Jul. 30, 2008. 22 year old Tim McLean, was riding a Greyhound bus from Edmonton to Winnipeg (McLean's hometown), McLean was relaxing, listening to his headphones, and minding his own business. As the bus was in rural Manitoba about 30 minutes from Winnipeg, McLean was stabbed repeatedly and eventually beheaded by Vince Weiguang Li (a schizophrenic who was hearing voices that told him to murder McLean). As soon as a young man sitting in the row infront of McLean, realized Li was repeatedly stabbing McLean, the young man urged fellow passengers flee the bus, while the driver and the young man stayed to see if they could do anything to help McLean.

When they realized they couldn't help, and saw McLean's head - the driver and young man went outside for their safety as Li came running with the hunting knife he used to cannibalize McLean. The driver disabled the bus to prevent Li from driving away so the police could make an arrest and investigate. Passengers were abhorred and petrified, as it was a very heinous murder.

The Ethical Issue

The breaking news of the Greyhound beheading instantly made multi-national headlines. Tim McLean's family was left in the dark, watching the story unfold from their Winnipeg home, amongst many other frightened citizens - wondering who the victim maybe. The RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police (a.k.a Canada's FBI)) neglected notifying the McLean family to tell them Tim, was infact the victim of the Greyhound beheading. Instead the media broke the news to the family by knocking on Mr. McLean's door, explaining how McLean was the victim and requesting an interview (Media contacts victim's family before RCMP). The McLean family was mortified, appalled by the media, and enraged at the RCMP for not notifying the family about their beloved sons death. It was very tragic.

This case brings up a few questions, when is it ethical to consider interviewing victims families in such devastating situations? How do we confirm the police identified the victim? And notified the family?

-30-

Re Megan's Comment:
I think the media knew about the greyhound beheading since they simultaneously arrived at the scene, with the police. In Toronto, Ontario (where I live) and I think all across Canada, we have access to the police radio to cover emerging stories immediately. I agree with you since the media should have waited until they confirmed the RCMP spoke to the family.

Anyway here is a clip from CTV with a little more detail to put it in perspective and another article. There was not too much detail about "how the media" knocked on the door. But the family is clearly aggravated by how journalists handled the situation.

Picking and Choosing the News

2009-11-07T10:47:00.002-05:00

The mainstream media in the United States is very introverted. If it doesn't have to do with terrorism or the common international news themes - then it isn't happening to us. In a reporting sense, we are a very self-absorbed nation.

Do you find it ethical for certain news stories to be simply ignored by the American mainstream media? Specifically news stories which have massive impacts and is information that should be detrimental to the public. I'll give two examples.

The Baxter Corporation's 'Accidental' Avian Flu Vaccine Contamination

In early 2009, Baxter International, the largest exporter of pharmaceutical products in the U.S., was commissioned the create an H5N1 (Avian Flu) vaccine for eighteen countries. The vaccine was created, and shipped out to it's various destinations. Some of the vaccine was sent to the Czech Republic, where it was by chance run through a second session of testing (which was normally not protocol, and thus, very lucky). All of the test rats that the vaccine was given to died. The Czech lab researched it further, and found that the vaccine was actually just live Avian Flu. This chance testing prevented thousands of people from being injected with live H5N1 cultures. Baxter is a major pharmaceutical company that nearly killed thousands of people. Why is it that this was nowhere to be found in the mainstream media?

Lakota Indians Secede From the United States

In late 2007, the Lakota Indian nation submitted a formal declaration of independence to the United States government, and seceded from the union, forming their own autonomous nation in South Dakota. They contacted embassies around the world asking to be recognized as a sovereign country, and erected their own internal infrastructure. Whether this is legal or not is not the point. Whether this is even valid or not is not the point. Why was this given no press beyond a few snippets on the FOX News websites and literally zero air time on television and not even a whisper of it in the newspapers? Isn't this a very importation issue? A Native American reservation seceded from the union! Shouldn't people be aware of these things?

Why are stories selectively ignored in the United States media? Both of these examples could be potentially negative for the image of the U.S. Are we only reporting stories that align with the direction of our agenda? Is it not important that people are informed of such matters - not matter what the implications of ramifications of making them public?

Further, isn't it dangerous that we're kept in the dark about a lot of these things? FOX and CNN can extensively report these if they want; so why aren't they?

Where do we Draw the Line?

2009-11-06T17:38:00.002-05:00

Lines are Blurring in the New World of Journalism.

How can we be advocates and reporters at the same time? Is it even possible? And if this trend continues, where will it end and news begin or vice versa? Things are getting muddled now to our detriment.

My opinion is, as we have learned in class, is we are either advocates or reporters. We should not push our agenda discreetly or not, in any medium if we are calling ourselves journalists. Advocates have opinions, reporters present facts. The two lines should be clear and not as blurred as they have become.

New York Post and Sensationalism

2009-11-06T17:34:00.002-05:00

ESPN bans NY Post Bans reporters after Andrews photos published.

What do you think?? Should the Post have gone to print w/ this? And if the laws prohibiting the dissemination of such things is prohibited, should the media be included and be punished for breaking the law?

I think this was in poor taste on the Post's part. And yes, the media should be held to the same standards. They are not above the law.

IS ACCEPTING CORPORATE FUNDING ETHICAL?

2009-11-06T11:41:00.003-05:00

I came across this article in the NY Times, "API's Partnership With Newsweek Raises Ad Cash and Ethics Questions."

According to the New York Times, "Newsweek since 2007 has sold advertising packages to the oil industry's biggest influence group that included the right to co-host forums on energy issues, including two where members of Congress sat side-by-side on panels with the association's president. American Petroleum Institute (API) ranks among advertisers that have reached a spending threshold that allows them to attach their name to a Newsweek event and have their top executive as a panel speaker."

Newsweek claims that holding these events is ethical because industry sponsors have no control over who is invited, what questions will be asked, nor API has no connection to the newsroom. Plus outside media are invited to attend and everything is recorded.

However journalism ethics experts beg to differ. And I agree. Advertising in papers should never interfere with any additional favors since that is just wrong. Though Newsweek claims that buying ads, and then holding these conferences don't control editorial. I think it is unethical for Newsweek to use its highly regarded reputation - promote companies with their key executives and give them VIP access to other opportunities which will further promote API's reputation. This issue goes beyond Newsweek since other outlets including the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and Atlantic Media also accept corporate funding.

What are your thoughts?

US Cyworld Will No Longer Be Able To Service

2009-11-05T21:43:00.002-05:00

A Korean company is shutting down its online virtual world, the email they sent to users notifying them was made fun of by a very prominent IT blogger. As Americans we certainly don't appreciate being made fun of, but at least these guys are trying!

Below is the email sent:

Subject: Cyworld shuts down US cyworld service

Thank you to all members with Cyworld.

Due to Cyworld shuts down US service, US Cyworld will no longer be able to service.
We sincerely apologize for shutting down the service with unavoidable reason.
Before US cyworld close the service, you will continue to access to US cyworld contents but not
purchase items. Also, you will not use your acorns.
If you have unused acorns, you will be given a full refund for paid acorns only.

Refunds and data backup service is in progress, using the acorn will no longer be able to purchase for miniroom items, skins, etc.

Disgraced NYTer Jayson Blair to Address Journalism Ethics Institute

2009-11-05T20:04:00.001-05:00

There has been buzz surrounding disgraced former New York Times journalist Jayson Blair, giving a seminar on ethics at Washington and Lee University's Journalism Ethics Institute in Virgina. Blair fabricated and plagiarized news stories for four years at the NY Times prior to resigning.

The Wall Street Journal ran a headline, "Disgraced NYTer Jayson Blair to Address Journalism Ethics Institute" I was initially perplexed since I thought it was such a hypocrisy. Contrarily the purpose of Blair's lecture is to give future journalists a lesson in failure-- via delivering a speech entitled "Lessons Learned." Though we constantly review cases pertaining unethical practices of journalism, as a student, I could not respect a speaker who is emphasizing how they are such a derelict, unless they did something significant to show remorse.

Despite Blair's fabrication of major news stories at a highly-sought after news outlet, this raised a few questions.

I was wondering if anyone thought Blair delivering a speech on his lessons learned, was an ethical way for him to set an example of how to succeed? It is common sense, we all know plagiarizing and fabricating are unethical, so is it necessary to shift more attention on failure to succeed in journalism? Any other thoughts?

The Future of News

2009-11-05T12:52:00.001-05:00

Link in case you missed the Forum on Journalism that the Kennedy School had. Very interesting!!

When Anonymity in Sources is Warranted

2009-11-05T06:13:00.002-05:00

This was discussed briefly in an earlier post, but I found an actual in depth article on it.

Anonymous sources are a necessary evil of journalism that are unlikely to ever go away. People giving information value their privacy as well as the security of their name, and thus, it's probable that we won't find some alternative method to anonymously quoting people or citing information.

But under which pretenses is this practice inappropriate? It's certainly accepted to provide anonymous sources when the information is factual and objective; but what about sources that provide more of a stance? Do you provide the perspective of the police officer who witnessed the crime, and allow him to anonymously say his piece? Or does anonymous opinion have no place in the newsroom?

Personally, I believe that if you're going to give your opinion, then give it out in the open. It's your opinion, and such sentiments should go hand in hand with the person who believes in them. Anonymity in opinionated comments is just a wee bit on the shady side, if you ask me.

Fairness & the Accused

CNBC's Rovell Apologizes for Calling Marathon Winner a 'Ringer

2009-11-04T19:05:00.003-05:00

CNBC Sports Business Reporter Darren Rovell basically called NYC marathon winner a ringer - " Nothing against Keflezighi, but he's like a ringer who you hire to work a couple hours at your office so that you can win the executive softball league."

It was an incredulous claim that drew lots of criticism. Rovell didn't do his homework prior to publishing his story as he later published an apology and said Keflezighi was a US trained athlete as well as a US citizen.

Admit it -- We don't really think about the troops

2009-11-04T17:36:00.005-05:00

My friend back from Iraq says that as the president and Congress waffle, hedge and backtrack on battlefield decisions, those we are fighting against in Iraq and Afghanistan sense an advantage. They don't believe the will of the U.S. government or its citizens is behind the U.S. troops they confront. They believe they can continue to pick off our troops one or 10 at a time, wait them out and then watch them head home with nothing to show for their pain and effort.

Since World War II, it can be argued that we have sent our young men and women into harm's way for politically expedient or not completely thought-out reasons. Too often of late, the decision to send our young to war has been made by those who never served, who sought continuous deferments or who never left the safety of the United States while serving.

We are very fortunate to have our troops fighting for us, but the mission really needs to be clearly defined. With the new administration the focus has shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan now, but the question to ask is are we really winning the war?

corrections vs. clarifications?

2009-11-04T17:36:00.002-05:00

CNBC made a whopper of a mistake and never apologized and don't intend to. I think saying "we're sorry" helps, and when its not done then it hurts the credibility of the profession.

Here's the link to the article and the video of what happened.

We're not going to apologize.

The Spitzer Files: How the New York Times and the Press Serviced Client No. 9

2009-11-04T13:36:00.003-05:00

http://gawker.com/5396209/the-spitzer-files-how-the-new-york-times-and-the-press-serviced-client-no-9

Found this really cool article. It shows the actual emails between reporters and sources, getting info for the Gov. Spitzer case, as well as emails between the reporters, working out how exactly to present the story. They obtained more than 1,300 pages of email due to NY's open records law and have pulled out just some of them. Gawker states that "sometimes good reporting—especially of the government watchdog variety—requires an inhuman suspension of compassion," but they are making the point here that there was too much coziness going on between the press and their gov sources - clear even from the headline of the article, "The Spitzer Files: How the New York Times and the Press Serviced Client No. 9."

Did the reporters go to far on clearing all these quotes through the gov's office? Or is this just a journalist trying to be extra ethical and getting grilled since it went public?

Supreme Court Declines Case

2009-11-02T15:50:00.002-05:00

This was an interesting article that raises the question of a statute of limitations. Should there be some statute of limitations on murder? And should it matter in a case with this type of racial prejudice?

The use of DNA evidence probably makes these kinds of cases easier to prove. And I don't believe there should be a statute of limitations on murder, but I do wonder whether a fair trial can be had after so much time has passed.

The New York Times and Sources

2009-11-02T10:55:00.004-05:00

I just came across an interesting piece Fairness and the Accused in the New York Times' Public Editor column by Clark Hoyt. It's pretty relevant to our last case study. Anonymous sources are very tricky to handle and I really think Clark Hoyt hit home.

"When the comments are anonymous, the potential unfairness can be compounded because readers have no way to evaluate the motives or credibility of those doing the talking."

Damn right Clark!

Shield Law Compromise

2009-11-02T08:54:00.002-05:00

Everyone should read this article, at least if you plan on being a journalist or have not already done so. Also, click the link w/in the article because that gives some more background.

Basically, the White House wants to provide more protections for reporters (and bloggers) when it comes to disclosing sources. I think it should be on a case by case basis and not just one universal blanket rule. I also don't think that ALL bloggers should be protected, it depends on the blog and the person posting it. Do they have credibility? Are they making things up? etc.

See where you come down.

Shield Law Compromise would protect Reporters and Bloggers

Reporters should use Social Networking sites

2009-11-02T08:48:00.002-05:00

I found this article in the Washington Post---its a follow up to one of my previous posts on tightening ethics at the Post. I think it makes some good points on why social networking sites are good. Since they have implemented their new policy against these things I find it ironic that they published this.

Give it a whirl.
Why Reporters should Twitter

Implicit Association Test

2009-11-02T00:13:00.003-05:00

Since my major is psychology and especially because Dr. Banaji is here at Harvard, we've talked a lot about this test. Even she makes the point that this test does not definitely causally link to real world behavior. In one class, a case was brought up where a prosecutor wanted to use this test to show that a police officer was more likely to shoot the suspect because he was black. However, the creators of the IAT refuse to testify in court (actually will testify against the test being a measure) because this is not what the test is supposed to indicate. Conversely, they say at the same time it should be used to measure when affirmative action can be ended. So does it measure implicit racism or not? They purport it measures bias, but not racism. It measures the knee jerk, evolutionary mechanism in our brain that evolved to protect us from "danger" - anything unfamiliar (animal or a person who looked "different" - historically possibly an enemy), now culturally influenced more than anything since that part of our brain is pretty outmoded. It's something good to be aware of, but as Dr. Banaji says, it can be altered with positive associated imagery. But are we altering the performance on the test or actual bias we are unaware of, causing subtle changes in behavior?? I personally have never been a huge fan of this instrument, but maybe it just needs the kinks worked out. The APA article below states it best - the test is very "noisy."

Good further reading from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27067-2005Jan21?language=printer

Criticism/things to think about from the American Psychological Association:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2008/07-08/psychometric.html

FTC 15 U.S.C. 45 and the now infamous Section 5

2009-11-01T22:58:00.002-05:00

As a fledgling blogger I was all eyes and ears when news broke about the Federal Trade Commission's amendment of their endorsement guidelines, i.e. Section 5 of FTC 15 U.S.C. 45

How would this affect me, my freedom of speech and the medium which I use to express my opinions? I thought about it and thought about it and am still thinking about it. I definitely understand the FTC's concern with blogging and product endorsement, but am torn between "the man," principles and politics.

Yes, as a blogger - I am free from the constraints of objective journalism; the web is my OpEd oyster! I enjoy the freedom of saying whatever I want about whatever I want no matter how relevant or irrelevant the topic. But would I really want to risk the credibility of my opinion by selling out to a company for a few of my words on webspace? Absolutely not.

Before I really start, I'd like to highlight the difference between receiving a free product to review and receiving gifts or compensation in exchange for a review. It's common practice for reviewers from a wide variety of media outlets to receive the "item" they are reviewing for free - music critics get free cd's and movie critics get free movie tickets. However there is a major difference between getting a free movie ticket and getting every dvd that a production house has released as a "Thank You" for writing a review. This difference does not change meaning from journalist to blogger, and rightfully so.

Product reviews are reviews not advertisements. If you are accepting checks or unnecessary freebies from product manufacturers for a "review" - you're actually being paid as a low rent advertiser. If it's money your getting, watch out! The money you receive can be taxed as income which makes you a business and your blog a billboard not a forum for expression. It's highly unlikely that a bad product review will come from a blogger who is being supported somehow by a manufacturer. To not disclose that sponsorship is even worse, like selling couch insurance. Faux blogging is a dishonest, icky practice and is as ugly as the faux hawk! I'd hate to be the one to support "the man" in this instance, but I kind of agree with the FTC's intentions.
Although well intentioned, Section 5 of FTC 15 U.S.C. 45 is very problematic. The FTC in it's press release stated:

The revised Guides also add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that “material connections” (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers – connections that consumers would not expect – must be disclosed.

So what does that mean? What constitutes a "material connection"? Does the donated product to be reviewed count? What about those movie critics and music reviewers, would they have to disclose every ticket to a movie or concert that they received for free?

The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091006-709182.html ) reported that "the FTC didn't set a specific dollar threshold; instead, it called for disclosure whenever a reward is large enough that it might affect the credibility of the endorsement itself." How vague can the FTC be? At least I think that they would let a free movie ticket slide, but what is large enough? Some people are more easily swayed than others - a small freebie to one person might not mean anything, but to another may be so awesome that they blog about it for days! So, now I am confused - what kind of gift or support warrants a disclosure?
The FTC have stated that their guidlelines will apply to social networking sites. Tweets and facebook status updates will be regulated by the FTC's guidelines. Is there enough space to add a little disclaimer on everything you tweet? Are tweeters and bloggers really at risk of sounding like campaign ads everytime they tweet?

There is a huge practicality issue with Section 5 and its application in the internet age. Even the FTC stated that, " In any law enforcement action challenging the allegedly deceptive use of testimonials or endorsements, the Commission would have the burden of proving that the challenged conduct violates the FTC Act." So who is to enforce these guidelines and police everyday bloggers and Joe Schmoe twitterers? Are we really worth it?

With Section 5, the FTC is also reigning in celebrity "endorsements." Celebrities are much more of an appropriate target for regulation by the FTC. Celebrities blog, they tweet, they go on talk shows, walk on red carpets and get a lot of free stuff to subliminally sell. Celebrities are glorified walking billboards - they don't really acquire free designer wardrobes because they deserve it. The FTC has every reason to regulate celebrity endorsements as public figures, but why someone like me?

Casting their regulations on average bloggers seems like a stretch for the FTC, but I think I finally get it. Some bloggers have a network larger than others, and as we know, the speed at which information travels now and the overall laziness of some people not vetting what they read has not only changed the way we process news but the way we are targeted as consumers. The FTC is acknowledging the speed of information in the digital age, and are sending bloggers like me a reminder that consumer ethics are still important. Let's hope Section 5 doesn't create another RIAA internet police state.

Haste and Stolen Kisses?

2009-11-01T11:46:00.003-05:00

The Boston Globe released a "story" on the 29th that left me wanting my 30 seconds back - Stolen kisses lead to Boston man's arrest

Why publish a story when it is obviously lacking a lot of crucial information? Was there any connection between the assailant and victim? What happened next? Was he charged? Was he released? Were any warrants found? Does this man continue to pose a threat as a serial kisser?

I find it really sad that a half-story like this can get published.

Dean Wright, Reuter's Global Editor for Ethics, Innovation and News Standards - has a great blog, "For the Record." Here is a link to what Wright had to say about journalism in the information age: Are we too fast for our own good?

Wright's post also linked to a more meaty and poignant column on the topic by Sean Maguire: Are we to speedy for our own good?

It was interesting to see Maguire's prespective on speed vs. accuracy in a news service setting. But one thing he wrote stuck with me and I couldn't disagree with more - "Real-time readers understand breaking news is contingent, uncertain and provisional." Assuming that your readers understand that breaking news is contingent is a fatal flaw.

*sigh*

Online Journalism Credibility Projects

2009-10-30T16:59:00.002-04:00

Hey all, this was in today's NY Times. It is very relevant to our last paper and I think its a good idea and could provide even more enlightening results in the future.

Newspapers want readers help with online credibility.

Does anyone think that this is the right thing to do, and if so, will it help in the long run to re-establish the credibility of journalism? If not, why?

I think we are on the right track and I like the projects being conducted.

Bloggers should disclose “material connections” – yay or nay?

2009-10-29T16:01:00.000-04:00

When you get a chance please read the link at the end of this post. It is an article detailing the Federal Trade Commission’s set of guidelines to bloggers that they show any “material connection” or financial benefit they are receiving for brands or products that they write about. Just like the society of professional journalist’s code of ethics these are simply GUIDELINES, the First Amendment prevents this from being law. I hope people will follow these guidelines as the public have a right to know in what way bloggers, they are following, are benefiting. Do you think bloggers, in great numbers, will follow these guidelines? Does anyone think it the subject of making such guidelines into laws should be debated?

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2009/tc2009106_866275.htm

Objectivity- based on class 10/28

2009-10-29T15:35:00.002-04:00

I was so interested last night when we touched on Objectivity that I went home in search of more answers. From the proseminar class last year I remembered the chapter on objectivity and have this to offer you all...

“Originally, it was not the journalist who was imagined to be objective. It was his or her method. Today, however, in part because journalists have failed to articulate what they are doing, our contemporary understanding of objectivity is mostly confusion.”

This offered A LOT of insight for me and also made me think..is the system the problem or our understanding of the system? I would have to say the latter.

If everyone had the "correct" understanding of the relationship between objectivity/journalism, maybe (as we joked in class) we would be able to march in a protest!

White House: "Fox NOT a Real News Organization."

2009-10-29T12:23:00.002-04:00

The battle between the White House and FoxNews rages on. Here are two links to blog posts that address the latest--- one from the Swamp and one from the NY Times. Also, click on the embedded video links within them.

I know past presidents such as Bush and Clinton have refused to give interviews to organizations that they deemed the "opponent", however, I think this is the first time that an administration has actually decided to wage war with one and call them out for the Infotainment that they are.

I also love the way the powers that be of Fox and even Murdoch himself try to justify their behavior. Personally, I think it is blatantly obvious to all Americans, even the conservative that watch Fox (or at least most of them), that it is nothing more than a mouthpiece of the right wing, pushing their agenda, regardless of supporting facts. They are no longer watchdogs, they are liars. Come on the tea partiers, the birthers......why push those stories? I don't mind if they dispute adminstration stances but base it on fact. The public deserves to be well informed, with CORRECT information.

My question is how can Fox still be insistent that they are journalists? I think they are PUNDITS! And that's fine but why masquerade as a journalist? It is giving the public a misconception about what a journalist ( a real one) actually is supposed to do. So the bottom line is now we can't tell between a pundit and journalist, the line is being blurred.

Youth and Ethics

2009-10-29T06:07:00.002-04:00

I found the 10/21 lecture very interesting, specifically the details surrounding the young reporter who was presented with the crack cocaine story assignment and followed an illegal path in pursuit of the coverage. I agree with the final decision to terminate his employment because he was not forthcoming and didn't know right from wrong until his friend pretty much left him no choice but to be honest with the paper's management team. I was in the midst of a financial ethical situation in my early twenties. The Controller was fired, then the Director of Accounting quit and lastly the CFO was fired. I was at the time the lead accountant and the only reason I wasn't fired is because I was honest and wasn't trying to cover up what financial mis-management had taken place. I think this is a common occurence as young people enter into fields where there is new ground and rules they are unfamiliar with. But through these early trials, your character will always come through.

href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>

Sources On the Flip Side

2009-10-29T06:01:00.002-04:00

This is about sources and confidentiality. What if you read a news article in the paper and you knew that the reporter didn't have the whole story, that the interviews produced half truths. And you knew the inside scope, as a lay person, with no journalistic relationship to the paper. And it would make a great story. Knowing what you now know about the laws protecting a journalist's right to keep their anonymous sources anonymous, would you call the paper and trust becoming an anonymous source?

href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>

More Low Power FM Freedom?

2009-10-28T17:00:00.002-04:00

Democracy Now!, an independent, not for profit news broadcast that's syndicated on college radio stations and online, held a debate today over legislation being discussed about LPFM (low power FM) stations being granted greater freedom to broadcast on local levels.

Democracy Now! October 28: LPFM Debate

The main opposition to this is higher powered signals; NPR being named a few times. They claim that by allowing more low power signals to be broadcast, you'll add static and signal congestion to the airwaves.

I thought this was interesting, because it definitely falls within the realm of journalism. I can't see anymore technical way to more intimately connect people to the media. If you have local newspapers and national newspapers - why not local radio stations as well as the already existing national ones? How much easier would it be to move journalists closer to the public forum if that forum was condensed even more to be added in with local conglomerates of news sources?

Is this really a technical issue, or a decision to not centralize journalistic views to a more local level?

Unethical Celebrity Gossip!

2009-10-28T12:34:00.009-04:00

Noah Cyrus, Miley's 9-year-old sister, looked like a budding dominatrix at the AIDS Foundation's 16th Annual Dream Halloween in Santa Monica.

I thought it would be fun to throw some celebrity gossip into the mix of our debates on ethics. I was reading the Toronto Star this morning- and I came across this article "Zerbisias: Girls' costumes reflect virgin/whore dichotomy ."

I love celeb gossip and mingling on the red carpet at the parties in NYC and LA. Pertaining this article, I think it is the perfect example of unethical celeb gossip.

I wonder, how a writer could associate Mini Hannah Montana (9 year old Noah Cyrus) with Halloween whores?

I think this article is an ideal example of unethical practices of journalism- associate 9 year-old Noah Cyrus, dressed-up in a skanky Halloween costume with how teens and adolescence take integrity in dressing-up as sluts for Halloween. This article is the perfect treat for pedophiles. It is just repulsive.

I feel bad for the child. It is tragic because I doubt Cyrus has the knowledge to make her own final decisions, you got to blame the parents. In this case both Cyrus's publicist and the journalist are contributing to her reputation as the next play boy bunny prostitute.

I would never run an article like this, it is disgusting and perverted. Would anyone else gossip about a 9 year-old girl dressed-up as a Halloween whore? Or photographed on strip polls?

Though this photo is not drastically edited. I think this picture deserves the disclaimer above all because it would probably get banned as an ad campaign. I am 22 years old and I don't have children, but I could never imagine my 9 year old daughter dressed-up as a Halloween whore, in spite of her claim to fame as the next Disney Diva... Maybe a cheerleader! Or model!

Would Cyrus's parents be proud or petrified? I could never associate myself with developing this story. I could never link a little girl to halloween whores. What are your thoughts? Would you publish a story write about a child whore based on the photo above?

Hacks hooked on Facebook

2009-10-28T09:03:00.002-04:00

I am sure this is going to be the hot topic of the day, so I figured I would get the ball rolling. I would like to start off by saying that it is 9:04 am and I am at work. I do not feel however that my name, photo and salary information should be released to the public because I am using work hours or my work computer to do something other than work. Do I feel that she was right to post that she was napping during meetings, no, but if there is some downtime in the office, and her manager is ok with her updating her facebook status, I do not see any harm in this.

I find it hard to believe that no one has at work; made a personal phone call, typed a personal e-mail, paid a bill, shopped on the interned or read and forwarded a joke e-mail. I will admit I'm guilty, but does that mean I am not good at my job, or I am not completing my work in a timely manner. No, it doesn't, and if you are reading this during work hours, you are just as guilty.

I do believe that there is a story here. If taxpayer money is being abused to pay for employees who are not doing their job, and have so much downtime that they are constantly playing on the internet, than something needs to be done. However, I also believe that by taking a 5 minute break here and there to relax, vent, distress and get back to work, makes for a much healthier work environment. I believe that this story still could have been released with out the names and photo's. If their management does not feel it is necessary to seek disciplinary action against these employees, why should they be publicly humiliated, and opened up for public retaliation. What is now preventing me from going on facebook and writing this girl a nasty e-mail?

Media access to Mont Vernon murder records denied

2009-10-27T15:48:00.002-04:00

I saw this on the news today and was wondering what other people think. I have to agree with the decision to deny the public release of the police affidavits at this time. I understand that the media is in a constant rush to print the latest news, but I would much rather read that the 4 boys accused of the crime have been convicted, as apposed to their being any interference in the investigation due to the desire to know, rather than the need to know.

A question of ethics in the UK

2009-10-27T15:43:00.004-04:00

There was recently a major discussion around the ethics violations of the Irish columnist, Jan Moir.

On the day before the funeral of the boy band singer, Stephen Gately, Moir wrote a scathing column titled A strange, lonely and troubling death.... in the Irish Mail, the newspaper in his hometown. She called into question the nature of his death and his supposedly monogamous gay relationship. Here’s one line to give you a taste of how insensitive the article was:

“The sugar coating on this fatality is so saccharine-thick that it obscures whatever bitter truth lies beneath. Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again”.

As a result the family and 22,000 other people complained to the Press Complaints Commission. This is more complaints than they have received in total for the last 5 years.

The complaint process has been closely followed by The Guardian, but has received scant coverage in her own paper. Although she apologized, it was mostly for the timing of the article rather than the content. The article has not been retracted nor is there any indication on the online version of the apology, except the paper has kept the 1, 606 comments that highlight the publics’ objections.

I think the story is interesting for a number of reasons. The complaints program was driven by his friends and family using Twitter and this may set a precedent for future consumer advocacy. Also I was surprised to see how hard it was for Jan Moir to apologize - insincere apologies don't just happen in the New York Times.

href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>

Smaller Newspaper Circulation

2009-10-26T11:38:00.004-04:00

How much can we attribute a decrease in newspaper circulation to a fall in journalism credibility?

I think the proliferation of online media has contributed to less desire for print editions, but I also believe that lower media confidence plays a part. Readers know they can't believe everything they read. And a stunt like the Yes Men press conference does not help.

href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>

The credibility of Journalism= all time low

2009-10-26T09:57:00.003-04:00

Ok, guys I came across this article Fake Reporters Part of Climate Pranksters' 'Theater', and frankly I'm horrified by it and what it says of journalism. Reporters do not help their case of regaining public confidence by doing something like this i.e not doing their homework. I don't want to give it away, read the article first and make a decision. Besides, I couldn't give this type of behavior justice for anyone involved.

I also have to say, sadly, I'm not surprised this happened at all, I'm just sad.

Online Corrections

2009-10-25T20:44:00.008-04:00

One of the goals of journalists should entail acurate reporting. When an error is found, a system for immediate correction should be in place. Many readers don't hesitate to contact a media outlet about a mistake, but there are many readers who believe it's a waste of time. Also, because online information is immediately spread, corrections often don't get the same attention as the original posting. These are, unfortunately, some of the challenges.

Nicole's blog topic leads to an article I came across as I was researching the case study. (The title is the link and I apologize in advance for the length, though Jeanne did say we need to read a lot!)

In the Online Journalism Review, the question asked whether corrections should be made as an addendum to the original article or whether the article itself should be corrected, thereby erasing the mistake.

A case can be made for each point of view, however I think in most situations, readers may not see the corrected material. Or, as one librarian (Michael Jesse) says, to keep reprinting an error, even when it is corrected, does not seem to be right.

Because we are dealing with eletronic databases, I think that corrections should be made and labeled clearly. Any thoughts?

href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>

Errors in a Digital Age

2009-10-25T09:15:00.002-04:00

While doing some mini research for this latest paper, I came across lots of people that are suggesting various strategies for reversing the trend of inaccuracies in reporting. This is one of them and it speaks about how we can correct errors in a digital age, in fact, that's the title. Ironically, it's written by the Nieman Foundation, here at Harvard.

I think publications should start implementing these strategies in one way or another.

H1N1 and the CDC

2009-10-24T23:58:00.002-04:00

I am interested to learn what people think about this story and the coverage of H1N1 in the media lately. Seems to be a very hot topic, this story makes you wonder if the media blitz is warranted.

James

href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>

What was up with all the coverage on Balloon Boy, anyway?

2009-10-24T18:12:00.004-04:00

We talked briefly before class about Balloon Boy, so I thought I'd pass this along from Poynter. (You gotta feel bad for the kid...imagine having that nickname following you around!!!!)

Journalism Students are Twittering in Class

2009-10-24T17:41:00.001-04:00

This has nothing to do with ethics, but with journalism studies, so I thought I'd pass it along.

href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>

Washington Post tightens Ethics Policies.

2009-10-22T13:52:00.003-04:00

I found this article on the Post and I wanted to share because I think it goes to the heart of what this class is all about. It's called Print-Era Shackles for a Twitter World and is written by the Post's ombudsman, Andrew Alexander. He certainly poses some interesting questions and brings up both sides of the argument.

The basic jist is: the Post doesn't want their reporters on social network sites because they feel it compromises their journalistic credibility and neutrality.

Once again, I think this is a gray area and should be decided on a situational basis. Any thoughts??

Re: Should Photo's Come With Warning Label?

2009-10-22T00:15:00.003-04:00

Thanks so much for sharing this. I don't think "we can" draw a line on deceit. I believe the media has distorted the publics perception of "beautiful" and "realistic" to the point that there would be no place in the North American fashion and beauty market to ban altering or posting information label's on such unrealistic photo's. I also don't think the media or corporations should market "fake" or "ugly" images to promote their "idea's" of fashion and beauty.

Two or three years ago, Dove launched its Campaign For Real Beauty, in an endeavor to boost girls and young women's self-esteem, and influence them to accept a broader definition of beauty. The campaign was a real success. This video Dove Evolution is one example of where the line should be drawn because it showcases fake at its best.

I think as journalists that we need to influences companies to create a market for leveraging healthy people, not necessarily skinny or fat people. I believe the line of deceit should be drawn where unhealthy habits and related issues are considered the definition of beauty. People can be bigger than a size 2 and still be beautiful... I also know people can be a size zero and healthy... Any thoughts?

Should Photos come With Warning Labels?

2009-10-21T16:44:00.002-04:00

I came across this article in the Times yesterday and I thought it might be interesting to post or discuss. It's called Should Photos come with warning labels? and its by a writer for the Times who writes a column daily on ethical issues that have erupted in and around journalism.

Yesterday's article was about the recent controversy around photoshopping images such as the model for Ralph Lauren was. Personally, I think the picture is gross and clearly not real.

Cohen presents both sides of this debate. I have chosen to take the side of people that wish to be informed when a photo has been drastically altered, such as the picture in the inset. He also asks the question where do we draw the line on deceit? My question is : DO WE? I really don't know anymore. Does anyone think that there is a clear line and if not, then should there be and where? Right now, it seems our intelligence is either being insulted by not telling us or they think we won't notice enough to be bothered by it.

Responsible Journalism & Pandemics

2009-10-21T11:31:00.009-04:00

I am 90% back from the flu! This means no more aching, no more fever, no more fatigue and the ability to use my brain is back; however, there is 10% of me that is still stuck with a lingering cough. My little cough is not only physically annoying but something that seems to get noticed by everyone and earns me looks of disdain, horror and fear. I'd like to wear a sign that says, "No, It's not H1N1."

As the cold and flu season is kicking off, H1N1 pandemic fears (irrational or sane as they may be) are as viral as the common cold. So how can journalists report on a pandemic ethically?

Dean Wright, the Global Editor of Ethics, Innovation and News Standards with Reuters, blogged about responsible reporting of infectious disease in light of what he saw happening in journalism when H1N1 first broke. The blog can be found here: http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2009/04/27/swine-flu-walking-the-line-between-hyping-and-helping/

Wright, postulated that the responsibility of reporting on public health emergencies was one that emphasizes information not sensationalism.

I particularly like what Wright had started with -

There’s nothing like a disease outbreak to highlight the value of the media in alerting and informing the public in the face of an emergency.

There’s also nothing like it to bring out some of our more
excessive behavior, essentially shouting “Run for your lives! (but, whatever you do, stay tuned, keep reading the website and don’t forget to buy the paper!).'

The threat of the H1N1 pandemic caused a state of panic and sensationalist reporting. This was especially evident when H1N1 was called the "Swine Flu." Organizations like PETA were using "Swine Flu" as fuel for their agenda, misleading people to believe that you could get H1N1 from eating pork. Governments all over the world ordered the culling of hundreds of thousands of pigs, adversely affecting the livelihood of their farm industries and farmers. Many European countries placed travel restrictions on destinations which had confirmed cases, like Mexico where the economy has a strong base in tourism. The panic had induced economic trouble. In his blog, Wright pointed out that, "One story noted, not surprisingly, that travel and tourism stocks were in turmoil."

In his blog, Wright called for calm, stressing the importance to "... provide the information and insight our audience and customers need to make intelligent decisions ..."

This sensationalism also happened during the HIV/AIDS crisis, when AIDS was labeled as a gay disease and people were afraid to be in the same room with someone who had AIDS. Even today we feel the effects of that media storm as people still need to be reminded that's it's not just a gay disease.

The Neiman Foundation here at Harvard has recently released a "guide" for reporting on pandemics, you can find it here: http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=101880

And ... again, just in case you didn't get it the first time. I don't have the H1N1, so it's ok to sit next to me in class!

When the state comes knocking, how much info should you divulge?

2009-10-19T16:21:00.002-04:00

This is an interesting article from the Chicago Tribune on not just the power of student journalism, but also as a case study on the importance of shield laws and protecting all journalists.

Thoughts?

Interesting Insight re: War Coverage

2009-10-19T07:18:00.003-04:00

The class lecture on the relationship between the press and the government as it evolved from war to war history was interesting and left me with some very illuminating insight into my own family and how the press coverage of World War II impacted my mother. When World War II erupted my mother was a young girl and her father my grandfather was sent to war. My grandmother would take the family to the movies each week to see the war news reels and they would site every night and read newspaper accounts of war events. As I was growing up, if a discussion of the war developed, my mother recounted tales in a very racist way towards the Japenese. I have never been able to understand how my mother could talk this way when she has friends with many varying backgrounds. It struck me as Angelia spoke that my mother was a young girl who had the coverage, which had a significant racist tone, read to her night after night. It was imprinted on her.

The White House Pushes Back

2009-10-14T09:19:00.003-04:00

If you read the Time article, it becomes apparent that the American people are not the only ones that have issues with the press (and little faith, too). The White House is sick of the lack of fact checking and intentional distortion of facts as well.

However, I'm not sure that fighting back will help much, especially where Fox News is concerned. It may just give them even more ammunition. I wouldn't be surprised if they started saying that Obama wanted to get rid of the First Amendment and control the press.

Although, I have to say I agree with what the WHite House is doing to an extent. Fox News is a disgrace to news organizations everywhere. You would be hard pressed getting me to believe that they do not intentionally lie to mislead the American people. They push the Republican agenda no matter what. And that usually means creating a deeply divided country simply because Republicans would rather do battle than try to concentrate on things that they have in common.

Its no secret that they want Obama to fail (at least the vast majority of them) but is it right to lie in order to make that happen? Americans rely on news organizations to be the watchdogs of the government, or at least we did. What can we do when the news is no longer watching but participating in and creating news for their own agenda?

Fact or Fiction

2009-10-13T01:39:00.005-04:00

The topic of objectivity is an interesting one, especially considering the heated nature of some of the debates surrounding President Obama. There are current debates calling for his impeachment(the title of this blog is the link) and little, if any of it, seems based on facts. What I find most disturbing is the propaganda of hate that is being dressed up as fact. When did disagreeing with someone's opinion become grounds for removing them from a job that they earned by virtue of democratic elections?

http://www.obamaimpeachment.org/
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112098

The "collapsing of the United States" started long before Obama took office and instead of working in a collective effort to restore this economy, we continue to see partisan politics as usual. Similar to the Hatfill case, opinion is being allowed to rule over fact and fairness and with much more dire consequences.

I see no justification for calling for the impeachment of one president because of a question of documents that was addressed before the elections, yet not addressing a trumped up war, loss of tens of thousands of lives, a declaration of victory where there was none, and an economy in shambles. This is what I consider a crime.

Is the Responsibility Bar Different?

2009-10-06T07:15:00.003-04:00

I had a reaction to the dialogue surrounding Hatfill coverage by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times that took place in class when I watched the September 30th video. Specifically, that because Kristof somehow had less obligation to be responsible in his representation of facts because he was a columnist not a reporter. This was disturbing to me. Should there be a different bar for the level of integrity in communciating facts to the public based upon your unique role within a news organization? Or should the paper's code of ethics be applicable to everyone within the organization?

href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>

A Case for Objectivism

2009-10-05T19:27:00.004-04:00

Objectivity is a concept which I'm all over the map on. I don't find objectivity to be an absolutist concept; that it's either all or nothing. I believe the level of objectivity should pertain directly to the gravity and nature of the matter being reported.

If a given issue poses no real threat to American people, or does not inhibit the democratic process, I believe objectivity is key. A perfect example of this is an issue which for a period in the beginning of President Obama's term was the most publicly discussed subject on the White House Blog: marijuana law reform. In the case of marijuana reform, which is more a civil rights issue, and one which poses no threat to American lives or violation of human rights, objectivity is essential. I believe that this is a case where no stance should be taken; only facts should be presented for the public to form opinions upon. Sensationalist propaganda is the reason for marijuana prohibition, which is unfair to the democratic process as it's a non-threatening issue which should be portrayed to the public objectively.

Something such as reporting on genocide, on the other hand, should allow more lateral movement on a stance being taken. If a journalist is reporting on genocide in Darfur, do you take no stance on the nature of the issue, giving an presentation of both genocide victims and the violent nomadic Janjaweed warriors committing the atrocities? I'm not sure about you, but while I would certainly want to hear the word of the Janjaweed, I'd take a clear and defined stance against them. In this case, I see no need total objectivity.

How is this decided? While the two examples I provided were very clear and defined, what about issues where the lines are less defined and in shades of grey? Who decides the level of objectivity when it is such a subjective concept?

One area I've found a lack of objectivity to be detrimental has been within the current healthcare bedlam unfolding in the United States. Since Obama's inauguration, reformation of the failed American healthcare system has been repeatedly promised to the public. The problem in this case? No progress has been made. The American people are entirely divided, taking no real informed stances beyond being against the "evil socialist" or the "right wing nutjobs." The portrayal of each party by various media sources has produced only a very simplistic image by which people may identify - the wholesome conservative or the progressive liberal. People are more concerned with beating the other team than observing the contents of the bills and coming to a solution.

In this FOX news session on the townhall meetings being called all over the nation to discuss health care, a very clear alignment is shown:

FOX News: Health Care Coverage

Only right-leaning arguments are showed, and when a left-leaning opposer of the Republicans is shown, she is portrayed in a very negative way. Adversely, liberal stations like CNN or MSNBC have taken clear, biased stances against the conservative approach.

This method of reporting on this important issue has left the country divided over a notion that they need to factionize within their parties more than discuss healthcare, and the actual bills being proposed have been deadlocked in Congress.

So you've got to ask yourself, if the major politically-aligned news stations such as FOX (Republican) and CNN (Democrat) were eliminated, and objective reports concerning the nature of the propsed healthcare bills were presented to the public, would we be in the mess we're in now?

Hypothetical situations

2009-10-01T22:30:00.002-04:00

After reading carefully the three different hypos on our homepage, I have decided I would likely publish all three stories to some extent.

For instance, in the first hypo, as long as names are not mentioned specifically, I don't see how listening to that attorney would do any good. What purpose would it serve? The community needs to know something like a poisoned reservoir. They can be on the lookout or they may have more information to provide.

As for the second hypo, I would report that the police are questioning a new suspect. I would not use a name, unless the police publicly released it. I see no reason to hide this information from the public, especially if no identifying information is used. Note: I would not publish anything learned through his file. That is sneaky and unethical.

Lastly, the third hypo is a bit more tricky because no police have been involved. However, I think since this involves a school and sexual misconduct something needs to be published about it. If the man has a record or history of abuse he has no business in a school and parents have a right to know in order to protect their kids. Nevertheless, I would be careful about the exact information I publish, sticking to facts and official, named sources.

At the end of the day, I think as long as we can look ourselves in the mirror as journalists. And it is also important not to knowingly break laws just to get a story. But overall, the code of ethics we each hold should let us sleep at when dealing with these kinds of close calls.

Media's Balancing Act

2009-10-01T20:12:00.003-04:00

I thought Nicholas Kristoff's apology for his columns fingering Dr. Steven Hatfill as the criminal was somewhat weak. He apologizes in one breath, but then justifies it in the next: "...I owe an apology to Dr. Hatfill. In retrospect, I was right to to prod the F.B.I. and to urge tighter scrutiny of Fort Detrick..." Then, Kristoff goes on to show us how difficult the job of the media is and challeges us with three hypothetical examples. While I think the examples were another justification for him falsely convicting Dr. Hatfill in his columns, the examples are interesting ones to consider:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/opinion/28kristof.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

I agree with Kristoff's decisions to write about the first and the third stories with one major difference: In the first case, I would not name the suspects unless they were being officially charged. The risk to the public, which was Kristoff's concern, would be minimized just by covering the story and giving the facts of the plan. To state that the crime was planned by a certain group in particular would, again, be using the press as a jury and would do nothing to increase the safety of the public.

In the third case, I would choose to cover the story because of the multiple accusations of sexual misconduct. This is also direct testimony as opposed to hearsay or opinion. With that being said, I would still be cautious of condemming the person in the coverage. I would want to state only what is fact and call for further investigation of the direct accusations instead of sweeping it under the rug.

The job of a journalist is sometimes a difficult one and with the interest of the public at stake, it is even more imperative that we give out correct information instead of passing judgement.

A Person Of Interest

2009-09-28T20:00:00.004-04:00

Re: Valerie

(I am replying here to post pictures) I agree that Rosenberg should not have been a credible source in this case. As I said... If I were covering this story, I would never use Hatfill's identification because there was no hard evidence to prove he could be convicted.

The handwriting on the envelopes of anthrax powder is very distinguishable. And I think if the FBI asked Hatfill for a writing sample that he would not have remained a "person of interest." Detectives can identify characteristics within an individuals handwriting quite easily...

Although the FBI claims only 30 people in the US have the knowledge to do this. And even though the FBI eventually announced Bruce Edwards Ivins was responsible ... I really think that it is apparent that somebody from Al-Qaeda perpetrated the anthrax attacks.

Envelope & Letter Containing Anthrax

What kind of American would write the note above a week after 9/11...

I think the anthrax came from Al-Qaeda... I think this is very distinguishable handwriting. And it would not take a rocket scientist to distinguish this from a sample of Hatfill's writing.

I think as prospect and working journalists, we must take into consideration:

What did we learn from this assignment?
And how will it make us stronger as journalists?

In response to Hatfill's case... I think that journalists should consider concealing the identity of a "person of interest" or a suspect to avoid destroying a person's reputation, in the event they are never formally convicted.

I believe that by keeping a person's identification confidential unless there is sufficient evidence to charge them under the legislation, will not induce the general public to shun an innocent individual or inhibit a journalist from generating groundbreaking coverage. For example New York Times journalist, Nicholas D. Kristof referred to Hatfill as Mr. Z in the majority of his articles about this investigation. Also if all the journalists whom covered this story addressed Hatfill by his initials or Mr. Z, and not had used his real name, unless he were charged for the anthrax attacks, it would not have destroyed his personal life to the same extent.

Although Hatfill had legitimate reasons to charge the US Department of Justice and Donald Foster with defamation. And he also might not have deserved the extensive media coverage either.

I can't feel sorry for Hatfill since he blames the world for his problems. At the end of the day, the negative coverage did not ruin his life. I think it is safe to say that Hatfill devastated his own life by forging educational credentials on his resume. And I think that is malice itself. Not only did he lie and cheat with his employers and career, he lied and cheated on himself, as well as his friends and the educational institution.
And it looks like we are watching Hatfill getting a taste of his own medicine... Hatfill possessed poor morales and values, and that should hurt him the most. "Two wrongs, don't make a right", and I think I am being brutally honest, and not malicious.

A person of interest ...

2009-09-27T19:13:00.005-04:00

As I tried to squish everything I had down to 750 words for our "Person of Interest" assignment I came across some very fascinating information about Dr. Steven J Hatfill, aka "Mr. Z" - most importantly that Dr. Hatfill was exonerated by the FBI in 2008 of any association in the anthrax attacks.

As I read and read and read through articles about the anthrax attacks, Dr. Hatfill, and the F.B.I.'s investigation I began to see how important it is to question all sources of information and evidence - especially if the evidence is circumstantial. We had discussed linkage in our last class - and it is something I saw a lot of when reviewing our assignment and articles. In the New York Times article, "New Details on F.B.I.'s False Start in Anthrax Case" Dr. Hatfill's lawyer, Mark A. Grannis was quoted saying "... an accumulation of claims from acquaintances can cast an innocent person in a highly suspicious light." Never is this more true, especially when the innocent person is in the line of some very public scrutiny. Just look at the damage that Dr. Barbara Rosenberg's gossipy comments through the FAS forums had done. I really did not know that a lifelong academic pursuit of microbiology would equip someone with the psychological expertise of a criminal profiler! It's amazing how easy it is to link someone to an action with a little bit of imagination and a desire to "pin the perp". Our society demands such swift justice that we tend to avoid steady reason and opt for a brut force reaction.

Here are a few links about Dr. Hatfill & the Anthrax Investigation:

New York Times' topics page on Dr. Hatfill:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/steven_j_hatfill/index.html

New York Times' topics page on Anthrax:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/anthrax/index.html

Article on the effects of the FBI's anthrax investigation on some of the suspects:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/washington/10anthrax.html?fta=y

OpEd column by Nicholas D. Kristoff that includes an apology to Dr. Hatfill:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/opinion/28kristof.html

This case reminded me a lot of Richard Jewell, a security guard during the 1996 Olympic Bombing in Atlanta - Jewell was caught in a media firestorm that pinned him as a hero, then a bomber and back.

Here is the New York Times topics page on Jewell:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/j/richard_jewell/index.html

Cropping?

2009-09-27T18:53:00.003-04:00

My last post is getting quite a reaction and I wanted to pose a question about cropping images ...

Is this ...

the same as this?

Original image borrowed from MSNBC's "The Week in Pictures: Sept. 17-24" :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33011521/ns/news/displaymode/1247/?beginSlide=1

The Chop Shop - Newsweek, Kennerly & the cutting board

2009-09-23T15:30:00.016-04:00

So we're asked - What is all the hubbub over David Hume Kennerly's denouncement of Newsweek's use or rather "misuse" of his photograph?

Context & Thievery (per se)

Kennerly's very public denouncement of Newsweek's use of his image and the contextual change he felt happen when they cropped it can almost be compared to someone crying foul over stealing - and in this case it's all about the context of the original photo and what was robbed from it when cropped.

The argument over the context of imagery is definitely not new, you often see this with the fair use of images in fine art and parody. Appropriation artists (pop artists, street artists, and even comic book artists) often fight the fair use battle and in some cases successfully defend their appropriation with an argument about context. If an image is altered, i.e. by cropping, reproduction, alteration or through incorporation into another image, it is often argued that the context of the image is changed - therefore the appropriated image becomes an entirely different one from the original.

The most recent and high profile instance of appropriation artist vs. "The Man" happens to involve Shepard Fairey and the AP.

For reference, here is a quick look at the images and a link to an article in Photo District News:

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/photo-news/legal-news/e3i423339706237af10532f29eea64b9a9f

So what does the appropriation artists battle with fair use and the context of imagery have to do with journalism - especially with the Kennerly-Newsweek controversy?

I would have to say A LOT!

Just look at the two images:

Kennerly's Original

Newsweek's Crop

These images along with the accompanying blog/article "News Photographer Excoriates Newsweek for Cropping to Make Cheney Look 'Sinister'" can be found here: http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/photo-news/legal-news/e3i423339706237af10532f29eea64b9a9f

The two images become completely different images although one is derived from the other. The focal points, the framing, the important aspects of each image differ almost entirely.

Although I would have a hard time proclaiming that Newsweek's "appropriated" ... errr, I mean (awkwardly) "cropped" image of Cheney portrays something "sinister or macabre" like Kennerly did - I would not hesitate to say that it misrepresents the truth of the original photograph. The family, the setting and the overall scene is notably absent in Newsweek's version. This is where Kennerly's outrage - which has been shared by many - is almost validated, not only as an artist, or as a photographer, but as a journalist. Newsweek altered the truth in Kennerly's original image to suit it's editorial need.

Are photos & images immune to the ethical standards of written word in journalism? I hope not.

Cropping Debacle: Is the Public to Blame?

2009-09-21T21:58:00.002-04:00

The controversey over the Newsweek article which presented a cropped image of former Vice President Dick Cheney, is in my opinion, ridiculous.

The original article published was an interview with the former Vice President which brought up the topic of his stance on the lengths the CIA went to while still under the Bush administration in regard to interrogation. Cheney has been openly pro-torture for his entire tenure as second in command, and only reiterated such sentiments in the interview conducted by Newsweek.

When the photo taken of Cheney, originally a scene of his entire family while the former Vice President was butchering some meat, was cropped to just him and the bloody cutting board, blogs and opinion columns in newspapers exploded with controversy. This is what I find ironic.

Rather than people openly discussing the sensitive topic of torture brought up in the article, they find debating the implications of an image of an old man cutting some chicken as more important?

I'm not trying to get into my own political opinion regarding torture. I'm not saying that torture is empirically evil. I'm also not saying that it isn't empirically evil. What I'm saying is that torture is a very, very serious and real subject. It's irrelevant as to whether the readers were pro-torture or otherwise against. What matters is that rather than bring up the contents of such an important issue, they're upset with a picture of Cheney making some dinner for his family.

How is it that we've become some self-absorbed as a country, and so inherently and chronically addicted to drama, that we cast ourselves into massive public debates regarding the implications of a picture of a man preparing some meat for dinner? Yes, there's blood. Yes, he's holding a knife. So? Is it a human? No. Did Cheney shank a live chicken to death in his kitchen in front of his family, laughing in maniacal pleasure all the way? No. He's making dinner, just like all of us do each and every night. We as a nation are just so addicted to drama that we feel the need to take such an obvious act which should really have no implications on the contents of the article and blow it exponentially out of proportion so that we have something to fight about.

Don't be fooled - the United States is addicted to dramatic mass news. A former pop singer and accused paedophile dying completely consumed the media for weeks on end, all while there are two simultaneous wars being fought, the largest recession since the Great Depression is under way, and the progression of health care is tied up in Congress with seemingly no end in sight. Yet we prioritize the death of a drug-addicted Mtv icon as more newsworthy than the aforementioned issues.

I cannot fathom why this has become a national issue. Mr. Cheney is clearly preparing dinner. If you honestly want to let the image of a bloody cutting board echo his sentiments in the article, then perhaps a soap opera would be better for you than the news.

Choppping Cheney

2009-09-20T21:57:00.007-04:00

In replying to David Hume Kennerly's outrage at the cropping of his photo, Frank DeMaria's response for Newsweek sounded more like an unprofessional attack than a dissemination of ideas and information. However, with that being said, my initial impressions of the photo were not of anything "sinister" or "evil" as Kennerly suggested.

Though cropped, the Newsweek photo is clearly set in someone's home with the granite topped cabinets and casual accesories in the background. It is also a somewhat social setting with at least one additional person that we see to the left. If it weren't for Kennerly's editorial, I would not have made any connection to Cheney being a butcher.

In debating whether Kennerly has a right to be upset that his photo was taken out of the intended context, consider for a moment the original photo with Cheney and his family. If the Cheney family knew that Kennerly was shooting pictures, the original shot was already somewhat staged. This is a practice well known to the public. If Kennerly's outrage is because Newsweek did not use the photo the way he expected it to be used, which was to show Cheney in a positive, family oriented setting, I can understand Kennerly being upset, but it doesn't seem to be a breach of ethics. If I sell an item that I made to a customer, I cannot get upset when the customer takes it apart and uses the pieces separately, simply because it has my name on it and I intended a different use for the item.

This may be an oversimplification, but Kennerly's photo was not significantly changed or airbrushed, it was cropped and I would imagine that cropping is done all the time when there are space requirements. An image that focuses on one subject from a photo does not seem to cross any major ethical lines. The cropped photo certainly does not seem to reflect some egregious opinion that "embarrassed and humiliated" him, as Kennerly stated.

Former vice president Cheney, in a starched shirt and blazer, cutting on white china in an expensively appointed kichen, does not come close to representing a butcher. Cropping the photo does not seem to change the context of the picture, it is only the words of the article that do this. If in the end, this picture was used to illustrate a point or to grab the reader's attention, in my opinion, Newsweek failed on both accounts.

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/essay-9/

To crop or not to crop

2009-09-17T11:21:00.003-04:00

Here's an interesting point/counterpoint that appeared in the New York Times photojournalism blog this morning. David Hume Kennerly discusses how Newsweek cropped a photo of his in an article about Dick Cheney. He doesn't think their use was ethical. The Newsweek editor disagrees.

Read both sides and weigh in here. Who do you agree with, and why? Should the photographer have a say in how his photo is used, whether it is used or abused? Are there broader implications beyond just this one photo as Kennerly suggests?