Online Journalism Credibility Projects

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?

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

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

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

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

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?

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!

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?