Cooperating With the Government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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?

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

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

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?

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

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?

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

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

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

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...

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

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

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.

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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??

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?

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?

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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?

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

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

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?

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

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?

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

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?

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

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

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

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

When Anonymity in Sources is Warranted

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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