Western reporters in Africa struggle over when to help

By Abraham McLaughlin | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Daily journalism involves many dilemmas. But Western reporters covering developing countries often face unique conundrums: A little humanity - just the change in their pockets - can sometimes feed 10 or 20 people.
Such giving can violate a basic tenet of journalism: Observe, don't engage. It's a cornerstone of the effort to stay objective. But Western reporters often ask themselves: Should I help anyway?

One Western reporter, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the subject, recalls doing a story on a man in Afghanistan. In 2002, the man was laboring hard to rebuild his mud house, which had been destroyed during a war. But he couldn't afford a few wooden poles for a roof.

Furthermore, his young son was in a hospital and couldn't be released until there was a house to come home to. "I never give to anyone who asks for money," says the reporter, but in rare cases, she does give. Even then, though, "I take great pains to ensure it does not come from me directly." In this case, she sent her Afghan translator back with the cash - and told him to tell the man it had come from an anonymous donor who'd heard about his case.

Different standards

But one expert on journalism ethics argues reporters working in poor countries should not feel bad about helping people, and need not go to such lengths to disguise their efforts to help. Standards are different in poor-world contexts, says Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at The Poynter Institute, a journalism training center in St. Petersburg, Fla. "In the US, you can tell a [poor] family how to get food stamps or how to access social services," she says. But "the safety net in the US is much more secure for the poorest of the poor than it is in Swaziland," for instance.

MORE from this Christian Science Monitor story...

Senate OKs sex-offender registry

Abuse: The national database bill, expected to become law Thursday, also would crack down on failures to register

WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Thursday to approve the creation of a national sex offender registry and establishment of tough new prison sentences for offenders that fail to keep their listing current.

A child predator who kills a victim during commission of a sex crime could receive the death penalty under the act.

"We're going to get tough on these people," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Senate sponsor of the legislation, which he said would "curtail the ability of sex offenders to operate freely."

The House is expected to pass the legislation next week, and President Bush has said he will sign it Thursday, the 25th anniversary of the disappearance of Adam Walsh, for whom the bill was named. Walsh was the 6-year-old son of John Walsh, who created "America's Most Wanted" after his son was abducted and who was hailed by senators for his advocacy for the legislation.

MORE

Read this, please!

Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald: The Bush lynch mob against the nation's free press

Narcissism and the Journalist

File this one alongside your mental notes on
Shattered Glass and Jayson Blair.


Reporter Joe Lauria's unwitting role in the Rove 'scoop'

The May 13 story on the Web site Truthout.org was explosive: Presidential adviser Karl Rove had been indicted by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald in connection with his role in leaking CIA officer Valerie Plame's name to the media, it blared. The report set off hysteria on the Internet, and the mainstream media scrambled to nail it down. Only . . . it wasn't true.

As we learned last week, Rove isn't being indicted, and the supposed Truthout scoop by reporter Jason Leopold was wildly off the mark. It was but the latest installment in the tale of a troubled young reporter with a history of drug addiction whose aggressive disregard for the rules ended up embroiling me in a bizarre escapade -- and raised serious questions about journalistic ethics.

In his nine-year reporting career, Leopold has managed, despite his drug abuse and a run-in with the law, to work with such big-time news organizations as the Los Angeles Times, Dow Jones Newswire and Salon. He broke some bona fide stories on the Enron scandal and the CIA leak investigation. But in every job, something always went wrong, and he got the sack. Finally, he landed at Truthout, a left-leaning Web site.

I met Leopold once, three days before his Rove story ran, to discuss his recently published memoir, "News Junkie." It seems to be an honest record of neglect and abuse by his parents, felony conviction, cocaine addiction -- and deception in the practice of journalism.

Leopold says he gets the same rush from breaking a news story that he did from snorting cocaine. To get coke, he lied, cheated and stole. To get his scoops, he has done much the same. As long as it isn't illegal, he told me, he'll do whatever it takes to get a story, especially to nail a corrupt politician or businessman. "A scoop is a scoop," he trumpets in his memoir. "Other journalists all whine about ethics, but that's a load of crap."

... [clippage]

After reading his memoir -- and watching other journalists, such as Jayson Blair at the New York Times and Jack Kelley at USA Today, crash and burn for making up stories or breaking other rules of newsgathering -- I think there's something else at play here. Leopold is in too many ways a man of his times. These days it is about the reporter, not the story; the actor, not the play; the athlete, not the game. Leopold is a product of a narcissistic culture that has not stopped at journalism's door, a culture facilitated and expanded by the Internet.

Update on Harvard student-author's plagiarism

Publisher cancels young author`s book deal

NEW YORK, NY, United States (UPI) -- Amid new allegations of plagiarism Little, Brown & Co. has canceled 19-year-old Kaavya Viswanathan`s two-book contract.

Viswanathan acknowledged last month her popular novel, 'How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life,' contained near-identical prose to that found in a book by Megan McCafferty, which Viswanathan said she unintentionally 'internalized.'

But Tuesday, new claims of plagiarism arose based on works by young-adult authors Sophie Kinsella and Meg Cabot.

That`s when the publisher pulled the plug, the Boston Globe reported.

'Little, Brown & Co. will not be publishing a revised edition of `How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life,` nor will we publish the second book under contract,' Senior Vice President and Publisher Michael Pietsch said in a one-sentence statement.

As well, the company recalled some 50,000 unsold copies of the novel, which was published April 4.

'Opal Mehta' had a first printing of 100,000 copies, and Viswanathan had received a two-novel contract worth $500,000 at age 17, a month after arriving at Harvard.

Copyright 2006 by United Press International

Motive

Motive really is an interesting factor in any ethical decision. It describes the core of a person's ethical standpoint and the character of that individual. In seperating the motive from the act or decision, we really lose ethics altogether. Acts cannot really be judged when taken out of context. If a person was to shoot another in self defense, yet the motive was left out of the picture, they would solely be a murderer. If a man steals food for his family, but the motive is left out, he is a thief, but with the motive in place it brings a whole new light to the situation. On the reverse side, if a man donates a million dollars to charity solely for a tax break, is he really being charitable? It looks great with no motive in place, but the wrong motive changes the context of the situation profoundly.

As far as the media goes, motive is really one of the important factors any journalist should include in any ethical decision. Is the person being used as the means or the end? Should I print a story about Teresa's abortion to save the reputation of another? Which is the greater good? Where do my loyalties lie? Where should they lie? I believe that motive is almost as important an ethical factor than the act itself.

Just a reminder...

Final class assignments are due tomorrow (Tuesday, May 2) at noon. You may place them in the wall box outside my office door (AnSci 306) or ask the person at the main office desk (AnSci 310) to place them in my JCOM department mailbox.

The post quality here is improving all the time! I'll keep it going after you've all drifted away for the summer; remember, if you feel the impulse to talk about ethics, you're encouraged (begged, even) to drop by and chat. It's on Blogger's public listing now.

Thanks for a great semester, all. I've enjoyed our discussions immensely.

Kindness - could it be a minimalist value?

Here's poet Naomi Shihab Nye's thoughts on kindness - a favorite poem of mine, and one I'd like to give you to think about before you leave for the summer:

Kindness

Before you know what kindness really is
you must lose things,
feel the future dissolve in a moment
like salt in a weakened broth.
What you held in your hand,
what you counted and carefully saved,
all this must go so you know
how desolate the landscape can be
between the regions of kindness.
How you ride and ride
thinking the bus will never stop,
the passengers eating maize and chicken
will stare out the window forever.

Before you learn the tender gravity 
   of kindness,
you must travel where the Indian in  
   a white poncho
lies dead by the side of the road.
You must see how this could be you,
how he too was someone
who journeyed through the night  
   with plans
and the simple breath that 
   kept him alive.

Before you know kindness as the deepest 
   thing inside,
you must know sorrow as the other 
   deepest thing.
You must wake up with sorrow.
You must speak to it till your voice
catches the thread of all sorrows
and you see the size of the cloth.

Then it is only kindness that 
   makes sense anymore,
only kindness that ties your shoes
and sends you out into the day to 
   mail letters and purchase bread,
only kindness that raises its head
from the crowd of the world to say
it is I you have been looking for,
and then goes with you every where
like a shadow or a friend.

What to do next?

"That the truly probing questions are being asked by bloggers rather than by national journalists is becoming increasingly commonplace," writes Glenn Greenwald, a noted blogger who has just published a book that attempts to answer the question, How Would a Patriot Act?

Greenwald's blog bio says he spent the past 10 years as a litigator in NYC specializing in First Amendment challenges (including some of the highest-profile free speech cases over the past few years), civil rights cases, and corporate and security fraud matters.

Here's John Dean's blurb for the book:

"Glenn Greenwald has assembled a devastating bill of particulars against the Bush and Cheney administration's insistence on operating outside the rule of law. He has gathered solid information and marshaled a litany of abuses of power that make Richard Nixon's imperial presidency look timid. All thinking Americans must answer How Would A Patriot Act? this coming election, and those who ignore what Greenwald has to say act at our collective peril."

-- John W. Dean, former Nixon White House Counsel and
author of Conservatives Without Conscience

Plagiarize... let no one else's work evade your eyes...

Lest I fall into the trap, let me attribute the title of this post where it belongs: it's a line from a song by Tom Lehrer.

Here's the story: a hot new author, only 19 years old and a Harvard sophomore, is in hot water.

Update 2: Young Author Admits Borrowing Passages

A Harvard University sophomore with a highly publicized first novel acknowledged Monday that she had borrowed material, accidentally, from another author's work and promised to change her book for future editions.

Kaavya Viswanathan's "How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life," published in March by Little, Brown and Company, was the first of a two-book deal reportedly worth six figures. But on Sunday, the Harvard Crimson cited seven passages in Viswanathan's book that closely resemble the style and language of the novels of Megan McCafferty.

"When I was in high school, I read and loved two wonderful novels by Megan McCafferty, 'Sloppy Firsts' and 'Second Helpings,' which spoke to me in a way few other books did. Recently, I was very surprised and upset to learn that there are similarities between some passages in my novel ... and passages in these books," Viswanathan, 19, said in a statement issued by her publisher.

"While the central stories of my book and hers are completely different, I wasn't aware of how much I may have internalized Ms. McCafferty's words. I am a huge fan of her work and can honestly say that any phrasing similarities between her works and mine were completely unintentional and unconscious. My publisher and I plan to revise my novel for future printings to eliminate any inappropriate similarities.

"I sincerely apologize to Megan McCafferty and to any who feel they have been misled by these unintentional errors on my part."

The book had a first printing of 100,000 copies.

Viswanathan, who was 17 when she signed her contract with Little, Brown, is the youngest author signed by the publisher in decades. DreamWorks has already acquired the movie rights to her first book.

Schindler's List

I can’t seem to get the movie out of my head. I have been thinking about the comparison between one person's horror and another's luxory. But mostly I keep thinking about Nancy’s question, “Why would I end the course with this movie?”

I have my one answer. In the United States people have religious freedom. It is illegal to kill someone just because he or she is a Jew. However, it was legal for Germans to murder thousands of Jews in WWII. Schindler was thrown in jail for just kissing one. That is how deep the hate ran.

But I thought about how the law may have changed but ethical choices did not. Schindler still did what was right to him even though it was illegal. He worked within the system to save lives. I thought it was interesting how one person still followed his values even though an entire nation did not. Just because of one man’s (Hitler) values an entire population of people was almost eliminated.

I think this movie just goes to exemplify Bok’s discussion about needing common values and ethics for society to survive. Add the continued massacres of people all over the world…the Holocaust…Cambodia…Africa…the Middle East. All over the world people are still killing each other. I think that we need to start working toward a solution instead of adding to the death. Bok is right to say that eventually peace will result with no one left to live it.

I think that values and ethics can be a foundation for peace…one day if we start.

More on sex-offender registries

I heard this story on NPR this afternoon while I was driving home. Thought you'd be interested -- here's a link, and then when you get to the NPR site, click on the "listen to this story" button.

Many states -- including Utah -- list hard-core predators alongside people who may pose no risk to the public. There's a map at the NPR site that shows states' policies.

Murders Put Focus on Sex-Offender Registry Policies

All Things Considered, April 21, 2006 · Nobody knows why Stephen Marshall killed two men who were on the sex-offender registry in Maine. Immediately after, he took his own life.

One of the men Marshall killed, Joseph Gray, was on the registry for raping a child. The other, William Elliott, was listed because he'd slept with his girlfriend before she turned 16.

These deaths and others raise troubling questions about the public sex-offender registries which every state has. And they highlight the fact that many states list hard-core predators alongside people who may pose little risk to the community.

When Mark Perk read about the men murdered in Maine, he thought the same fate might have befallen him. "They put my name and address on there," Perk says. "Anyone can find me. Yeah, it scared us."

Perk is on Illinois' sex-offender registry for having a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old girl. She's now his wife and the mother of their two children. Perk says he knows he broke the law -- but he says he's no child molester. He's just treated like one.

"My wife and I get pulled over constantly because our license is registered to a sex offender," he says.

Perk says he has received telephone calls from people calling him a child molester and threatening his life. "People pull by the house all the time, staring in the windows," he says.

(MORE)

Privacy, cyber-stalking & harassment

Speaking of privacy online, there's a good but gasp-worthy article in today's New York Times. Here's a link: A Sinister Web Entraps Victims of Cyberstalkers.

Utah's Sex Offender Registry

In case you haven't seen it for yourself, here's a link to the sex offender registry for Utah.

Note that you have to promise not to use information you find there to harass the offenders or their families and friends, and there's a reminder that such harassment is against the law.

To search it, type in your zip code.

Sex Offenders & The Internet

I'm not all that in favor of having registered sex offenders made public for anyone to see. I would be much more in favor of sex offenders having to be registered in some sort of database. A database for employers, or anyone with a certain need-to-know, may look.

For example, a child rapist isn't going to be a concern to me, a single white adult male with no children under my care. If John Doe, two houses down, is a convicted child rapist, that's not going to matter to me. I have no need to know. However, if good ol' Johnny is trying to get a job at the local elementary school, then the school might want to do a background check on him.

Having sex offenders register with a public data base, I think, is not fair. I would like to see it be much more on a need-to-know basis.

As for the "They didn't put the whole story" claim, I wouldn't mind it if suspects/criminals had the opportunity to write up 'their side of the story' to be attached to the rest of the file. If the database had not only the initial charges, but what they were found guilty of, in addition to 'their side of the story', then anyone researching that individual would have more information on which to formulate an opinion and make a decision.

I had the USU police called on me once for an accusation which I do, and always will, claim was false. When the police spoke with me there was very little, if any, 'So what's your side of the story?’ They were very much "This is what we've been told about you, so this is what we're telling you to do." Some of the information which had been reported to them, as I saw it on the official report, was questionable as to its accuracy. The following week I inquired as to what I may do if I feel that there was information of questionable accuracy in the accusation. I was told that I could file a 'my side of the story', which I assume would then have been attached to my report. I think this would be a good option for sex offenders.

Bottom line: There should be some reform made in the way the state handles the information concerning sex offenders.

Syndicated Blogging

According to an AP story in WiReD News, a new syndication service called BlogBurst will feed stories and headlines from 600 participating blogs into the mainstream media.

Newspapers are looking to BlogBurst to provide expert blog commentary on travel, women's issues, technology, food, entertainment and local stories, areas where publishers may not have dedicated staff...

Magazines & Advertising

Question: Is a magazine ethically required to be an open forum for all advertisers who have the ability to pay?

No. Magazines and advertisers are two different species living symbiotically. But, just like species, you have different breeds of each.

In our free enterprise system, magazines don't exist for the greater good; they exist because someone somewhere has some sort of agenda. Different magazines have different agendas. For example, I have never read Ms. Magazine, but judging by its self description as a feminist magazine which is "More Than A Magazine - A Movement", I would assume that's its primary agenda is not to make a huge profit or report the news. I would guess that it's primary agenda is along the lines of liberating and empowering women in a male dominated world.

On the other hand, there are magazines like Time, whose agenda is more along the lines of reporting on important issues in today's world. Then there is a magazine called The National Review, which is a very conservative publication. It's agenda is very much conservative politics.

And then there are different breeds of advertisements; some want you to buy something, while others don't. For example, take the anti-smoking commercials which we've all seen. They aren't trying to persuade me to buy something or give them money.

So my point is this: I believe that magazines reserve the right to refuse certain or all advertisements. Magazines and Advertisers only coexist symbiotically when their agendas allow them to.

and out in the real world...

Calvin and Hobbs do ethics

Public Relations, Google Style

Google Romance

Who's a journalist these days?

Do Journalists Belong in the Media?

As if dictates from governments, media owners and advertisers weren't enough. Now journalists face a new enemy - those pesky mobile phone carrying people, with their instant reports and commentaries. Where are journalists going to go?

---

...Blood pours from his scalp as he reaches into his hip pocket, just above his trapped legs. Grabbing his handphone, he clicks on the quick-dial button, giving him a direct connection to a blog server. He clicks on "video" and starts pumping live action online.

"This is Nakasuri Hirito, trapped in the train that has just derailed in Amagasaki, Osaka, Japan. There are bodies all over," he says, as he pans over the inside of the wreckage.

Within seconds, JapanTV gets a sms to check out nakasuri.blogspot.com. The picture of the tragedy unfolding shocks them.

"We are receiving news of a train disaster in Amagasaki, Osaka," says the newscaster, as she interrupts the news bulletin. Within minutes, the blurry picture being generated by Nakasuri's 3G video handphone, is broadcasted live. Controls rooms in Atlanta, London and Kuala Lumpur, pick up the newsbreak and buy the broadcast.

Moments later, CNN, BBC and Al Jazeera switch over. The world holds its breath as the unknown Nakasuri Hirito beams the inside story of the battle to stay alive in carriage number 3.

The world has changed...

Former journalist Premesh Chandran says journalists must find ways of working with, instead of competing against, citizens reporting the news through their video/mobile phone cameras and blogs.

MORE here

Lying as psychological warfare

Our own JCOM grad in US Army fatigues, Leon D'Souza, has a frank take on the government's PR ethics here:
Infoganda: The Politics of Make-Believe News.

THE KILLING FIELDS: About Dith Pran

This should help clear up any confusion about the real Dith Pran and the actor who played his part in The Killing Fields. (Thanks, Unca Google!)

---

The portrayal of Dith Pran in "The Killing Fields" won an Oscar for fellow Cambodian Haing Ngor, who had also escaped the violence of the Khmer Rouge. But Ngor escaped the genocide in Cambodia only to be shot to death in this country. He was killed on a street in Los Angeles. Now Dith Pran, who's working in New York as a photographer for The New York Times, wants to make sure people never forget the genocide in Cambodia. He has compiled a collection of personal essays by survivors of the killing fields.

-- from http://www.cambodian.com/interview.htm (transcript of an MSNBC-TV interview with the real Dith Pran)

---

Dith Pran (born September 27, 1942 ) is a photojournalist best known as a refugee and Cambodian Holocaust survivor and was the subject of the Academy Award-winning film The Killing Fields. (He was portrayed in the movie by first time actor Haing S. Ngor, who won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his performance.)

In 1975, Pran and New York Times reporter Sydney Schanberg stayed behind in Cambodia to cover the fall of the capital Phnom Penh to the communist Khmer Rouge forces. Schanberg and other foreign reporters were allowed to leave, but Pran was not permitted to leave the country. When Cambodians were forced to work in forced labor camps, Pran had to endure four years of starvation and torture, before finally escaping to Thailand.

He has been a photojournalist with the New York Times in the United States since 1980. Pran has worked for recognition of the Cambodian Holocaust victims. He received an Ellis Island Medal of Honor in 1998 and is founder and president of The Dith Pran Holocaust Awareness Project, Inc.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dith_Pran

---

Dr. Haing S. Ngor ( March 22, 1940 –February 25, 1996 ) was a Cambodian American physician and actor who is best known for winning a 1985 Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for his performance in the movie The Killing Fields, in which he portrayed journalist and refugee Dith Pran in 1970s Cambodia, under the rule of the Khmer Rouge.

Ngor himself lived through the Cambodian holocaust, and survived by hiding the fact that he was an obstetrician and gynecologist. As an educated person and a professional, he would have been killed under the harsh regime and purges of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. After the collapse of the Khmer Rouge in 1979, Ngor worked as a doctor in a refugee camp inside Thailand, and left for the United States on August 30, 1980.

In 1988, he wrote Haing Ngor: A Cambodian Odyssey, detailing his life under the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. In the second edition Survival in the Killing Fields, Roger Warner, Ngor's co-author, adds an epilogue telling the story of Ngor's life after winning the Academy Award.

On February 25, 1996 , Ngor was shot to death outside his apartment in Los Angeles, California, by members of a street gang who demanded the locket around his neck. The locket contained a picture of his late wife; none of the money in his wallet (reportedly a few hundred dollars in cash) was stolen. There was some speculation at the time that the gang members were acting at the behest of Khmer Rouge sympathizers in the U.S., but this was never proven.

Three 19-year-old members of the Oriental Lazy Boyz street gang were arrested and charged with Ngor's murder. They were separately tried and convicted in the Superior Court of Los Angeles. Tak Sun Tan was sentenced to 56 years to life; Indra Lim to 26 years to life; Jason Chan to life without parole. In 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted Tak Sun Tan's habeas corpus petition, finding that prosecutors had manipulated the jury's sympathy by presenting false evidence. This decision was reversed and the conviction was ultimately upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in July 2005 .

Ngor survived incredible dangers during his life in Cambodia only to die violently in his adopted homeland, but he told a New York Times reporter after the release of The Killing Fields, "If I die from now on, OK! This film will go on for a hundred years."

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haing_S._Ngor

Mixed Signals

Did you know that NPR has an official blog site?

It's called Mixed Signals.

You Risk & Iraq

Initially I'm inclined to say that reporters don't have the right to ask people to risk anything at all, because Kant would say that is using people as a means to an end.

But on second thought, I don't think that I actually feel that way. I mean, we are only asking someone to take risks. They have the full freedom to refuse. It's only a request, not a demand. I would like to think that any reporter would communicate risks to an individual that they were asking a favor of; that a reporter would not knowingly send someone somewhere without informing that person of the risks. That would be wrong and immoral. Additionally, if someone does not want to take a risk, well... everyone has a price and I'm sure that a reporter could find someone with whom they could work out a reasonable deal.

I think that the most important things are that anyone who is asked to take a risk understands the risks and dangers at hand, and that they have the ability to decline the offer. Provided that those conditions are met, I see nothing wrong with asking an individual to take a risk.

As for the media coverage in the Middle East, I'd give them a C-. They do provide quite accurate information on factual events. When, where, who, and what are usually covered pretty well. If a suicide bomber blows something up, I have complete confidence that the media will tell me all about it with haste. However, I'm quite displeased with the not-so factual facets of the Middle East conflict. That is, how to the people over there feel about us? Sure, we know that at least part of the population hates us, but what about everyone else? Do they all hate us, or are some of them thankful for what we're doing? This war is not only a war of militaries, but of the hearts and minds of people. The media does a fair job on the militaristic facts, but what about the hearts and minds? We've won the war militarily for sure, but how about the war for the people and for their support?

Journalism & Public Relations

Journalists use Public Relations as if it were a tool, yes; but PR also uses the media as if it were a tool as well.

Journalism wants to inform the public. In some instances, their only source is the PR of a company. For journalists, the PR is a well of information; a resource, a gold vein, meant to be tapped. PR is one of the Media's information gathering tools.

However, PR often uses the Media as its own tool. If a company wants the world to know something, then they have a few different options. One would be advertising, or using some form of mass communication. This is usually a little expensive. Another would be the internet. However, when it comes to what everybody pays attention to, the news, not every company has all the resources. That is, not too many companies have their own television channel, broadcasting equipment, studio, etc.... So what's cheaper than buying or creating your own news corporation? Hiring a few PR guys. PR uses the media in place of having their own stuff. PR uses journalism for their cameras, recorders, newspapers, and audience. Journalism is one of a corporation’s tools for distributing information about them selves. Through a PR guy, all a corporation has to do is put the information out there and hope that journalists pick it up.

That's how Journalism and PR are symbiotic. The relationship, however, is a love-hate one. The information that journalists want and the information that PR representatives provide are not always the same. The media often wants the dirt, the scandals, and the bad news. No (good) PR rep is going to provide all the details about a company’s scandals.

Journalism and PR need each other, but they don't always want the same thing. They each use the other as if it's a tool, but unfortunately (from the view of the operator) the tool always seems to have a little resistance.

It's all about the public...

If you look at public relations and journalism there is one thing in common... the public. Both fields are trying to inform the public in some way or another. It just so happens that PR people are informing from their client's perspective while journalists are supposed to be unbiased or "watchdogs" for the public. In truth each could not successfully complete their jobs without one another.
Journalists have to cover so many different beats that sometimes things are passed up. That is where PR people jump in. They help inform journalists when certain events are happening for their companies or organizations. That way if the press wants to attend they can.
The real conflict between PR and journalists comes in how and what the public learns. Journalists want all of the story while PR may want to spin it to the advantage of their client. It just comes down to where a person's loyalties are. PRp people have a loyalty to their clients while journalists have it to the public. Although PR may want to inform the public, they are not the first priority. The loyalty difference creates tension between the two. This tension will probably never disappear but journalists and PR people will always have to work together. They may not want to but they need to to successfully complete their jobs. This need for one another will keep journalists and PR people cooperating while they may hate one another.

News Media vs New Media

There are now an estimated 30 million blogs in the burgeoning blogosphere, and new ones are appearing at the rate of 100,000 new blogs a day.

At the same time, traditional main stream media is losing ground and consolidating.

Alan Saracevic muses on this upheaval in an article in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Can't the media all get along?

It's no secret the media is in the midst of a grand revolution.

As with any major quake, the resulting damage has been severe. In the past weeks, months and years, the tension between what has come to be known as the mainstream media, or MSM, and its digital counterparts has become thick.

Newspapers are suffering and music publishers are litigating. Advertising dollars are floating from place to place, looking for safe harbor. And media consumers are drowning in a sea of information, unsure of what's trustworthy and what's false ... unsure of how to process all the data.

No one said revolutions were pretty.

Selling Ethics?

I would have to say that anybody who would sell their proclaimed ethics isn't really proclaiming the correct ethics for thier character. If somebody's ethics are that situational, then are they really the deep convictions that the ethical philosopher's we have studied have made them out to be? I would say that nobody can really sell their true ethics, or rather ethical foundation. Somebody who is willing to sell what might be termed ethical etiquette in a certain circumstance isn't really selling their ethics at all, because they don't believe enough in them to stand behind them. That's not to say that somebody's ethical standpoint can't change, but I believe that requires a more momentous experience than a simple exchange of money. Events, life, a change in the character of the individual may change thier ethical standpoint, but that doesn't mean they sold it out. If somebody sells "ethics," they aren't really selling much more than situational propriety, not their ethics.

STUDY GUIDE for MIDTERM

For the Media Ethics midterm (March 21), you should know:

– the ethical philosophies of Aristotle, Kant, Mill, Ross, Royce, Rawls, Gilligan; and the basics of communitarianism as an ethical philosophy
– Kant's Categorical Imperative
– difference between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism
– what the Potter Box is and how to use it
– what cognitive dissonance is and how it’s used in advertising and public relations
– all the ethical values of journalism
– Sissela Bok’s principles for ethical decision-making
– the difference between law and ethics, and between ethics and morals
– how to make an ethical justification of a decision you make
– what journalism’s responsibility is to society
– what the major problems with Royce’s definition of loyalty are
– the history of thinking about truth, from Plato to the present
– what credibility is
– what the SPJ code of ethics says about journalism’s duties
– ethical problems with advertising
– what the TARES test is
– the balance and cognitive dissonance theories of persuasion
– advertising’s ethical problems with regard to vulnerable audiences
– how public relations professionals help journalists function
– why there is tension between PR and journalism
– what advocacy is and how it can be used as an ethical justification for public relations
– what constitutes a justifiable lie (and how to justify it ethically)

Be able to answer the questions in boldface at the beginning of the chapters 1-5 of Patterson and Wilkins, and be prepared to work out ethical justifications for problems raised by the three films we’ve viewed thus far.

Ethics & The Black Market

Are my ethics for sale? Yup. I'll come right out and say that I'm sure there's a price. Though I'm not exactly sure where it is. My price would have to depend on my situation. For example, right now, I'm getting pretty dang sick of Raman noodles. I don't have a lot of dough to spare, so Raman it is! But aside from that, I'm not hurtin' financially too badly. So right now my ethics are pretty expensive. But if for some reason I found myself in a cardboard box on the corner of some street in New York City, then the price of my ethics would drop considerably.

Even in the cardboard box scenario, I would like to PRETEND that they'd still be reasonably expensive. However, if I had a family to support, and I was desperate for money or other support for them, then my ethics would become quite reasonably priced.

If I'm single, then my integrity means a lot to me. But if I were to have a family in need of support, I'll sacrifice my integrity quite early in the game.

As for which ethics I would compromise.... that's actually a lot harder to answer than whether or not I would compromise any. I think that pretty much any of them would equally dent my sense of integrity and self-respect.

The price would, however, depend on the extent of the ethics violation. For example, am I lying to just some random dude that asks me about "Big Joe", or am I lying to the Judge about "Big Joe"? Am I walking into an unlocked house to steal the $10 that someone knows their friend keeps under their pillow, or robbing a convenience store at gunpoint for a lot more money....and some skittles? The seriousness of the ethics-violation would determine the price.

But that's how selling my ethics would go. Anyone care to make any bids?

MySpace: The Story of the Month

from Kelly McBride's Everyday Ethics blog:

MySpace is all over the news. It's dangerous. It's mysterious. It's menacing. It's a source of teenage hijinks, bad judgment, and even criminal behavior.

Yet it's here to stay. Like the school cafeteria, the bus stop, the mall and after school at the home of working parents, it's one more place where children and teens go to experiment with their identity and their world, away from the prying eyes of parents.

In the last month most MySpace stories come in three categories: Advice for hapless parents, criminal behavior and danger. Former Poynter Naughton Fellow Matt Thompson (now a deputy editor for interactive media at the Star Tribune in Minneapolis) was doing a radio interview on the MySpace phenomenon last week. No sooner had he finished than he found a story about the 16-year-old Colorado kid arrested after posting photos of guns.

Matt was the one who pointed out to me that current narrative is one of fear. A Canadian blogger, the Fine Young Journalist, has documented the coverage. Matt passed along the name Danah Boyd, youth culture researcher with some real information and observations.

A few of the recent MySpace stories have a more thoughtful approach. Steve Israel of The Times Herald-Record in New York wrote this story. We spent a long time talking about what makes MySpace different than hiding in the basement with your friends, sneaking cigarettes and finding your dad's old Playboy Magazines.

Are there other stories about MySpace that go beyond alarmism and fear?

Does this hook in with what Michael Moore said in Bowling for Columbine about America's culture of fear? What do YOU think?

Lying & Omission

Is deception by the media every justified? First of all, what exactly is deceitful? Is withholding the truth deceitful? To withhold the truth is a little different than outright lying. The media is never justified in outright and flat out lying. However, withholding truths of facts may, from time to time, be. For example, I believe that in the film "Absence of Malice" that we watched in class Megan would have been justified in withholding the information about Teresa.

Another example would be the Government's response to any hostile action by China. I'm sure that the plans in place should not be revealed to public. If somehow related information were to be leaked to a reporter or someone in the media, it would probably be best if the media recognized the importance of omission and did not report the information.

Yes, omission may be justified. But that does not mean under any circumstances. And when omission is performed, then the media needs to take care not to omit part of a story and tell the other part. Sometimes it might be better to omit the whole thing instead of part and give a false perception. To give such a false perception would be against the media’s purpose and ethics, even if what they reported was completely truth. Purposeful deception in the form of lies or other fictionalized claims or stories are not justified.

As for China, that's actually developing into an interesting story, one which my roommates and I sit around and talk about on a regular basis. Apparently the Pentagon Called Beijing a Potential Threat and there's the (Today actually) article on China Threatening Taiwan. And yes, the U.S. has actually discussed possible reactions to various situations.

How the Blogosphere Is Disrupting the Old Media

Blogs, Wikis, and other community sites like Slashdot and Digg are beginning to change the landscape of traditional journalism...

Can you Digg what is happening to journalism?

Jeff Jarvis
Monday February 27, 2006
The Guardian

When I do my scary blogboy dance for old-media companies, I warn them that their real successor - the true media mogul of the age - is not someone they know, not someone named Murdoch, Hearst, or Newhouse. He is Kevin Rose, the scruffy geek behind Digg.com, a site where users edit the news. In him, we see the media industry of the future.

More at the link to the Guardian story.

New blog on ethics from Poynter Online

Kelly McBride, a wise journalist, has started a new blog on ethical decision-making in newsrooms. Poynter is publishing it. I've linked it from our permanent links column (right beneath all your names, on the right). Here's the scoop:

We'd like to alert you to a new blog -- Everyday Ethics
(http://www.poynter.org/everydayethics) -- by Poynter's Kelly McBride and colleagues. The column includes
reports on ethical decision-making in newsrooms big and small, and will provide shorter, more frequently updated posts than we offered with Ethics Journal.

You'll find the new column here: www.poynter.org/everydayethics, and you can sign up to receive it as an e-mail newsletter (whenever new items are posted) here:
www.poynter.org/subscribetoeverydayethics. Soon, we'll also offer Everyday Ethics by RSS as well.

Why ethics matters so much

Couple of days ago I posted this, asking for your thoughts, and have noted a profound silence. In the meantime, Arthur Silber has thundered forth with a fine and pithy opinion on the subject:

Getting Our Hate On: Now We Are (Almost) All Michelle Malkin

"[A]s has been the case with every major controversy in the post-9/11 cultural atmosphere, the legitimate questions about the port deal are not the meat of the matter. They are not where this game is being played. The Newsweek story of last year was not about "press irresponsibility," although that was the excuse used to justify completely illegitimate attempts to intimidate the media into reporting nothing but "good news." And the entirely phony Mohammed cartoon controversy is not about freedom of the press -- but that is the cover used to stoke the fires of racial hatred and to make the very dangerous notion of a "clash of civilizations" appear to be genuine. See this follow-up post for more on the propaganda purposes served by the cartoon controversy.

So. What do you think? (Note: There's a COMMENT link at the bottom of this post.)

Protecting Sources in the Internet Age

Earlier this month, the Washington Post ran an interview with a shadowy young hacker who breaks into insecure computers and harnesses them to run a variety of money-making projects like distributing E-Mail spam for his clients.

The story in the Washington Post was carefully written to avoid giving away the identity of the hacker. There were sketchy descriptions of the otherwise unnamed small town where he lived.

The story also included a photograph of him in shadows, so that his face could not be seen.

But there was something else about the photo that the editors of the Washington Post neglected to reckon.

Photographic images stored in digital format contain embedded text annotations (called metadata) that are used to help organize and classify libraries of digital images. Some of the metadata is inserted automatically by the digital camera. Some of the metadata is inserted manually when images are run through PhotoShop. Photo journalists routinely add such annotations to help them keep their image libraries sorted out. In this case, the metadata included the name of the small town in Oklahoma where the photographer had taken the original picture.

Someone who knew about metadata in digital images opened up the photo from the Washington Post's story (as posted on the newspaper's website) and examined the metadata. That was enough to complete the missing parts of the picture. The Post hasn't confirmed whether the sleuthing is accurate. They are remaining mum.

A failure of the press?

William J. Bennett is the Washington fellow of the Claremont Institute and a former secretary of education. Alan M. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. Their jointly written essay, published Thursday in the Washington Post, says American's free press has surrendered after the latest volley. Here's an excerpt:


What has happened? To put it simply, radical Islamists have won a war of intimidation. They have cowed the major news media from showing these cartoons. The mainstream press has capitulated to the Islamists -- their threats more than their sensibilities. One did not see Catholics claiming the right to mayhem in the wake of the republished depiction of the Virgin Mary covered in cow dung, any more than one saw a rejuvenated Jewish Defense League take to the street or blow up an office when Ariel Sharon was depicted as Hitler or when the Israeli army was depicted as murdering the baby Jesus.

So far as we can tell, a new, twin policy from the mainstream media has been promulgated: (a) If a group is strong enough in its reaction to a story or caricature, the press will refrain from printing that story or caricature, and (b) if the group is pandered to by the mainstream media, the media then will go through elaborate contortions and defenses to justify its abdication of duty. At bottom, this is an unacceptable form of not-so-benign bigotry, representing a higher expectation from Christians and Jews than from Muslims.

While we may disagree among ourselves about whether and when the public interest justifies the disclosure of classified wartime information, our general agreement and understanding of the First Amendment and a free press is informed by the fact -- not opinion but fact -- that without broad freedom, without responsibility for the right to know carried out by courageous writers, editors, political cartoonists and publishers, our democracy would be weaker, if not nonexistent. There should be no group or mob veto of a story that is in the public interest.

When we were attacked on Sept. 11, we knew the main reason for the attack was that Islamists hated our way of life, our virtues, our freedoms. What we never imagined was that the free press -- an institution at the heart of those virtues and freedoms -- would be among the first to surrender.

Are they right? What do you think? Please use the comment button beneath this post to post your opinion.

Shattered Glass

I also thought that Shattered Glass was a good movie, not one that I would choose to own, but one that is worth watching, especially in the setting presented to us. There were many ethical issues that can be discussed, especially with Glass and his fictional articals. Now, fictional articles are not in and of themselves bad, but to present them as true does bring up some difficulties. Maybe he thought that he wasn't really hurting anybody, but the whole story about the political convention and the mini bars really could have damaging effects, not on individuals who were of course fictionalized, but on the parties involved and their associates. It is also important to take into account the magazine, and those whose jobs might be compromised by such lies. Innocent as it may have seemed to him and to some others, it was wrong and very potentially damaging.

Another point that I found interesting was the "political" problem with disciplining Glass becaus he was so well liked. He had done wrong, but was that to be overlooked because of the good rapport he had with his fellow employees in order to keep them happy. I would have to disagree with that line of thought and say that what he did was indeed wrong and merited punishment even before finding out about all the other stories. I would hope that such dishonesty in the media would be returned with just punishment.

Is it something we said, boss?

Thanks to Prof. Ted Pease's Word of the Day for this quote:

"America loathes the White House press corps.
This is especially true when the journalists
preen for the television cameras, yell at the
press secretary to achieve a dramatic effect, act
bratty and petulant, appear openly disrespectful
to the president and the vice president and
generally behave like unruly five-year-old
children playing in a sandbox."

--Jon Friedman, columnist, MarketWatch,
reviewing journalists' confrontations with White
House Press Secretary Scott McClellan over the
Cheney hunting accident, 2006

Let's have good role models in the media!

Calvin & Hobbes do journalism ethics too, did you know that? Here's Calvin expounding on the subject of cartoons.

Trick or Truth!

Okay, this may seem like a little bit of a trivial thing, or it may just make me seem like an idiot, but I figure that any news article that leaves me searching the internet like this one deserves some attention.

Before reading the rest of my post, take 45 seconds to read this article related to the U.S. Outsourcing.

Finished reading it? No? Oh, well, here’s the link again.

Okay, now you've actually read it? Good. So maybe you're not like me, but at the end of the article I was left wondering "Is this for real, or is this just some spoof article that's meant to make fun?" I thought it was just a spoof, but there was no obvious disclaimer, such as "Andy is a Humorist writing spoof news Articles for Newsweek" at the very bottom of the page. I mean, sure, it's classified as "Humor" on MSNBC and "Satire" by Newsweek, but sometimes there's a lot of truth to what's meant to be humor.

So I thought "Maybe on the guy's webpage, The Borowitz Report, there might be a biography or something." Nope, nothing.

After some searching, I found this page on Amazon, which describes his book. Using your browser, search for "fake journalist" (which appears just above "Product Details"). That's the type of conclusive disclaimer that I was looking for.

So my ethics issue here is this - some of the more serious sounding and legit looking humor pages should have a better disclaimer. I could easily see some gullible fool being completely taken by that article, even though it was not meant to be taken as such. Do we really want people like that running around talking about the "horrible article about U.S. outsourcing" that they read from a very reliable source, such as MSNBC? These things need to be better marked. After all, we do live in a world in which firewood is marked as "Warning: Flammable!"

The satire article above is making fun of President Bush outsourcing Port Secutiy, which is a real story.... or at least, I've been fooled! This article mentions Dubai, which has some interesting things going on in it. Check out a Google Image Seach, or look at the World's Fanciest Hotel (Burj al-Ara), read about Dubai on Wikipedia, look at The Palm Islands or The World Islands websites.

Troubled journalists...

I was thinking about Glass as well. How can a person have so little self respect to attach their name to items they made up? If he were a fiction writer he would have been wonderful. He had an amazing imagination. But he was not. He was a journalist assigned to report the facts. He knew that but still he lied. I consider it lying because he was told to tell the truth and he didn't. If he were writing fiction he could do that.

It angered me that when he was interviewed he was so smug. It was like he didn't care he had gotten caught. He only wanted publicity. It was sad when he said he was apologizing on national television to the people he deceived. And only after five years. I agreed with the older gentleman that called him a worm. I would want to never see him again either.

I am so angered that he can now write about his experience and make money. I was pleased to hear that not many people bought his book. It serves him right.

Just one thing that bothered me. If he was so messed up about his lying then how can he pin point when he started. If he consciously did it he could. Therefore I think he did it on purpose and now is trying to cover his tracks. He thought he was so smart that he could get away with it and he wasn't. Now he has to find a way to make himself look like a victim when he isn't.

ATTENTION PLEASE!

Just a reminder to those of you who attended class last week, and a heads-up for you who did not:

Because we have two February/Monday holidays (Presidents' Day and MLK Day), the university requires we teach Monday classes on Tuesday this week. This means that tomorrow night is really not Tuesday in the eyes of USU, it's Monday -- which means we don't have class tomorrow, since some actual Monday class most likely has dibs on our classroom.

This also means that your second film commentary (Shattered Glass) won't be due until we meet next week. So, you have a week of grace on that assignment.

For those of you who weren't in class last week when we discussed this, your commentary should expand on the message of the movie and connect it with events from your own experience as well as philosophies of ethics. Recapitulations or reviews of the movie's plot will not be accepted as commentary.

Science Reporting and Religion

On the subject of loyalty, how would you report a story in which scientific results conflict with religious beliefs?

This is far from a hypothetical exercise.

Consider, for example, this current story from the Los Angeles Times...

Bedrock of a Faith Is Jolted

DNA tests contradict Mormon scripture. The church says the studies are being twisted to attack its beliefs.

By William Lobdell
Los Angleles Times Staff Writer

February 16, 2006

From the time he was a child in Peru, the Mormon Church instilled in Jose A. Loayza the conviction that he and millions of other Native Americans were descended from a lost tribe of Israel that reached the New World more than 2,000 years ago.

"We were taught all the blessings of that Hebrew lineage belonged to us and that we were special people," said Loayza, now a Salt Lake City attorney. "It not only made me feel special, but it gave me a sense of transcendental identity, an identity with God."

A few years ago, Loayza said, his faith was shaken and his identity stripped away by DNA evidence showing that the ancestors of American natives came from Asia, not the Middle East.

"I've gone through stages," he said. "Absolutely denial. Utter amazement and surprise. Anger and bitterness."

For Mormons, the lack of discernible Hebrew blood in Native Americans is no minor collision between faith and science. It burrows into the historical foundations of the Book of Mormon, a 175-year-old transcription that the church regards as literal and without error.

...

More at the link.

Playing it safe?

Media Run or Report?

Jen raises the issue of how much journalists should risk to do their jobs, in her "Run or Report" post.

The Committee to Protect Journalists tracks these statistics. You may be surprised at the number of journalists who've died in the line of duty.

RE: Ethics and political cartoons

Media Ethics and political cartoons

Good point to consider, from the Toronto Star:

The atheist and the moderate Muslim:
When it comes to taking offence, we all need to do some growing up

"If being offended is such a necessity to your enjoyment of life or your sense of self, think about the censorship you implicitly advocate. Consider that you may not be the one who gets to decide what is offensive and should be banned. Maybe it will be me. I guarantee you wouldn't like it."

Commentary on Cheney Story

The Christian Science Monitor has a good analysis by Linda Feldmann on the media feeding frenzy over the Cheney story...

Right or wrong, the White House press corps has behaved like a dog with a bone over the story of Vice President Cheney's hunting accident.

How many people get hurt when journalists lie?

What can you say about a trusted professional who makes stuff up and publishes it as fact? Salon's Jack Shafer has something to say about that.

The Jayson Blair Project: How did he bamboozle the New York Times?

Loyalties?

Journalists:
I think it is a tie between their publishers or editors and the public. It should truly be the public but how can a journalist keep their job if they go against the superiors? It is most likely they would get fired. However they should have their first priority to inform the public. Again if they do not inform the public well enough they could lose their jobs.
They have to balance very carefully on a teeter-tater. They are in the middle and the public is on one side with the publishers and editors on the other. If one side is catered to more then the journalist crashes off.

PR Practioners:
Their loyalty is completely with the company or organization that hired them. Their goal is to inform people about the good sides of the company and not the bad. They must tell the truth about the company but maybe not all of the truth. They only have to tell the good truth and not the bad. They are on a merry-go-round of the company. It starts slow for them to get on but their information helps keep the company going and succeeding. If they do not keep total loyalty to their company and step a foot off the merry-go-round, they will fall off and probably lose their jobs.

It is different for journalists and PR practitioners. They have different loyalty dilemmas. I believe professional loyalty is important but not more than personal loyalty. For example, if a reporter writes something about a local political group that gets published. However, her editor took out some facts and quotes that would have made the politicians look good, what should she do? She has to be loyal to her editor or get fired but she believes more in the loyalty to inform the public of the truth to the best of her ability. She quit and will not work for her again. Luckily she had that option but journalists don't always.

Loyalties & The Media

I am in agreeance with just about everybody in that the media's loyalties should lie with the public. But the question is, what public? To a nation's public? To the world public? Speaking of which, here's the latest scoop on the Danish Cartoon of the Muslim Prophet.

I think that the recent fiasco with the Danish cartoons is a great example that the media sometimes has to think on a very large scale. I believe that they owe their loyalties to the public of the world. But does the truth vary from country to country?

For example, was the propaganda in WWII in the US justified? Most people would agree that the Nazi's weren't exactly the nicest people in the world. But our view of them at the time I'm sure was very different than their view of themselves. Wikipedia has an excellent page on The History of Propaganda

So there must be a line between loyalties to your nation's public and the public of the world. Is the truth really the truth in this case? I believe that there is a difference between the nation and the world, and that there is a line. Though I'm not really one to tell you where that line is.

And I'm sure that there are loyalties on different levels than just national and global. As I said, I'm not really sure where that line is, but.... I think Denmark might!

Ethics and political cartoons

A good discussion on NPR about political cartoons and violence —

Do Editorial Cartoonists Draw the Line?

Talk of the Nation, February 9, 2006 · The visceral — and in some cases violent — reaction in the Muslim world to Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad have raised all sort of questions about the freedom of speech and cultural sensitivity in a globalized world. It also reminds us of the power of the political cartoon.

Neal Conan talks to cartoonists Mike Luckovich of the Atlanta Journal Constitution and Ann Telnaes, whose work has appeared in many newspapers, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, about their craft. Joining the discussion is Stephen Hess, co-author of the book Drawn & Quartered: The History of American Political Cartoons.

Here's a link to the NPR site (and more cartoons), from which you can click to listen to the interview.

Thinking about loyalties

For Josiah Royce, an American philosopher-theologian in the early 20th Century, who taught at Harvard, loyalty was an integral part of moral development. He believed loyalty was the most important ethical principle and that if we practiced being loyal, we would automatically make good ethical decisions.

Here are some questions to think about: Using "Absence of Malice" or current news events, can you see specific problems that result from making loyalty a guiding principle? To whom do you believe journalists owe loyalty? What about public relations practitioners? Where does loyalty rank on your own scale of professional values?

Cinnamon Danish

Cinnamon Stillwell, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, has a good analysis of the Danish Cartoon Kerfuffle.

Ethics & A Movie

Anchor Name movie1

After watching the film Absence by Malice, quite a few media-ethics issues have surfaced. For all those readers like me who have a short attention span, I'll just put this into a list instead of paragraph form.

1. Okay, looking at the file which was (purposely) left on the investigators desk is pretty obviously an issue to question.

2. Some of the information published in the newspapers was detrimental to the lives of innocent (until proven guilty) individuals. I'm not just talking about "Boo hoo, that article hurt my feelings" or that somebody was offended, but take as an example the point where Gallagher’s workers went on strike. When Megan published the article about the abortion, Teresa committed suicide. Granted, suicide is a choice, but not one that comes lightly.

3. Megan tried to record her lunch with Gallagher without his knowledge. That’s pretty sly and deceitful.

4. At one point in the movie, Gallagher says to Megan, "Tell you or the world?" and Megan says "What does it matter? The truth is the truth." This was after the point in the movie where Teresa asks Megan is she can share something with her and have her not publish it in the paper. Megan says that she can't promise anything. So, my question is this - is Megan obligated to report everything she learns? Does Megan ethically reserve the right to withhold information from the media/public? Does it really matter as long as it's the truth? My take on that is that the media's job is to serve the public, and the public is comprised of individuals, so individuals must be taken into the equation There's no real definitive line that can be drawn, but at some point, yes, I believe that it is ethical to withhold certain information from the public to help individuals.

5. Going hand-in-hand with the previous bullet is the quote by Megan's publisher "I know how to print what's true, and I know how to not hurt people; But I don't know how to do both at the same time." I just thought that was an interesting quote to ponder. It ties in with the previous point in that there is often a very blurred line between what needs to be published for the public and what needs to be withheld for individuals.

6. Finally, I was intrigued by the ending where someone asks Megan what they should print about Megan's relationship with Gallagher. Megan replies "Just Say that we were involved." Then Megan is asked "Is that the truth?" and replies "No, but it's accurate." That seemed to be a little different than the Megan whom we had seen throughout the film up until the end. Could it be that Megan's outlook on ethics had been changed during the course of the film, or could it be that Megan simply had the tables turned on her?

Instructions for your film commentaries

Recapping what I told you last week in class:

Pick your favorite philosopher (choose from those covered in the text and my lectures). Then choose the one ethical problem, from your own "laundry list" or someone else's, that nags at you the hardest. Write 2 to 3 pages, typed and doublespaced, on the problem and what you think your philosopher would have to say about it, as well as the resolution he/she would offer.

It's not enough to be indignant or to scold the unprincipled principals in this story; what's important is coming up with a solution. Avoid the simplistic black-and-white prescriptions such as "well, if Megan hadn't peeked at the file on Rosen's desk in the first place none of this would have happened and Teresa Perone would still be alive. It's a slippery slope, blah blah blah..."

Ideally, this paper should lead you to formation of an ethic or "best practice" you would want yourself and all journalists to follow.

Questions? Ask them in the comments below this post.

Absence of Malice...a laundry list

This movie definitely had problems. A few I noticed were...

1. Elliot leaving the file about the investigation of Gallagher on his desk so a reporter could read it.
2. Megan reading Gallagher's file and then printing a story with no real attempt to contact Gallagher.
3. Megan trying to secretly record Gallagher talking to her but only getting caught.
4. Megan becomes romantically involved with Gallagher, a source in a continuing story.
5. Printing Gallagher's alleby of going with Teresa to get her abortion. Even if Teresa asked Megan not to name her or tell about her abortion. It results in Teresa's suicide.
6. Megan telling Gallagher that she got her information from Elliot Rosen.
7. Printing a story about Gallagher paying off the District Attorney, Quinn, when it could cost her source his job and he specifically told her as a friend and not a reporter.

I really believe the biggest issues were started with Megan snooping in the investigation file and printing the story with no attempt to contact Gallagher. She then would have had no contact with Gallagher and not possibly become romantically involved with him. She would not have become interested in Gallagher and therefore print Teresa's abortion and then her suicide would not have resulted. Then she would have not found out about the possible bribary of Quinn by Gallagher. It was just one series of events that could have been stopped with Megan not snooping. But that is just one opinion. Who knows if Megan still could have become romantically involved with Gallagher even if she just looked in the file and not print the story.

Just a side note... the biggest problem for me about this movie was when Megan's editor said that a journalist can print the truth or not hurt people but they can't do both. That just got me thinking.

Political Cartoonery

The media is abuzz with stories and commentaries about the furor in Europe over the publication of Danish political cartoons lampooning Islamic terrorism. The stories about the stories change the intent from the expression of political opinion to the consequences of expressing political opinion.

Meanwhile, back in the States, the media is abuzz about yet another consequence of expressing political opinion, after two women — Cindy Sheehan and the wife of Congressman — were both ejected from the audience of the State of the Union address because they were wearing T-shirts expressing opinions about the war. The two women's opinions canceled each other out, as one had an anti-war message, and the other had a pro-administration message.

But the Capitol Police were left with egg on their face for engaging in a practice that deflated the President's lofty call for spreading democracy around the world.

This item just in from NPR's Day to Day...

The online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which allows users to edit entries on a wide range of subjects, has banned Capitol Hill computers from the editing process. The reason? Hill staffers tend to write glowing entries about their bosses. Alex Chadwick talks with Andrea Seabrook about some of the worst offenders, and just how far-ranging the problem is getting.

The story on the NPR web site includes links to lists of such self-serving edits by House and Senate staffers.

Part of all that I have met

Like so many others who have posted, it is hard for me to determine the exact beginnings of my current ethics and philosophy. I have to attribute the foundatoins of it to my wonderful parents who taught me in word and by example much of what I still believe and attempt to live. They always taught me to be kind, courteous, fair, and unoffensive. I remember lessons on honesty, vulgarity, and other such things, and the fixed punishments for misbehavior. They weren't abusive or controlling, but loving and supportive, giving me respect and freedom. Their disappointment was more motivating to me than any physical punishment. I wanted to live a good life to make them proud of me and become the type of people they were. As with most children, the "Golden Rule" was stressed heavily.

Other factors that contributed heavily to my ethical growth include: religeon, friends, teachers, and life experience. Religeon was stressed heavily in my early years, and since I have come to choose for myself and found it my own belief from which I base most of my ethical standpoint. I am LDS and try to live by the standards taught therein. I have lived in a predominantly LDS community most of my life, and therefore been influinced by many, many people of my own faith. My friends have not always been LDS but have often shared the same values and reinforced in me my convictions of what is ethical and what isn't. These influences have produced in me what I would mainly call pluralistic values.

The other main factor that contributes to my ethical standpoint is a utalitarian streak that I believe is the foundation of much of the United State's constitution. While I am a religeous person, I don't believe that those views should be forced on anybody. I believe that ethics, especially in the media, require a utalitarian view if they are to function properly. Not everybody will believe the same or feel the same; therefore, it is the responsiblility of the media, and even the government to do what is best for the greatest number of people. I will say that there is more to it than that, we shouldn't blatantly cause harm to another included party, but ovelrall, I think this is a utalitarian view.

I find it interesting to note that my ethical views are slightly different when in different circumstances. In a government position I believe in different ethics than I do on a personal level. Ethics, to me, are very circumstantial.

roots appear

When hearing things like "ethical philosophy" it makes me think of something important and serious. However when I view my personal values I don't always see them in a serious note. Since growing up with a very opinionated family I was allowed to think pretty freely. That is within the perameter of a Mormon girl in a religious family. Don't get me wrong, I was raised quite well. I however feel at odds within even my religion and gender.

I was the only girl with three little brothers and masculine father. I was taught to do unto others as you want done unto them. However as I grew out of my little kid sharing stage I developed a more moderation concept. That finding a middle like Aristotle has proved helpful. However I always had a struggle with the gender differences. Then when Nancy told us about Carol Gilligan I just wanted to leap for joy. This could be something I viewed with personal experiences affecting ethical choices as well as your gender. I now must look into her more and continue digging into myself as well.

Ethics & Roots

I didn't really grow up with religion playing any part in my life at all. My parents really only provided ethical guidance when it was obvious that I screwed up. Although I screwed up quite often, I didn't often get caught. :-)

Although my parents didn't often provide direct moral guidance, they did somehow sneak in some guilt trip into my personality. I'm still trying to figure out how they managed that one. For years it was the personality trait of the said guilt trip which would guide me. For the most part, I think it did a pretty decent job.

I graduated from high school in 2003, and promptly flew from Maine to Utah to begin college. When I entered college I also joined the Air Force ROTC here at USU.

The US Air Force has a set of three 'Core Values', "Integrity First, Service Before Self, & Excellence In All We Do". Two years of Air Force ROTC and a month of Field Training has engrained in me, above all else, "Integrity First". Due to circumstances mostly out of my control, I am no longer in ROTC. But the training instilled in me a sense of integrity.

Going back in time a little now, I began dating someone back in Maine. We moved to Utah together, and dated here for a while more. Overall, we for a few years. When we broke up, I didn't take it very well. I conducted myself in a very poor manner, and lost a lot of self-respect over how I behaved.

Between an obnoxious guilt trip personality, ROTC, a poor breakup, most of my actions revolve around whether I think something’s ethical and whether I be able to respect myself or not.

I think that my perception about whether an action is ethical or not tends to be very virtue-based (Kant), but occasionally utilitarianism. For example, I generally consider lies unethical, but there are always the bizarre exceptions to the rule.

Sting Journalism

BBC Radio World Service carried a story this morning on a burgeoning niche in media called Sting Journalism, in which reporters go undercover to dig out and expose corruption in government. In some cases, amateur accomplices who are not professional journalists are recruited to aid in the process of discovering what the government is up to. The amateur accomplices occasionally employ their own brand of corrupt practices to get the story.

Here is a column by Vir Sanghvi on the ethics of sting journalism.

Living by the code

Here's the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics.

Journalism majors: Can you embrace this? Do you believe your chosen profession lives by it?

Non-journalists: What do you think? Do the mass media, in your experience, live by their own code?

Here comes a lifeline...

If you're having trouble reading the assignment for tomorrow's class (the notes on philosophers) from the link on the syllabus, try this one instead:

http://webs.wofford.edu/kaycd/ethics/index.html

Ethics, values and what not

I'm new to the blogger, as are all of us, and just wanted to say a bit about what I value, as it is a blog about media ethics (and as it is an assignment.) I would say the top five things that I value are: devotion to God, family, and friends; honesty; morality; kindness; and determination. I don't really believe that the media upholds many of these values in its pursuits, but rather values ratings, money, fame, and drama. The one thing that I will say for the media and its goals, is that it does value truth and letting the world know about what is really going on. I am happy that they do try, but believe that they are too concerned with ratings and sells to publish some of what they should. It isn't entirely there fault, as we as consumers determine what they print by what we buy. I won't say that excuses them, but it does explain their actions.

Moultonic Values

Since the Media Ethics class is doing an exercise sorting out declarations of personal values from perceptions of media values, I thought it might be fair to unveil any mystery about my values.

My values have changed a bit since I first did a Values Clarification Exercise a few decades ago. Back in the late 70's, when I was in mid-career, I listed my values as Creativity, Wisdom, Integrity, Achievement, and Freedom.

Today, I would list them as Insight, Innovation, Creativity, Functionality, and Peace.

I haven't thought too much about Media Values, but it occurs to me that Storycraft, Attention, Accuracy, Integrity, and Leadership are typical media values.

It occurs to me that one of the biggest challenges facing the media is the need to tell a coherent and compelling story without compromising the essential truth.

I imagine there must be times when a news-oriented journalist envies the gifted novelist. Fiction-writing is a great scam. A novelists gets to tell the truth while pretending to lie.

Larry & The World

Anchor Name larrysworld

In scrolling down, you will find two other posts about Brokeback Mountain and Larry H. Miller; Miller’s Goal & Larry H. miller pulled Brokeback.... I guess that I just didn’t realize the scale of this action, but apparently it’s gained worldwide attention. I thought that most of the buzz was just confined to Utah, but I’m assuming that when the Newsweek article says “Even in predominantly Mormon Utah, where one theater owner cancelled its scheduled showings” (4^th paragraph down), it is referring to Larry H. Miller. According to the Salt Lake Metro, “Media outlets in China, the U.K. and Australia carried the story”.

Another headline from the slmetro.com said “Megaplex 17 Also Pulls Transamerica”, which is about a “a pre-operative male-to-female transsexual”. This is the first time I’ve even heard about this movie, so maybe I’m just out of the loop….again. I wonder if this will also cause a big stir in the blogosphere. Maybe we'll hear more about Larry Miller. Keep your eyes open!

a student's values are planted

To start off... My name is Angel Larsen. I am majoring in print journalism and am excited to be a senior. I live in Brigham City with my husband, two cats, one dog (hopefully two soon) and about 45 cows. Enough about that for now.

What I view as important (not in any order):
Family
Financial security (especially as a farmer)
Honesty
Willingness to admit mistakes
Religion

What I think the media values:
Celebrities
Money and profit
Truth
Fair or unbiased reporting
Awards

I think that my personal values have evolved through my experiences. Having moved a lot in my life I had to depend on family over friends. As an elementary student we moved sometimes twice a year. I learned to quickly appreciate my family and for them to be some of my closest and greatest friends. Also as a young child I learned to be honest and admit when you are wrong. I watched as my father quit a job because he was not willing to "fix" financial records for his company. This showed me that honesty was more important than a job. That a person can replace a job but not honesty. Marrying a farmer again exemplified the importance of honesty. With my husband's example he has shown that people respect an honest, poor person over a dishonest, rich person. With my marriage came the end of the financial security I knew growing up. Now trying to prepare for the future is risky because we don't know if milk will stay or drop in price. With my belief that honest people succeed falls in religion. Throughout my life it has helped me make it through all the moves and problems. Enough blabber...onto the media.

I think that what the media values and does are not always the same things. When it comes to people, only the famous or unique or law-breaking people seem to make the news. Everyday citizens are often ignored. I don't think by mistake but because it is hard to sell stories without important people or events happening. However, if a reporter looks hard enough, everyone has a unique story to tell. Sadly, a concern with money has overrun the reporting in some media publications. Selling that five more subscriptions becomes more important than getting that source that truly has a story. With the money problem has also evolved an award obsession. Who got that? Or who received such and such is more important than reporting now days. However, sometimes the problems with the media overshadow the positive aspects. Most newspapers or broadcast stations still try to find the facts and truth and report unbiased stories. It just seems that the negative hides the positives.

Values & Such

Anchor name Values

I'm David Kennedy. I grew up along the northern coast of Maine. I'm a junior, majoring in computer science. My Blog is http://apt13times.blogspot.com Some of my top values are integrity, knowledge, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Okay, the last three sound like I just copied them, but seriously....I think they're good ones. I feel that the media values a good story, ratings, disaster, knowledge, and freedom.

At one point in our history, the media would try to ‘protect’ people like the president. For example, people’s views of Franklin Roosevelt (not Teddy Roosevelt) didn’t need to be tainted by the images of his physical handicap, so they were rarely shown. However, in modern times, it seems as if the media views themselves as the guard against ‘Big Brother’. That is, it is their responsibility to bring to light the scandals, cover-ups, and secrets. The word The History Channel uses is 'WatchDog'. As obnoxious as this can be at times, I think that these tendencies stem from the respectable values of knowledge and freedom.

Although I'm not going into the media, I figure that learning a few more ethics could be good for anyone.

Speaking of the Media's ethics, there's a cartoon portraying the Media As A 'Double Edged Sword'.

Memoirs: Fact, Fiction or Storytelling License?

The Poynter Institute, the New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, Newsweek, Time Magazine, and the Christian Science Monitor (among many others) are all carrying stories this week, in the wake of recent disclosures that a best-selling memoir endorsed by Oprah Winfrey's book club blurs fact and fiction in the interest of good storytelling.

A slavish attention to factual detail can make a story impenetrably dense. A little hyberbole can spice up a tale, by bringing out the inherent drama. It's a fine line between sticking to the facts and weaving a coherent story that holds the reader's attention.

Death & Politics

Supreme Court upholds Oregon assisted-Suicide Law. (MSNBC)
At first glance, it seems that the only interest here is the right to suicide for the terminally ill. But upon closer inspection, I found there to be some political points of interest.

The Supreme Court upheld the law 6-3, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Scalia, voting against. This must imply, by the process of elimination, that the other Justices (Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, & Breyer) must have voted for. See A Listing Of Justices.

Those Justices considered conservative voted against, while those considered moderate and liberal voted for. O'Connor, well known for being a 'Swing' voter, has announced her plan to retire. To replace her, President Bush has nominated Samuel Alito. Conservatives hope that Alito will be able to swing the Supreme court to the right, and Justice Kennedy is expected to become a more influential swing voter with O'Connor's retirement. Kennedy is a conservative who sometimes swings towards the liberal side in cases involving topics like gay rights and capitol punishment.
See More Cases Currently In The Supreme Court

Into the pot, already boiling...

Hello, out there!

Welcome to the grand adventure -- Utah State University students in JCOM 4010, Mass Media Ethics, will push far beyond boring research papers this semester and blog our explorations here.

Our goals?

-- Banish the darkness by shedding light on the subject so it becomes more than a tired old joke ("Media ethics? Isn't that an oxymoron?").

-- Discover models and tools that make ethical decisions clearer, and read a few philosophers (Aristotle, Mill, Kant, Rawls and others) who thought well and deeply about ethics.

-- Practice thinking our way to clarity by writing. It's really true: we often don't know what we think about an event or case until we try to write it clearly.

There's more, but that's enough to let you know what you're into here. Join us, please!