"As a rule, journalists should always question the ethics of politicians and public relations practitioners because these two groups consistently have their own best interests at heart," Berrin Beasely writes in her essay, "Political Manipulation of the Media: Wag the Dog." Do you agree or disagree? Why?
Please respond by Tues., Feb. 28, 4 p.m. No late responses will be accepted.
Teaching Notes
You must become the flame on the candle. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is Media Ethics Education DOA?
It sounds like a joke Jay Leno would tell during his opening monologue on The Tonight Show. Hear about the graduate students at the prestigious journalism school? They got caught cheating on an ethics exam. Ha ha ha. Except that’s actually what happened at Columbia University
No one admitted cheating despite pressure from the school’s administrators and pleas from classmates, who feared the scandal would damage the market value of their degrees. Meanwhile, the teacher of the course, New York Times columnist Samuel G. Freedman, refused to comment. But if the disgruntled posts on RateMyProfessors.com are any indication, his students hadn’t exactly been soaking up knowledge. “Maybe he could e-mail his ‘speeches’ to the students instead of making everyone suffer through the most wasted class in j-school. . . ,” one read.
There’s an old cowboy saying that goes, “When your horse dies, get off.” Journalism ethics education is a dead horse. Or else those aren’t vultures circling in the sky.
No one admitted cheating despite pressure from the school’s administrators and pleas from classmates, who feared the scandal would damage the market value of their degrees. Meanwhile, the teacher of the course, New York Times columnist Samuel G. Freedman, refused to comment. But if the disgruntled posts on RateMyProfessors.com are any indication, his students hadn’t exactly been soaking up knowledge. “Maybe he could e-mail his ‘speeches’ to the students instead of making everyone suffer through the most wasted class in j-school. . . ,” one read.
There’s an old cowboy saying that goes, “When your horse dies, get off.” Journalism ethics education is a dead horse. Or else those aren’t vultures circling in the sky.
A Question for Socrates
The question of how ethics is learned, or even if it can be, is as old as Western philosophy. In Plato’s dialog Meno the title character asks, “Can you tell me, Socrates, whether virtue is acquired by teaching or by practice; or if neither by teaching nor practice, then whether it comes to man by nature, or in what other way?” Of course, Socrates, being Socrates, resists giving a definite answer. But we can’t. The sad fact is, students had better get an effective ethics education now or they may never.
Last summer I conducted an ethics workshop for some reporters and editors at the Poughkeepsie Journal, a small daily in upstate
But what I remember most is the air of defeat that clung to the staff as we sat on hard plastic chairs in the break room discussing the cases. I could hear in their voices the bitterness and cynicism of employees forced to follow corporate policies they despised. Recently, for example, the paper had started running display ads on the front page and section fronts, a much more grievous ethical lapse, their mumbled asides suggested, than anything the case studies might have to offer.
I don’t want my students to ever wear the gray, defeated expression I saw that day on the faces at the Journal. But given the downward direction in which the media are moving, and fast, how in the world can I prevent it from happening?
Teaching Media Ethics by Telling Stories
A friend of mine who teaches at a big Midwestern university recounts in class the events of her first week as a reporter for the Minneapolis Tribune. She was sent to Duluth to cover Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey on the campaign trail. When they were introduced, Humphrey vigorously shook her hand. “Oh yes, Susan,” he said, “I read your stuff all the time.” He couldn’t have read her stuff, though; she hadn’t written anything yet. “Just a few words,” she explains to her students, “but words that taught this fledging reporter a great lesson about pols and the little lies they tell.”
I usually find occasion during the semester to quote I. F. Stone’s dictum, “Every government is run by liars and thieves, and nothing they say should be believed,” to make the same point. But Susan’s story makes the point better. That’s because it has existential force. Her story vividly captures in a way a secondhand quote can’t the realities of a reporter’s life.
Some might think telling “war stories” is a waste of precious class time. I’ve a colleague who didn’t want to fall into the “trap” of regaling students with stories ad nauseam (“which, let’s face it, is easier than teaching or grading,” he said). So one semester he kept track. When he toted it all up at the end, he was surprised that he’d used less than an hour - out of 45 – talking about his newspaper experiences. And yet, he admitted, it was his stories that students seemed to remember most.
“Stories teach us how to live,” Daniel Taylor said in his essay, “The Ethical Implications of Storytelling.” What he meant was that stories preserve our experience for contemplation and evaluation. Although not all stories carry a heavy message, there’s an entire category of stories, so-called “exemplary tales,” that are told to convey a moral.
Our war stories are potentially just such tales. They can provide evidence, in ethicist John Barton’s words, of “how real human beings live through various crises and trials and remain human.” My colleague who kept tabs on his storytelling has described his stories as cautionary. Most, he said, deal with “screwups I learned from.”
But sometimes the storyteller and the audience can’t agree on what exactly the moral of a story is.
When Susan was a cub reporter on the Tribune, she interviewed the Beatles, who were on their second tour of the States. She got into their hotel room by dressing up as a waitress in an ugly, mustard-colored uniform and accompanying an actual room service waiter upstairs. Ringo took one look at her little plastic name tag – it read “Donna Brown” – and snorted, “What kind of name is that?” The waiter nudged her in the side. “Tell them what you real name is,” he urged. She did, as well as her reason for being there. Rather than throw her out, the Beatles politely answered her questions. They even let her phone for a photographer. The next day her story ran on the front page, with a photo of John sitting at a table and looking up at her and laughing as she poured coffee in his cup. She still has a glossy print of that photo somewhere.
Many of Susan’s students think she’s nuts for not having the photo hanging up in her office. They also think she’s nuts for saying she’d never participate in the same kind of stunt today. To her celebrity-struck students, disguising herself as a hotel waitress to get an interview with the Beatles seems soooo cool. They lose all sight of the fact that it wasn’t a story of vital public interest that demanded undercover methods.
Susan intends one lesson when she talks about her hard day’s night, but her students, living in a paparazzi-saturated culture, draw another. “It may be a lost cause,” she remarked to me.
Or maybe not. Negotiations over what the point of a story is can be part of the point of the story. In the process of negotiating, we test different interpretations, try out different themes. This is helpful. This is educational. Lawrence Kohlberg, the Harvard psychologist famous for his research on the stages of moral development, contended that “the teaching of virtue is the asking of questions. . . not the giving of answers.” Stories don’t necessarily have to yield clear moral rules to be of value. It’s enough sometimes if they just give us something to think about.
27 comments:
I'm not sure if I agree that politicians and public relations practitioners CONSISTENTLY have their own best interest at heart, but I do think that that is most often the case. For that reason, I absolutely agree that journalists should always question the ethics and motives of these people. It is very clear from this chapter that politicians and public relations practitioners should not be seen as reliable sources, because they are the people journalists should be examining. The chapter mentions Noam Chomsky's point that "by relying on official government sources for information, the press can be manipulated by the same people they are charged with monitoring." Because of this, journalists should investigate additional sources to verify the information provided by politicians and public relations practitioners. In every aspect, journalists should be discerning and skeptical, especially when dealing with the government.
-Charlene
I do not agree with this statement because I do believe there are exceptions to the stereotype of the cold-hearted and manipulative politician or public relations practitioner. I think journalists need to check statements given to them for truth, not for ethical content, just like they would from any other source. Public relations people have a job to present information in a way that is very positive and to the benefit to their client, this is true. This does not mean that they are always out for themselves at any cost and always have to lie on the behalf of their client. There may be some that do but they are also very many that don’t and actually uphold their own ethical code. Like I said, I do believe that journalists should still check their facts from them just like they should from any source. It is always better to have more information and perspectives from multiple views than from just one person. The movie discussed in the chapter did examine what happens when you exclude all view points and then report with abandon. This could have been information coming from anywhere that they decided to just run it – by the end of the movie it sounded like the news was taking information where ever they could get it. Public officials and relations practitioners do their job well when, they do well by their client, while keeping the truth intact. A journalist does their job well when they check their sources and continues to keep truth intact.
In essence I would say that I do not agree with the sentiment that politicians and public relations practitioners always have their own best interests at heart. However, I would not say that that statement does not hold any sort of water (after all they don't call public relations the "spin cycle" for no reason). Take for example all of the lies (faulty reports on BP's part of how much oil was actually leaking) and deceit of the BP Oil Gush or Bill Clinton's attempt at smoothing over his scandal after he got caught in a lie by stating he didn't have "sexual intercourse", not that he never had any sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, both of which exemplify instances in which the truth was shaped to give some sort of a run around.
That being said, I would rather state that public relations in it's many forms is simply dirty by nature, not by the people involved. For example, in the film "Thank You for Smoking", Aaron Eckhart portrays a tobacco lobbyist (and a good one at that). Throughout the movie (short hand version), we become attached to this man (Nick Naylor) who despite going about lobbying for cigarettes, attempts to remain a positive role model for his son. Obviously, his job and its' inherent responsibilities are deplorable, but is Naylor a bad person? Maybe (since he took the job and accepts the money for it). Or is it the job, that makes him a bad person? Personally, I think its' the profession itself, and thus that must be what is questioned and viewed with the proverbial "stink-eye".
As for the other aspect of the statement regarding journalists questioning these individuals, I personally feel as if it should be inherent in journalism to always make sure some one's word is factual, regardless of profession the person is involved in. This is because I do not agree with the idea that only politicians and public relations practitioners are the sole narcissists that roam the planet. Instead, I believe people only typically look out for themselves. After all, even the people who preach piety and morality, the church, has been guilty of spin throughout history for one reason or another (i.e. the recent sex scandal or indulgences). Thus, although it would be easier to just have to run over political and PR statements with a fine tooth comb, and just believe everyone else, we can't, because you never know who is going to try to put one over on you.
I’m not so sure I fully agree with what Beasely says in that quote. Sure, I understand where she is coming from and I can see how a movie like Wag The Dog backs up what she is saying, but I don’t think that it applies to all situations.
Yes, a lot of the times politicians and public relations practitioners have their own best interests at heart. But, who doesn’t these days? Those two groups of people are not the only ones that are looking out for themselves. I feel that today, almost everyone in any profession has their own best interests at heart. It’s human nature! I also don’t think that all public relations practitioners try to always manipulate the truth or ignore the truth. Good public relations practitioners make sure they don’t lie. In fact, lying should actually be forbidden. Granted, some do, but I don’t think it is fair to accuse every single person in PR of doing bad things.
That being said, I do think that journalists should check the facts and ethics of politicians and public relations. But, that’s because it’s their job too. Journalists should always be looking at all sides of a story, and therefore should be checking facts and ethics on all stories. Not just for politicians and public relations practitioners, but for the stories coming from and regarding all different types of people in all different professions. In order for journalists not to be biased they need to make sure they check all of these things. I just don’t think that it’s fair that Beasely singled out politicians and public relations practitioners when this is something that can be said about any profession or any person in any situation.
I think journalists should be wary about information they receive from pr practitioners and politicians. I don't think that all politicians and pr practitioners have different ethical standards than everyone else but they are responsible for presenting themselves and their clients in the best possible way. We examined a case where police officers also lied to journalists to keep a whore house open. People understand that journalists desire to have the story first and this makes it easier to manipulate them. Though I agree that politicians and public relations practitioners participate in this practice more often than not, other sources do this too regardless of their occupation. The role of a journalist is to seek the truth and report it. To do this, I think it is important to be somewhat aware of a person’s reason for disclosing this information. As we mentioned in class, if no one trusted anyone it would be difficult to get even the simplest task done. A journalist cannot sit down and get to know every source’s ethical standards but he or she can take precautions to make sure that the information he or she is getting is accurate. A politician or public relations practitioner should not be the only source consulted in a story. We see that more news sources are using press releases and video news releases as credible articles and tv news reports. Noam Chomsky says that journalists are supposed to be keeping an eye on politicians and by using them as credible sources it becomes easier for them to manipulate the watchdogs. Journalists should be hyper-aware of this fact and should make it a priority to know the truth before reporting it just to beat the competition. Journalists need to be skeptical of any information they receive, no matter who they receive it from.
Politicians and public relations practitioners should not be counted on as reliable sources. Journalists should always be checking the content on what the politician or public relation practitioner says. Journalists seek to tell the truth and should do this with any source of information that they are given. With this being said, I do not agree with the statement given. It is the journalists job to check facts. I do not think that all politicians and public relations practitioners lie but it will be the journalists fault for not checking the facts when they write an untrue story. It is in the journalists best interest to check the facts. Not only is it in the journalists best interest because they themselves do not want to be caught, but a good journalist should want to be faithful to their job and report the truth. A good journalists does not want to do bad reporting. Just like there are bad politicians who lie and cheat, there are journalists like this too. For instance, what we talked about in class when the women was making up all names. Journalists should not want to be like. The book was a good example of what could happen if you don't fact check. Journalists need to be skeptical of who and where they get their information.
In looking at this question, I'm not sure if I entirely agree that public relations practitioners or politicians have their own best interests. In my view, I believe that politicians are not interested in revealing certain kinds of information to journalists, I seem to have the impression that a lot of them are trying to avoid questioning or criticism. Then again, I'm not sure if I really understand this question. I guess it really depends on how some people feel about this concept. As silly as this might sound, I think that some politicians are unsure or put it in other words, afraid to give information that is held confidential and cannot be shared with journalists or reporters. Again, I could be entirely wrong.
I don't agree with Beasely's statement because there are exceptions to those two groups as well as in journalism. It's a given that all groups should make an ethical decision to follow their practice properly, but that's not always the case. Saying that politicians have their own best interest at heart is probably because it's being seen as the norm due to it happening so often. Politicians have been given a bad name because of how they present themselves. Yes, it may be that they are trying to persuade audiences to vote for them or follow their ways, but if they get support that is the fault of the followers because they have a mind of their own.
I don't agree with the statement that public relations practitioners have their own best interest at heart because they, just like journalists, have a job to do. They have their own ethical code that may (or may not) be followed and even though they are working for clients they still have a say in what should be presented.
All groups have a duty to present the truth to the public. Truth being such a loose term these days, has become something that can be manipulated or twisted by politicians, PR practitioners, and even journalists. I wouldn't narrow it down to just PR practitioners and politicians to "have their own best interest at heart" although that is the outer shell that they display. I feel that a job is a job at the end of the day and no matter what it is, there is a duty to be upheld which is to give information that's as close to the truth, while still fulfilling your ethical duty.
Overall, I do not agree with Berrin Beasley’s statement. I think that her statement is a generalization based off the stereotype of the cold-hearted public relations practitioner and politician. I do not think that it is true in all circumstances that public relations practitioners and politicians only have their best interests at hand without regard to the public. Both of these professions offer the truth yet with a spin to portray a certain image. Yes, some politicians and PR people do not have the highest standards of ethics but neither do all journalists. I think that it is still a journalist’s duty to seek the truth and fact check as they would with any of their sources for information. I do think that Beasley brings up an interesting point because people within these professions can be corrupt, yet I think what she says is also a harsh generalization. It is also evident through the other cases that we studied this semester that journalists can be dishonorable as well.
While I do disagree with the statement, I can see where Beasley is drawing her idea from. Humans, by nature, will do anything for self-preservation. Her theory basically states that a politician, like most people, will put their own interests ahead of the interests of the pubic. While this may be unethical for a politician or political figure (being that the whole point for these figures is to represent the pubic)it is merely human nature.
Beasely’s statement is a complex one, and one that I’m not sure that I can fully agree with. I believe that journalists should be wary of information that is obtained from politicians and public relations practitioners due to the fact that both provide a sort of skewed view of the truth that makes themselves viable candidates for election (or reelection) or puts their client in a more favorable light. I don’t always believe that the ethics of the two professions should be questioned (although I do find myself sometimes doing this), but I think that the motivations and intentions of politicians and PR practitioners should be questioned. Why are they presenting this version of the truth? How will this help them or their client? I think that it is always a journalists job to seek the most impartial and unbiased truth possible, and that is the problem when dealing with politicians and PR practitioners. Both professions tends to mold the truth to suit their needs rather than the needs of the public (specifically the right to know and the need to know). The more I write about this question the more I see that I agree with Beasely more than I disagree. I don’t believe that generalizations can be made that all politicians and PR practitioners are out for their own personal gain in all aspects of their lives, and I would hope that I would not have to “always question” their ethics. Wag the Dog, despite its satirical intention, does reveal the ways in which wars have been falsely created (like weapons of mass destruction, perhaps?) to avoid scandal. I would like to think that someone’s ethics would not have to be questioned because of their profession, but how can a journalist not be skeptical when they are receiving a calculated version of the truth? I guess I agree in a way, but I think that it’s the journalist’s job to make sure that they are not taken advantage of due to their impartial and (hopefully) unpartisan work. They should always vigorously seek the truth, but even more so when dealing with people who have something to gain from a warped version of it.
This statement is very difficult to fully agree with. I don't necessarily believe that politicians and public relations practitioners have their own best interests in mind all of the time. Certainly this is the case for some of them, but I believe most people go into those fields with the public best interests at heart rather than their own. The fact is that we do hear about some public figures being engaged in massive scandals where they were only looking out for themselves and taking advantage of other people. So, in regards to the other half of this statement, I do believe that journalists should always question the ethics of these groups, because of the fact that some politicians and PR figures have taken advantage of their position of power in the past. I also believe that journalists should question the ethics of groups like these, because that is what good journalists should do. Journalism requires a person to constantly check and double check information to make sure it is accurate and the truth is placed in the foreground for everyone to be aware of.
I do not agree with this statement by Berrin Beasely at all simply because journalist have to do their job. Meaning they must report the truth at all times no matter what they are reporting on or who journalists are reporting on. the truth should especially come out when stories are dealing with politicians or public relations practitioners. It is so frustrating hearing about if something is ethical or not when someone is dealing with high up in the food chain sorts of people like politicians and PR practitioners. If people would do what is right in the world nobody would have to worry about if something is ethical or not and it would not matter who's best interest a story was about. In this case journalist should continue to do their jobs by getting actual reliable sources and getting the truth out to the public no matter what the story is about.
There are two parts to this statement. The first states journalists should always question the ethics of politicians and public relations practitioners. The second states that this necessary critical spirit is a direct result of the selfish approach these two groups take regarding ethics. The cynical side of me agrees with this. When faced with the decision between a lie and a loss, I think it is fairly rare to find a politician or public relations practitioner who would opt for the latter. I think the sheer number of examples Beasley cites from the movie is a little dramatic but definitely within the realm of possibility, and is a sensationalized illustration of how these types of people operate. His statement reminds me of the movie Ides of March. Even George Clooney’s character, who seems to have all the right ideals, chooses (spoiler alert!) a lie when the truth would ruin his reputation as well as his campaign. However, I believe that journalists should question the ethics of everyone they interview. Everyone is out to protect their own best interests, and even if they weren’t, it is still a journalist’s job to make sure the facts she is reporting are correct. As it states in the SPJ code of ethics, a journalist’s fundamental responsibility is to “seek truth and provide a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.” And, as Beasley writes, good reporters should not bow “down to the pressures of competition and ratings,” they should instead always strive to “ask hard questions.” This sentiment stands true no matter what.
I believe that a journalist should absolutely question the motives of politicians and public relations practitioners. After reading the chapter it is clear that politicians will do whatever it takes to outshine any of their bad behavior with good behavior by manipulating the press. As for public relations practitioners, the chapter states that they are not " expected to adhere to the same ethical guidelines” as journalists. With that being said, isn’t it the responsibility of the journalist to report the truth, not the promotional act that politicians and pr practitioners put on?
If journalists let politicians and public relations practitioners manipulate them, they most certainly will. This creates a problem when it comes to who we choose to run the government. As stated in this chapter, obviously every person in the country cant watch a politicians every move to figure out if he or she is a trustworthy candidate who will fulfill all of his or her responsibilities. It is the job of the journalist to find out the real story about these figures for the public, so that the public can vote based on facts and form their own opinion on who will be the best candidate. If the candidate has such an issue with the press knowing the truth, then this should be quite the red flag for the public.
I believe that a journalist should absolutely question the motives of politicians and public relations practitioners. After reading the chapter it is clear that politicians will do whatever it takes to outshine any of their bad behavior with good behavior by manipulating the press. As for public relations practitioners, the chapter states that they are not " expected to adhere to the same ethical guidelines” as journalists. With that being said, isn’t it the responsibility of the journalist to report the truth, not the promotional act that politicians and pr practitioners put on?
If journalists let politicians and public relations practitioners manipulate them, they most certainly will. This creates a problem when it comes to who we choose to run the government. As stated in this chapter, obviously every person in the country cant watch a politicians every move to figure out if he or she is a trustworthy candidate who will fulfill all of his or her responsibilities. It is the job of the journalist to find out the real story about these figures for the public, so that the public can vote based on facts and form their own opinion on who will be the best candidate. If the candidate has such an issue with the press knowing the truth, then this should be quite the red flag for the public.
Although many people would say that the job of public relations practitioners and politicians is to inform the public while also having their best interest at heart, I do not agree that their main objective is to just satisfy themselves. Like journalists, both these groups of people have the responsibility to seek the truth and report it. However, like we discussed in class, each profession is specific to a specific topic, idea, etc, that the professional is completely trained in. For public relations practitioners and politicians there job responsibilities are different then that of a journalist. Even though all there positions require the same skill, in finding out the truth about something and reporting it, each one has a different way in obtaining this information, expressing it and sharing it with the public. Therefore, I believe that with any job for that matter the ethics should be questioned, but I do not think that these two jobs in particulars main objective is to fulfill what satisfy’s their own best interest only. They also have a responsibility to share with the public and inform them, just do it in different ways.
Similar to what the rest of the class has stated, I cannot fully support Beasely's claim that PR and politicians "consistently have their own best interests at heart." I would like to take the optimistic standpoint in assuming that politicians enter their field with a similar goal as journalists: to raise awareness and help the public. I'd rather not assume that all politicians enter elections and offices solely to fulfill their own personal goals with no regard for the citizens.
With that being said, the history of corruption and scandals that have loomed over politicians does enhance Beasely's generalization. Throughout high school and through the opinions of my family, I have grown up regarding politicians as dirty, sneaky, untruthful individuals that cannot be trusted while PR practitioners have had the reputation of being slaves to the head of whatever office they are involved with. Therefore, I can agree with Beasely when she says that journalists should always question the ethics and motives of politicians and PR practitioners, but as journalists we should be questioning each and every situation or statement we receive from a source, no matter who they are.
The government and politicians have provided the public with countless examples of why people should be skeptical of the information they provide media outlets. Sometimes they need to withhold information or stretch the truth to protect the country which is understandable, but overall politicians have earned the reputation they have been given.
Journalism’s code of ethics demands that journalists seek the truth and provide a comprehensive account of events and issues. It’s a journalist’s fundamental responsibility, but can be difficult with professional manipulators preventing that.
Journalists attribute information so that news consumers will know where the information originated and can decide on the veracity and usefulness of that information based on its source. Readers must rely on the skills and ethics of the reporter to verify the information, but reporters can be mislead by deceitful public relations practitioners and spin doctors.
For example, in the film Wag the Dog, fourteen days before the presidential election, a young girl accused the president of molesting her while she was touring the White House. Spin doctor Conrad Brean, “Mr. Fix it” then releases a story that is not true and does not exist to distract the media. This often happens today in real life with the government verses the media. “As a rule, journalist should always question and keep in mind the motives of the political figures and public relations firms”. Those two groups simply just think about themselves and hide the real stories from the world.
Public practitioners coach their clients how to “toy around” with the press. They release hundreds of official documents to reporters late on a Friday afternoon with embarrassing content buried in the document. Reporters get overwhelmed and panic. Wish only a short amount of time before deadline, the reporter in unable to review the information thoroughly. The PR firms release the information with a short amount of time on purpose so reporters rush to get the “news” out there before it gets old. Public relations do manipulate the press by doing that.
Public relations firms try to take control if bad press is released about their clients preventing the real truth reaching the public. Reporters need to be careful and test the accuracy of the information from sources then identify them in order not to fall into another PR trap.
This may be because of the way I am reading the question or thinking of it, but I agree with Berrin Beasely. As humans, we are all selfish in our own way. Even when giving a gift to another, we gain by feeling the joy of giving so it is not surprising for politicians and public relations practitioners to want what is best for them. The public has the right to know the motives of politicians and PRs because it affects the public as well and asking questions could always prevent misunderstandings.
Barrin Beasely’s chapter reminded me of the public’s reaction to Osama bin Laden’s death. Not only is the President’s first term closing in, but there is no evidence left as to whether this incident even happened or not. Even the body is apparently “burned at Sea,” and his resting place is unknown but most people watch the news or read the newspaper and believe he is dead.
A few days ago, I watched a Hindi movie named “Tere Bin Laden,” which is about an unpopular news show that gained popularity by finding a guy that looks like Bin Laden, making a fake video of him as the real Bin Laden and producing it to the world. The government, after watching the news, took action and in the end, even though the government found out it was all fake, they did not inform the public because it would ruin their credibility. This comes to show as Berrin Beasely said, “seeing is believing,” at least to the public’s eyes. It is up to the journalist to seek the truth and it does not hurt to question the ethics of politicians and public relations practitioners.
I agree. But I will take it one step further. I believe, for the most part, that all people have their own best interest at heart. Of course this would probably be met with a great deal of criticism if more than one person read it. I hold firm in my opinion. I have seen many people do many things and the ratio of selfish people to selfish people is staggering.
I understand that a lot of people fancy themselves as good, ethical people, but that is probably why so many choose to do little things that aren't necessarily "harmful" to anyone else. But maybe someone breaks the law every so often. Driving a little over the legal limit? Smoking a little weed? A little white lie every now and again never hurt anyone right? Plus I'm good all the time, it's not bad if I break the rules once in a while.
I am not saying this to be judgmental. I am only voicing my observations.
In the case of journalists, PR people, and politicians, who can you really trust anymore? As we have read in this story, everyone is susceptible to nonsense. Plus as we have seen in this course, sometimes journalists just straight-up lie to us.
I think journalists should definitely question the ethics of politicians and public relations practitioners. These jobs almost entail in their job titles that they should represent information in a way that suits their benefit. Particularly in Public Relations, employees are often forced to show positively biased opinions that may not be their opinion or may actually not be the whole truth. Sometimes they risk loosing their job or being stuck in low level positions if they do not sensationalise products or endorsements.
If journalists are to be considered real journalists they should put the effort in to analyse their sources bias and assess their motives for anything they say. The same for information from corporations. Otherwise we might as well let corporations and politicans write the newspaper.
I believe Berrin Beasely is definitely on to something here. I do not agree that public relations practitioners and politicians are always thinking about themselves and their interests, but I believe they do think about themselves more often then others. Journalists should definitely question public relations people and politicians, but not because their shady people, but because isn't that a journalists job? Not everyone is going to tell you truth, and this includes everyone, not just p.r. people and politicians. Journalists should always question and examine information closely to get the truth, or at least as close to the truth as possible. We all know not everything is black and white, but there has got to be some shades of truth. I believe politicians and public relations practitioners are given a bad reputation because of the people that have been shady in the business and just looked out for themselves. But is that the job? Its quite possible that you have to be selfish to be a politician or a public relations practitioner, but I hope this is not the truth. I'm sure there are some men and women in these positions that are quality moral people. People that want to change the world, help others, but also look after themselves and their clients. You should have two interests in life: others and yourself. You just have to keep everything in perspective.
Citizens of the United States usually elect their political leaders based on the facts, or fabrications, that journalists report on them. It’s in the public’s best interest that the details about political matters be as ethical and true as possible. Politicians have an ethical duty and responsibility to the citizens they are ruling. Since the power lies in their hands, it’s up to them to make good decisions that will bring the most good to the largest amount of people possible.
Unfortunately, politicians are known for only having their best interests in mind when it comes to their campaigning and leadership. They are known to lie, corrupt, steal, cheat, and over exaggerate. A journalist’s job is to seek the truth above all. If journalists don’t do everything in their power to find that truth then they are being just as unethical as the politicians.
Of course not all politicians are completely evil. Sometimes it’s only natural to have your best interest at heart. But politicians decisions can affect an entire nation of people, so they should really strive to be as ethical as possible
I mostly agree with Beasley's statement that,"As a rule, journalists should always question the ethics of politicians and public relations practitioners because these two groups consistently have their own best interests at heart." Someone mentioned in their post that it is human nature to have your own best interests at heart. This is true. In order to succeed, or have any sort of job or lifestyle, you must be looking out for your own best interest. That's fine. However, it's the way in which you go about practicing your position that can be put to question. Politicians and PR practitioners have a bad rep for a reason, because they consistently do outlandish things to get to success, no matter how dirty the deed. Sure, not everyone is like that, not everyone is the same, we're all different etc.etc. BUT the purpose of a politician is to get elected and to serve. The only way to get elected is to please people. There is NO way of pleasing everyone unless you pretend you want what everyone else wants. Of course there are those select few who generally want what the good of the public wants, but politicians will say and do what people want them to do so they can get elected. Their own self interest is getting elected and making themselves look good. It's all about their appearance, so I do believe it is in the best interest of the journalists to question the ethics of the politicians (because all they're trying to do is look good for the public). PR is essentially the same thing. It's about presenting a positive image of someone (even if that image isn't an 100% representation of the character of the person/product/etc). Both politicians and PR practitioners are concerned with a good image. If all you want is a good image, the easiest way to get it is to lie (that's to say if you aren't truly a good person, and i still believe good people exist). But it's just like high school. The most popular boys and girls weren't popular because they were good people, they were popular because they were good at presenting themselves, and underneath they weren't always the most "pure" people. Any profession that deals with promoting a good image of something is never going to outright tell you the bad, and usually the bad exists. That's why journalists should question, investigate and reveal.
Post a Comment