Please discuss whether the journalists described in the links below did "good work," as defined by Holly Stocking in our text. Explain why or why not. Your response is due by midnight, Mon., Feb. 10.
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/as-the-latest-christie-story-evolved-the-times-should-have-noted-a-change/?emc=eta1
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/media/banished-for-questioning-the-gospel-of-guns.html?hp&_r=0
Teaching Notes
You must become the flame on the candle. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Monday, February 3, 2014
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.
24 comments:
Both articles had interesting viewpoints. However, how can we describe whether a journalist did “good work” if they are limiting the rights of a person to express themselves? Also, does not adding the full details to a story or omitting important key facts in a case represent the impression of a “good work?” The first article expresses that in many cases a story evolves and no one ever takes note of the changes. An example of this situation occurred when it was stated that someone “had the evidence to prove that Mr. Christie knew about the now infamous lane closings at the George Washington Bridge in real time last September.” The point of this is that, the wordings were changed from “had the evidence” to “evidence exists.” In my opinion this cannot be described as good work if the journalist is giving inaccurate information. A good journalist is someone who has proof or makes and effort to show evidence of what story they are trying to convey. The second article was a partially different from the first one because it focused on how Dick Metcalf was banished for opinionating against the gun laws. I do not think it was a good job for Dick Metcalf to get banned for expressing himself against the gun laws. That is against the constitution and to me that is not fair for Dick to be banned for expressing himself. I believe that resulted in a conflict of interest and that the journalist was being biased because someone went against their beliefs.
Holly Stocking defines "good work" as beyond the code of ethics. Many circumstances that journalists find themselves in require a decision between two or more of the many parts of the code. It is up to their discretion to choose the most morally just of the few. That step beyond the raw sentences on the code is what makes the difference between good work on paper or good work with ethics. For instance, the fictional journalist, Meg Carter that Stocking uses as an example had to choose between revealing the truth for her subject's alibi or revealing private information of her source. Carter decides to "seek the truth" and report the information which consequently results in her source's suicide. It seems that within this circumstance, Carter ran with a story that would provide herself with success. With the two articles presented here, it seems that the journalists in all mentioned circumstances chose the lesser of the their ethical options. With the article that speaks of running Christie's story as something he knew versus evidence that simply existed, the author Kate Zernike chose that her story's timeliness was more significant than its accuracy. Following this, there also was no noting of the editing that did occur. Here, it seems Zernike and the paper did not want to draw attention to the mistake that occurred. With the article that is focused on gun journalism, the news outlets who refused to continue sponsoring Metcalf made an obviously unethical decision. Revealing an established and knowledgeable gun owner's opinion led to backlash from their audience. Should this discredit Metcalf's opinion though? Here, these outlets have robbed their public of hearing an opposing argument (despite whether or not they wanted it) and ruined Metcalf's career. In my opinion, each of the two articles posed here do not present "good work."
A reporter practicing good journalism is a result and reflection of ethical decision-making and skill, as discussed by S. Holly Stocking in the chapter, “What Is Good Work?” where the meaning of ‘good’ is twofold. It is possible to have work that is technically well-done but morally askew, as well as work that is technically poorly-done but morally straight.
In the case of Kate Zernike’s article in The Times on Governor Christie’s awareness of lane closings on the George Washington Bridge, the reporter went about acquiring her information in the correct way; she revealed her sources and wrote a clear and informative article. There is nothing wrong with her reporting. The lack of discretion came in her accusatory diction. It is a significant change from “had evidence to prove” to “evidence exists,” and if edits like this are not explained in a footnote, there could be more extreme instances where this lack of awareness could cause two individuals, who read different editions of the same article, to find a different emphasis and meaning in each.
As stated in the article, this was a highly competitive story and the argument that The Times should have waited until they thought critically about the wording doesn’t hold up when editors are eager to beat the competition, especially when edits are seemingly seamless for an online platform. This is where editing of online stories becomes dangerous, because there needs to be a set standard for stories that are consistently being updated as information is acquired. News has been available online for many years and one would think this would have been perfected by now. Did this reporter do good work? Though there was nothing morally crooked about this story, Stocking might suggest the word changes warrant Ms. Zernike’s reporting as lacking and rushed.
On the other side of things, the readers of Dick Metcalf’s column who threatened to cancel their subscriptions missed entirely the point he was making about these very individuals. In addition to writing for Guns & Ammo Magazine and appearing on television shows, Metcalf has been writing for four decades and thus has dedicated his life and career to the exercising of the first and second amendments. His editors initially publishing his column and then terminating his employment because of public reaction was in very poor taste. Either for financial reasons or concerns about popularity in the the firearms community, Guns & Ammo magazine said a great deal by firing this columnist. First, they are telling readers that his loyalty to the publication was meaningless and they they did not stand behind even his job description, which was to write columns about the merits and faults of gun ownership in America. Second, they bowed to the pressures of seemingly paranoid firearm owners, manufacturers, and advertisers whose main concern for their gun-owning peers is like-mindedness and exclusivity. Metcalf practiced good journalism according both of Stocking’s prerequisites for good journalism, but his editors did not.
Both of these articles demonstrated unique outlooks on ethical dilemmas that could ensue while in the field of journalism. In both situations I found myself disagreeing with the ethical decision made by the journalists. According to Holly Stocking "good work" can be defined two different ways. It can either be done by having something that is morally good but poor work, or something that is well done but morally unjust. This can easily be related back to both articles by exemplifying how "good work" can be construed in the workforce given a specific ethical situation. In the case of the first article regarding the Chris Christie Times article, the dilemma that was faced was that, should the Times have noted the slight alteration in the story in order to give the reader a better sense of the truth. With modern journalism requiring publications to be sent out at a faster and more rapid rate, it becomes very common for words to get misconstrued or altered. With this, publications to take into account their own faults if they are to publish something that is not the full truth. While this article, might have been "good work" it was not morally ethical. Times even admitted to their faults in that they should have had a follow up to acknowledge their mistake "I don’t believe there’s a correctible error in that initial lead,” he said. “But should there have been an editor’s note? Perhaps. I regret not suggesting that.” In the other article regarding gun control, Metcalf was banished from publications for simply speaking his mind on gun control. This is an example of something being morally right but not a well done piece of work. While Metcalf speaking truthfully about gun laws, his words did not shed good light on the magazine and thus lead to him being dismissed. This becomes ironic in itself because, while Metcalf was speaking on behalf of constitutional rights, the publication essentially took away his first amendment right by not allowing him to speak freely. All in all, good work can border on a thin line between stating what is right for your publication and readers and stating what is morally and ethically right for the greater good.
just to be clear: stocking says "good work" must be both technically and morally sound. . . it can't be one or the other. . . i must be both.
Both of these articles are definitely making in interesting comparison to “good work” and ethics. A journalist and a story have a very complex relationship. Although the writer may try to convey truths, it may come off as a manipulation due to word choice, and the existing stories that are already written about the situation at hand. In the first article, there really wasn’t hard evidence that Christie knew about the lane closures. Although the article was changed from “stronger wording” to “softer wording”, I’m not really sure that there is hard evidence supporting that hypothesis. Would I consider this article to be “good work?” Probably not. I don’t think there was enough evidence and clear cut facts to have published so much information based on fluff. The second article made me think more about this “good work” theory. I feel as though Mr. Metcalf is a pretty intelligent man, who was only speaking the truth. Based on the article, this man had a huge following and group of supporters, who clearly respected his opinion about gun laws. I think this article also showed a lot about the money game in this society, and how a business will take any action of there is a potential threat for them to lose money. Mr. Metcalf was doing the right thing, by voicing his morally correct opinions, but if that means other people are going to lose money, they aren't going to support him. I think it’s a really big shame that Mr. Metcalf got all of these repercussions for doing “good work”, but it just goes to show you the society that we live in.
Both articles are great examples of what Holly Stocking was talking about. Journalists are so quick to get the good story and provide it for the public. Some make the mistake in grabbing any information and using it to their advantage without looking at the bigger picture. I believe that having "good work" comes from having evidence to back up what you're talking about. You can't go by one source and think that's going to give you the winning ticket. I think in the first article, The Times was so quick to get the story first that they didn't question whether their information was 100% accurate or morally ethical. It's a pity that some readers don't question what they read. We're in a new age where information can be given to us so quickly that we're on to the next story without a second glance of any changes.
Readers should know the truth, not half of the truth. It shouldn't matter who gets the story first, but rather what information can explain and express the truth. In the second article, Dick Metcalf was simply expressing what he felt was right. He used information that provided factual evidence and he gets banned? I can see the major difference between Dick Metcalf and Meg Carter. Metcalf expresses himself and readers aren't keen to hearing the truth. The magazine rather have their readers on their side then a writer expressing information he thinks is reliable. But when Meg Carter is wheeling her way through and providing gaps within her story she gets away with it. There has to be something wrong in that logic.
According to Holly Stocking, “good work” is something that’s done efficiently that meets moral and ethical responsibilities.
In the article about Gov. Chris Christie, the wording that was used caused for some questionable conduct. She changed “had evidence to prove” to “evidence exists.” This changed should have been explained to the readers because it’s extremely different. This is an example of rushing a story to beat the competition, rather than waiting and having an accurate story. This is a thing that’s caused trouble for journalists for years now, and will continue to hurt them until they realize that it’s more important to provide the correct facts than to get something out first, that may be wrong.
The second article discussed how a man named Dick Metcalf was not allowed to express his opinion on the gun laws anymore. It was unethical for Metcalf to not be allowed to express his opinion because it is against the constitution. He is allowed to express his opinion if he wants to. His editors made a huge mistake, which was very unethical.
Overall, “good work” was not done in these pieces because they were not done efficiently and don’t meet moral and ethical responsibilities.
Holly Stocking defines good work as “labor that earns high marks both technically and morally”. With that being said, it is very difficult to find this balance and produce a good story. Journalists are constantly making decisions that favor morality over technicality or vice versa. For example, what about hidden microphones? On the one hand, yes, this technique can help a reporter discover hidden information making for a more intense story/ potentially changing the story all together. However, is this action morally sound? Isn’t it technically tricking a source?
To analyze the Christie article, I believe Stocking would not have classified the Times’s piece as good work. Technically, yes, the author was updating information for the public. However, she did not address or explain the changes as they were found out. In one sense, the audience may have been “tricked” by believing an older version of the article is the truest. Personally, I don’t see this case as bad work necessarily. Though I do agree that the author could and should have added an editor’s note explaining the rapid updates to the story, I don’t think that her intention was to provide any misinformation to the public.
As for the Gun article, I believe that Dick Metcalf did good work. He provided technical support to his claim, comparing the Second Amendment and its regulations to the First. He was also morally sound in stating his beliefs and trying to protect people around gun users. I think Stocking would agree that he should not have been fired for his article.
According to Stocking, good work is work “that is both excellent in quality and socially responsible work that is “good” in two senses of the word” (Kindle Location 1110-1111). While I agree with this definition for work in general, I think that most journalists struggle to satisfy both the technical and the moral aspects of good work. In the case presented in the Margaret Sullivan article, the reporter’s seemingly good technique lacked the responsibility that journalists have to check their facts or at least correct them when the information changes. This is where The Times fell short on their coverage of the Chris Christie saga. Although I agree with Sullivan that the Internet has changed the reporting game, I think that the public should be notified of each edit that occurs after online publication. Personally, I only read something once or twice and would not notice each and every change without some type of notification. For this reason I think that this journalist’s work does not qualify as Stocking’s idea of “good work.”
In the second case, the article displays an example of what I would consider “good work” that, unfortunately, fails to satisfy some people. Dick Metcalf lost his job as a columnist for Guns & Ammo magazine because of his different opinion on gun laws. His writing was both technically and morally correct, but because of Metcalf’s honest expression of his different opinion on gun laws cost him his long career at the magazine. In this case the writer satisfies Stocking’s idea of “good work,” while the editors of the magazine focus on publishing articles that endorse their ideal change of gun laws. These types of publications that write solely to promote their opinion and none other are failing to provide the public with both sides of an argument, which constitutes bad work both technically and morally. In my opinion, Mr. Metcalf’s column should be applauded as an honest expression of his opinion that allowed the public to see the other side of gun regulations and, ultimately, was “good work.”
I can't help but sympathize with the stressors of creating an up-to-date story, as the New York Times was doing with the "highly competitive" Chris Christie story. However, the editors failed Stocking's definition of good work. There should have been a note informing the readership of the change, Furthermore, I can't help but wonder if the Times was trying to cover its tracks but not altering the language of the new story enough. They "softened" the language, as though they didn't want to write something completely different, even though the facts that were revealed drastically changed the story.
While Holly Stocking defines "good work" as both ethically and morally sound. Both of these articles, while the publications tried to do the right thing, did not. In the New York Times article, the editor pointed out instead of changing the breaking news sentence when the second version was released they should have made a note to the editor where it was told to readers that they may have not had concrete evidence when breaking the story. In regards to Dick Metcalf, He should not have been fired from pretty much every job he had just for saying that gun laws should be regulated. Metcalf never stated that he was against guns, he just plainly said all constitutional rights have always been and should always be regulated to some degree. He is a gun owner acting within the guidelines the government has set for him. He was speaking to an audience of gun enthusiasts and i don't think that "good work" was done when the publication fired him. I see that they were trying to save their name by firing him, but I think there was more work done and a career ruined just to prevent backlash from their readers than if they just stuck by his opinion and realize that he was just exercising another constitutional right that he had, freedom of speech.
Unfortunately, my textbook STILL has yet to arrive and I’m mad because I ordered it through Amazon on January 15th. So I’m not sure about what Stocking had said. Based on classmates’ responses, it seems as though Stocking is pointing to “good work” as being well composed and honest. Sullivan’s article on Kate Zernike’s Christie report demonstrates the importance of understanding how news actually functions. Zernike’s editor, Wendell Jamieson, knows that news is changing every second but didn’t make it clear to the audience. The moral of this article is: making fact checks and editor’s notes clear to the reader are crucial components for reporting on unraveling stories. Would Stocking consider this to be “good work?” I doubt it. Zernike may have attempted to “seek truth and report it” but the Times as an organization failed to give readers a complete understanding of the story. As a reporter, when a story is breaking, it’s difficult to convey the overload of information that is continuously flowing but it is the organization’s job to step in and bring clarity to the murky details. I see the second article, Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns, as an unfair piece to compare the first scenario with. These are two very different types of articles. The case of Christie is a breaking news story while Metcalf’s statement is an opinion piece. Regardless, following up on Stocking’s definition of “good work” as being well composed and honest, I do believe Metcalf hits the nail on the head. His wording was simple, upfront, and most importantly, sincere. Despite how readers felt about his opposing views to gun control, he was revealing his own truth and reporting it. I really applaud him because I think too many people are afraid to present opposing sides to arguments just to keep the peace with their editors, readers and obviously, to keep their jobs. As young journalists and PR professionals, it is vital that we keep both of these cases in mind as we enter the world and keep up with our own “good work.”
According to S. Holly Stocking “Good Work,” is made up of two components. The first is quality and the other is social responsibility. If work is considered to be “good work,” it must consist of both sides. It is hard to think that any reporter in society today composes fully “good” work because of the high competition. Everyone wants to be number one and will take whatever information they can get a hold of, either being fully truthful or “truthiness” to beat the next person. Kate Zernike’s article in the Times about Chris Christie; Yes, Zernike gathered her information correctly and wrote a good article but I wouldn't consider it to be “good work,” or meeting the standards of social responsibility. When an article is released the reader wants to be informed of the truth and facts. The fact that the article went from, “had the evidence,” to “evidence exists,” shows how confusing and unreliable some sources of information can be. When a lot of people read articles they don’t think to question the source in which it is coming from. On one hand it is the responsibility of the journalist to “seek truth and report it,” but on the other hand it should be the instinctive reaction of the reader to research what the writer considers to be true. In order for Zernike’s work to be considered “good work,” (not saying it was bad work) the initial article should have been right the first time. The second article about Dick Metcalf is mind boggling. Metcalf spent most of his adult life as a gun journalist. He decides to express his thoughts on the second amendment and gets punished for it because he did, “good work.” He writes about the truth but because the truth doesn't fit the magazines criteria he gets booted. So then is there any reason to push for good work when it’s the persons perception of what good work is that matters? Metcalf is a man of guns! He wasn't bashing people who use guns because he would have been contradicting himself. I think Guns and Ammo Magazine may have saved subscriptions but in the end to journalism majors like us who are learning about “good work,” caused themselves to be viewed in a more negative light as a magazine because they themselves don't portray themselves to really care about good work but what work works for them to make their magazine remain "popular," and good to subscribers.
If good work must be both technically and morally sound, as defined by Stocking, then the New York Times editor assigned to the Christie story certainly did not do good work.
Technically, the work was good, in that the article was repeatedly updated for readers as information came in. However, there remains a moral obligation, says Kant, to inform the readers of the change in the statement "evidence exists." The change is very small from a technical standpoint, but the change focuses on an operative word: "exists" as opposed to "concrete." Since the calling of journalism is to seek truth and report it, one can only conclude that failing to update a story to include such an important fact is an ethical failure according to Kant and a moral failure according to Stocking.
Dick Metcalf, on the other hand, did good work, but on a challenging issue. Gun control in the United States is perhaps the most controversial political discussion one can have at this point in time, and to have one requires both courage and tact. Metcalf showed both, and his reporting and editorials reflect that. However, while Mr. Metcalf did good technical and moral work in addressing a controversial issue, his various employers did not.
His employers took a very utilitarian stance, focusing not on the ethical uprightness of Metcalf's work, but rather on the impact that work would have on the publication. Here, these publications have made an ethical decision according to Mill. But Kant says that one must never view humankind as a means to an end, which is exactly what those publications did. Metcalf, as a reporter, was simply a means to the desired end: readership by gun owners. To publish the work of a man who has openly questioned the extent to which the second amendment should apply, viewed by many gun owners as sacrilege, would jeopardize that end.
By firing Metcalf, the publications he wrote for did bad work, according to Stocking, since their technical good work was morally off-base.
The text book defines good work as work that “consists of labor that earns high marks both technically and morally. This term of good work classifies those journalists who abide by two different standards, the standards of their content and the standards of their ethics. In order to produce good work, one must be a sound writer who divulges themselves into getting the news out while also doing it in the most socially responsible way. One cannot be a fantastic writer that captures the attention of audiences while also performing shady tactics to gain that information as that does not have the journalist considering both realms. On the contrary, one cannot be ethically outstanding while producing mediocre or shoddy pieces of writing. Good work IS good writing that is done with the correct ethical decisions behind the entire process.
After reading the piece by Margaret Sullivan on the New York Times describing how The Times had failed to acknowledge a change in the wording over a story regarding Chris Christie and the recent bridge scandal. The changing of the wording “had the evidence” to “evidence exists” is a very drastic change, especially in the tone and attitude of the sentence. The prior makes the reader automatically assume that David Wildstein has direct tangible evidence that actually proves Christie knew about the lane closings. For those who read this wording, they are likely to take away that there is something out there that can specifically put Christie at fault. The second wording makes it seem as if Wildstein does not actually have any specific evidence but instead it is believed that there is something out there. This is much less specific and a lot less straightforward then the first, and it gives off a completely different message.
This is not an example of good work. While the article might have been competently written, it failed to acknowledge a major wording change to the original story. Its readers might have only caught the earlier editions and might have the complete wrong idea on what has actually transpired.
For the article on Christie, a detail that certainly does affect the story was changed. The editor's justification for not leaving an editor's note with the change was that the story required several updates and corrections after already being published. According to Stocking, this is not "good work." Good work would have been accurate from the publishing of the article and not required subsequent corrections. Even if these corrections were necessary, good work by the editor would note that corrections were made. Without such notes, a change in the story would be covered up and the readers would not be made to know the truth.
Dick Metcalf stated regret that his piece was too brief to fully cover the issue he was writing, which Stocking would also cite as work that wasn't good. However, the point that he wished to make with his piece was valid and rational. He wanted to be able to tell the truth wholeheartedly, despite the expectations cast on him to maintain the opinions of those he represented. Speaking honestly about what he was expected to speak about should be considered good work by all.
In order for work to be considered “good work” , the work needs to “both excellent in quality and be socially responsible.” In the New York Times article about Chris Christie, there was a lack of both of these important things. The Times published the story at a time where these “facts” were still lacking evidence. The Times, obviously, has many other competitors. They wanted to get the story out as fast as they could. This time, however, it was way too early. Not making the correction in the latest published article was sneaky and deceiving. The readers who only read the first published story were not receiving accurate information. There is a huge difference between “I have the evidence” and “the evidence exists.” This is not an example of “good work”.
As for the Dick Metcalf article, the power that these advertisers have is sick, and unfortunately too powerful. It’s the manufacturers that are writing these columns, not the journalist. I think Dick, himself, did “good work”, but he did this “work” on an extremely controversial issue. Not to say that he shouldn’t have verbalized his opinion, he just should have been aware of the consequences that were going to come with it. Dick being fired was extremely unfortunate, and I truly sympathize with him. From the magazines perspective, I can see why they would do it. However, the way these gun journalists have to be bias due to the advertisers is not “morally and technically sound.”
Stocking describes “good work” as a “labor that earns high marks both technically and morally,” i.e. the information in the piece must have been ethically obtained, and ethically reported in respect to those it is covering and affecting. To me, calling this “good work” is a little patronizing; this shouldn’t be the elements of a journalist’s “good work,” it should just be their everyday method of reporting and writing. Just “work.” Journalism “work.” A story can be ethically composed and still be complete shit. Yet I suppose this is really meant to emphasize if a story does not have these qualities it’s indisputably bad work, and while we would all pretend that doesn’t happen, according to Stocking “bad work” happens all the time. And after reading these articles, I would have to agree.
Zernike ethically (or technically correctly)obtained information pertaining to the “Christie Gate” scandal. That was never the issue. The issue then became how she chose to report the information, or the “moral” portion of this “good work” she probably thought she was doing. However Zernike seemed to forget a very common saying that I find to be extremely applicable to journalists: it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it. This leads to moral consequences Stocking covered, like negatively impacting people or parties without 100% certainty of facts being claimed. Sure, Christie is a public figure and is in the position to be scrutinized, but if you can go from “had the evidence” (implying Christie himself had the knowledge) to “evidence exists” (implying that someone, somewhere, knew about it) you a) didn’t perform the probably ethical technicalities in retrieving the information or b) wanted to drop a bomb and didn’t care if it implied something that wasn’t factual (I’m going to go with B.) Either way, Zernike was not producing “good work,” and what’s more is her editor tried to cover her ass, saying that as a competitive online story the changes can’t all be documented but that this specific change perhaps should have had an editor’s note. What a shade ball. Stocking says “good work” should “urge journalists to tell the truth and to refrain from conflicts of interest that could compromise their independence and undermine their credibility.” In that case Zernike and Jamieson should quit their day job.
In regard to Metcalf and his column in Guns and Ammo, the lack of “good work,” in my eyes, lies within the publication itself. Metcalf was expressing his opinion in a column, not parading it around inside some article and passing it off as a truth. Technically and morally speaking, his words were ethically sound. It shouldn’t matter, but as the article clearly stated Metcalf has been on the gun seen for years. The gun community is a specific group and his readers know him and know that he is an advocate for gun ownership. Perhaps that’s why they were so taken aback and outraged at his opinion. But to me his loyalty (technically and morally) to his craft of gun writing was not subjected to “bad work” by speaking his opinion, even though in a way one can argue it negatively hurt his audience’s feelings. What was “bad work” was Metcalf being fired, because Guns and Ammo technically and morally rather screw over a dedicated writer and expert because they were going to lose money from subscribers and thus money from advertisers. Not to mention, the publication didn’t even have sincere reviews of guns and products. This is a clear example of a publication placing readers and advertisers over factual and authentic journalism and well-crafted thought. I understand that gun readership is a very specialized market that needs to be catered to, but giving up “good journalism” shouldn’t have to be the consequence.
In the class The Little Rebellion-the journalism department's online publication, the slogan is a Jefferson quote: "A little rebellion now and then is a good thing." This was what immediately came to my mind when I read Holly Stocking's definition of "good work" in the text. She said that good journalists must be disobedient now and then. From this, if the journalist rebels with the premise and genuine intent of being technically and morally sound, then good work can come from it.
In the example of the Christie article, the changes made and the lack of truthfulness and reporting is the antithesis of “good reporting,” a fact that has lead to lessened trustworthiness in the mass media by consumers. I’m shocked that such an accredited publication like the New York Times published information without verifying it and then changed the story “two dozen” times. The rebellion described by Stocking needs to be both technically and morally straight. However, I think Margaret Sullivan absolutely did good work with calling this issue out- in the opinions page of the New York Times no less. The one who reported misinformation...not so much.
As far as Dick Metcalf’s byline goes, on one hand I understand why a gun magazine would not want a byline that calls for gun control. However, morally, one article should not condemn Metcalf to exile from his line of work. Essentially, advertisers feared their customers would boycott their products if they were associated with his work. Business-wise this ‘blacklisting’ makes sense. However, Metcalf absolutely did “good work” in the field of gun journalism. This is a world he has been a part of for his entire adult life, yet he had the courage to speak up and say that some gun control was and will always be necessary. The consequences from saying his opinion were very drastic, however publications and television stations do have the right to control the content they put forth. Ethically, it sucks that Metcalf was basically kicked out of his career because of his opinion, but at least he was truthful and that is something that all journalists should strive for.
Good Work in journalism is applying the code of ethics to what you write having the knowledge that it will get published. Journalists are taught to seek the truth and report it, no matter how harsh or troublesome it may be, they have to do it because it's their job. What's a world without conflict? I believe it's a journalist responsibility to stir the pot and getting people talking about uncomfortable topics and go against what their peers and others might say.
In the Christie article, I believe that it was not an example of good journalism because the whole truth was not told. According to the article, “We made dozens of changes to this story, and it’s all happening live in front of the reader." Sources can be tricky in journalism because in a breaking news situation everyone is scrambling to find out the truth and under such stressful conditions 'aka' deadlines can cause articles to be published without the proper fact checking.
In the Metcalf article, I believe that this is an example of good journalism because Metcalf wrote the truth that he believes “all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.” In his mind that is what he believes despite the fact that he is a gun journalist. It was wrong of the company to strip him from what he has been doing for years just to save their own necks. The quote that cause this uproar is true because if it was not people would be free to do whatever they want and pro-gun advocates feel that the quote goes against what they have been trying to express for a long time. I don't think Metcalf should of been fired for expressing his opinion because he still loves guns and just because his viewpoints are not the same as the rest of the pro gun advocates does not mean he should be penalized for saying what is on his mind.
Reading both articles really made me question the journalist point of view. How can something be viewed as good work when not the whole story of it is being said? It becomes a question that digs deeper than just the code of ethics and this relates to what Holly Stocking says when she defines "good work" as beyond the code of ethics. The first article definitely does not fall under the “good work” definition because it doesn’t tell you all the details about the story by changing the name from one thing to another. The reporter’s sources were credible and revealed and she writes an informative article about it, meaning the concept was correct and how she went about it was the right way. Although it was a good representation of information, it would just not be considered good work because of the change. Now the sources and her story become questionable to the public. This becomes questionable because her lack of discretion got in her way. Now when the audience reads the article changing from having the evidence to then the evidence existing, they can interpret two completely different stories out of it. Being that this story was very important and competitive, it becomes that much harder for people to forget that huge mistake. And overall, she was not able to beat the competition. In the other article regarding gun control, Metcalf was banished from publications for simply saying his opinion in his mind on gun control. This is an example of something being morally right but not a well done piece of work. Although Metcalf was saying a true fact about gun control and many other constitutional rights, his words made it difficult for the magazine that is based on guns and the beauty of it, to continue working with him. It creates a negative reputation for those who aren’t against it. When it comes to this article being good work, the question should really be, was this ethically good? Was it morally good? From there on a judgment can be made. His words about the constitutional rights I believe were misinterpreted because he was not talking about the magazine or the tv show in particular. He was talking about all of our rights having some kind of twist to it. I feel like he should have the freedom to state how he feels, especially if it didn’t affect the magazine directly.
Post a Comment