Examine the situations in the articles below. Find one you would be interested in exploring further. Identify the ethical dilemma in the situation. Explain why it is a dilemma. Discuss what model or principles you might use to help you evaluate the dilemma.
Your response is due by midnight this coming Monday.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/03/07/us/ap-us-newsweek-bitcoin.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/where-is-my-family-on-tv.html?hp&rref=opinion
http://www.npr.org/2014/03/01/283914061/haven-t-i-seen-you-before-why-news-reports-quote-the-same-people
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/sports/olympics/nbc-pushes-too-far-in-bringing-bode-miller-to-tears.html?hp&_r=0
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/gselevator-tattletale-exposed-he-was-never-in-the-goldman-elevator/?_php=true&_type=blogs&hp&_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/public-editor/beyond-blank-slates-writers-under-fire.html?src=rechp
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/20/business/media/fans-criticize-move-to-suspend-duck-dynasty-star.html?_r=0
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/01/02/259119343/how-the-media-comes-to-consensus
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/23/business/media/when-60-minutes-checks-its-journalistic-skepticism-at-the-door.html?src=recg
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/media/banished-for-questioning-the-gospel-of-guns.html?hp&_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/business/media/if-a-story-is-viral-truth-may-be-taking-a-beating.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/business/media/for-news-media-a-mostly-cautious-approach-to-newtown-tapes.html
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/20/a-twitter-message-about-aids-africa-and-race/?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/27/business/media/leave-of-absence-for-lara-logan-after-flawed-benghazi-report.html?src=recg
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/nyregion/as-a-school-shootings-first-anniversary-nears-newtown-asks-for-privacy.html?hp&_r=0
http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2013/12/29/257364508/this-is-not-the-most-important-story-of-the-year
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/technology/pandora-mines-users-data-to-better-target-ads.html?hpw&rref=technology&_r=0
Teaching Notes
You must become the flame on the candle. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Wednesday, March 5, 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.
31 comments:
After reading Richard Sandomir’s article, “NBC Pushes Too Far in Bringing Bode Miller to Tears,” I myself felt like crying. A man who had just won a bronze medal in the men’s super-G at the Olympics was bombarded with heart wrenching questions about his recent brother’s death by reporter Christin Cooper. I understand that Miller through non-verbal cues showed the public he was looking to his brother for support in his race by looking up to the sky, but why did his brother’s death have to be the center of the interview after his win? I believe that this is the main ethical question of the article. I think if Cooper would have addressed the looking up to the sky as the only reference to Millers brother this whole interview I believe wouldn’t have been so controversial because one reference is ok but more than one is in my opinion badgering someone. To use the analogy of an open wound; Miller’s brother’s death was a fresh wound but Cooper decided to use that wound as a way of getting a heartfelt win story from Miller by poking the wound over and over to the point where Miller literally fell into grief. I honestly can’t believe how calm and understanding Miller was toward Cooper after making him so vulnerable especially on live TV. If they are so close and have known each other for so long as Miller says, I don’t believe Cooper would have dug so deep into his emotional state. Yes, I agree an emotional story sells to the public and his story is very relatable but just the way Cooper went about evoking that emotion is just so ethically wrong in my opinion. I think if Cooper would have gotten a quote from Miller purely off of the looking up to the sky situation it would have captured the same emotional effect as all the other unnecessary questions she asked. I would use the Potter box model to evaluate the ethical dilemma. I believe this model breaks up the ethical dilemma into clear parts allowing us to understand why the situation is questionably ethical. I might also use Kant’s Categorical Imperative and the two formulas; “Act on that maximum that you will to become a universal law,” and “Always treat others and yourself as an end never as means.” I think the first formula is accurate in this situation because if Cooper made it ok to act so insensitive and ask such sensitive questions then every reporter will think its ok to act in that way. The second formula I also believe applies because Cooper used Miller’s vulnerability in order to obtain a heartfelt win story. She allowed the means to justify the end. I don't believe badgering Miller was a necessary means of obtaining information for their story. It was unethical and in my opinion fed the stereotype that reporters are heartless individuals.
How far would you push someone emotionally, for your own personal benefits? Often analyzed in ethics, this question is most times disregarded in the media, in hopes of capturing a large audience, and reaction. Most recently, this was seen in an interview with Olympian Bode Miller, and NBC's Christin Cooper. In her interview, Cooper side tracked from Miller's athletic accomplishments, and instead focused on the trauma and emotion from the death of Miller's recently deceased (also Olympian) brother. Not only was Cooper invasive with her questions, but also continued to repeatedly ask related questions to Miller, when it was clearly making him emotional. So what is the ethical dilemma in this situation? Well ask yourself...is it right to jeopardize someone's image in the media to make good T.V? Clearly Ms. Cooper crossed the line and intruded into Miller's personal life without consent, and embarrassed him even after seeing that the questions were to much for him to handle. NBC commented saying that they wanted to evoke emotion from Miller, which is why the interview was so hard hitting. So basically, a billion dollar cooperation publicly traumatized and innocent person, to receive good ratings. Personally, I think it is common sense when someone is uncomfortable to re-evaluate the situation, and make the right decisions, but apparently this wasn't the case for Cooper. In this situation, to better make sense of the decisions you make, one can use the ethical decision making model. Is this personal information really our right to know? It's one thing if Bode Miller wanted to share his story with the audience, and freely talked about the inspiration his brother had on his Olympic career, but this wasn't the situation. Cooper pried and harassed Miller to continue to answer questions, that she had no right to ask, and that we the audience have no right to know. Do we have a need to know about Miller's brothers' death? Is this something that will effect Americans in great proximity? Not even close. This interview was disregarding every ethical principle, and made NBC look like heartless and senseless individuals.
The NPR article, This is Not the Most Important Story of the Year, discussed the widespread sharing and enjoyment of ridiculously soft news. Some of the stories featured were about Justin Bieber’s retirement and Miley Cyrus’ twerking. The article referred to these types of stories as “more amusing or titillating than informative.” Here, I would use the ethical decision making model of the right to know, need to know and want to know pyramid. (I’m hoping that’s okay). I have the name “Charles Dana,” a publisher from 1880s-1890s and one of his quotes written down on the side of my notes so I think this is a fair tool to use. Anyway, it is clear that there is no real right to know this information, unless Justin Bieber does wind up getting deported from the United States. The article points out how hard news is falling to the wayside in news ranking due the sharing of sensationalized news via social media. A UC San Diego professor of communication, Daniel Hallin, said, “"Now, when click-through rates and 'most tweeted' become important criteria, the assumption is much more that you give people what they want to see." News outlets are less concerned with the ‘right to know’ or ‘need to know’ due to ‘the want to know’ glossy stories that get hits, clicks, shares and even off the web “word of mouth.” The ‘want to know’ satisfies human curiosity with stupid details or press images of celebrities. In these cases, the general public gets a good, cheap laugh at the expense of the famous starlets. Some people go as far as empathizing with celebrities, as if they are friends. I do not think this blurs the lines between the ‘wanting to know’ and ‘needing to know’ but I do think this calls the priorities of humanity into question. Many credible news sources operate social media feeds that literally “feed” into public gossip. Some times, I get my news from TIME magazine’s feed and it’s (unfortunately) focused on people like pop star, Taylor Swift. Additionally, Marina Shifin, another journalist from the article said, "You take a look at what you're doing every day, and your bosses are telling you that you need to have stories about boobs and teachers having affairs." A story with a teacher having an affair could be a right to know or need to know if a local community is affected but many times, these stories are covered on a national level just for the hype. News is starting to become more of “Let’s give ‘em something to talk about” rather than a means of uncovering useful truths. Another issue that ties into these ideas is Vietnam. I wasn’t alive during Vietnam but even then, it seemed as though more war photos were gruesome and accurate then the War on Terror’s patriotically staged photos that are highlighted today. I challenge you to Google image “Vietnam War” and then Google image “War on Terror” to see the difference between the exposure. The ‘right to know’ and ‘need to know’ was very visible in the photos of Vietnam while the War on Terror images are glossy and don’t accurately tell the story of our present situation. With social media entertainment rising, journalism is shifting its’ focus onto celebrities, products and YouTube gimmicks rather than important news for US and global citizenship. Imagine if this energy was collected into something that could change our world? There is a huge gap between the ‘right to know,’ ‘need to know’ and a ‘want to know’ and it’s unfortunate that news is used to promote products and people just for the hype. PS-I applaud you for reading all of this! Bravo!
Within Bill Carter’s “For News Media, a Mostly Cautious Approach to Newtown Tapes,” an ethical dilemma resides with honoring the right to privacy. This is a subject that has an arbitrary boundary when working with the media. An event as heart-wrenching and disturbing as the Newtown Shooting is not free from this arbitrary line of jurisdiction.
The right to privacy in this situation is obviously an ethical dilemma because many of the families of those who lost their children and loved ones did not wish to have the recordings released to the news stations. In other words, those who were directly affected by Lanza’s shooting did not want the emergency calls to be revealed to the public.
CNN reported, “Connecticut Superior Court Judge Eliot Prescott upheld the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission's ruling to release calls related to the shooting. A state attorney had tried to block the release to shield the victims' families; the Associated Press had challenged authorities' refusal to release the 911 tapes.”
Which begs the question, what was the purpose from the Associated Press’ perspective in revealing the tapes as well as what useful information would these phone calls provide the public with? I cannot grasp what significance the calls and pleas for help with elementary children being shot in the background could possibly hold for the public.
In my opinion, an opposing argument may be to remind the public of the horror from that day or to show the work of first responders, I simply don’t see this as a strong argument. From the quotes I’ve read, I don’t see any sort of potentially aiding information for first responders. I hear terror and with this I think the public is in fact reminded of the horror from that day. However, I don’t understand what the purpose comes down to.
For this ethical dilemma, I would use the Potter Box to decide whether or not I would have released the 911 calls. Perhaps after establishing the facts of the situation and directly dividing each element of the event, I would understand the decision made here. I would also apply the principle of epistemic responsibility. I would question the means by which the Associated Press argued to have hold of the tapes. Was this a responsible and professional method? Were they considering the feelings of the families affected? Lastly, I would apply L. Hodges’s Circles of Intimacy. I think the criterion that Hodge’s theorem describes could also help me postulate my own understanding on the matter.
In the New York Times article regarding the one-year anniversary of the Newtown shooting, the article discusses the small town’s wish to be free of media coverage on December 14th. The ethical dilemma presented here is whether or not the media should cover the anniversary in memoriam or respect the town’s wishes. The town wants to keep the reminders of the tragic school shooting to a minimum in order to allow the grieving students, parents and neighbors to have “a chance to be happy.” For this reason, two television networks, NBC and ABC, have declared that they will not be covering the anniversary out of respect. According to the article, one of the executives said that they would stay away from Newtown “because children were still suffering from anxiety.” The continued presence of media vans and reporters would only remind them of the trauma they suffered a year ago. On the other hand, CBS news has expressed their intent to go to Newtown and cover the anniversary. Although they stated to the New York Times that they “don’t want to be intrusive,” the townspeople continue to turn down their requests to park their trucks around the town in an effort to keep them away from their grieving town.
The town’s respectful request to grieve in private presents the media with an interesting ethical dilemma. On one end of the spectrum, events of this magnitude have always been covered by the national news in a way of remembering those lost or effected by the tragedy. For instance, the memorial ceremony for September 11th is always broadcast across the news networks to remember each individual who lost their life in the attack. In that case, however, New York City is large enough so that the people personally affected by the terrorist attack do not have to be reminded of this tragedy everyday. The September 11th attack also affected the population on a national scale, which turns the memorial ceremony into a sort of display of patriotism for America. On the other hand, the tragedy at Newtown only affected the small town of 28,000 people and does not need to be shared with the rest of the country. Ultimately, coverage of this even would share the small town’s mourning with a population of viewers that could not share the same feeling of grief. It would serve the news network mostly because the emotional subject matter would draw viewers in, but this does not qualify as an ethical justification for denying the town’s wishes for the media to leave them alone.
I think that in examining this ethical dilemma I would use the Tripar-Type Model. This way I could consider whether or not the media’s coverage of the one-year anniversary of the Newtown shooting qualifies as something that the public has the right to know, needs to know, or wants to know. In my opinion, it is not something that the public needs to know or that anyone but the townspeople of Newtown has the right to know. Therefore, any coverage of their private memorial services would only be information that the public wants to know and wouldn’t qualify as ethical reporting. Along with this model, I would base my evaluation of the dilemma on the principle that ethics is based on empathy. If you do not care for others, then you cannot possibly be ethical in your decisions. In this way, in order for the news network to make an ethical decision they must first empathize with the suffering of the population of Newtown and then evaluate it with the ethical decision-making model.
After reading "A Twitter Message About AIDS, Followed by a Firing and an Apology" I had nothing but anger against Justine Sacco. I couldn't understand how someone that high in status would post something so hurtful and disrespectful. The fact that she didn't see anything wrong with her tweet before she posted it baffles me. She was not being ethical because nothing good came from what she said. She wasn't providing any information to the public that they should know. She was making a disrespectful joke that in the end wasn't funny to begin with. The Code of Ethics say to minimize harm yet she provided a large amount of harm to lots of people that came across her tweet. The ethical dilemma comes into play because Twitter is a public place where you can express yourself. However, she was fired for the things that she said immediately. As a result, it shows restriction of freedom of speech. In the United States, we don't have restrictions on hate speech yet Justine Sacco is punished for her hateful words. She is fired even before she can defend herself as well as looking more into the tweets that she posted. Twitter is like any other website, easy for hackers to take over. The company was quick to make a decision without Justine's side of the story. The model that can be used is the potter box. The facts are that Justine Sacco is a Public Relations Executive at IAC who wrote a tweet involving race and AIDs while heading to South Africa. She later apologized, deleted the tweet, but that didn't stop her from posting other offensive tweets involving Germans and Autistic children. Many people lashed out on twitter, a hashtag trending to figuring out where she was and why she did it. Although she made an apologetic statement, there was no way of getting a hold of her again and every social media website that she was apart of was erased. The values are her personal thoughts (meaning her tweets), her job, social media, the public, and the people she works with. The principles are the Code of Ethics in which she did not follow. Last, but not least the loyalties of the public, her profession as a Public Relations Executive, her supervisor and colleagues.
If everyone’s innermost thoughts were made to be published on social networking platforms in 140 characters, surely we all would be attacked for having prejudices and inappropriate thoughts of our own. Of course, we keep these thoughts quiet and we use discretion when expressing them to others. Perhaps Justine Sacco failed to think twice, or found it too comical not to post. Regardless, she posted the insensitive and rude tweet, “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!” just before boarding an international flight, during which she was unaware of the kind of media storm she created. In this article in Forbes by an acquaintance of Sacco, she discussed with the author how Twitter users, “seemed to like the tweets that were just a little bit risque or outrageous,” and that she was still “figuring out the nuances of Twitter.” To a person reading her tweet with no context for its content or the person tweeting (with Twitter there can really be no context), one might say she was testing the waters of Twitter, seeing if a Daniel Tosh-esque kind of comedy would float with her followers. It did not. That kind of ‘humor’ has a genre, and that genre is comedy. Often, the very essence of comedy offers comics a place to be insensitive, rude and offensive about ethnicities, genders, homosexuals, the elderly and other popularly targeted groups of people. Justine Sacco did not go into comedy however, she was a public relations executive at IAC, an incredibly large internet company which owns About.com, Homeadvisor.com and Dictionary.com among many others.
The ethical problem that Sacco seemed to have had, was a blind spot in sensitivity. A person educated to become a PR practitioner knows the weight that words can hold and the meaning that sarcasm carries. Regardless of the truth or falsehood of her comments about the black population of South Africa and the prevalence of AIDS, she should have not used a very sad statistic to attempt to make her followers laugh or to get retweeted. I don’t know if the general public can say whether IAC chose to terminate her employment because of the content of her tweet or her inability to use discretion in making her callous opinion so very public, but I can guess it is more of the latter, due to her other various judgmental, irresponsible and downright mean tweets mentioning autism, a fellow passenger who she accused of smelling bad and the stereotype that British people have bad teeth.
Sacco’s askew ethics and insensitivity are ethical dilemmas which IAC chose to handle by firing her. I think Aristotle’s Golden Mean would fit well into ethically examining this scenario because this ethical system targets people and their acts, not sets of rules, to determine a moral basis of activity. Aristotle also said that between two vices, lies a virtue. Sacco’s insensitivity is the deficit of the virtue of sensitivity and/or awareness. Her inability to use discretion is the deficit of the virtue of thoughtfulness. Her behavior was definitely not the result of a pursuit to flourish, as Aristotle said was the ultimate human good, and as an executive of a gigantic company, she was rightfully held accountable for her irresponsible actions.
The article that I found to be quite interesting was the New York Times article involving A&E’s Duck Dynasty star, Phil Robertson. I had previously heard about this dilemma from social network sites such as twitter, and while I first thought that the network did the right thing by suspending Robertson, after taking and this ethics class and further reading into the situation and article, I believe that suspending him was unethical. While many people, including myself, may not agree with the comments Robertson made towards homosexuality, the right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech prove that it was completely unethical to suspend him for simply sharing his thoughts on the matter. Some may argue that because he is famous, that his words may hold more weight than the average person and thus should monitor what he says in the media/to the public. While this may be true, his ethical principle of his values proved to be higher on his priority then his loyalties. Robertson clearly put his values to religion and his family above those to of his publics and his employers. The ethical principles that the network had derived off of were still those of the Potter Box but held their loyalties in higher ground then values. In a fear of being criticized by the LGBT community A&E jumped to a decision by suspending Robertson without taking into his consideration his side. While Robertson clearly valued his own beliefs/ family values, the network valued more their viewer’s opinions. When further evaluating this situation however, it would have been impossible for A&E to escape this situation without offending anyone. If they had decided to keep not suspend Robertson the LGBT community may have been outraged, but by suspending him they angered Christians and 1st amendment activists. In conclusion, while I do not agree with Robertson’s statements he technically did not do anything wrong and thus his suspension from Duck Dynasty should be lifted.
The article that most interested me is the article “As a School Shooting’s First Anniversary Nears, Newtown Asks for Privacy.” This article most interests me because it focuses on the first year anniversary of the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. The ethical dilemma in this article is whether the media should cover the anniversary memorial in he news or if they should respect the wishes of the school and not overwhelm the students, parents, school and/ or people from town with the media. According to the article, Schools or houses of worship would love to mark the day with speeches and prayers for those who were assassinated during the Newtown elementary school shooting, but they are opposed to having the media involved. The article states the reasons as to why they do not want the media to be involved in the memorial of those deceased. Parents feel having their children being bombarded with cameras will affect their children and the town. “Parents had urged his network to stay away because children were still suffering from anxiety, and the sight of TV vans triggered reminders of the shootings.” The people from town feel it will affect their business because when the shooting occurred, people weren’t able to go to their shops due to an overloaded amount of news vans. “Media vehicles clogged streets, making it difficult to get to shops during the important Christmas season. Even the places you could get to, you didn’t want to because you’d have a microphone or TV camera in your face,” said Jim Morely, a board member of Newtown Savings Bank. For this ethical dilemma I would use the Tripar-Type Model. In this case we can figure out if the media should cover the memorial because the public has the “right to know”, if the public “needs to know” or if the public just “wants to know.” This can make it easier to solve the dilemma on whether the media should cover the memorial on what occurred in Newtown elementary school.
My link did not appear in the first post - here is the Forbes article to which I refer in my post:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/12/23/justine-sacco-and-the-self-inflicted-perils-of-twitter/
I took a look at the New York Times article titled “If a Story Is Viral, Truth May Be Taking a Beating” written by Ravi Somaiya and Leslie Kaufman. This story was particularly interesting o me since as of late I have begun to question certain stories and events that have been popping up on my Twitter feed, posted by media sites such as Mashable. This story calls out three stories in particular that went viral all over the internet when certain news outlets, such as Gawker and BuzzFeed, broke them to the public without any sort of indication that these stories were actually completely fabricated.
John Cook, editor in chief of Gawker, stated “We are dealing with a volume of information that it is impossible to have the strict standards of accuracy that other institutions have”. Well, Mr. Cook, what sort of credibility does your website have, if any at this point? You are correct to label the standards as strict, but their strict for a reason! You ran a story as if it was a truth that then raised $60,000 to a woman who was actually not poor at all. That mislead all of your readers into believing they were actually donating to something completely different then what the reality was. I believe it is Gawker’s, and every other related website who perform the same daily operations, responsibility to only pass on the stories that have validity to them. What if every print newspaper just wrote stories so easily that turned out to be fake? There is no reason why online media content should not be held to these same standards, and no Mr. Cook, it is in no way impossible to simply dig a little deeper into the origins of the story. This is just lazy reporting.
Ryan Grim, the Washington bureau chief for The Huffington Post, hit the nail on its head: “If you throw something up without fact-checking it, and you’re the first one to put it up, and you get millions and millions of views, and later it’s proved false, you still got those views. That’s a problem. The incentives are all wrong”. Each site wants to be first with the latest viral trend and they’ll do it so haphazardly that they completely bypass the basic early steps of story writing.
I would use the Potterbox to describe the ethical problems described by this story. With its four different components, it can bring the problem down to a simple level that can be analyzed more closely. A person’s loyalties definitely have a big part to play, with every writer trying to get their website a competitive edge over others.
I saw that another student blogged about this article as well, Chelsea mentioned the restriction in freedom of speech & I get how freedom of speech can be an issue but it's about time people take accountability in what they choose to say, my question is why spread hate? Freedom of speech is not freedom to offend people, it's not freedom to attack & that's where people are wrong in using this amendment to defend their poorly chosen words. You always have a choice, why start with something offensive? Like Gianna said, "A person educated to become a PR practitioner knows the weight that words can hold and the meaning that sarcasm carries."
so with that being said I've evaluated this dilemma with my own righteous views along with the help of everything that has been taught in class from our discussions about media, golden rule, social networks, our own campus not being diverse just about everything we are learning can be used to help solve this issue and analyze how careless people when they use social media, and how it can completely blow up in your face when it is not done ethically.
I wanted to share my thoughts about the First Amendment here, as Elizabeth and I wrote about the same article.
The First Amendment absolutely does protect speech that is offensive. It protects most speech that is not obscene, false advertising or seditious. People can use the first Amendment to justify expression of offensive ideas and cases have been ruled in favor of individuals exercising this right for years. Though we may find these ideas distasteful, the First Amendment still protects freedom of expression regardless of the unethical nature of the expression. I am not defending Sacco's behavior, and I do find it appropriate that she was fired, but these are the facts associated with free speech. It would, however, be an entirely different legal situation had she been working for an agency of the government, and not a private company.
After reading the article about Bode Miller in the article “NBC Pushes Too Far in Bringing Bode Miller to Tears”, I found it absolutely shocking that Miller was okay with the rigorous and intrusive questions that NBC reporter Christin Cooper was asking right after he won a bronze medal. I can understand that every reporter wants to get a good story, and it was said in the beginning of the article that NBC wanted Miller to be a part of an emotional story line. He lost his brother last year, who had obviously played a big part in his life and his Olympic career as well. But Miller is not his brother, and after all, he just made an amazing feat. Weren’t there other questions this reporter could have asked that would have still meshed with the emotional story line? It made me a little uneasy after the second or third question, and she went way beyond that. I would take Miller’s tears as the sign to stop. Reporters are human too. Would Cooper want to be questioned so harshly like that? There was no consideration for the dignity, and privacy of Miller. Cooper pushed and pushed till she broke him down.
In our culture, women over men are seen to have and express more emotion. It is more acceptable to be seen and heard publicly; on television, social media, you name it. Men’s emotions, on the other hand, are not as seen, especially in the media. Cooper took this opportunity to show Miller’s public display of emotions, but it quickly became exploitative.
However, I must play devil’s advocate. In the beginning of the article, it states that Miller said he had “a lot of emotion riding” in response to Cooper’s first question. For Cooper to pursue this subject as a part of the emotional story line definitely made sense. Miller also kept on answering her questions, even though he was slowly breaking down. Toward the end of the article, Miller also states that he has known Cooper for a long time. Maybe it were any other reporter, he wouldn’t have continued answering these intrusive and personal questions, but this piece of information sticks out to me. Could it be possible that they had spoken before the interview about what was going to be asked and how he was going to be portrayed? Miller sympathizes with Cooper’s backlash and the heat that came from readers and viewers. Something about this event doesn’t really match up.
As for evaluating the dilemma, there are a couple of principles I would use. Aristotle has an ethical system called virtue ethics. In this system, the way to behave ethically is to a) know what you are doing (through the exercise of practical behavior) b) select the act for its own sake-in order to flourish, and c) the act itself must spring from a firm and unchanging character. Part B in this framework might be where the problem lies for this situation. Another principle, which definitely works for this ethical dilemma, is Kant’s categorical imperative. Act in a way that you treat humanity as ends and not as a means. Cooper treated Miller as a means of getting a good, emotional and heartfelt story.
The article that I found interesting is the article on the Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson who got negative views after expressing homophobic views during a GQ interview. The ethical dilemma here would be Robertson's comment and the network's choice to suspend him. A&E's show 'Duck Dynasty' have garnered 4.2 million views but due to Robertson's comments many are boycotting the show. What I have learned so far about ethics is that it is what truly defines us at our core. It is what we feel and if it is not felt would make some of us feel bad afterwards. As I was reading this article I couldn't help but think of Freedom of Speech and how this law relates to Mr. Robertson's situation. Ethics is about "the reflective of what is good, bad, right, wrong, as well as logic of such examinations" then who are we to judge his logic. Of course, others will disagree but it is his opinion. Although he is now a public figure due to the show 'Duck Dynasty' his ethical courage comes with a lot of risks because of his exposure to a wider audience.
I found this article interesting because I find it contradictory that we live in a world that encourages free speech but, as soon as one gives their opinion on a controversial topic they get all sorts of backlash. The topic of Free Speech will never get old due to people who are always pushing the boundaries of the law with what they can and cannot do.
The article that I chose was the one about the one-year anniversary of the Newtown school shooting. This one is most intriguing to me because, I had a family member who passed away during 9/11 and every year since then it has been difficult for myself and my family to see all the remembrances all over television and on the computer. Although it is always meant to be a sign of respect, sometimes it makes it more difficult to cope with the loss.
The Newtown situation is very similar to the one of 9/11. Many people were affected by the tragedy. With Newtown being a relatively small suburb, everyone in the town probably feels some sort of sadness for what happened. In my opinion, the one-year anniversary should not be covered by any news station. What makes this situation different than 9/11 is that innocent children were murdered. 9/11 was a larger scale, but it is less personal. You can’t put all the faces of the victims in a newspaper, or quickly on a television screen. Seeing images of smiling children and interviewing their family members and friends is way too personal to be on a national scale.
I respect that ABC and NBC decided against “covering” the story. The reason I put covering in quotation marks is because of CBS’ stupid reasoning for deciding to park news vans in Newtown. The Director of Special Events for CBS said that they don’t want to be intrusive and believe they can “cover” the story without getting in the way. But if you asked me, there is nothing to cover. If anything these families and this town are trying to move past what happened, not allow news stations to continue reminding them of the tragedy.
I would use the Potter Box in this situation. To me it would work best because once you have all the details and possible effects of covering the story figured out, it is easy to decide against covering it. We all know and we all remember what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School, we don’t need a reminder of it. Covering it is not news, but more of a ploy to attract hits and/or viewers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/media/banished-for-questioning-the-gospel-of-guns.html?hp&_r=0
This article about Dick Metcalf poses a very interesting question of whether or not someone should open debate when representing people with a declared position. His career is never going to be the same because he hinted that he does not 100% endorse the opinion of the second amendment protecting all forms of arms-bearing. The ethical positions of his superiors as well as his own could be analyzed with a Potter Box. Questioning their loyalties to their audiences and agendas as well as their ethical principles of honesty as journalists could be weighed to make for an interesting discussion.
I chose to look more closely at the article “Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns” from The New York Times. Although we have previously read this piece, I am enthralled in our country’s current uncertainty of how to handle this “gun issue” we have, and think the Potter Box easily applies when deducting how and why this instance is unethical.
The dilemma here is that Mr. Metcalf, who has been a gun expert and the writer of a column in Guns & Ammo, no longer gets to write his column or talk about guns on television. All because he gave his opinion, on guns, in a column… about guns. For those who do not know, a column means it is an opinion piece. Not meant to be unbiased, in fact clearly labeled as biased, and like all opinions should be taken with a grain of salt (however factual Metcalf’s claim actually was but, I digress). Except the readers of said magazine didn’t like Metcalf’s opinion, and thinking it was too left for their tastes, threatened to boycott the publication. So there goes Metcalf, also getting canned from his show. Should this have happened?
Hell no. But let’s look at the Potter Box. The definition, or facts, state basically what I said above. The values include technically three parts; the values of Metcalf, the values of the publication, and the values of the readers. The readers value not necessarily news in the sense of always factual or always freely opinionated information – they purchase this niche publication to get more of what they already like and know, which is pro-guns (like, really really pro-gun). Anything else is too extreme for their taste. Metcalf values his job, his caliber of work and expertise he has, and his freedom of speech, all of which he exhibited before getting kicked to the way side. Guns & Ammo, like most publications, values money that the reader’s subscriptions bring, thus placing the reader’s discontent, no matter how uncalled for, over their value of what Metcalf brings to the table. The magazine is using teleological ethics, or situational ethics, that are based on the outcome. Keep Metcalf, lose readership. Can Metcalf, keep readership. Because they value the readers, the outcome in their eyes is greater if they fire Metcalf, so to them their move was ethical. But while the publication remains loyal to the readership by giving them what they want, they are not remaining loyal to the ethical code of journalism demonstrated to Metcalf or Metcalf him, who’s own loyalties were his craft and his readers. When the facts are presented this way, it is clear how unethical and simply profit driven the publication was.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/media/banished-for-questioning-the-gospel-of-guns.html?hp&_r=0
In The New York Times article about the first anniversary of the Newtown shooting, the ethical dilemma is whether or not the media should be covering the event. The town requested that it not be covered to allow the people who have lost someone class to them to be happy. This a dilemma because media outlets are forced to decide if they want to go against the people of Newton’s wishes and cover the event or respect their privacy.
The Tripar-Type Model should be used to go through this ethical dilemma because it would determine if the media has the right to know, need to know or want to know regarding this situation. This will allow the journalists to determine if they should go ahead with the story or decide to let this one go.
After looking over the links, the article about mixed race couples relating to television's portrayal and the Cheerios commercial peaked my interest. "Where Is My Family on TV?" by Jenna Wortham did a good job getting to the heart of what television actually means in influencing social media, "a two-way mirror into regular lives, also has the power to transform what was once alien and uncomfortable into normal and routine." This being said, the ethical dilemma in the situation is whether or not this medium properly and accurately portrays an average mixed race family. Wortham argues that this it does not, bringing up the dilemma of if this has influence over public opinion and reaction. The lede story about how Wortham's family was yelled at by a "wild-eyed man" demonstrates the possibility of how the media can effect, not only public opinion, but the safety, emotion and comfort of mixed-race Americans. Using a mix of the Golden Rule and the Golden Mean, as well as narrative fidelity to help evaluate the dilemma. I would also use Mean World Syndrome to help show that if the media portrays mixed-race couples a certain way, it can greatly influence the population.
I chose the NPR article about different journalists using the same sources. It's a dilemma because it limits the breadth of opinion presented in news sources. It allows a single person's voice to dominate the coverage of a story, and also allows that person to manipulate public perception of the story.
I would use the principles found in the SPJ's Code of ethics to evaluate this dilemma.
I chose the NPR article about different journalists using the same sources. It's a dilemma because it limits the breadth of opinion presented in news sources. It allows a single person's voice to dominate the coverage of a story, and also allows that person to manipulate public perception of the story.
I would use the principles found in the SPJ's Code of ethics to evaluate this dilemma.
I to analysis the NPR article "This Is (Not) The Most Important Story Of The Year," which confronted the ethical qualms of journalistic pandering and the prevalence of trash news receiving significant media coverage. The interesting part of this case is debating whether or not the media coverage of trash news creates audience desire for trash news or whether the audience themselves originated the desire and the media is justly serving viewers. Either way, journalistically speaking there exists no principle against coverage of trash news. The code of ethics has a clause about avoiding pandering, but, to play devil's advocate here, are you pandering to journalism outlets by not covering the trash news? All news is created equal but with limited space and time, news must be prioritized by news outlets. The question becomes whether it is fair to judge the news priorities of others in media and the viewers themselves. There is no right or wrong outside of personal beliefs, so I'd be very interested in exploring how one would go about justifying one view over another.
Natasha Singer's "Listen To Pandora, and it Listens Back" is a piece that provides an interesting outlook on deception, whether active or passive, not through the scope of journalism but that of marketing. Despite the variance in fields, the principles are all the same. Companies like Pandora and Netflix have started using algorithms to calculate and control what advertisements their customers receive on their social media feeds. Although this seems harmless on the surface, what is actually occurring is a form of deception both active and passive. Companies monitor the flow of content on their sites and use the data to make inferences about their users that can span from musical interest to religious and political affiliation. Users generally solicit this process unaware due to marketing tactics like long, complicated, electronic contracts and passively deceive their users, while reaping the benefits of their user records. Although they by law notify users of their intentions upfront, companies do well to hide the severity of their tracking of user data. To access their services you must click accept and agree to a mountain of terms and conditions that inadvertently allow these companies to record their information with the ability to sell it for marketing purposes. This trend has continued to grow over the recent decade and not only deceives the public but violates their general right to know in place of their wants. Their interests are potentially driven by ads and articles they don't need to hear about but instead are predicted to want to know. Their deception is an ethical violation regardless of profession and strips the public of their ability to access information that may be more crucial to their lives in pursuit of business.
The article that stood out to me the most was the article about Bode Millers Interview with NBC. This article stood out to me the most because I truly believe enough is enough. Even if Bode miller doesn’t really take this situation offensive, I think it is. Not only because she technically pushed the questions too far, but mostly she was invading his privacy. I do not agree with the fact this was intentional, I say this because it was not the first time it happened. In a recent interview she asked him questions about his brother and constantly brings up the situation. I believe she took advantage and took it as a free ticket into a breaking story. Just like we mentioned in class in the beginning of the semester, everyone is out for himself or herself. The ethical dilemma in this is the violation of the code of ethics to Minimize Harm. Which means that ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect. “Journalists should: Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects. Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief. Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about them than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.” She completely violated this code by pushing the questions too far and being insensitive of the situation. She disrespected his privacy by also recording him for that long instead of cutting it short. According to the potter box, in which the principles are facts, values, principles and loyalty, she also did unethical work far from “good work”. The facts are that she represents NBC, she questioned him way too far, he cried in public television, and she recorded him for an excessive amount of time. The value that she put at risk was her job because if NBC did not support her then they would not want her as a representation of the organization. She also put at risk her team and her fans. Her sensitivity is now questioned and many would not want to have interviews with her, which can also lead to her job at risk. The principles were the violation of the code of ethics, to “minimize harm”. In which I explained above. She also was not “accountable” encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media. Or Admit mistakes and correct them promptly. Her loyalty was also questioned because who is she being loyal to? Why is she pushing it so far? Does the audience really want to see him cry like that? These are the questions to her loyalty that are brought up.
It is pretty clear where the priorities for these news outlets lie. Instead of waiting to receive accurate and factual information to report, they jump on the story before verifying facts to achieve better ratings. As I was doing my own research on this tragedy, I still, after reading numerous articles, did not know who or what to believe.
When an event, as rare and shocking as this happens, the media immediately sensationalize it. And in a sense, how could they not? These are our worst nightmares and fears being spoken about and read all over the place. But the whole point of journalism is to seek truth and report it, and when that doesn't happen, controversy ensues and criticism of the media increases.
One can relate this unethical journalism to Kant's categorical imperative. These news outlets are using readers as a means to getting more ratings.
The real information that should be spoken about are the passengers and their families and friends that are in serious stress and danger.
Post a Comment