One thing that stuck out in Chapter 10 which reminded me of our discussion last week was “Sex Sells.” In the world of media, that is definitely true. Just last week we were talking about the Hardees commercial with Paris Hilton. It was a very sexy commercial with Paris Hilton washing a car in a bikini as she was eating a Hardees burger. The commercial had absolutely nothing to do with the product but I’m sure that Hardees still got a lot of attention because of the controversial images. I think that the commercial pushes the boundaries of ethical standards and that is one of the reasons which made it so popular. Even though there was no pornography, I think that it shouldn’t be viewed by a younger audience. In order to make the commercial more ethical, it should only be aired late at night so that it is not viewed by younger children.
Another thing that stuck out in the chapter was deciding whether or not to show shocking and disturbing visuals. This reminded of the video we saw in class of the little boy about to be hit by a police car. Some stations decided to air the video while others didn’t. That is a very hard ethical decision to make because you want to show the audience what happened while also having respect for the victim’s family. Even though you did not actually see him get hit, the video was definitely disturbing. In order to make an ethical decision like that, you need to understand all sides of the issues and trust your moral instincts. I personally would not show the video mainly because it was very shocking to me when I first saw it. If it was shocking to me, I know that it would be a million times worse if it was seen by the victim’s family.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
All the President's Men
All the President’s Men was a very powerful movie that really dug deep into the Watergate scandal which led to Nixon’s resignation. Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford played the role of two reporters working for the Washington Post. They were investigating the Watergate break-in and made some surprising discoveries. However, in order to make these discoveries and write their story, they had to make a lot of ethical judgments. Many things they did throughout the movie were very sketchy and unethical. But did the end justify the means?
The reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, did some sketchy activities in order to get the truth. One thing that is against the code of ethics is using unknown sources. They used many anonymous sources throughout their investigation including a source named “Deep Throat.” Reporter Bob Woodward would meet “Deep Throat” in dark parking garages which made the information seem even more sketchy, but that doesn’t mean that the information wasn’t true. In many cases though, it was important to keep these sources confidential because they were dealing with a huge national issue and the sources could be in danger if their names got out. But how are readers supposed to trust any of the stories if the sources were not named? The reporters had to deal with this and find other ways to get information from credible sources whose names they could reveal. The ways they went about finding people who were involved dealt with ethical dilemmas as well. The reporters were able to get a list of names and addresses of people that were involved by using one of their coworkers who was guilt tripped into doing it. Once they got the list, they tried to track everyone down. When the people wouldn’t talk to them or let them in, the reporters became very intrusive and sort of tricked the people into talking. Reporter Carl Bernstein came into a woman’s home and tried to get information from her by tricking her into questions. He was also very sneaky too by writing on napkins to remember all the information. He wrote down things she said without her even knowing about it. Now this kind of intrusiveness seems very unethical but it was the only way to get information because every witness was too scared to talk.
The reporters managed to get more information from one of the sources by tricking her again in order to learn someone’s name and verify what they knew. They wanted to know if P stood for the name Porter. They knew that she wouldn’t verify that information so they pretended that they already knew it and said it in front of her to see if she would correct them or deny it. When she didn’t deny the information, they knew that it was correct. They tricked her into verifying their information.
The reporters did many unethical activities in order to learn the truth. Is it wrong that they deceived people into getting information even though it was for the greater good? I definitely think that the end justified the means and the only way to find out the truth was to do sketchy activities. I do not think that it is right to deceive people but sometimes that it what you have to do in order to get the truth. The truth affected the entire nation and the American people deserved to know what happened with the Watergate scandal. People deserve to know the truth so the ends do justify the means.
The reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, did some sketchy activities in order to get the truth. One thing that is against the code of ethics is using unknown sources. They used many anonymous sources throughout their investigation including a source named “Deep Throat.” Reporter Bob Woodward would meet “Deep Throat” in dark parking garages which made the information seem even more sketchy, but that doesn’t mean that the information wasn’t true. In many cases though, it was important to keep these sources confidential because they were dealing with a huge national issue and the sources could be in danger if their names got out. But how are readers supposed to trust any of the stories if the sources were not named? The reporters had to deal with this and find other ways to get information from credible sources whose names they could reveal. The ways they went about finding people who were involved dealt with ethical dilemmas as well. The reporters were able to get a list of names and addresses of people that were involved by using one of their coworkers who was guilt tripped into doing it. Once they got the list, they tried to track everyone down. When the people wouldn’t talk to them or let them in, the reporters became very intrusive and sort of tricked the people into talking. Reporter Carl Bernstein came into a woman’s home and tried to get information from her by tricking her into questions. He was also very sneaky too by writing on napkins to remember all the information. He wrote down things she said without her even knowing about it. Now this kind of intrusiveness seems very unethical but it was the only way to get information because every witness was too scared to talk.
The reporters managed to get more information from one of the sources by tricking her again in order to learn someone’s name and verify what they knew. They wanted to know if P stood for the name Porter. They knew that she wouldn’t verify that information so they pretended that they already knew it and said it in front of her to see if she would correct them or deny it. When she didn’t deny the information, they knew that it was correct. They tricked her into verifying their information.
The reporters did many unethical activities in order to learn the truth. Is it wrong that they deceived people into getting information even though it was for the greater good? I definitely think that the end justified the means and the only way to find out the truth was to do sketchy activities. I do not think that it is right to deceive people but sometimes that it what you have to do in order to get the truth. The truth affected the entire nation and the American people deserved to know what happened with the Watergate scandal. People deserve to know the truth so the ends do justify the means.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Product Placements and Internet Advertisments
One thing that I never really thought of was product placement and why it is considered an ethical issue. I really do not think that audiences are manipulated by the advertisements. One movie that really uses a lot of product placement is Back to the Future. It showed the Pepsi product over and over along with many other products. It had no effect on me whatsoever. It did not make me want to buy Pepsi. I think that product placement in movies actually makes the movie seem more realistic because they use products that real people use every day.
Another concern is that product placement takes away from the film’s narrative. I think that in some instances, this might be true but overall I think that it adds to the movie. In Talladega Nights, they strongly stressed each product and it definitely added to the movie because the products were shown in a way to make the movie funnier. It was a great advertisement for the product and it did not take anything away from the movie.
Although product placement in movies doesn’t bother me, I hate internet advertisements. The internet definitely bombards you with advertisements on every Web page. Cyberspace advertisements really bother me especially the ones that flash and pop up saying that you’re the 999,999 viewer and you win a free T.V. They are very intrusive. One thing that we discussed in class was the advertisements on Facebook. I think that it is very creepy that the advertisements are designed to my interests. I see advertisements about my school and about Greek items that I can buy. I don’t understand how they got that information about me. It also showed an advertisement for my sorority once and I have no idea how Facebook knew what sorority I was in since I don’t mention it in my profile.
Another concern is that product placement takes away from the film’s narrative. I think that in some instances, this might be true but overall I think that it adds to the movie. In Talladega Nights, they strongly stressed each product and it definitely added to the movie because the products were shown in a way to make the movie funnier. It was a great advertisement for the product and it did not take anything away from the movie.
Although product placement in movies doesn’t bother me, I hate internet advertisements. The internet definitely bombards you with advertisements on every Web page. Cyberspace advertisements really bother me especially the ones that flash and pop up saying that you’re the 999,999 viewer and you win a free T.V. They are very intrusive. One thing that we discussed in class was the advertisements on Facebook. I think that it is very creepy that the advertisements are designed to my interests. I see advertisements about my school and about Greek items that I can buy. I don’t understand how they got that information about me. It also showed an advertisement for my sorority once and I have no idea how Facebook knew what sorority I was in since I don’t mention it in my profile.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Conflicts of Interest
Conflicts of interest arise in the media all the time and it is important to understand them in order to make ethical decisions. Conflicts of interest deal with conflicting relationships, conflicting public participation, and vested interests and hidden agendas (p.213). As journalists, you should not incorporate your personal life with work. If I were a journalist and I wanted to do a story about sororities and greek life, it would be unethical if I talked about my own experiences and only interviewed girls from my sorority. To be completely fair, I should interview girls from all the other chapters and not my own. But it would be best if I didn’t even do the story at all and someone else who wasn’t greek should cover it. My mom has to deal with conflicts of interest every day since she works for the government. For example, we cannot have any kind of political signs in our yard because she is not allowed to display her political views. All jobs deal with conflicts of interest especially public relations. The book had a good example of conflicting interests if a public relations firm represented an oil company and an environmental group. That just wouldn’t be ethical.
One major conflict of interest is checkbook journalism. Usually it can be unethical, but sometimes it is necessary to get your story. I have never really agreed with paying a source, but when dealing with media competition, it is sometimes necessary. Many major news sources have used checkbook journalism including the New York Times. The Times paid $1,000 in 1912 for an interview with the wireless operator of the Titanic. I believe that if journalists need to use checkbook journalism to get a great story, they should inform the public that they paid their source. That way the public can decide if the information is accurate or not. It would be very unethical if the public was not aware of checkbook journalism and the source would lose a lot of their credibility. An incident of checkbook journalism was used by ABC after the Columbine shootings. ABC paid $16,000 to a friend of one of the gunman in order to obtain home videos and other details about the shooters. Even if checkbook journalism was the only way to get that information, ABC should have told the public that the information was paid for. I think that it is deceiving to not let the public know where the information came from and that a price was paid in order to get it. Situations like that can really damage the credibility of a network like ABC.
One major conflict of interest is checkbook journalism. Usually it can be unethical, but sometimes it is necessary to get your story. I have never really agreed with paying a source, but when dealing with media competition, it is sometimes necessary. Many major news sources have used checkbook journalism including the New York Times. The Times paid $1,000 in 1912 for an interview with the wireless operator of the Titanic. I believe that if journalists need to use checkbook journalism to get a great story, they should inform the public that they paid their source. That way the public can decide if the information is accurate or not. It would be very unethical if the public was not aware of checkbook journalism and the source would lose a lot of their credibility. An incident of checkbook journalism was used by ABC after the Columbine shootings. ABC paid $16,000 to a friend of one of the gunman in order to obtain home videos and other details about the shooters. Even if checkbook journalism was the only way to get that information, ABC should have told the public that the information was paid for. I think that it is deceiving to not let the public know where the information came from and that a price was paid in order to get it. Situations like that can really damage the credibility of a network like ABC.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Ch. 6 Confidentiality
Confidentiality in journalism can raise up a lot of issues. Journalists have a duty to keep their sources private if they wish, but what if that information is valuable to the public. Shouldn’t the public have a right to know where certain information is coming from? I feel that the public should have a right to know who sources are, but I also feel that sources should have the right to privacy if they are giving up valuable information which could be dangerous for them if they were revealed. I can understand both sides of the issue, but I don’t have an answer as to which would be the right choice. Reveal the source or not?
Justice Robert Stewart had a good idea about regarding confidential sources which I agree with. His three criteria were: 1) the information is “clearly relevant to a specific probable violation of law.” 2) Information cannot be obtained by alternative means less destructive of First Amendment values. 3) There is a compelling and overriding need for the information (p.185). I think that a source should only be revealed if the information meets all three of these criteria. I would still like to know who the sources are for all stories, but I understand that a source has the right to stay private. Their privacy should not be violated unless it meets Stewart’s requirements. Even though all situations can vary, journalists should respect their sources and keep their confidentiality. When the information is of public concern and adheres to Stewart’s rules, then that should be the only time when a source should be revealed.
Justice Robert Stewart had a good idea about regarding confidential sources which I agree with. His three criteria were: 1) the information is “clearly relevant to a specific probable violation of law.” 2) Information cannot be obtained by alternative means less destructive of First Amendment values. 3) There is a compelling and overriding need for the information (p.185). I think that a source should only be revealed if the information meets all three of these criteria. I would still like to know who the sources are for all stories, but I understand that a source has the right to stay private. Their privacy should not be violated unless it meets Stewart’s requirements. Even though all situations can vary, journalists should respect their sources and keep their confidentiality. When the information is of public concern and adheres to Stewart’s rules, then that should be the only time when a source should be revealed.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Right to Privacy
After reading Ch. 5, I was shocked to see how media can ruin people’s lives just by invading their privacy. Media should be held liable for intrusion of privacy especially when it causes harm to those involved. I don’t understand why the media is so intrusive. People’s lives can really be harmed due to the media, for instance the media coverage over the TWA Flight 180 that crashed in 1996. The media completely bombarded Donald Nibert and his family right after they had found out that their daughter had died in the crash. The media took photos without the family’s knowledge as they selected a burial plot for their daughter. The media even went to great lengths by crawling under vehicles just to get pictures of the grieving family.
Another issue that I have about media privacy is the way media deals with sex crimes such as rape. It is a known ethics rule that you never publish a rape victim’s name because of the stigma attached to the victim. What really disappointed me was that the New York Times named a rape victim because a tabloid did it first. Instead of protecting the victim, the Times published her name since it was already out there. Not only did the Times publish her name, but they also named members of her family and even profiled her sex life which completely makes me disgusted. It made me lose some credibility for the Times.
I think that privacy is extremely important to all individuals and the media should respect that. I understand that sometimes privacy should be invaded when the public has a right to know, but only if it is of legitimate concern to the public. Other than that, the media should never intrude on people’s lives just to get a good story.
Another issue that I have about media privacy is the way media deals with sex crimes such as rape. It is a known ethics rule that you never publish a rape victim’s name because of the stigma attached to the victim. What really disappointed me was that the New York Times named a rape victim because a tabloid did it first. Instead of protecting the victim, the Times published her name since it was already out there. Not only did the Times publish her name, but they also named members of her family and even profiled her sex life which completely makes me disgusted. It made me lose some credibility for the Times.
I think that privacy is extremely important to all individuals and the media should respect that. I understand that sometimes privacy should be invaded when the public has a right to know, but only if it is of legitimate concern to the public. Other than that, the media should never intrude on people’s lives just to get a good story.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Are Hidden Cameras Ethical or Not?
In order to make an ethical decision on the case studies in Ch. 4, I relied on the standards of journalism truth which are: accuracy, promoting understanding, and being fair and balanced. In most of the case studies, reporters wanted to be completely accurate but they sometimes had to use deception in order to get the truth. Journalists should always be fair to the public and get the truth, but what if deception is the only way. Should journalists act on whatever means necessary to get the truth, even if it can hurt people? I debated this problem many times in trying to make sense of the case studies and figure out an ethical response to them.
One major form of deception is the use of hidden cameras. When looking at case 4-3, reporter Manny Fernandez is faced with a problem dealing with the employment of illegal immigrants. Sources have told Fernandez that illegal immigrants have been working for Alton Enterprises and have been treated with horrible working conditions. In order to be sure that this was really going on, the only way to get the truth would involve deception.
A photographer from their station would go to work there and secretly use concealed cameras and microphones to capture the harsh working conditions of the immigrants. When dealing with ethical issues, Fernandez was concerned that if the station used deception, then they would lose their credibility. He also didn’t know if the truth would actually help the immigrants or only hurt them worse. Even if they are working under harsh conditions, it still might be better than dealing with the poverty they experienced in their homeland. The two issues that faced Fernandez were “the public’s need to know and the minimization of harm (p.114).” The public has a right to know about the exploitation of immigrant workers, but will this story help the immigrants or only make it worse?
I relied on the standards of journalist truth and I believe that the use of hidden cameras is completely unethical. If Fernandez really wanted to get the truth, he would have to do it by some other means. Using hidden cameras may be accurate, but it does not promote understanding, nor is it fair and balanced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
