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.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
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.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
The one thing that I really got out of Ch. 3 was the SAD formula. This formula is helpful for an individual when making ethical decisions. It was very useful for me in Ch. 4 when dealing with the different case studies.
The first step of SAD is to identify the problem. You really have to go over all the facts to really understand the ethical dilemma because sometimes the problem isn’t always clear. In the case study with the undercover advertising, you have to understand that the ethical problem is whether this sort of advertising is deceptive because the public doesn’t know they are being persuaded.
The next step is to analysis the situation. Does it really matter that the advertisers are trying to appeal to consumers on a casual basis about their product? The company is not trying to sell their product, but they are trying to get it to spread by word of mouth. Is it deceitful because they don’t say that they work for the company?
The final step is to make a decision on whether it is ethical or not. The advertisers are trying to get the word out about their new product but they do not reveal that they work for the company. Is this ethical or not? By using the SAD formula, people have a much easier time making that ethical decision.
The first step of SAD is to identify the problem. You really have to go over all the facts to really understand the ethical dilemma because sometimes the problem isn’t always clear. In the case study with the undercover advertising, you have to understand that the ethical problem is whether this sort of advertising is deceptive because the public doesn’t know they are being persuaded.
The next step is to analysis the situation. Does it really matter that the advertisers are trying to appeal to consumers on a casual basis about their product? The company is not trying to sell their product, but they are trying to get it to spread by word of mouth. Is it deceitful because they don’t say that they work for the company?
The final step is to make a decision on whether it is ethical or not. The advertisers are trying to get the word out about their new product but they do not reveal that they work for the company. Is this ethical or not? By using the SAD formula, people have a much easier time making that ethical decision.
Jason Blair
Reading about Jason Blair is very disturbing for me because plagiarism and deceit are against everything journalists strive for. I really don’t understand how someone can fabricate so many stories, especially when the stories deal with very emotional and personal issues.
The story about the marine, Corporal Kingel, was very disturbing to me because this man just suffered from an injury in Iraq and Jason Blair lied about visiting him in the hospital and created an entire scene and story that did not exist. Blair even made up a false quote that was featured as the quotation of the day.
What I don’t understand is how Blair stayed undetected for so long. Jason Blair was a huge scandal for the New York Times because Jason Blair was deceiving them for almost four years. Although the Times suffered due to this scandal, they finally put a stop to it. Though it may be hard for readers to trust the newspaper now, I feel that the Times has learned from their mistake and is still a trusting source for news.
Reading about Jason Blair is very disturbing for me because plagiarism and deceit are against everything journalists strive for. I really don’t understand how someone can fabricate so many stories, especially when the stories deal with very emotional and personal issues.
The story about the marine, Corporal Kingel, was very disturbing to me because this man just suffered from an injury in Iraq and Jason Blair lied about visiting him in the hospital and created an entire scene and story that did not exist. Blair even made up a false quote that was featured as the quotation of the day.
What I don’t understand is how Blair stayed undetected for so long. Jason Blair was a huge scandal for the New York Times because Jason Blair was deceiving them for almost four years. Although the Times suffered due to this scandal, they finally put a stop to it. Though it may be hard for readers to trust the newspaper now, I feel that the Times has learned from their mistake and is still a trusting source for news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
