1. A colorful source in a feature story is quoted extensively using incorrect grammar and poor word choices. What are the ethical dilemmas involved in editing this story?

Obviously the problems in quoting someone who is “grammatically challenged” might be that although their points might be easily deciphered orally, they might be misconstrued when being read. It could also give the allusion to making the interviewee sound stupid, or give the allusion of the newspaper not proofreading their work. Ethically to make sure that the newspaper is not deemed the culprit behind such errors, they will put [sic] after the quoted text. If the interviewee is usually quite coherent outside of the quoted text, the newspaper might want to re-clarify with the subject I feel, if only to make sure they don’t attempt to accuse them of portraying them in a false light (libel).

2. A local business buys a large advertisement regularly in your school newspaper. Recently, the local business approached the paper and asked to have a student reporter write a feature article about all the services that the business offers to the community. What should the newspaper’s response be?

Personally I find no harm in doing a feature articled as long as it is mentioned that the ad was sponsored, just as I find no harm in bloggers doing reviews on free products as long as it was mentioned that the post was sponsored or the products given were free in exchange for a review. I find the issue for smaller newspapers such as a school publication is that advertising sponsors are harder to come by and need to be more aggressively pursued vs. a major newspaper (such as the Post-Dispatch). I find the catch is that the local business should pay for say a full-page or half-page ad that acts as the article, rather than the newspaper doing the article as a favor to the client. In the past I’ve seen ads run that looked like articles for Amish-made furniture, but were ran with a border and full color background to distinguish it from the typical black-and-white of newspaper text. I say the newspaper should say yes, obviously they are a loyal customer, but prior stipulations should be set as to essentially run it as an ad rather than an actual story so the paper doesn’t come off as being biased towards the business when in all reality they are not.

The photo from 8-B was published in the University of Florida’s student newspaper. The student photographer didn’t have nearly the years of experience that would develop his ethical views in the profession. Following Garry Bryant’s checklist of whether to shoot at the scene of a tragedy, the photographer probably shouldn’t have.

1. Should this moment be made public?

Although the issues are ones that should made public, the intimacy of a photo of the scene is something that shouldn’t be made public, which is why many newspapers refuse to publish photos of dead children.

2. Will being photographed send the subjects into further trauma?

I don’t think the woman who threw her miscarried baby into a dumpster on campus is in a right state of mind. The poem, “The Mother” by Gwendolyn Brooks shows that even mothers who consciously make the decision to abort their children still have a lot of repercussions and sometimes regrets. I think for the girl who did that, she will have even more trauma when she sees this photo in a newspaper and although she deserves that trauma, it still might be ethical to bombard her with it in the form of a published photo in her campus newspaper.

3. Am I at the least obtrusive distance possible?

The photographer did seem to be at a comfortable distance, and the officers did not seem to even be paying attention to the photographer. I’d say in this sense, if they were to take a photo (which they did), the photographer did it at a respectable distance.

4. Am I acting with compassion and sensitivity?

I don’t think in taking a photo of a dead baby next a dumpster is compassionate or sensitive at all, and based on the amount of letters to the editor the newspaper received, the public also agreed.

LGBT Pride Flag in San Francisco

Reading over Case 7-C –“Bonding” Announcements in the News—in my textbook for class, I felt that this case in present times was a little outdated (the case itself was from 1990). The issue at hand was with gay marriage and if these same-sex couples could have “bonding announcements” vs. wedding announcements printed in the paper. For the Herald, after a same-sex couple applied to enter an announcement in the “weddings section” of their announcements page, rather than just publishing it, the paper created a new section just for these couples to publish their commitment ceremonies and that is where the controversy began.

_____

Q. Some critics thought the Herald was bragging about being “one of the first” to accept gay bonding announcements. Would it have been better to skip the advance notice and simply publish the bonding ceremony and the new publication procedures for the page?

A. I think the Herald was a little sloppy in announcing their change. Although it is nice to say they are “one of the first,” it would have been better to omit that fact and initiate it as a smaller change and let the questions come in later for PR to handle. When the New York Times published their first same-sex marriage announcement, they offset the change by announcing it a month prior and changing the name of their wedding section to “Weddings & Celebrations” before the first announcement was published

_____

Q. Gay commitments are not recognized by most state laws. Should the paper publish any arrangements that do not have a legal status?

A. Six states currently recognize gay marriage, and there are others that observe these unions. In the case of the Omaha-World Herald, their newspaper policy is to only print legally observed marriages. But even when posed with a legally married same-sex couple that married in another state, it came down to a matter of the publisher’s own opinion. But what I find interesting is that the Ohama-World Herald published that couple’s announcement online but refused to in print. Is that due to demographic difference? Stereotypes usually portray the older-and usually more conservative—people reading the paper, while younger and more liberal-thinking children take to the net. But after nationwide-protests flooded in from gay rights organizations and advocates, the newspaper now will publish in print any legal marriage regardless of the same-sex. I do not think it is wrong for papers to not want to publish unofficial commitment ceremonies, but I don’t think they should be able to not observe marriages that are legal in other states.

_____

Q. The women involved in this case were harassed by conservative groups for months afterward. Does a newspaper have an obligation to censor news that may harm those submitting it? If so, what are the criteria?

A. I do not think the newspaper should take the blame for harassment these women got. As two lesbian women living in the 90’s they had to have had a brief idea of the controversy they could possibly cause. Most LGBT children are bullied, they have a fear of “coming out” to many people, and seeing as these were two grown women openly applying to publish their identities and sexualities to the community, they must have known about the possible “bullying” the community might give them based on the stereotypical scenarios they probably encountered growing up. It is also easy to note that gay rights weren’t as big of a deal as they are now, or that the issue of “gay marriage” was something that was never even close to reaching the ballots like it has been today.

A newspaper does have the ability to censor news. In such the only times they need to is if any sources want to remain anonymous, or if in a story the identity of a person being published could lead to problems for them (ex: rape victims, ex-gang members, etc.). Many media outlets refuse to talk about death threats on public figures to do the copycat possibility and the panic it could put the public in.

I think the newspaper should always forewarn people if they believe their names or stories could cause issues for them later on, such as it did for this couple.

_____

“Between 2002 and 2008 the number of papers accepting same-sex wedding/commitment announcements increased tenfold to more than 1,000.  However a study by GLAAD found that only one-third of those papers had actually received submissions.  The study was done in 2008 so the figure may now be closer to 40%.  Nonetheless, it suggests that not every same-sex couple getting hitched wants to make a public announcement. “

- Rob Frydlewicz

The documentary movie Citizen McCaw focused on a town that was torn due to various beliefs in that question. If you were Wendy McCaw, the owner and publisher of that paper, you might say yes but your actions probably say no.  After purchasing the newspaper, McCaw’s personal opinions dominated the editorials section. Which is fine, as that is the editorials section, which is meant for the opinions of the editors and acts a nice break from the objective reporting from the newsroom. But eventually she attempted to hinder the objective reporting in the news room, citing that her supervision of the content was her duty as the owner.

But here is a fun fact, how many people know who the owner of their local newspaper is? I know I don’t know who owns The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, or The Alton Telegraph. Do I know who the editorial staff is? Yes, but that is because these writers are the public face of the newspaper. I see owners to usually be behind the scenes, letting the newsroom do its work and butting in only with the utmost controversy arises. With the Washington Post and the Watergate scandal, almost all the calls were made by Ben Bradlee to run a story, not their owner.

Wendy McCaw’s direct involvement in her newspaper even though she lacked a background in journalism is proof that with enough money, you can really do almost anything. She used the paper as her personal stomping grounds to protect her friends (Armstrong and Lowe), attack her enemies (Roberts) and promote any agenda as she sees fit to do. Because of this, she lost almost all of her staff and a good portion of her readership.

When someone prevents legitimate news from being published in order of a personal agenda, tempers will flare (obviously). Because most of her staff walked out on her, she was left with a team too small to accurately cover local news stories. The credibility was lost on their paper when she didn’t even contact Roberts for a quote on a story he was the focus of. She lost her credibility as a non-objective “newsperson” when she started trying to hinder the free speech of the community, sending cease-and-desist letters to anyone in the community that voiced their opposition to her paper.

The journalists that worked for McCaw were in the truth business, that’s why when they were told not to publically talk about what went on behind the scenes of their newspaper, they did. It is also why they walked out on stable, paying jobs. Although there are bad seeds out there, most journalists seek to find the truth and defend it always.

Also, something to mull over:
“Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one.” –AJ Liebling

First and foremost I do not have kids, but at one point I was a kid. Being a 13 year old girl online attracts perverts like moths to a flame (unfortunately I know this from experience). So yeah, of course when I do have kids, it is definitely a huge deal that I know their online activities because there are creeps out there, creeps who want to divulge in their creepiest creeper fantasies, and you better believe that victim is not going to be my kid.  But for class, I have to pretend that I’m the parent of a 12-15 year old child that surfs the net (see: me about a decade ago)…

When it comes to shows like Dateline: To Catch a Predator is it really newsworthy? As a parent I think I have the right to know that there are sexual predators out and about, that is the reason that sex offender lists are public, and I have the right to be informed of how these predators lure children. But do I feel like the whole ordeal of sexual predators is turned into a trivial circus-act as a ploy for high ratings? You bet I do!

Unfortunately when the show first started airing in the mid-2000’s, a lot of parents were still blindsided to the fact that the internet—something they use for business communications and e-mail—is being used by older men to prey on their teenaged children. So while it was a shocking, and informative show, the length and frequency made it similar to that of Cops, one of the laughing stocks of reality TV. The quest for high ratings and Chris Hansen’s quips of sarcastic humor made for a show that almost gave sympathy towards the disgusting schmucks that showing up at these decoy houses. It took the focus away from the real point of the show, to instill fear in those watching that there are people out there looking online for sex with minors, a minor which could be your child.

“…Nearly half of the 28 men who surfaced in this investigation had seen one of our earlier investigations. What does that say to me? Some people have suggested that some of these guys want to get caught, perhaps maybe even want to be on our show. Possibly, but I still think most of these guys just really don’t think it could happen to them.” – Chris Hansen

While the show informs me out what lurks out there, it doesn’t direct me on how to patrol my child online. You cannot block a child from the internet, especially in these technological times. Back in 2000-2001 AOL had chat rooms geared specifically for children using their browser or internet service under parental controls, which consisted not of other kids but of AI software making automated responses. I tested my theory that they were robots by swearing a lot—Yeah, I was a potty mouth at 10–which led to a week of my internet being cut off thanks to AOL who thought I was an adult lurking in children’s chat rooms.

While Dateline’s website for To Catch a Predator is informative to parents, the show in itself is not. While it does create awareness, it also seems to be a ploy for high ratings from the network and is highly criticized by fellow newscasters and reporters for the ethics deployed in the production of the show. Hint: Notice how the show was cancelled.

As a reporter, you see all kinds of “newsworthy” stories taking place right in front of your eyes. But as a reporter you should attempt to stay objective to these stories. It isn’t possible for most people to carry an objective view point, but most reporters need to be aware of their existing bias and try to write without them interfering. For a lot of reporters, covering 9/11 was emotionally heart wrenching and it was hard not to feel empathy for the people they were interviewing. Having empathy is something reporters need in order to cover a story fully, but it also can cause the lines to blur and lead to bias and can sway a story unfairly. In the case of the Little Rock Nine, Ben Fine’s direct involvement led to him becoming a part of the story, rather than just an objective reporter and in such when writing the story he would be more adapt to writing with a sympathetic ear to Eckford rather than just reporting about the mobs in front of the schools itself. The lines are thin, but when they blur it can change the whole tone of a reporter’s story.

“Observe, be content to be in the background, help if you can, but don’t make that your priority.”
– Kerry Sheridan

The Potter Box, not to be confused with Pandora’s Box is a model that incorporates four steps to reach an ethical decision. The steps of the box here is (1) understanding the facts, (2) outlining the values inherent in the decision, (3) applying relevant philosophical principles and (4) articulating a loyalty. Stuck in an ethical dilemma? Whip out the box and it’ll guide you on what to do when the grounds are shaky in your decision-making.

To test out this model, I used a case-study called The Pimp, The Prostitute, and the Preacher. In this case the city was attempting to arrest pimps rather than the prostitutes and their clients trying to nip the problem in the bud. But to do that, the hoes and their clients had to testify in court to air all of their dirty laundry. Some basic facts were that some girls were underage and that they could not prove money came into the pimps’ hands for sexual acts.

Step 1: Obviously as a reporter at the court trials, you have all the information on what happened, who is involved and how the case is going. But as a reporter you have the choice on how much of that information should be published? Since the prostitutes in this case were underage, obviously their names shouldn’t be in print.

Step 2 (Outlining the Values): This is where things get tricky. Whereas I value the truth to high regard, I also really do not like meddling in others’ relationships and personal affairs. I am big on retaining people’s privacy on certain matters, such as the identities of underage prostitutes.

But hold up! Let’s say one of the clients was a priest, the supposed mediator between the holy realm and Earth, a community leader, a role model, and a loyal “family man” who lives by the Bible. Do you give him the same privacy you give the girls? Or do you find that holding a secret of his secret affairs and betrayal to his community is too much so you have to publish the truth?

Step 3: Is omitting some information from the trial justifiable? Yes, obviously. But is omitting information about the priest justifiable? I think so, to print his name would be to discredit him fully and would require many follow-up stories on both him and the girls (it is what the public craves). Printing his name could lead to the newspaper turning almost into a tabloid magazine with gossip stories. It would also take away from the original story, underage girls acting as prostitutes at the local mall.

Step 4: With new facts in the case (such as the Preacher being a client), I’m not sure where my loyalties now lie with the case and printing his name is still up in the air because there is conflicting loyalties in myself, such as the need to seek the truth and defend it always, but also the need to respect one’s privacy if it is not pivotal to my story.

Side note: Let me just say that I’m disgusted by a preacher soliciting sex by underage girls, although the case-study did not mention how the trials came out, I hope the clients of the girls were also charged with accounts of statutory rape.

In almost every journalism-related class I’ve been in the professor has always shown All the President’s Men. But I think there’s a reason behind it, and that reason is it is a movie that really shows the hardships and accomplishments one can encounter as a reporter and the effectiveness of good journalism. I felt fortunately the movie didn’t necessarily fall under Hollywood Hype, which is truthfully probably why I had never seen it before coming to college.

Because it was based in the Nixon-era, Woodstein’s (as Ben Bradlee affectionately called them) information gathering processes varied excessively from the newsgathering process today. They didn’t have the internet, files were not stored electronically, and point-and-shoot digital cameras were decades from being invented. During one scene, Bernstein and Woodward had to sift for hours through check-out slips in the library. They had to make phone calls using a—gasp–rotary phone. It is so easy to gather and store information today, which makes their feat of uncovering the Watergate scandal for what it was, even greater of a feat.

But investigative reporting can be dangerous, if you get something wrong your paper can get fined or better yet, a reporter could lose their job and their credibility. And if you’re a journalist, losing your credibility is a nightmare. So when Deep Throat said the lives of Woodstein might be in danger, it is easy to believe he was right and even so, Bob Woodward at the time was fearful for his life (although now he chalks it up to paranoia). Of course “they” in this movie referred to the Government, as they would be the ones behind the “danger” in the reporter’s lives. So what I think is very important about Mark Felt coming out as being the man behind the nickname “Deep Throat” is that Bernstein and Woodward, although heavily pushed about the identity of their informants, never once released the name of a source unless they agreed to being cited. If that doesn’t abide by the ethics of journalism, I don’t know what does.

Although Woodstein fought to uncover a story they thought was worthwhile, I think some stories relating to presidents are unneeded and a victim of sensationalism. I don’t care if the Bushes went to Camp David; I don’t care what kind of pizza the Obamas had delivered to the White House; and if Clinton wants to stick cigars in the miscellaneous orifices of women, keep it out of my newspapers.

Well, there’s a lot more in-depth reporting, but that tradition converges with the Internet and 24-hour television so there’s this sense of impatience in journalism. Get it out right now. And investigative reporting is the opposite of impatience. You have to just wait and slug it out and talk to people. And when you have a news environment of “Let’s be first, let’s get it on the Web site,” Carl and I could work on stories for weeks and Bradlee was impatient, but patient enough to let us chase the needed sources and establish the basics as fact. – Bob Woodward

1999 Columbine Shootings

Sensationalism in the news is always a touchy subject. Do we over sensationalize things? Personally I find that question just a little rhetorical. Turn on the news and it’s easy to find the blood and gore our society has been desensitized to.

But what I certainly find curious (but not unusual) is that the stories that are victim to sensationalism are those that usually have more photos and videos to add to the credibility and satisfy our society’s never-ending curiosity. Stories like the Casey Anthony trial, the OJ Simpson trial, or the Columbine Shootings were all controversial topics and became over-sensationalized because of it. But then stories about Christina Chubbuck become nothing but a legendary rumor as time goes by because no video or photo of her news-worthy event (her live broadcasted suicide) exists to cement her into history.

It is obvious why the mass media sensationalizes stories. The more viewership is up, the more money they make and hopefully the more of those viewers they retain for future broadcasts. But after stories like the Columbine shootings had gained so much press and discussion, school shootings seems to be less focused on due to the numerous copycat events it spawned across the globe due to some teens looking to die in an infamous angst. Which is why it is probably good that Chubbuck committed suicide before the era of VCR’s and DVR’s; for it could have also spawned other copycats like the Columbine coverage did. The copycat syndrome is a negative effect of sensationalism, and one that isn’t going to shy away soon. There are people out there who strive for the world to share their same problems, just look at Al Qaeda who sends videos to media outlets to play to the world.

Personally I’m living in a high-stress environment right now. There is nothing I would appreciate more than a measly-hyped fluff segment about kittens, the world needs more of those.

Believe me, I’m one of the first to say that it is hard to not have any sort of brand recognition in the media. My boyfriend drinks Coke all the time, I’m sure if he did a reality TV show you’d always seem him with one in hand. I love wearing my Vans sneakers and any of my New York Mets gear. So it is easy to ignore brands such as Apple or most car brands in a TV show or movie when we are so used to seeing these iconic logos on a daily basis. Does that make product placement OK? In some cases it does, in others no.

On the matters of product placement, it makes me wonder how ethical shows like Mad Men are. Since it is a show related to advertising in the 60’s does the absence of many of the brands they focus on make it any better? Or what about the strong emphasis on Lucky Strike brand cigarettes—a brand sold today—is that unethical?

Screencap from Britney Spears' song "Hold It Against Me"

But what is especially startling to me now is that product placement is weaseling its way into music videos. Music videos have seen a new resurgence with the popularity of YouTube and in order to take to the popularity of the online forum with targeted “youngsters,” you can now see some of your favorite brands in videos for your favorite songs. Pop stars like Lady Gaga and Britney Spears have both touted spots in their videos for the dating site Plenty of Fish. Lady Gaga also has had product placement from Wonderbread whereas Britney gave a nod to Make Up For Ever.

There isn’t a huge issue for me with brand placement. I go to class with hundreds of students acting as billboard advertisements for Adidas, Nike, and Under Armor every day. I walk outside and I see every brand of car imaginable. I see Apple and Windows PC’s all over campus. No matter how hard you try you cannot escape name brands, and even the companies that pride themselves in not plastered their logo or name everywhere (like American Apparel) in such become an iconic brand themselves, it is just how our materialistic society operates.