Cohort groups presented about a variety of compelling ethical dilemmas and issues during the week 15 lecture. Based on everything we have learned throughout the semester, it was interesting to take a deeper look into these topics.
Group 4 – Relationship between Media and Undocumented Citizens
I never heard the terms “undocumented citizen” used together until this presentation. This seems like an oxymoron because if someone is undocumented, he or she is not a citizen.
It was interesting how the group’s handout focused on the “undocumented Californians.” I am more approving of this reference because these immigrants are undocumented people living in California. However, I also see how residents of the state are not too keen on this reference. If someone is living in California legally, it is easy to see how they could take offense.
I do not necessarily agree with the group’s characterizations of the political parties. Yes, Democrats and Republicans have different stances on immigration. It is much easier to discuss giving these people chances. I am sure “inclusive language” boosts the ratings for Democrats. However, policies are in place for a reason. If our country gave everyone a chance for citizenship who came in illegally, our country would be overwhelmed by millions of additional people. I doubt our current infrastructure could handle that.
I do agree with the redistribution of accountability that seems to be occurring. These illegal immigrants are breaking laws and exploiting the system. When did this behavior become characteristic of a victim? If these people want to be treated as citizens, they need to follow the proper protocol.
Even though I spend a lot of time with my AP Stylebook, I have never written a story that includes illegal immigrants. It is telling to me that the Associated Press decided to strike “illegal immigrant” from its style guide.
What will replace these terms? How should these people be referred to? While I do not want to be offensive, I think we need to say what we mean. If someone immigrates to this country illegally, aren’t they an illegal immigrant?
Our society tends to over emphasize political correctness. It is illegal for employers to discriminate against criminals during the hiring process because it has a “disproportionate” effect on minorities. This absolutely boggles my mind. If someone has a criminal past, this should prevent him or her from obtaining certain employment. Whether someone is white, black, Hispanic or Asian should not be factors for job consideration. However, if someone has a rap sheet, this SHOULD be a factor.
The media needs to focus more on the immigration process during their coverage of immigration. Too often, we see stories about this poor immigrant or that one who is facing issues getting housing or a job.
Instead of treating these people like victims, do pieces about the bureaucracy involved in the process of becoming a citizen. Members of the media can serve as watchdogs over various agencies, such as the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. What are we waiting for?
Group 3 – Citizen Journalism
This group began their presentation by focusing on the void citizen journalists can fill, especially in the broadcast realm. My cohort group did not focus as much on the broadcast aspects, so I enjoyed hearing their perspective.
I also liked the Citizen Journalism vs. Traditional Journalism video. Although the traditional media model may be broken, the industry has more potential than ever because eyes and ears are everywhere. Instead of looking at these two sectors as separate and distinct, we can view it as a symbiotic relationship where both entities can benefit.
Journalism is a discipline of verification. If we do not verify the information for our audiences, how can they trust us? This principle is important for both traditional and citizen journalists.
The group’s timeline was helpful for seeing the progression of citizen journalism. It is amazing how someone watching the Columbia disaster unfold snapped a photo that was featured on the cover of Time. I had no idea Hurricane Sandy generated more than 800,000 photos on Instagram. It is refreshing to know this social media platform is used for something besides selfies.
I appreciated how members of group 3 focused on three individual case studies, including Syria, the Boston Marathon bombings and Venezuela. Anonymous sources are essential to coverage of the Syrian crisis, but this obviously raises questions about verification. Who can we attribute the information to? It is understandable why a Syrian citizen would want to remain anonymous, especially with the rampant danger paralyzing the country. However, it is difficult to determine whether we are seeing a photo from Syria or another area of the world.
The presentation referred to a New York Times video project where the publication shares “what we know vs. what we don’t know.” I think this is a great idea for stories and projects that include a lot of user-generated content. This transparency will allow an open dialogue with the public about the status of coverage, as well as reinforce the credibility of the publication because it is being open and honest.
In the discussion of the Boston Marathon coverage, Adam mentioned Geofeedia. This seems like a great tool to monitor what is happening in a small area. I wonder if this is something that could be utilized at WUFT.org in the future. The website mentions the ability to search, monitor and analyze the social media activity for a specific locale. This could be a helpful feature to set up for all of the counties in our coverage area.
During this semester, we have talked extensively about the lack of verification in the Venezuelan coverage. We even saw how the University of Florida student who created a video may have allowed her activist goals to supersede her journalistic principles.
I firmly believe media organizations must establish policies for how to handle content submitted by citizen journalists. If a news organization is willing to place this content on its website or on one of its networks, it needs to be sure the information is accurate. The media can no longer blame these citizens. Members of the media can do their best to provide guidance to citizens, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the mainstream and professional media.
Group 10 – Undercover Reporting
The Food Lion case seems to be the iconic example of undercover reporting. As a finicky eater who does not eat meat and many other foods, this story reaffirms my concerns about purchasing certain items from the supermarket.
This story addressed a public safety concern. Food Lion customers had a right to know they were not getting what they thought they were paying for. Was there any way to get this story without going undercover? I doubt Food Lion would have been open about its process of changing expiration dates and creating suspect meat concoctions if anyone had asked.
Being transparent with audiences is what truly matters. If a news organization tells its readers or viewers how it went undercover and the reasons for doing so, I think credibility can remain intact.
I thought it was interesting how this group brought in the discussion of Kant’s Categorical Imperative. This ethical framework says “you should act so that you treat humanity always as an end and never as a means only.” To me, undercover reporting entails someone masquerading as a means to get the story, which would be the ends. However, what do you do if this is the only way to get the story?
I loved the group’s handout for this project. I had previously heard about James O’Keefe’s ACORN video. While it seems like the ACORN employees were engaging in some sketchy practices, this was NOT an objective piece of journalism. However, as a conservative activist, we cannot expect O’Keefe to hold himself to the same standards journalists hold themselves to. The leading questions and the voiceovers took away from his overall message of a corrupt ACORN because they ultimately called his motives into question.
Personally, I have no intent to travel to North Korea. In addition, I think I would be the worst undercover reporter because I am not good at lying or pretending to be something I am not. However, I give the BBC credit for attempting to show the country like it is. I agree with the classmate who said additional context would have been helpful. Were these conditions typical of only one area of the country? What is contributing to these problems? These are questions I think the journalists should have answered.
This group did an excellent job of looking into a complex topic.
Group 9 – Accuracy vs. Immediacy
Would you rather be first or accurate? In an ideal world, a news organization would want to be both. However, no one will remember if you posted the information second. However, they will remember if it was wrong.
During my Thursday shift, we received the sad news that the University of Florida’s diving coach Donnie Craine died. When we sent out the initial tweet, we were the first news organization in the market to send anything out. I have never tweeted something so sensitive, so I was nervous about it. Luckily, I had several other editors around me to take a quick look before publication.
While I know other major news organizations deal with breaking news stories on a regular basis, why isn’t there the same attention to accuracy? I understand when something breaks, everyone wants something up on the website or social media, but at what price?
During my senior year of high school, I did an extensive project on the status of the nation’s health care. I understand how complex the topic is, but this is still no excuse for news organizations, such as CNN, publishing how the Affordable Care Act was struck down when it was not.
What is even worse is the lack of accountability. CNN labeled the corrections on Twitter, but they failed to do this adequately on their other platforms. Fox did not do a much better job by blaming the facts. You claim you covered “the news as it happened?” Why not admit you made a mistake and move on?
It baffles me how some news organizations were being congratulated on getting it right. We are in the business of journalism where accuracy and verification are everything. If we start giving out gold stars when people get the information right, does this not devalue everything we stand for?
During the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, I remember I was at work in western New York. As a school district employee whose office is located in a middle school, I immediately felt unsafe. Schools have always been considered a safe place, and this occurrence shattered that idea. One of the administrators used to work at Sandy Hook, so the situation hit even closer to home.
I do not understand when news organizations post something based on what another media outlet says. What happened to verifying the information for oneself? I feel so terrible for what Ryan Lanza must have gone through after the shooting. Can you imagine being vilified in the national spotlight for something you did not do?
During the Boston Marathon bombings, the media had some major hiccups as well. While we should not expect much from the New York Post, their coverage of the alleged bombers was a sorry excuse for journalism. CNN and Fox were also quick to make excuses about mistakes in their coverage.
It would be much more refreshing if members of the media would be forthcoming about their failures. Journalists are human, and audiences understand that. I think people tend to lose faith when mistakes are glossed over like nothing happened.
I approve of the idea of spreading corrections far and fast. One Facebook post or tweet is not enough. Web stories need to be updated with highlighted corrections. On television, banners should refer to the corrections, and the anchors should acknowledge any errors while on the air. If the initial story reached people through various platforms, the news organization needs to do everything in its power to reach out with the proper information.
Group 7 – Duty vs. Benevolence
We are all aware of the bystander effect. If someone drops their books, but several people are around, you are much less likely to bend down and help the person. However, if you the only person around, it is probable you will assist them.
Hearing the story of Kitty Genovese turned my stomach. All these people heard a woman cry out in agony, but they did nothing. While some can blame this on the New York City mentality, I do not think this is limited to one locale. I hear random noises outside of my apartment window, but I often assume the sounds are coming from drunk students returning from midtown. Do we always know when someone is in trouble?
I liked how this group focused on photography. As we learned from both our textbooks, ethical issues are rampant in pictures. Help now, shoot later or shoot now, help later? This is the question photojournalists must ask themselves when they go to shoot people in dangerous and tragic situations.
I am a firm believer that we are humans first and journalists second. If I could do something to help someone in pain, that would be my immediate reaction. While I would want to do my job to the best of my ability, I could not live with myself if someone’s life was negatively impacted by my choice. It seems like this type of decision ultimately led to Kevin Carter’s suicide.
In these types of situations, I do not think we should think about loyalty to an employer or to readers. The loyalty should be with someone who is in need. If you are thinking about a paycheck when someone is running toward you covered in napalm, I question your moral and ethical compass.
As someone who spends a substantial amount of time in New York City because my dad lives there, I know how dangerous the subways can be. While the New York Post does not seem to know much about taste, the subway photo of a man’s impending death raises a variety of ethical issues.
What would you do in this situation? The subway platform is at least several feet above the tracks. What if you did not have the ability to lift him up without putting yourself in danger? I am not sure whether I would risk my life, but I would never take a photo of a man during his final moments.
The old adage goes “a picture is worth 1,000 words.” As journalists, we need to recognize ethical issues in photos, as well as those in text.
Cassie Vangellow, cvangellow@ufl.edu
Vangellow, Cassie 