Presentation Evaluations – Week 15

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

 

 

Presentation Evaluations – Week 14

I enjoyed learning about a variety of ethical issues facing journalists during the first round of presentations.

Group 6 – “Blood on our hands”

As soon as I saw the title for this group’s presentation, I was intrigued. Until watching this presentation, I had never heard of persistent sexual arousal syndrome. I remember one episode of “Grey’s Anatomy” where a woman could not control her constant orgasms, but I assumed this was a fictitious problem.

If I had seen this post on Craigslist, I would have likely attributed it to the crazy people out there who post about all kinds of nonsense. I must admit that I do not think I would have had the audacity to message the person to ask them whether I could pursue a story about them.

I was glad this group provided context about the situation, including reporter Leonora LaPeter Anton’s background. Anton worked at the Tampa Bay Times for more than 10 years, so it was evident this was not an issue pertaining to lack of experience.

As a journalist, I always look for situations where I can learn something. Gretchen Molannen’s story was heartbreaking and complex. While people might be quick to say this syndrome is a blessing in disguise, Molannen discussed its debilitating effects. Can you imagine going through a period of arousal while in a quiet movie theater or office? I can only imagine the anxiety associated with this.

We have learned journalism’s first loyalty is to citizens. As a citizen, Molannen deserved our loyalty. While I am not blaming Molannen’s suicide on Anton, the situation could have been handled better.

Journalists should go through a period of psychological training. This training could be beneficial for reporters because it would enable them to deal with sources who may be facing demons or issues journalists may know little about. At this point in time, I know very little to nothing about suicide prevention. If I were a reporter for this story, that information would have been extremely helpful.

When members of group six mentioned the inclusion of helpful resources for those with suicidal thoughts, I thought about the Journalism for Action article we read during week 13. Wouldn’t this type of work be what Alana Moceri was referring to when she called for journalism for action? After looking at this case study, I am much more open to these efforts because telling readers what they can do about something can actually make a difference.

Group 8 – Trial Reporting

I remember learning about the Sam Sheppard case during law of mass communication. After looking at the media frenzy, can we say much has changed since 1954?

I like how members of group 8 separated the trials into sensationalistic cases, cases that created a bias and those cases that resulted in overexposure. I agree how George Zimmerman and Aaron Hernandez were victims of sensationalistic cases. Even before these cases reached the courtroom, the media framed these defendants as guilty.

Hernandez’s case will likely not be held until spring or summer of 2015, but members of the public and potential jury members already have a skewed view of the defendant because of the media. The University of Florida was also quick to distance itself by removing Hernandez’s All-American brick in July of 2013.

With the case studies of Richard Jewell and Alex Rodriguez, we also saw how the media can create a bias. We watched that heartbreaking video at the start of the semester that focused on the handling of the Jewell case. It is troubling how the Atlanta Journal Constitution and other media outlets created a bias that prevented Jewell from receiving a fair trial.

The use of performance enhancing drugs and steroids are serious infractions, especially in the world of sports where athletes are celebrated for their prowess. However, even if Rodriguez did use these substances, about 196,000 results appear when I typed in Alex Rodriguez PED. Do you think you could get a fair trial with this bias surrounding your image?

Overexposure is another issue, but I do not think it is solely the media’s fault. As the group said, journalists do not control how much access they have to a particular trial. From their presentation, it seems like Jodi Arias and Casey Anthony were victims of this overexposure. What is the media’s responsibility in these types of situations? Should they devote extensive coverage to these defendants or does this behavior glamorize crime?

The group said it is a journalist’s duty to provide “truth in order to maintain an efficient and effective democracy.” Would tainting someone’s reputation be included in this role? I do not think so.

Group 5 – Ethics Online

Watching the Buzzfeed video about people’s privacy on social media made my day. I had tears in my eyes from laughing so hard. However, it does bring up the serious issue of people being so open on the Internet. If a few people with simple search queries can find all this information out, imagine what data companies and the government have access to.

Even as I say this, I am guilty of taking countless Buzzfeed quizzes. Of course, my favorite one is “Which Disney Princess are you?” In all honesty, it does not surprise me how these websites sell the data to outside companies. We freely put it out there, so why shouldn’t these companies utilize it?

When it comes to online privacy and the publication of mugshots, I have mixed feelings. I want to be aware of the crime in my area, and I also want people to be held accountable for their actions. I think they can also serve as deterrents for people who are considering doing something illegal whether this pertains to underage drinking, drugs or something more serious. As a prospective law student, I had to fill out sections on each application about any prior criminal history. Having a mug shot would have likely killed my chances of going to law school.

However, I also know people who have had their mugshots held “for ransom” by websites who charge exorbitant fees if someone wants the photos removed. I do not agree with these people’s actions that resulted in the arrest, but I think they will pay for their mistake. Is it fair for others to profit off of their misfortune?

I may not be someone who would purchase a copy of The Slammer, but I also cannot get enough of television about crime and prison. I watch “Locked Up” almost every Saturday night. While most people may not be as interested as I am, do you think people are attracted to crude and dangerous material?

I also think my curiosity contributes to me being a constant victim of clickbait. When I see an article like “Adult Kickball Team Email: Please Don’t Fuck Your Teammates Yet,” I know I will give into the inevitable and click on it.

As the spokesman for Buzzfeed said, this material is “anything anyone might actually want to read.” Is that really too hard for journalists to admit? If we all used a little more clickbait, maybe readership would not be on such a decline.

Group 2 – Anonymous Sources

Anonymous sources continue to be a contentious issue because some situations warrant them while others do not. No publication wants to have a Jayson Blair scenario on their hands, so I think many news organizations are wary about their use.

However, members of group 2 also acknowledged some of the positive work that has been completed as a result of anonymous sources. We likely never would have heard about Watergate without Deep Throat. It is not appropriate for every situation, but it can be useful for certain topics that require a light touch.

When it comes to making sure the news organization is covered, I like the idea of at least one editor knowing the identity of the anonymous source. Anonymous sources may have a lot to lose, but the credibility of a news organization could be on the line. The identity of the source would be protected, but an editor would have the journalist’s back, something I think can only help a story.

Group 1 – Citizen Journalism

This was my cohort group’s presentation. I enjoyed discussing critical junctures for citizen journalism, including the Rodney King beating in March 1991. I also liked hearing the opinions of class members about how they feel citizen journalism will mesh with professional journalism and traditional journalists.

Cassie Vangellow, cvangellow@ufl.edu

Blog Essay Week 13

EJ Chapter 10

During my spring break in Washington, D.C., I was able to see all of the security measures in place in this vast metropolis, so I can only imagine how scary it must have been in October of 2002. I often get freaked out by the constant UF Alerts, so I know I would have been paralyzed by fear.

The fierceness of media competition is to be expected. Everyone wants to receive credit for shedding light on a particular issue or scandal. However, it surprised me how the New York Times was still disappointed about coming up short in the Watergate coverage. To me, it seems like a no-brainer that the Washington Post, which is based in our nation’s capital, was able to devote its resources to uncovering this government secret. Does being the “paper of record” mean you have to be everywhere, all the time to get the next blockbuster story?

After seeing the well-oiled New York Times machine in “Page One: Inside the New York Times,” I saw many talented journalists and editors working diligently and looking at topics in ways I never would have considered. With this access to the best and brightest in journalism, it concerns me how reporter Jayson Blair, with less than two years of experience, was sent to D.C. during the fall of 2002.

Red flags were also raised when established reporters, such as Eric Lichtblau, questioned some of Blair’s reporting. While egos and jealousy are rampant in the field of journalism, Lichtblau had questions based on the input of trusted sources. I wonder why this was not taken more seriously. I ponder this issue further in my discussion question because I do not see why a news organization would not want these types of internal checks and balances to benefit the organization. Section, managing and executive editors cannot keep their eyes on everyone all the time, so they should value the “on-the-ground” perspective from other journalists.

It angers me how it took an outsider from another paper to cause executive editor Howell Raines and managing editor Gerald Boyd to take a closer look. In 2001, Boyd became the first African American managing editor at the New York Times. Did this factor into special treatment for Blair, who was also an African American? I do not like to speculate, but I question how this behavior could have gone undetected for so long.

I give some credit to the management of the New York Times for attempting to open up the lines of communication, but I think it was too late, at least on this particular issue. An article pertaining to the resignation of Raines and Boyd mentioned how 36 articles written by Blair raised ethical concerns. This is not exactly something you can sweep under the rug.

Having no laws or licensing in journalism can be viewed as a negative, but these types of regulations would hinder the work of journalists. In lecture a few weeks back, we saw what it takes to be a journalist in China. I think I am content to pursue a journalism career here where there is much less restriction and emphasis on following those who are in power.

However, I think the lack of rules and regulations also places a heavier burden on individual journalists. We may not be bound to follow certain laws, but do we have any credibility if we do not follow some standards? While codes of ethics provide a sound foundation, I think an ethical compass must also be found in every reporter.

Ultimately, I do not think we can avoid an oligarchic media structure. Editors need to use their news judgment to evaluate and monitor what their journalists are doing. Within these structures, I think more can be done to allow for discussion and internal audits about what is going on. It is much better if an ethical issue can be dealt with from the onset instead of months or years later when a problem of a greater scale attracts the attention of the outside media and the rest of the public.

In my first blog post for this course, I defined ethics as “a moral foundation that allows someone to evaluate and make decisions in his or her personal and professional life.” I think this relates to Kovach and Rosenstiel’s ninth principle that states, “Journalists have an obligation to exercise their personal conscience.”

Journalists must use their voices to announce when something is ethically questionable or biased. I applaud Sharyl Attkisson, not only because she is a Florida Gator, but because she decided to leave CBS because of its alleged liberal bias and lacking focus on investigative reporting. While this chapter mentions how calling attention to issues at an organization are rare because journalists are worried about job security, it is refreshing to see when someone’s morals are considered more important than salary.

Even though many journalists could likely not afford to do what she did, she sets an example for others to follow. I wholeheartedly agree with Carol Marin when she said, “I think a journalist is someone who believes in something that they would be willing to quit over.” It appears that Attkisson took this advice.

Our media ethics text by Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins also referred to the NBC “Dateline” special about General Motors. To me, it seems obvious how journalists and producers should never manufacture anything when it comes to the news. If the actual crash tests had resulted in small fires that burnt out on their own, this is what should have been shown. Adding additional crash tests “rigged to be more dramatic,” leads to journalists crossing boundaries into the land of make believe.

This situation also raises the question of why aren’t the concerns of journalists taken more seriously? Michele Gillen, like Eric Lichtblau at the New York Times, did her job by voicing her issues with the segment. Michael Gartner might still have a job with NBC News if he had listened to her.

It interests me how websites like Mediabistro exist to provide news about the world of journalism. Journalists are no longer only celebrated or critiqued for the reporting they do. They also receive attention for various judgment calls they make, such as when Bob Costas chose not to host the “Larry King Live” special about Natalee Holloway. Members of the general public and other journalists are serving more and more as “media watchdogs,” which hopefully will continue to help with transparency.

I do not think we are facing an industry-wide degradation of ethics. While shows like “House of Cards,” show journalists sleeping with congressmen and threatening sources, I think these ideas make for good television. I may be naive, but I think the moral dimension continues to lead people to careers in journalism.

However, I think we are seeing a change because of the influx of citizens who are producing journalistic content. These citizens do not have managers exercising the final judgment about what they can and cannot publish, which is why they sometimes engage in fabrication. Our group saw this when a citizen journalist falsely published that Steve Jobs had a heart attack in 2008. As Kovach and Rosenstiel said, exercising conscience is not easy, especially when someone’s moral compass is skewed.

Credit must also be given to Carol Marin for refusing to anchor a station that was heading down a path of hype and sleaze. She knew how journalists “live and die by their reputation as people with ethics.” If a journalist does not have standards and a moral compass to guide himself or herself, can that person’s work be trusted as being believable and credible? If journalists allow their work to become about hype and infotainment, audiences will not continue to place their work in high esteem.

I am struggling with something said by Linda Foley, the former president of the Newspaper Guild. She declared, “It’s credibility, more than objectivity, that’s important for us in our industry.” Can journalists or media organizations be deemed credible if they are not covering the news objectively? Covering the news accurately and proportionally without bias leads to credibility, so I think they go hand in hand.

I do agree with the discussion about the importance of collaboration when dealing with a decision or dilemma. Whenever I am considering the news value of a pitch or whether a story is biased or missing a certain stakeholder view at WUFT, I always like to ask my fellow advanced editors and supervisors what they think. Donald Shriver effectively expresses this view when he said, “If journalism is a medium of dialogue among citizens, it seems right for the dialogue to begin in the newsroom.”

My various political science courses have exhaustively discussed the publication of the Pentagon Papers by the Washington Post. However, hearing from Katherine Graham about the views of different journalists and editors demonstrated how collaborative discussion and decision-making was essential for the publication decision. The publication of the Pentagon Papers had far-reaching implications that resulted in the “passing of an era” for the American press.

Do these types of discussions still occur today? Journalists are largely thought of as being lone rangers working individually without the necessity of teamwork, apart from consultation with editors. However, I think we need to get away from this belief because it limits the reporting capabilities. Having a second set of eyes or someone’s advice on working with a particular source can be invaluable. Editors and management not only have to listen to journalists, but journalists must also listen to each other.

Diversity is one of those terms that is used so frequently that it has lost its meaning. As I have applied to law school, I have seen the negative impacts of ethnic, racial and gender quotas. While I understand that universities and news organizations want to embrace different ethnicities and races, I do not think that quotas are an effective way to do this. Does choosing to hire an African American mean he or she is going to report about life in the ghetto? It is preconceived notions of this nature that people of a certain race all come from the same background.

All white people are not the same, just as all African Americans are not all similar to one other. Newsrooms need to look to hire journalists who will bring new perspectives and those who will challenge the status quo. If these journalists are of a different race or ethnicity than the majority of a newsroom, this should come secondary in the admissions or hiring process.

I appreciate how Kovach and Rosenstiel acknowledged the factors inhibiting newsrooms from including journalists from more heterogeneous backgrounds. Investigative journalism, like what uncovered Watergate, seems to be few and far between in today’s media. Is this because of the bureaucratic inertia preventing people from pushing the envelope? At first, I was struggling with what these terms meant, but it can be thought of as routines becoming safe havens. As I continue to see CNN’s coverage of Malaysian Flight 370, news organizations giving into the routine is all too apparent.

John Quincy Adams once said, “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.” While editors and publishers want to maintain their authority, they should also look for reporters to question their antics and even to defy them when it is appropriate. Efficiency may be important, but is a homogeneous newsroom in this period of cultural change and progress the key for long-term media success?

Heterogeneous newsrooms can facilitate communication with citizens who are as unique as each falling snowflake. (I apologize for the corny metaphor). One of the duties of a journalist is to help build a bridge across people’s differing views. This role is made much easier if people in the newsroom are well aware of the views based on their own backgrounds. While some might call this bias, these background experiences can contribute to more well-rounded reporting that does not leave out important details because of ignorance.

While citizens have a role in driving what receives coverage, they are not wholly responsible for the state of the media today. However, as they begin to take on a more active role, their future role may be transformed. As Poynter’s Kelly McBride said during a recent interview with our group, the terms “citizen journalist” may be redundant as everyone is able to create and publish content.

Journalism for Action

As I began reading this article, I definitely identified with what Alana Moceri was saying. Whenever I scroll through Twitter or watch the nightly network news, which is not as often as I should, I constantly feel like there are only bad things happening.

When I looked at ABC News on Sunday night, this is what I saw. It is easy to be overwhelmed by these menacing headlines.

Where is the news about the good happening in the world?

In this article, Moceri also said three words that do not usually come out of a journalist’s mouth: “I’m an activist.” Journalists are instructed to be objective and unbiased, so it is rare to have a reporter bucking the trend and saying something so unusual.

Is it ethical for someone to call himself or herself both a journalist and an activist? Can you accurately report on something if you are passionate about a particular aspect of the issue or topic? This seems to be where journalism is headed with the growth of citizen journalism. Many citizen journalists are not reporting on city commission meetings. They are writing blogs and creating websites about what they are passionate about.

Upon scrolling through ChicagoNow, I see posts about parenting, pets, sports, etc. While traditional journalists also write about these topics, citizens do not have to follow the standards of objectivity and fairness. They can, but their paychecks are not on the line if they choose to pursue an activist approach. This ethical shift is raising many questions about the future of journalism and its credibility.

Citizen journalists add their voices to the conversation

Moceri is supporting a “journalism for action” that not only reports the facts but also provides resources and information for readers who want to do something about a problem or issue. I am struggling to determine how this would work in everyday practice. Would a story about an attack on a lesbian woman have to be accompanied by where people can go to receive counseling if they have been attacked? Will providing these resources become a part of a journalist’s job description?

Would the pursuit of finding out what people can do to solve a problem detract from journalists having the ability to keep track of news as it changes ever day? It does not appear as though this would be economically feasible for news organizations that are already struggling to stay afloat.

I agree with Moceri how people need to become more civically involved. Many people wrongly believe that their civic abilities are limited to voting for elected officials. What ever happened to people coming together and expressing their views? The civil rights movement and the women’s movement would have been much less successful if citizens had not engaged in collective action.

Vince Lombardi once said, “Individual commitment to a group effort – that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work.” With access to new tools, people have the ability to engage and express themselves more than ever before. What is stopping people from taking this step to take on a more active role?

The press serving as a watchdog over government is a widely held belief in this country, especially after the Pentagon Papers and Watergate. However, we are entering a new chapter as citizens are able to post photos, tweets and videos that keep power in check. Just ask Scott Prouty, the man who videotaped Mitt Romney’s now infamous 47 percent video. With this access, it is easier than ever to post, but it may lead to people making decisions without considering the possible ethical consequences.

Moceri focused on journalists providing citizens with an ability to take action on governmental issues. How would this work without journalists revealing their political leanings? Would journalists be required to do this equally for all party positions? While it is one thing to tell people how they can contact a member of Congress, it is a whole other issue to instruct someone how to get involved with a pro-rights or pro-choice group. I think false equivalency would become an issue for many of these topics because journalists want to avoid being called bias. However, as we have seen, false equivalency can provide a jaded view of reality. Global warming, anyone?

I comprehend how journalism for action does not need to translate into biased journalism. However, I do not see how an activist would not be biased. Is someone capable of switching between his or her journalism and activist hats?

Maybe so. If Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Nicholas Kristof is partaking in this journalism of action by providing the names of organizations helping to solve assorted problems, I feel like this type of journalism has a future.

This type of journalism is a shift from the status quo, but we must remember that journalism’s first loyalty is to citizens. If the citizens want to get involved and be told ways they can take an active role, journalists should do what is in their power to provide this information alongside objective reporting of the news.

In Praise of the Almost-Journalists

While many are quick to say journalism is a dying field, I have always been quick to point out that it is an industry going through a transformation. Finding a reporting job may no longer be a guarantee but more avenues continue to open up.

Citizen journalism is one area revolutionizing the media. The advent of digital technology, including smartphones and social media platforms, has given ordinary people the opportunity to become publishers. Forums like CNN’s iReport help amplify the voices of those who were relegated to the audience in the past.

While citizen journalism can often be celebrated, it also has its critics. Are platforms like AllVoices where anyone and everyone can write about everything a positive for journalism? I want people to have a voice, but I am also skeptical about whether these citizens uphold the same ethical standards that paid journalists subscribe to.

I am still having trouble considering advocates to be journalists. The American Civil Liberties Union is described on its website as “our nation’s guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.” While I appreciate this passion for liberty, I question whether this disqualifies the organization from considering itself to be journalistic.

However, I agree with Dan Gillmor when he said how citizens and advocates can provide more ample coverage than traditional groups. I wonder if this is because of their access to resources or whether this ties in with their passion for a particular subject.

In various classes, we have often discussed how journalists are not typically viewed as experts. Journalists are often considered to have working knowledge of various topics, which allows them to do their jobs more effectively.

Many of these citizens and advocates are experts in their respective fields. We can debate for hours the ethical dilemmas of whether they can provide accurate information without letting their biases infiltrate coverage. However, wouldn’t the input of experts provide better reporting on topics that are difficult to grasp?

Gillmor points to the ACLU looking into surveillance and freedom of information lawsuits long before Edward Snowden entered the scene. While I think journalists should continue knowing a little bit about as much as they can, I think these citizens and advocates should be consulted more regularly in the future. Why shouldn’t Human Rights Watch be contacted about stories and investigations into a potential rights violation?

It is interesting to consider how advocates used to have to pass through gate keeping organizations, such as the New York Times or “60 Minutes,” before people were made aware of their work. However, they now have the ability to post their research on the Internet where people from around the world can access it. This is true for the Cato Institute, as well as moms blogging about new parenting trends.

I follow in the steps of Gillmor when I attempt to gather news from a variety of sources, including those who tend to be more liberal and conservative. While I acknowledge how CNN and Fox will not give me everything, I feel much better about hearing from multiple organizations before exercising my judgment.

Ethical dilemmas will continue to appear in the future, especially as these “almost journalists” gain stronger footing. However, it is also an exciting time where publishers may have more knowledge about a topic than ever before. If we can impart some of this “expert” knowledge onto the general audience, aren’t we providing an invaluable resource people will be willing to pay for? As someone who wants to be employed in the near future, I am hoping so.

Discussion Question

How would you notify editors and management if you had suspicions about a colleague plagiarizing?

As we saw in this Kovach and Rosenstiel chapter, journalists in the newsroom are sometimes able to find red flags and issues with the reporting of their colleagues. This included the journalists at the New York Times who worked with Jayson Blair. “Complaints about Blair’s work had infected the newsroom in New York like a persistent fever for months before Blair was sent to Washington.” Reporters, including Eric Lichtblau, raised their concerns, but it seemed like management and editors higher up the food chain did not want to listen. It also troubled me when the chapter mentioned how “the doubts about the quality of his work didn’t travel with him, as if the editors worked on different continents rather than a few years or miles from each other.” In our class discussion about Janet Cooke’s article “Jimmy’s World,” we saw how flukes can occur when a journalist’s typical editor is out of town or not consulted for a particular story. A news organization’s credibility can be threatened when a single journalist does something ethically questionable, especially when he or she fabricates and plagiarizes. Editors and management should take the concerns of journalists seriously before brushing them off, especially if publications or news outlets do not want to see their credibility and integrity questioned.

Link to Ethical Issue of the Week

Kovach and Rosenstiel focused on hype in chapter nine by discussing the principle of the “naked body and the guitar.” In order to attract audiences in today’s competitive media markets, it appears like many news organizations are providing more “naked bodies” or sensationalistic work instead of substantive reporting. This news is not only limited to celebrities and infotainment. As this ethical issue demonstrates, it also applies to the outbreak of infectious diseases. Publications, such as the Washington Post, largely stuck to the facts about what was happening in Africa with the spread of Ebola. Other news outlets, including the Daily Mail, were more sensationalistic. The Daily Mail used the excessively long title of “A terrifying fight against the deadliest virus on Earth: Medic reveals true horror of Ebola outbreak as incurable disease liquefies victims from the inside.” While I agree that people need to be made aware of this disease, I think news organizations are quick to give into hype to attract more clicks and sell more papers. Do you think this is wrong in every case? Can sensationalistic tactics ever be harnessed for good? The media, including ABC News, also speculated how the infection could reach the United States. This is technically possible, but many factors were overlooked. The disease is transmitted from wild animals to people. People can only contract the disease from other people through bodily fluids. It is easy to cause panic among the masses, but isn’t it the media’s job to educate the public about what is going on to reduce any potential panic? Fewer papers might be sold and articles could receive fewer hits, but is that all journalists care about these days?

Questions from Dr. Rodgers – Vocabulary Terms

No vocabulary words are listed for week 13.

Cassie Vangellow, cvangellow@ufl.edu

 

 

 

 

Blog Essay Week 11

EJ Chapter Eight

Diana Sugg’s criticism about journalists giving up too soon resonated with me. When one possible source says he or she does not have anything to say, I am guilty of not pursuing the story. I think this is a problem for journalists because of deadline. While Suggs was able to work on her pediatric palliative care story for two years, many reporters are constantly working under the pressure of getting something published based on a daily, weekly or monthly timeframe.

Putting this aside, I think the seventh principle, “Journalists must make the significant interesting and relevant,” is important to the future of our field. Giving people what they need versus what they want is an issue I continue to struggle with. When we looked at NewsWhip last week, the differences were evident between what journalists thought people needed to know and what people wanted to know.

However, there were publications where the content stayed the same.  This included The Guardian, where a story about meat-rich diets was featured prominently on both front pages. Does there have to be a dichotomy between engaging and relevant?

I appreciate how Kovach and Rosenstiel framed information and storytelling as points on a communication continuum. Ukraine ordering troops to withdraw from Crimea is a particular piece of information, but the storytelling component comes in with background details, such as the activities of Russian forces as they seize Ukrainian ships and military installations in the region. By taking into consideration the factual information, as well as a narrative structure for providing these facts, a journalist can create a strong story.

This idea can also be described as storytelling with a purpose. While I do not think it is difficult for journalists to provide information people need to live their lives, I do think journalists and editors struggle to make this information meaningful and engaging.

Upon visiting the CNN website, I was immediately struck by the headline “528 Muslim Brotherhood supporters sentenced to death in Egypt.” While I have no connections to Egypt or the Muslim Brotherhood, I am baffled by this large number of people who will soon lose their lives. One semiofficial source said this was the largest death sentence charge in Egypt’s modern history. This story is meaningful because it may signify a more violent Egypt in the future. Instead of focusing solely on what led to the charges, reporter Schams Elwazer put this announcement in perspective.

Kovach and Rosenstiel refer to various problems for why many journalists are failing to report stories in a compelling manner. I think two of the main problems are formula and haste. From our introductory journalism courses, we are taught how to write stories using the inverted pyramid. While this formula allows the important information to be featured at the top, it is easy for reporters to simply plug information in without worrying about making it interesting.

Not to call out the Alligator, but sometimes their articles lack substance. The paper published a story about two men being arrested for possession of cocaine and marijuana. Instead of explaining why this is relevant to Gainesville residents or whether this is indicative of a trend in the area, the story provided the basic who, what, where and when. Is this a result of the newspaper being on deadline or is it the result of focusing on a particular writing style?

It is easy to claim that audiences are suffering from shorter attention spans, but a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism revealed how local television stories that last for more than two minutes gain audience, as compared to those less than 45 seconds losing audience share. While I cannot say newspaper readers want to solely read stories that are at least 1,000 words, 400-word blurbs barely scratch the surface.

Reading part of the transcript from Barbara Walters interview of Monica Lewinsky was painful, but it was excruciating to watch parts of the segment during my media and politics course. I do not care whether Bill Clinton is a good kisser or a passionate man. I care whether he should have been impeached based on perjury and other wrongdoing.

On that evening in 1999, Walters was not acting as a journalist. She was serving in an interviewing role as a means to an end. Through her interview, ABC was able to earn high ratings, and Lewinsky was able to bring attention to her new book. However, the important group that was left out of the equation was the audience.

It is easy to focus my disdain on ABC, but they are not the only media organization that has acted like a tabloid for coverage of certain topics. It is upsetting that Time and Newsweek were seven times more likely to have the same cover as People magazine in 1997 as compared to 1977.

Interested in finding out a story both People and Time are currently reporting on? That would be the “life-altering” news that Mila Kunis and Ashton Kutcher are expecting a baby. The Time article even references an unnamed “friend” who confirmed the news to People. While People and Time are both part of the Time Inc. family, the company should leave the celebrity news to People.

While audiences might want to read about celebrities and whether they are expecting, research shows that these are not the only stories readers and viewers are interested in. Where will people go if more news organizations continue to pump out entertainment and trivia instead of substantive news?

In addition, if people do continue to look to a particular organization for news, will they trust their coverage of more serious topics? While I enjoy reading USA Today, it is difficult for me to fully trust their story about the Texas City oil spill impacting the local economy when the pregnancy of Kunis is featured more prominently on the website’s front page. Let’s leave the pregnancy discussion to Perez Hilton.

USA Today, can I trust you if you focus on infotainment?

In my weekly discussion question, I ponder whether journalists should receive continuing education. I also wonder whether a mentoring relationship should exist between more experienced reporters and those fresh out of school. While the recent graduates can teach the older reporters about technology, the wisdom of experience cannot be underrated in this industry.

It is almost comical to me how publications think color, design and layout will make all the difference in attracting readers. While a nicely laid out newspaper or website is pleasant to look at, it is only the cherry on top of the sundae. The three scoops of mint chocolate chip ice cream, whipped cream and hot fudge constitute the compelling and engaging content.

It was interesting to hear the various weaknesses present in conventional journalistic storytelling. I especially take issue with stories not illuminating a greater meaning. A recent Associated Press article posted to Ocala.com discusses Gov. Rick Scott’s new advertisement that attacks Charlie Crist for his position on health care. Instead of delving into the implications of negative advertisements for the gubernatorial election in November, the article links to and describes the ad.  As people who reside in Florida, we will see the advertisement, so space should have been devoted to the background of this issue and why it is a source of contention for Scott and Crist.

Of the four questions journalists should ask themselves when pursuing a story, I think the most critical question asks about who is the audience for this story and what information do these people need to know to make up their own minds about the subject. Journalists need to put themselves in the shoes of audience members. I think reporters often take readers and viewers for granted and do not consider what people will find interesting, as well as what they will find helpful when looking at a particular issue. If we do not provide the facts and analysis to help people decide on important policy issues, aren’t we failing at one of our primary duties?

Journalists must also return to their storytelling roots. I will never forget reading excerpts of Thomas French’s Pulitzer Prize-winning “Angels and Demons” series.

Through interviews with the family and members of law enforcement, French wrote a story about the murders of Jo, Michelle and Christe Rogers. While this is a tragic story, the sources came across as genuine people, not simply names on a page. “A born-again Christian, the sergeant carried a Bible in his briefcase. He had no doubt that both heaven and hell were real.” This writing allowed me to feel connected to the sergeant and other characters throughout the series.

As journalists look to engage the audience, I think it is vital to pursue a variety of approaches. I think the Atlantic does a fantastic job of making the news engaging and relevant. Their recent profile about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg introduced me to a whole other side of this person who I only typically encounter when doing research or studying. Garrett Epps described Ginsburg, who has successfully fought colon and pancreatic cancer, as a “woman warrior with the body of a sparrow and the heart of a lion.” Give me more articles like this any day.

Until reading this chapter, I had never heard the phrase “being on the nose.” However, I often feel journalists over-explain the simple, while they do not clarify the complex, which leads to confusion. In a New York Times article about the euro zone’s economy, I read how “Markit’s composite index of economic activity, based on a survey of purchasing managers, showed a reading of 53.2 for March, down slightly from 53.3 in February.” The article goes on to explain how a reading of 50 or above indicates growth, while a result below 50 demonstrates regression. Ultimately, why does a 0.1 change make a difference? Does this difference indicate real, observable change? After finishing the article, my questions remain unanswered.

Character and detail in the news should also not be overlooked. The New Yorker is one publication that truly succeeds in this regard. Author and journalist Malcolm Gladwell uses incredible detail that helps the characters jump right off the page.  In an article about Clive Doyle’s memoir, Gladwell writes, “The Doyles were neither wealthy nor well educated. Clive Doyle’s mother worked in a garment factory. His father had left before he was born. Doyle once came home from Sunday school and solemnly greeted his mother with: ‘You’ve shaken hands with a servant of the Lord.’ He writes, ‘I was two or three years behind everybody. I was never in the ‘in’ crowd in school.’” Instead of saying Doyle’s mother worked at a factory, and he was behind in school, Gladwell gives life to the characters.

I like the cautionary tale that Kovach and Rosenstiel end the chapter with. While it is easy to paint characters in a narrative a certain way, storytelling by reporters should be rooted in fact. We will leave the make-believe to J.K. Rowling and Veronica Roth.

ME Chapter Nine

Journalist is no longer a term only applied to those with a journalism or communications degree. Citizens with Twitter accounts and camera phones can just as easily bear the title. While this person may not receive a Pulitzer Prize, CNN recognizes citizens for their efforts by awarding iReport Awards.

When discussing the power of citizen journalism, the Arab Spring must come to the forefront. During this revolution, people used social media to unite and fight against dictators. While digital media can serve as an effective forum for bringing people together, it also has limitations. Unfortunately, citizen journalism is faltering in areas where it was so successful during the revolutions in 2011 because some voices have been silenced and those who continue to post may have ulterior motives.

When my cohort and I interviewed Kelly McBride about the citizen journalist movement, she thought the terms were redundant. In her mind, we are all citizens with the ability to do journalism. However, I like how Patterson and Wilkins characterize the role of many citizen journalists as “first informers.” These citizens are able to post the material quickly, but are they able to verify and provide context for what they have discovered?

As Kovach and Rosenstiel have said, “The essence of journalism is a discipline of verification.” Journalists have a duty and responsibility to tell the truth, and ordinary people may not hold themselves to as strict of standards.

To me, citing sources comes as second nature. If I am guilty of anything, I tend to over-attribute to people I have talked to or documents I have utilized. Reporters are expected to be “Swiss Army knife” journalists. To Meg Heckman, the web editor of the Concord Monitor, this means they “need to know a little bit of everything.” Journalists are not expected to be experts on every topic, but they should know the proper sources to contact, as well as how to properly give these contacts credit.

While I see the positives of creating a newsfeed that contains news tailored solely to my tastes, I do not think this is a direction we should be heading in. What if someone only wanted to read news from his or her local area or state? What if another person only wanted to hear about domestic topics, while wanting to ignore events and changes occurring on an international scale? We must remember the first principle of journalism that states, “The primary purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing.” This information needs to include stories from outside one’s area of expertise or knowledge to facilitate learning and community discussion.

Technology makes many aspects of our lives as journalists easier, but it does not eliminate all of our problems. Sourcing is one area where ethical issues continue to arise in both the print and digital arenas. A UPI article begins “Apple, according to unnamed sources, is considering launching a subscription based music streaming service, on account of declining music sales on iTunes.” While I understand how journalists can grant anonymity sparingly, it is difficult for me to view information as credible when I do not know the source.

Research demonstrates the “sleeper effect,” which says people disassociate the source from what is being said. However, when I see “unnamed source” or “important White House official who asked to remain anonymous,” I am immediately skeptical of what is being said. I want to know who is making these claims for Apple. Until I hear the news from Tim Cook, I will not hold my breath in anticipation.

When it comes to finding sources, the Internet is a tool that can connect journalists to a variety of people. While it seems like it would be a no-brainer to always identify oneself as a journalist even when lurking for material, it is a dilemma I am struggling with. Deceiving readers and viewers is a serious offense, but a journalist who identifies oneself as a reporter in a chat room or on a message board may miss out on something that its audience needs to know.

As I think this situation over, I think it is appropriate for journalists to remain unidentified when doing background research. However, if a journalist wants to directly quote a source, they should come forward as a reporter, not an anonymous user.

I do agree with Patterson and Wilkins that there are certain justifications for utilizing anonymity, including protecting sources from physical or emotional harm and keeping in mind their privacy.

Anonymity is also a major component of government and military coverage. While I am curious about which country the National Security Agency is recording all phone conversations in, I understand how this information cannot be revealed. However, I doubt Apple creating a new music-streaming service has any national security implications.

I have mentioned in previous posts how some stories are made more entertaining because of the comments various readers post. On Monday, The Telegraph featured a story about the remains of aborted and miscarried babies being disposed of as clinical waste, as well as being used to heat some hospitals.

While this article is controversial due to the subject manner, people were not afraid to voice their opinions in the comments section. One person using the handle JJ said, “The Democrats and American liberals out there must be wondering – ‘why didn’t we think of that?’” Another person who goes by Guesser said, “Why not, what else are you going to do with it? Save it? People act like it’s a dead baby or something, but aborted fetuses are not, and never were human beings. They are just medical waste.” No matter what your personal views are about abortion, it cannot be disputed that these readers are engaged with the news.

Link etiquette is one can of worms the Internet has opened up. Whenever I write my blog posts, I find helpful information from all different news organizations and websites. However, I do not feel like I can tell the whole story, so I link back to the original material. It is my way of giving credit to those who provide the thought-provoking information I enjoy blogging about.

It is interesting to consider the differences between the impact of the printing press versus the influence of the Internet on journalism. While the Internet allows journalists to reach a larger audience than its paper and ink counterparts, digital journalism is struggling to be financially solvent. Members of my generation have grown up with access to online news without paying, but I wonder how much longer this practice can continue. Would we rather pay or miss out on the quality reporting we have visited these online publications for?

In class, we have discussed the ability of citizen journalism to unite communities, like what is being done with ChicagoNow and HYPE Orlando. It is also helpful to think of citizen journalists as part of a “fifth estate.” However, I do not think we should look to citizen journalists as a replacement for professional reporters. As business mogul Warren Buffett once said, “The smarter the journalists are, the better off society is. For to a degree, people read the press to inform themselves – and the better the teacher, the better the student body.”

Page One: Inside the New York Times and Implications for New Media

Is the battle to get on A1 still as important today with the Internet?

This is one of many questions discussed in the film about how the New York Times and other members of the media are responding to the changes in the field of journalism.

In the 21^st century, we can celebrate citizen journalists and the skills they bring to the table. However, much of their work lacks information verification. The New York Times, which has been publishing since 1851, is still recognized as a “newspaper of record.” While the Jayson Blair and Judith Miller scandals impacted credibility, the publication continues to be recognized for its verification methods. We saw these techniques when the paper received material from Julian Assange.

Along with verification, the question arises of what a journalist’s values are. While professional journalists focus on accuracy, context and truth, are these same values held by citizen journalists and journalists working at Buzzfeed and Gawker?

While the New York Times continues to set the agenda for other publications and outlets, what will happen if it can no longer afford to pursue the reporting that readers have become accustomed to? Will it continue allowing a certain number of articles per month or will it follow the example set by the Wall Street Journal? I found it comical when a Denver resident said, “Well, I’m sorry the paper is going away, but I’ll still read you on the Internet.”

Will more publications institute a similar policy?

We have become accustomed to getting our news online for free, but publications are making a fraction of the ad sales on the Internet, as compared to what they were earning from print advertisements. In 2008, the New York Times even created a media desk to monitor changes of this nature happening in the media.

As we look to the future and consider new media roles, we have to think about aggregation. While the founder of Newser.com was quick to say how the American news business is “nothing to be proud of,” I loved it when David Carr showed how Newser would have no material to aggregate without publications, such as the New York Times.

Carr acknowledges how there is a disconnect between should not fail and cannot fail, but I think the New York Times, as long as it continues to innovate, will serve as a leader in the news community well into the future.

Case Study 9-A News Now, Facts Later

IWC Systematic Process

1.) Identify the Dilemma

Many people anxiously awaited the Supreme Court’s summer 2012 decision about the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In years prior to 2012, the Court would often send copies of opinions to those involved in the litigation. However, it began to focus solely on placing the information on its website beginning in 2012. Many news organizations, including CNN and Fox, prepared to report on the results. CNN had worked to make sure they could reach people from as many portals as possible. Unfortunately, the Court’s website crashed as a result of so many people attempting to access it. In efforts to be one of the first ones to publish the results, CNN and Fox reported the act had been ruled unconstitutional. This information was sent out through various platforms, including RSS feeds and tweets. SCOTUSblog, a highly-rated publication particularly within the D.C. area, originally published how a decision had been reached. Tom Goldstein, the publisher of the blog, skimmed the decision before posting another announcement to the blog. Along with a colleague, Goldstein confirmed that the act had been upheld based on the U.S. Constitution’s tax clause. CNN, Fox and others were responsible for correcting their earlier reports.

2.) Weigh alternatives

This decision had and continues to have important effects on people all across the country. News outlets wanted to provide the information to readers and viewers, especially after the Court’s website crashed. However, these organizations had various choices. One option was to publish their initial findings as soon as possible, largely without verification of the results. This behavior was exhibited by CNN, where content was published during the time the onsite producer was on a conference call with network executives. Another option would have been to first publish how the Court had reached a decision. This could then be followed by the decision results after an understanding was reached. After both of these options, additional analysis could be completed for how the Court reached the decision, what this means for the American people, etc.

3.) Cite a persuasive rationale

“The early bird gets the worm,” may not always be the best mantra to follow in journalism. The media should have waited to confirm the Court’s decision before sending out its posts to all different platforms. People may not return to re-read a particular article, so it is difficult to reach all of the readers and viewers with a correction. In the past, corrections could be made on the network news because everyone was watching. However, people are constantly checking the news on their computers, phones and tablets. For journalists, it is much more important to be right than to be first. That first person posting may have the information wrong, which will result in the need for corrections and ensuing embarrassment. Ultimately, the best scenario would have involved an initial posting about how the Court had reached a conclusion. This would have been followed by whether the Court deemed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act constitutional or not. In addition, I think the media should have pursued a thorough analysis into how the decision was reached. While some people only want the result, many would also be interested in learning the background.

Case Study 9-B What’s Yours Is Mine: The Ethics of News Aggregation

IWC Systematic Process

1.) Identify the Dilemma

Aggregation is a widely discussed topic, especially in recent times because of the growth of digital media. Jeffrey S. Levine, the director of content for the Hartford Courant characterized aggregation as “the process of synopsizing information from other news sources, most commonly by placing a portion of the information on your website and linking to the original story.” While it seems like this practice of identifying where the information comes from is ethical, sometimes reporters fail to cite where they received a story or information. In one unofficial audit of the Hartford Courant in 2009, it was discovered how 112 stories featured on the website were from several other competitors. Some of these stories were properly attributed, but some were not. Critics of aggregation align the practice with plagiarism. Kovach and Rosenstiel have said how aggregation may cause verification issues because the coverage may not distinguish fact from rumor and speculation. Should aggregation continue to be widely used? If so, should it be regulated?

2.) Weigh alternatives

As newsrooms continue to cut their staffs, aggregation serves as a way to publish content without incurring additional costs. One option is for publications to subscribe to wire services, such as the Associated Press. The AP provides content to its 1,500 daily newspaper members. With this option, content can be properly labeled as coming from the AP, Reuters, etc. However, some publications subscribe to these services, but they do not properly attribute the aggregated information. This is another option, but it is also risky because many consider this practice to be plagiarism. A third option is to engage in content-sharing arrangements with multiple publications. This practice has often been used in cities where rival newspapers can no longer afford to compete against one another.

3.) Cite a persuasive rationale

When addressing this issue of aggregation, it is important to consider Kant’s Categorical Imperative. This moral standard declares that a person should make decisions assuming these choices could become universal law. Humanity should be treated as an end, not as only a means of gaining something. When journalists choose to aggregate content, they should properly attribute and cite the material they are using. In addition, if they want access to the material of wire services, they should pay for it, instead of taking material from the Internet. If all journalists chose to ignore attribution, other news organizations would not be able to afford to cover these stories. People love Google News, but without actual news organizations like the New York Times and ABC News, the computer algorithms would have nothing to aggregate. Journalists should remember this the next time they summarize content without giving credit to the original source.

Discussion Question

Do you think journalists should continue their education on a periodic basis after receiving their degrees or certifications?

“Hairdressers have more continuing education than journalists.” This sentence from chapter eight in The Elements of Journalism stuck out in my mind. While I respect hairdressers for improving upon their skills through additional training, I wonder how much changes in this industry on a regular basis. New processes and products are probably introduced, but are major revolutions occurring? This is in contrast to journalism, which is facing monumental changes because of citizen journalism, digital technology, etc. With journalism students, it seems like many people get their degrees and feel like they are immediately prepared for their careers. While some students pursue a master’s degree, is this the proper preparation for all reporters? It would be helpful if journalists periodically took courses about ways to incorporate new technology into their reporting, as well as storytelling techniques to use in their reporting. Journalists cannot think they are done learning once they are given their diplomas at graduation. As a reporter in “Page One: Inside the New York Times” said, receiving a job at this “paper of record” used to be like earning tenure. However, in the changing media, this is no longer the case. Journalists need to continue to innovate if they want to succeed as reporters and editors.

Link to Ethical Issue of the Week

Sourcing is one area of journalism that continues to have ethical implications. In a recent New York Times article about de Blasio’s time as mayor so far, a “Democratic insider” is cited as a source. A paragraph of the article reads, “‘De Blasio went into this thinking that he and Cuomo were friends,’ a Democratic insider said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of concern over retribution, ‘but Andrew Cuomo doesn’t really have friends.’” Patterson and Wilkins explained how referring to a source anonymously requires an agreement between the reporter and the source.  While reporter Ginia Bellafante said the source fears retribution, should she have allowed this comment in the story without naming the source? This included statement is not a major revelation that would have killed her story had it not been included, it is more of an opinion. In October 2013, Margaret Sullivan, the public editor for the New York Times wrote an article about the use of anonymous sources. Sullivan said, “But for many readers, anonymous sources are a scourge, a detriment to the straightforward, believable journalism they demand. With a greater-than-ever desire for transparency in journalism, readers see this practice as ‘stenography’ – the kind of unquestioning reporting that takes at face value what government officials say.” It will be interesting to follow “AnonyWatch” as Sullivan keeps an eye out for “regrettable examples of anonymous sources.” While I respect the use of anonymous sources for stories about national security and possible government cover-ups, such as Watergate, these sources should be used sparingly. In addition, it is not appropriate for someone to be granted anonymity when his or her goal is to express a certain opinion about someone else. In cases like these, if sources do not feel comfortable having the information attributed to them, they should keep their thoughts or speculations to themselves.

Questions from Dr. Rodgers – Vocabulary Terms

• Spin alley: Spin is a “deliberate shading of news perception; attempted control of political reaction,” according to William Safire. On “Crossfire,” Jon Stewart accused members of the media of reporting on this sanitized material. This is particularly problematic after political debates where “spin doctors” circulate and express various ideas and talking points that receive coverage.
• Fair use: One of the rights provided to the owner of a copyright that involves the ability to reproduce or give permission to others for reproduction. Reproduction may be considered fair for various projects or purposes, including comment, criticism, reporting, research, scholarship and teaching.
• Echo chamber: “A colloquial term used to describe a group of media outlets that tend to parrot each other’s uncritical reports on the views of a single source, or that otherwise relies on unquestioning repetition of official sources,” according to the Center for Media and Democracy. The echo-chamber effect results because like-minded people often do not challenge the group consensus, which leads to the cycle of arguments coming largely from one side.

Cassie Vangellow, cvangellow@ufl.edu

 

 

 

Blog Essay Week 10

EJ Chapter Seven

The anecdote about Cody Shearer being named on cable television as the man who confronted and threatened Kathleen Willey turned my stomach. It appeared that “Hardball” host Chris Matthews coaxed Willey into saying Shearer’s name. When it comes to making an assertion, a journalist must always verify the information before reporting it as fact.

The unverified assertion in this case led to Hank Buchanan, the brother of Patrick Buchanan, going to Shearer’s residence with a gun. In addition, Matthews made an apology only after being contacted by Shearer’s attorney. While words can go flying during these talk shows, Matthews knew where the discussion was headed that night. An open discourse is an essential part of journalism, but the process of vetting is also integral.

Kovach and Rosenstiel’s sixth principle is “journalism must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.” I found it interesting how the Hutchins Commission thought this principle was only second to telling the truth. While the Matthews incident allowed for public discourse, it largely ignored the part about telling the truth.

Technology is revolutionizing journalism as a forum. It is easy for readers and viewers to comment on a particular story. In addition, journalists can be easily reached through Twitter and email. This dialogue is a fundamental part of journalism. It was entertaining to read the comments on a CNN article about the latest General Motors recall. People aired their thoughts about outsourcing and particular car brands. Sometimes, the comments section is more entertaining than the actual article.

I found it interesting how Kovach and Rosenstiel asserted that it would be possible to make a democracy even in a large and diverse country by encouraging compromise. Merriam Webster defines compromise as “a way of reaching agreement in which each person or group gives up something that was wanted in order to end an argument or dispute.”

The concept of the press creating democracy through its forum function is difficult for me to understand. As a cynic, I do not believe it is that easy. Many wars have been fought over democracy, including our own nation’s revolution, so we must not exaggerate the power of the forum function.

I like the analogy of a journalist as the “honest broker and referee.” There is a substantial amount of spin circulating on a daily basis, and journalists must be the ones to provide the facts and not the fluff. By focusing on truthfulness and verification, journalists can provide audiences with a forum to share criticisms and an opportunity to foster collaboration for change.

I also found it interesting how the media should not only focus on the extremes of an argument because a majority of people lie somewhere in between. Abortion is an example of an issue where the media only seems to emphasize the extremes. Someone is either “pro life” or “pro choice,” and that is the end of the discussion.

However, empirical data does not demonstrate this tendency of people being drawn toward the extremes. Twenty percent of people said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, while 26 percent of people said it should be legal in all circumstances, according to a 2013 Gallup poll. Where was everyone else? About 52 percent of people said abortion should only be legal in certain circumstances. However, you would not be able to tell how people have varying opinions based on coverage by the media.

While I think new technology allows for people to discuss and post without the interference of a journalist, I also think the journalist plays a fundamental role in asking poignant questions and getting to the heart of an issue. It is easy for people to create websites saying President Obama is not a United States citizen, but who do we trust to verify these assertions? The blogosphere and citizen journalism complicates this issue because who can serve as an overseer of what is published in these forums?

I must acknowledge the danger of live interviews, which are characteristic of radio shows, morning news and cable news. This forum can allow for the interviewee to take control of the situation, while making it difficult for the journalist to fact check the information as the source speaks. However, an interviewee might hurt himself or herself by trying to promote a particular message. Recently Kate Gosselin and her twin daughters were interviewed on the “Today” show. Instead of coming across as the matriarch of a happy family, Gosselin came off as callous. Journalists cannot be undervalued in these situations.

Wikipedia is an important part of the conversation about journalism providing a forum for citizens to utilize. Users have the ability to create and edit posts. However, verification is an issue once again. While the goal of Wikipedia is for others to make changes and to correct errors, this does not always occur. Just ask various celebrities who have faced death hoaxes because of posts on Wikipedia and other social media platforms.

I was shocked to find out how Encyclopedia Britannica had almost as many errors as Wikipedia, according to a study published by Nature. While the 42 entries may have been chosen for a particular reason, I do not think we can write off Wikipedia quite yet.

Noah Webster once said, “Newspapers are not only the vehicles of what is called news; they are the common instruments of social intercourse, by which the Citizens of this vast Republic constantly discourse and debate with each other on subjects of public concern.” I had never heard this quote until reading this chapter, but it perfectly encapsulates the role of newspapers and other mediums.

In today’s world, it is hard for me to comprehend a newspaper lobby serving as an open salon for the public. While it may no longer be appropriate to venture to the Gainesville Sun for a discussion with fellow citizens, the principle should remain the same. These publications must provide an avenue where people can discuss the issues of the day. Whether this is in a physical space or online, this duty is integral for journalism’s future.

It seems like this forum is especially necessary today because of the “Argument Culture” that has pervaded the media. While the 1990s were a time of bitter partisan politics, it does not appear that much has changed. Frances Lee, a politics professor at the University of Maryland, recently wrote an article for the Washington Post about why this partisanship continues.  The omnipresent campaign and continued focus on the next election leads to politicians not reaching across the aisle for compromise.

The media is not helping this issue in any way. With ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” NBC’s “Meet the Press with David Gregory” and CNN’s “State of the Union with Candy Crowley,” it is easy to see how talk shows dominate. Plus, this list, which is not exhaustive, only includes Sunday morning shows.

It interested me how younger pseudo-experts are being chosen to host these shows. These pundits are apparently being hired to attract younger audiences. Why then are the guests featured usually older white, conservative men? A Media Matters report from January of 2014 revealed the discrepancies in the number of appearances of these white men. While white males only make up 30 percent of the population, they accounted for 67 percent of all guests on “Face the Nation” and “Fox News Sunday,” as well as counting for 62 percent of guests on “Meet the Press.” Many of these pseudo-experts interview these actual experts for a short period before sitting back to bicker while pretending as though they are qualified to perform various analyses.

Another issue with the current media forum is the lack of coverage devoted to substantive issues. Instead of discussing childhood obesity and the shrinking middle class, it is now much easier for journalists to write simple stories that have little impact. Instead of reading about these important topics, we are stuck reading about a young girl who allows a squirrel to reside in her ponytail. What type of meaningful conversation can be had about this story?

I believe the “Crossfire Syndrome” with its focus on polarization is definitely a real phenomenon. Argument is prized over compromise, and questions are phrased in a manner to elicit conflict. What if I asked you, why do you feel women should have the right to abort a fetus in all situations? This is extremely different from asking someone why they are a baby killer?

By focusing on the extremes of pro-abortion versus anti-abortion or feminism versus chauvinism, we are leaving many people out of the conversation. People do not want to listen to “experts” arguing about an issue, and they do not want to only hear from those on the far left or the far right. At the start of 2014, Americans said  the government, with its poor leadership, corruption and abuse of power, is the most important problem, according to a Gallup poll. If the media was doing its job of actively serving as a watchdog, a productive dialogue could ensue about the government’s behavior.

I agree with Robert Berdahl, who served as the chancellor for the University of California at Berkeley, when he said journalists are not “observers with no stake in the issue at hand.” The journalist has a role in transforming this Argument Culture into a meaningful conversation that will attempt to find solutions to problems, including unemployment and the federal budget.

After reading the exchange between Paul Begala, Tucker Carlson, and Jon Stewart, I wanted to watch the “Crossfire” video. While I am still not sure how to classify Jon Stewart, he did something that journalists often fail to do, which is to hold politicians and pundits accountable for what they say and do.

While “Crossfire” ended soon after this incident, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann engage in this type of behavior where they promise answers as they argue from a particular side. If audience members want to witness an argument, they can look around themselves to their family and friends. However, to escape an argument on the television, a person simply has to switch the channel and never look back.

The Jim Brady situation demonstrates the power of journalism as an engaging forum because people responded and debated about a situation. Journalists must focus more on this type of citizen involvement if they hope to maintain their roles with the advent of digital media and other technologies.

As Winston Churchill once said, “It is always wise to look ahead, but difficult to look further than you can see.” Technology continues to open new forums, but we must not lose sight of the role of journalists, particularly in preserving the truth and in verification.

ME Chapter Eight

Compared to words, photos have had a much shorter history. A critical juncture for photography occurred during the Civil War, largely a result of Matthew Brady’s photography.

Today, images continue to have a powerful role. When Gary Green spoke to our class, it was interesting to hear him discuss the role of images in both the Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman trials.

We have briefly discussed the role of citizens as reporters with various projects, including Chicago Now. However, what about citizens submitting photos to publications and television stations? Everyone with a cell phone can serve as a photojournalist at any given time.

During my sports media and society course, Professor Spiker discussed a photo he posted to Twitter that was picked up by various media outlets, including ESPN. The photo showed Aaron Hernandez’s brick being removed from outside of Ben Hill Griffin Stadium. While Spiker is also a journalist, he posted this photo to his personal account. It amazes me how technology allows people to connect and share content in a seamless fashion.

I agree with Arthur Berger who says that a picture is an interpretation of reality, not reality itself. As the Pulitzer Prize winning photo by Nat Fein demonstrates, a particular angle and focus can make all the difference. Those nearby photographers all captured photographs on the day Babe Ruth’s number was retired, but their particular interpretation was not compelling enough to be awarded a prestigious honor.

Journalists are often quick to post stories and images because they want to be first. However, context is key. People are aware of various manipulation techniques, so they expect to be told the situation surrounding a particular photograph. Journalists should use the powers of technology to share information and link to other resources that can provide additional analysis. The photos from Hurricane Katrina were extremely powerful, but they also needed the written word to inform people about what was happening as the chaos ensued.

Photojournalists have a difficult job because they must determine whether it is appropriate to shoot a particular photo. With a phone or camera in hand and the intent to shoot pictures, it is hard to feel like you are not intruding on someone during a potentially vulnerable moment. When I was covering the Gainesville City Commission election last week, I felt somewhat uneasy as I snapped certain photos, including one of Susan Bottcher looking at the video screen as her loss to Craig Carter was revealed. While I was standing a good distance away, I thought about what I was doing.

I like the checklist Garry Bryant uses when he arrives at a tragedy, including taking into consideration whether the moment should be made public, as well as whether the photo could send subjects into further trauma. While the loss of a commission seat is not a serious tragedy, I think we all must aim to act with compassion and sensitivity in all that we do.

Patterson and Wilkins seem to suggest that it is better to take the photo and make the editorial judgments later. Like bringing a slicker on a rainy day, it is better for the photojournalist to be prepared.

Deciding whether to publish a photo can be a double-edged sword because it can spread awareness about a particular problem, but it can also invade the privacy of a victim and his or her family. While this image of law enforcement officers helping a wounded man following the Virginia Tech Massacre is powerful, is the photo subject being treated as an ends or merely a means of getting a point across? This is a dilemma photojournalists and photo editors face on a regular basis.

I have previously discussed the power citizen journalists have in submitting both written content and photos. However, I am still concerned whether they value the same principles as professional journalists, such as accuracy, fairness and originality. Journalists have editors to hold them accountable, but who do citizen journalists have to keep them in check?

As this NBC episode of “Dateline” shows, news photos and videos should never be staged. Staging alters the way something is naturally occurring. This type of behavior is a fabrication of what actually happened. Over time, photos have been staged or altered by various photographers and editors, including a Reuters image of Georgians encountering the dead body of their “son.” Even with various reasons, can lying to audiences ever be justified?

When it comes to electronic manipulation, I think people are accepting of slight touchups, including minor cropping or lighting changes. People attempt to make themselves look better by using Instagram and other applications that provide various filters. Why should journalistic entities be any different?

The problem is journalists often take the manipulation to a whole other level. Photoshopping has become a somewhat dirty word, according to a recent Mashable article. Whole websites are even devoted to Photoshop disasters. The uproar is appropriate because as Martin said, “while art may be manipulated, information may not.” Just like you would not alter a quote to make someone sound smarter, you should not alter an image to make someone look thinner, more tan, etc.

The issue of eyewash arose in my law of mass communication class when we discussed the station whose broadcast made it look as though a particular pedestrian was one of 20 million Americans suffering from herpes. I think these types of photos or videos are dangerous because they are casting false light on someone. I think it is analogous to publishing the information of the wrong John Smith in connection to a crime. It is better to find someone who is actually an example of what you are discussing, just as it is integral to make sure you have named the right suspect. While it may be hard to find someone who is willing to come forward as a victim of herpes, another image or graphic could be used.

The “Post Toasties Test” does not have one hard and fast rule to utilize in all situations. Ultimately, I think newspaper editors and morning news show producers must be cognizant of the audiences they tend to have in the early morning. This is typically a time when parents are getting their children off to school, so a gory image may not be appropriate. While something that may be offensive to one person may not be so to another, editors and producers should be cautious about what is featured during the early morning hours.

I must agree with musician Lauryn Hill when she said, “Reality is easy. It’s deception that’s the hard work.” Journalists must be honest with their audience, and this applies to both the written word and images.

Case Study 8-A The Case of the Well-Documented Suicide

IWC Systematic Process

1.) Identify the Dilemma

Filmmaker Tony Scott, the director of “Top Gun,” “Pelham 123” and others, committed suicide by jumping off the Vincent Thomas Bridge in San Pedro, Calif. in August of 2012. Various people saw Scott leap to his death from both the bridge and the water below. Some of these witnesses captured photos and videos of what occurred. As a news organization, how do you report on the suicide? Do you include photos submitted by citizens? Also, is it ethical to pay for the video showing the whole jump in order to post it to your website?

2.) Weigh alternatives

Suicides occur every day, and they are tragic for the family and friends of each victim. These types of deaths tend to be underreported. However, that is not usually the case when someone famous commits suicide. A publication would have several options about how to report on Scott’s death. One option would be to run a short blurb about the director’s suicide without any photos. This would provide the news to the public without any concern for causing queasiness at the breakfast table. A second option would be to run an article about the suicide, accompanied with a photo submitted by one of the witnesses. Open source journalism has revolutionized the news. By providing video of Rodney King being beaten up by a Caucasian police officer in Los Angeles and Sen. George Allen of Virginia saying something racist, Patterson and Wilkins acknowledge the role of citizens in the journalistic process. However, the next issues arise when deciding on a particular photo. Should the publication include a photo from the perspective of the bridge or water? Is it  appropriate to include the photo showing Scott crouching right before jumping, considering many people will be reading this at the breakfast table? A third option would pertain to a publication’s online presence. The publication could pay for the tape showing the full jump or work out some sort of deal with the business who caught the jump on its surveillance camera. Is this ethical? Would this be considered checkbook journalism?

3.) Cite a persuasive rationale

A publication should acknowledge the suicide because of his work on popular films. However, I do not think any photos should be included with the story. One reason is there is the potential for copycat suicides. In addition, Scott left behind a family that included a wife and two young sons. How would they feel opening up the newspaper or watching news coverage and seeing play-by-play action of their loved one’s suicide? When it comes to the video, it is unethical for a publication to pay anyone for material to be used in a story. If a news entity exhibits this type of behavior, readers and viewers may wonder about other types of coverage that resulted from these types of deals. Credibility could be called into question. It would also be a matter of taste to not include the final moments of someone’s life to attract hits.

Case Study 8-B What Do I Do First?

IWC Systematic Process

1.) Identify the Dilemma

Associated Press photographer Gerald Herbert was headed to Biloxi, Miss., when he came across a sport utility vehicle that had slammed into some trees in August 2012. Two women were trapped inside as the fire began to engulf the vehicle. Should reporters or photographers consider their role as people or journalists first in these types of situations? Should a publication include these photos and a short story if the situation occurred outsider their coverage zone?

2.) Weigh alternatives

Herbert was a hero that day when he ran for almost a mile to find 18-wheelers because they have fire extinguishers. He said, “It never occurred to me to go into journalistic mode until the fire was knocked down.” In these types of situations, journalists have the opportunity to focus on humanity. The journalist or photographer may miss out on a story or blockbuster photo, but does that matter in a life or death situation? If a reporter or photojournalist is able to capture this course of events, should a publication include it even if it is way outside the coverage area? Do audiences want to hear about people collaborating to save a life or would they rather read about something that occurred in their backyard?

3.) Cite a persuasive rationale

Herbert’s actions serve as an example for other journalists to emulate. Research from Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project revealed only 28 percent of survey respondents think journalists contribute a lot to society. This is a 10-percentage point drop from 2009. If journalists were seen as helping members of society, in addition to continuing to serve as watchdogs, this number could rise again. People’s interest in stories with happy endings is widely underrated. A woman recently performed CPR on her young nephew. What was particularly noteworthy is the various people on the Dolphin Expressway who assister her. As we discuss the power of photos, this Miami story was accompanied by many powerful images. It was also featured in publications and newscasts across the nation.

Case Study 8-C Problem Photos and Public Outcry 

IWC Systematic Process

1.) Identify the Dilemma

University of Florida campus police were called after a substantial amount of blood was discovered in the women’s bathroom of one of the dorms. When looking through the trash bin, investigators found a 6- to 7-pound female infant in a bag with bloody towels and plastic gloves. Once they took the body out of the bag, they placed it on a towel next to the Dumpster. While the body was placed here only briefly, the photographer for the Independent Florida Alligator captured the shot. The editorial staff for the Alligator debated how to include the photo and whether it was appropriate for publication. Ultimately, this newspaper published the story on the bottom of the front page, which then jumped to page three. The photo was placed on the third page. Was it appropriate for the photographer to take this photo? Was it ethical for the newspaper to include the photo?

2.) Weigh alternatives

The newspaper had a variety of options to consider in this dilemma. Ultimately, the story needed to be covered because it took place on the UF campus. In addition, this is not the sort of thing that occurs on a regular basis, so it is out of the ordinary. One option would have been to write the story without any additional media.  The title of the story, “UF police investigate baby’s death at dorm,” gets straight to the point without relying on sensationalistic word usage. A second option would have been to include the article with the image.  When it comes to a photographer deciding whether to shoot something, decisions must be made quickly. A photojournalist must ask themselves if this should be made public and whether he or she is acting with compassion and sensitivity. Garry Bryant, a staff photographer with the Deseret News in Salt Lake City said, “A general rule for most photographers is ‘Shoot. You can always edit later.’” The photojournalist did his job by capturing the moment because leaving this part out could result in readers missing some of the truth. While this situation occurred many years ago, the Internet provides a third alternative. The print publication could have included a smaller version of the photo or no image at all in the print publication, while directing people to its website. With this alternative, people could seek out the image only if they wanted to. No one is being forced to view an image that may cause discomfort.

3.) Cite a persuasive rationale

If we were in the present, I think the best scenario would include placing the article on page one, while directing people to the Alligator website for the image. The Alligator engaged in similar behavior when it posted an edited version of a photo on the front page, while leaving the unedited version on their website. The photo pertained to a wall of stereotypes and phrases as part of People Awareness Week. If a publication makes something available without forcing people to view it, I think this lessens criticism of poor taste because it is giving audiences an option instead of making the decision for them.

Case Study 8-E “Above the Fold:” Balancing Newsworthy Photos with Community Standards

IWC Systematic Process

1.) Identify the Dilemma

The Oregon town of Springfield was struck by a series of tragedies in the early 1990s. Over a period of 20 months, eight children died following experiences of child abuse. The eighth incident occurred on Nov. 10, 1993, when Alan McGuire held his 2-year-old daughter, Shelby, hostage in their home. While Alan’s wife was able to escape, Shelby remained inside. When police were finally able to go inside after Alan jumped through the front window, police found Shelby with a plastic bag over her head. Photographer Andy Nelson and police reporter Janelle Hartman from the Eugene Register-Guard were at the scene. Nelson captured a detective sprinting out of the house with Shelby in his arms, as well as a photo of the officer giving mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Alan and Shelby were rushed to the hospital, and the police did not tell members of the press whether she was able to be resuscitated. The standing policy at this particular publication was to not publish photographs of children’s dead bodies. However, the editors believed this situation was an exception because of the compelling situation, as well as wanting to show the situations police officers face on a daily basis. Do you think the publication should have ran both photos? Would people have been less critical if the photos were placed on later pages instead of page one? Whose feelings should editors take into account when publishing photos of this nature?

2.) Weigh alternatives

The newspaper could have run Hartman’s article without any accompanying photos. This option would have likely curtailed the several hundred phone calls the paper received. What if Nelson had chosen to not shoot these photos? As Patterson and Wilkins discussed, photographers might be placing their jobs in jeopardy if they decide to not shoot an emotional moment other photographers capture. Nelson was only doing his job when he took these photos. However, the publication had options in terms of color, size and placement. Our book showcases these photos in black and white, which can lessen the overall impact. The publication could have chosen to include black and white versions of the photos. In addition, the newspaper could have placed the photos below the fold or in later pages. This decision would likely have lessened the criticism levied against the publication. It is interesting how the biweekly Springfield News included a front-page photo of Alan McGuire falling out of the window under a wrapper that read “Caution to Readers.” This is another approach the Register-Guard could have considered.

3.) Cite a persuasive rationale

I had difficulty making a decision in this case because I can make rational arguments from both sides about whether to include the photo. However, I reflected on the statement that most photographers and photo editors make their decisions for the “Post Toasties Test” based on bloody pictures. These photos show the efforts of law enforcement to save a young girl’s life. While this story ended in tragedy, people need to be made aware of what occurred. I recently saw the power of images showing attempts to save a life with the woman in Miami giving CPR to her nephew. I think the use of a 6-inch front page color photo is slightly sensationalistic, so I think the paper should have included smaller black and white photos on an inside page. The story could have started on the front page with a jump to a later page. The newspaper has a loyalty to citizens, including the surviving mother and brother of Shelby. A publication must take into consideration how the community will feel because these people can choose to get their news elsewhere if a publication continues to offend them.

Case Study 8-G Death in Print: Publication of Hurricane Katrina Photographs

IWC Systematic Process

1.) Identify the Dilemma

Hurricane Katrina wreaked a lot of havoc in August of 2005. Many photos were taken in attempts to capture the significance of the tragedy. Photographer James Nielsen was one photographer who shot a powerful image. The image shows a woman standing on a bridge with her dog as a body floats below. Various newspapers employ a similar process when choosing wire photographs. This process includes reviewing and narrowing down the options from the entire collection sent by the various wire services followed by a morning or afternoon review of the initial edit. It is interesting to see how three different publications, including the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and St. Louis Post-Dispatch made decisions regarding what Hurricane Katrina photos to publish.

2.) Weigh alternatives

One option would have been to publish the Nielsen photo in color on the front page of the newspaper. However, this decision would have likely resulted in criticisms of sensationalism. Another option would be to include this photo in a later page, which is what the St. Louis Post-Dispatch did by placing the photo on A10. This allows a publication to include the compelling photo without plastering it across the front page. Another option would be to not include the photo at all. Rob Kozloff, the metro picture editor for the Chicago Tribune, said many photos captured what was happening. An image from another wire service may fit more with articles that would be featured in the publication. A fourth option would be to publish this photo on the publication’s website either on its own or as part of a gallery. This would allow people to seek out more images if they would like without being accosted by the tragedy and death during their breakfast time.

3.) Cite a persuasive rationale

I think the fourth option provides a virtue between extremes, something Aristotle’s golden mean suggests we pursue. Placing the image online allows the publication to feature this photo without facing criticism for including the photo on page one. It also allows for another compelling photo to be placed in the print version. After hearing Danny Green discuss the various decisions that go into what photos to include, I do not envy those who are placed in this difficult position on a daily basis.

NewsWhip Analysis – Wall Street Journal

Whenever I am on a particular website, I always check to see if they have a category, such as “Most Emailed” or “Most Popular.” I often look to this section for articles I might be interested in. I have noticed that the most popular stories are often completely different from the story featured as the primary focus on the homepage. When I looked at Fox News tonight, the central story on the website’s front page was about the electric car company Tesla. However, the most popular story was about Kevin Trudeau, a best-selling author, being sentenced to 10 years of prison for fraudulent behavior.

After seeing these types of trends, it was not surprising to me that the people-powered page was different from the actual front page for various newspapers. My group looked at the Wall Street Journal. Ukraine is a topic the media has focused on for the last several weeks. However, it seems like people do not want to focus on this particular subject. It may be because the nation is more than halfway across the world or it could be that people are sick of hearing about it, especially when little progress is being made. Putin and Obama are talking, but readers may question how this influences them in any way. Unfortunately, people will likely only pay attention once a tragedy or something extraordinary occurs in the region.

Above the fold on the people-powered version was dominated by a story about Obama seeking more money for veterans as part of the 2015 budget. This story likely registered with readers because many people have some sort of connection to our nation’s servicemen and women. This particular story applies to members of the audience or people they may know. This is in sharp contrast to Ukraine, which many people have no connection to.

The story about Beijing brings up a similar point. If a story is outside of someone’s expertise or interest, he or she is likely to pass it over. However, a story about plane seats would pique many people’s interest, including my own. With millions of passengers and thousands of flights each year, it is no wonder people would be interested in discovering ways they may be getting gouged. Whole websites are devoted to cheap airline tickets, so there is a definite interest in this subject matter.

When it comes to a story titled “Unlikely Mix: Rappers, Dragons & Fantasy,” it is not shocking that people were curious about what the article contained. While we are taught to write clear headlines and ledes, is it so wrong to craft interesting headers to draw people into a story? While we can be critical of the new emphasis on hits and views, journalists need to adapt if this is the way of the future.

Upon looking at the comments, I agree with braddillman who posted, “At a casual glance, people seem more interested in domestic and personally relevant items than international affairs.” Do journalists have a duty to provide people with what they want or do journalists have a responsibility to report on what members of the public should be aware of? Ultimately, I think it is a balancing act. People need to be informed about world events, but occasional stories about airline seats are also okay.

Bryan, another commenter, said “The ones on the right are totally better…the ones on the left mostly talk about things that you don’t want to know or is about other countries problem.” While many people largely care about what is occurring in their local area and in their nation, do journalists have a role to provide a global outlook of events? If journalists do not provide information about the rest of the world, I am afraid people will no longer receive this information.

Journalists must adapt by considering stories that may interest their readers, as well as featuring articles that will educate people. By opening the lines of communication with audiences, journalists can better learn about what people want to see in their daily news. Switching from a gatekeeper to a participant in the process will also help open the dialogue.

Discussion Question

Do you think the Argument Culture has driven political polarization or the other way around?

Author and linguist Deborah Tannen said the media helped cultivate the argument culture in the 1990s through various programming, including CNN’s “Crossfire” and commercial television’s “The McLaughlin Group.” This change was also accompanied by an increase in the amount of talk shows. These talk shows are cheap to produce, but they are lacking in the verification that traditional news products have. Guests are able to come on these types of programs and largely say whatever they want. Also, the argument culture emphasizes extremes. People can be classified as either pro-private sector or pro-big government, etc. Where is the compromise that the foundation of our democracy was built on? Is the type of argument-based discussion leading to government gridlock or are bureaucratic differences leading to this media culture?

Link to Ethical Issue of the Week

As we have frequently discussed in this course, technology is changing the way we do journalism. In many ways, it is making our lives as journalists easier. However, it also opens up the possibility for even more gray areas. No journalist likes to make factual or grammatical mistakes. Corrections lead to embarrassment and may cause others to question future work. However, these corrections are necessary. A journalist’s first loyalty is to citizens, and he or she must be honest with the audience. In the past, newspapers issued corrections and retractions on the printed page. Today, the Internet allows journalists and publications to make changes with the simple click of a button. However, this also allows for corrections to be made without any announcement or notification. That is the issue with a recent Guardian article about journalism startups by Emily Bell. Is it ethical for a publication to make a change to a story once it is published without calling attention to the change? While I do not think it is necessary for a publication to acknowledge a grammatical or word usage change, I think it is integral for journalists to be transparent with their audience about matters of fact. If I reported a man stole $500,000 from the bank when he really stole $500, this is an egregious error that audiences should be made aware of. Even if a reader never returns to a particular story, it should be a matter of principle for an organization to admit its mistakes. Resources like NewsDiffs now track story changes, which will help audiences hold the media more accountable. While constant mistakes would raise a red flag, audiences are much more likely to continue trusting a source that is honest and forthcoming when a mistake is made than one that uses deceptive practices.

Link to Ethical Issue with a Video or Visual Image

Photos have undergone manipulation since the days of darkroom “burning” and “dodging,” according to Patterson and Wilkins. However, digital technology, such as Photoshop, takes this manipulation to the next level.

IWC Systematic Process

1.) Identify the Dilemma

Target, who has faced a lot of criticism for a recent credit card hacking, is dealing with another crisis. Two junior swimsuit images show models with part of their bodies missing. This Photoshop fail includes part of their shoulder blades missing, as well as a manipulated thigh gap, a new trend that is leading to additional body issues for women. Target has apologized for the error, but the company has not answered consumer questions about why this type of photo manipulation on a young girl was done in the first place.

2.) Weigh alternatives

Patterson and Wilkins cite research that says “while art may be manipulated, information may not.”  When a young girl shops online for a bathing suit, she is assuming the photo she is looking at is of a real girl. However, as more manipulation occurs, people are becoming more and more skeptical of what they are seeing. While Target cannot take back what they did, they have at least two options. The company can remain silent and wait for the next big scandal. I would not be surprised if Lululemon’s founder was placed in the spotlight again for voicing his opinions about women’s bodies. Also, the article mentions how Target has nothing to gain by admitting how they make young models even skinnier. However, an alternative would be for Target to be honest about their electronic manipulation techniques. Target could say this is the industry standard they have followed to remain competitive with other brands. A third option would be for the company to say they have engaged in this behavior, but they will stop performing these body manipulation techniques on models featured on their website.  Apart from lighting and background changes, the photos would remain untouched.

3.) Cite a persuasive rationale

While I acknowledge how it makes sense to remain silent, I think Target has an obligation to its consumers. The company has already seen a drop in its number of customers following the data breach. In order to save face, the best option would be to admit the mistake and to create a new policy going forward. It may take time for people to trust its advertisements again, but consumers will take notice of the company’s honesty.

Questions from Dr. Rodgers – Vocabulary Terms

• Post Toasties or Wheaties test: A sensitivity test for media that may be consumed at the breakfast table, such as the newspaper or morning news. This test is used to determine whether a photo or video should accompany early morning news stories. The question posed by this test is, “Does this need to be shown at breakfast?” It earned its name from the popular breakfast cereal.
• Public sphere: Marketplace where people can share attitudes, ideas, information and opinions. Journalism has been a forum for public discourse from the time of the Greek marketplace to the colonial American taverns and beyond, according to Kovach and Rosenstiel.
• Argument culture: Media helped develop in the 1990s, according to linguist and author Deborah Tannen. Various programs, including “Crossfire” on CNN and talk radio, led this movement. This culture assumes that each person resides at one extreme or another in regards to a particular topic. For example, someone is either pro-abortion or anti-abortion, with no variation in between.

Cassie Vangellow, cvangellow@ufl.edu

Group One – Research Essay Proposal

Nicole Germany, Lauren Richardson, Keilani Rodriguez, Cassie Vangellow and Carla Vianna 

Citizen Journalism and what the movement means for traditional journalism and professional journalists.

What is citizen journalism? How does it differ from traditional journalism? According to Mashable, citizen journalism is the product of citizens “playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information.” Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel have said, “the primary purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing.”

How are the practitioners of citizen journalism and traditional journalism different? As Steve Outing of Poynter said, citizen journalism is multi-faceted with bloggers and citizens participating in various ways. Does having a journalism degree make someone a traditional or professional journalist? After completing our research, we will create working definitions of both types of journalists to guide us through our analysis.

Citizen journalism goes by several names, including public, participatory and guerilla journalism. This movement has evolved since the early foundation of the United States was formed. In publishing the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison could be considered citizen journalists. Their articles provided information about the U.S. Constitution, so the public could evaluate this new governmental structure before making a decision.

In more recent times, technological progress has allowed for more citizen involvement. In 1991, a citizen recorded the beating of Rodney King on a home video camera. The world may never have learned of how brutal the beating was without this video evidence. Videos were also released during the turmoil in Egypt because of groups like Mosireen, a citizen journalism entity based in Cairo.

There have been countless examples of quality citizen journalism. CNN launched iReport to involve citizen journalists in the conversation. In 2012, citizen journalists submitted more than 100,000 stories. Of these, 10,789 were fact-checked and broadcasted on the CNN network or featured on the website. This reporting included coverage of Superstorm Sandy and the situation after debilitating floods hit the Philippines. 

However, there are drawbacks to this movement. In 2008, one citizen falsely reported that Steve Jobs had a heart attack. Who holds these citizens accountable when they publish inaccurate news? Without fact checkers and editors, information is broadcast to the public that can cause rumors and unnecessary panic.

On Jan. 17, a major development occurred with a decision by the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This ruling establishes that the same protections extended to traditional media are available for citizen bloggers and Web journalists. According to Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor, “It makes clear that bloggers have the same First Amendment rights as professional journalists.”

Citizen journalism has many ethical implications. Maintaining objectivity is one issue. Professional journalists pride themselves on their ability to keep facts separate from their opinions. Members of the profession do not allow their personal biases to impact what they cover or how they cover it. However, many citizen journalists are reporting on a particular topic because they care deeply about it or have a personal stake in the matter.

It does not appear that bloggers at WestportNow.com, a community blog in Connecticut, are deeply concerned with remaining objective. People are posting about delays on the Metro North and unemployment in the area because these are the issues members of the community care about. Is objectivity a critical aspect of citizen journalism or is dedication to truth and accuracy enough?

The question of objectivity also ties into partisanship. Partisan publications were replaced in the early 1900s because they were a risk for advertisers. However, Patterson and Wilkins discussed how partisan media entities like Fox News and MSNBC are experiencing a lot of success.

The advent of the Internet has largely erased the barrier that discouraged partisan or opinionated coverage. Anyone can set up a blog and be heard without worrying about the bottom line or other financial pressures.  By using the power of the Internet, people can advocate for their right to bear arms, and others can focus on how stricter gun legislation needs to be implemented. Does the publication of distinct viewpoints by citizen journalists open up the discussion? Is this a better approach than the “just the facts, ma’am” model used by traditional journalists? Our paper will attempt to address these issues.

This raises the question of whether citizen journalists need a code of ethics. Code of ethics cannot be the be-all and end-all for citizen journalists looking to report in an ethical manner. A list of responsibilities and acceptable behavior will never cover every scenario. The code of ethics for the Society of Professional Journalists even contains ambiguity about revealing and withholding information. Should the code of ethics be different for traditional journalists and citizen journalists? If so, how should they differ? We will devise a code of ethics we think should be followed based on our observations.

Our paper will also include several case studies looking into examples of citizen journalism. What guides coverage? Are the news values different for citizen journalism as compared with traditional journalism? For a Florida perspective, we want to learn more about The Post, a neighborhood platform for Davis Islands. Examiner.com has more than 100,000 “reporters” submitting stories from all across the United States. With an audience of more than 37 million visitors a month, we want to find out what has made this platform so successful.

We have learned from our class readings how globalization is contributing to the new market journalism. Corporations and their communication holdings have the power to transcend borders, but where does this leave citizen journalists? Platforms, such as allvoices, are attempting to unite contributors from all across the globe to contribute to the conversation. According to the allvoices website, every contribution is checked by algorithms for spam and relevance. If it pertains to the news event, it will be posted. This could be criticized for being a journalism of aggregation, but it is likely the most efficient way to monitor postings.

During our research, we plan to receive guidance from librarian April Hines about various sources to pursue.  In addition, we will contact Kelly McBride from the Poynter Institute. She served as the co-editor of The New Ethics of Journalism: Principles for the 21^st Century.

n.k.germany@ufl.edu

llrichardson@ufl.edu

keilanirodriguez@ufl.edu

cvangellow@ufl.edu

carlaognibeni@ufl.edu

Group One – Ethical Issue Presentation Proposal

Nicole Germany, Lauren Richardson, Keilani Rodriguez, Cassie Vangellow and Carla Vianna 

Citizen Journalism and what the movement means for traditional journalism and professional journalists.

What is citizen journalism? The term is thrown around on a regular basis, often being assigned to members of the blogosphere and to those who hold journalists accountable for what they publish. According to Mashable, citizen journalism is the product of citizens “playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information.”

Citizen journalism goes by several names, including public, participatory and guerilla journalism. This movement has evolved since the early foundation of the United States was formed. In publishing the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison could be considered citizen journalists. Their articles provided information about the U.S. Constitution, so the public could evaluate this new governmental structure before making a decision.

In more recent times, the advent of technology has allowed for more citizen involvement. In 1991, a citizen recorded the beating of Rodney King on a home video camera. The world may never have learned of how brutal the beating was without this video evidence. Videos were also released during the turmoil in Egypt because of groups like Mosireen, a citizen journalism entity based in Cairo.

The transformation of the blogosphere has also impacted the growth of citizen journalism. In 1999, Pyra Labs released Blogger.com, a system that gave users the opportunity to do their own reporting and editing. At this point, people did not have to be employed at the New York Times in order to be heard.

In the United States, journalism is said to be “whatever journalists say it is.” However, we must think of the power journalism has. Journalism was a major contributor to the formation of democracies in Eastern Europe. Journalism has a role in building communities and encouraging discussion. The question is where do citizen journalists fit into this process?

There have been countless examples of quality citizen journalism. CNN launched iReport to involve citizen journalists in the conversation. In 2012, citizen journalists submitted more than 100,000 stories. Of these, 10,789 were fact-checked and broadcasted on the CNN network or featured on the website. This reporting included coverage of Superstorm Sandy and the situation after debilitating floods hit the Philippines.

However, there are drawbacks to this movement. In 2008, one citizen falsely reported that Steve Jobs had a heart attack. Who holds these citizens accountable when they publish inaccurate news? Without fact checkers and editors, information is broadcast to the public that can cause rumors and unnecessary panic.

Frédéric Filloux, a freelance writer and media consultant based in Paris, voiced some interesting thoughts about citizen journalism. He said, “Journalism is a profession; it comes with standards, techniques and a certain level of demand from the author and his/her editors.”

Filloux asks a series of thought-provoking questions, including would you allow a citizen neurosurgeon to remove your child’s neuroblastoma? People are quick to respond with a vehement no. While this question is extreme, it also makes you wonder whether citizens can do a job that professionals have pursued only after receiving degrees and training.

This raises the question of whether citizen journalists need a code of ethics. Code of ethics cannot be the be-all and end-all for citizen journalists looking to report in an ethical manner. A list of responsibilities and acceptable behavior will never cover every scenario. The code of ethics for the Society of Professional Journalists even contains ambiguity about revealing and withholding information.

On Jan. 17, a major development occurred with a decision by the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This ruling establishes that the same protections extended to traditional media are available for citizen bloggers and Web journalists. According to Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor, “It makes clear that bloggers have the same First Amendment rights as professional journalists.”

With these recent developments, our group looks forward to investigating what this means for the future of citizen journalism. Do citizen journalists need a separate code of ethics? What would be included in this code of ethics? What effects will this court decision have on future acts of citizen journalism? Our group will attempt to answer these questions.

We plan to receive guidance from librarian April Hines about various research avenues to pursue.  In addition, we will contact Kelly McBride from the Poynter Institute. She served as the co-editor of The New Ethics of Journalism: Principles for the 21^st Century.

During our presentation, we hope to engage the audience by conducting polls using SurveyMonkey. This will include asking them about whether a code of ethics for citizen journalists is necessary at the beginning of the presentation and again at the end. It will be interesting to see if the results change. We will also include various examples of citizen journalism to show the range of quality and audience reach.

n.k.germany@ufl.edu

llrichardson@ufl.edu

keilanirodriguez@ufl.edu

cvangellow@ufl.edu

carlaognibeni@ufl.edu