Blog Essay Week 6

EJ Chapter Four

The essence of journalism is a discipline of verification. It seems as though Thucydides had a better sense of how to report on events than journalists do today. Journalism distinguishes itself from entertainment, propaganda, fiction and art by focusing on providing an accurate account of what happened.

However, accurate reporting is sometimes hard to come by. Questions are surrounding NBC’s recent coverage of hacking that is supposedly taking place in Sochi. Why did Richard Engel report on this? Was it because the hacking was actually occurring or was there another reason? Verification is currently under pressure from various sources, including how easy it is to instantaneously publish something, while knowing it can be corrected later. In addition, outlets are quick to publish information if other news organizations have already put it “out there.” When I Googled Sochi hacking, about 175,000 results popped up. I wonder if NBC was following the pack before the network went a little too far.

It struck me that objectivity in journalism did not originally apply to journalists being free from bias. Personally, I have never thought anyone, even journalists, can be free of bias. We are influenced by our own experiences and upbringings. However, as a journalist, we must be able to put these biases aside when reporting. I think we need to return to the idea from the 1920s where objectivity pertains to a consistent method of testing information so biases do not get in the way of accurate reporting.

The idea of objectivity provides better guidance than realism and its emphasis on putting the facts in order. If we just want a list of facts, we can leave the work to computer aggregators. Journalists add analysis and context. We just need to make sure bias does not also find its way into the mix. This also fits hand in hand with the importance of studying evidence and verification. The University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications requires that we take fact finding, a course designed to teach us about public records and the power of documentation. This curriculum is a far cry from the “trade schools designed to fit men for higher salaries in the existing structure,” discussed by Walter Lippmann.

Kovach and Rosenstiel threw me for a loop when they said “the impartial voice employed by many news organizations – that familiar, supposedly neutral style of newswriting – is not a fundamental principle of journalism.” Fox News receives a lot of criticism for not remaining neutral. However, what about the networks that select sources to express what is actually their own point of view, but then use the neutral voice to make it seem objective? Ultimately, I think the public mainly cares about transparency. Maybe if Fox stopped referring to itself as “fair and balanced,” the network would receive less condemnation.

In addition, if more focus was placed on objectivity as a method, we could continue to incorporate distinct media entities under journalism’s umbrella. If fact checking and verification were widely utilized, everyone might be more accepting of Fox leaning toward the right and MSNBC leaning toward the left.

Why has this objective method of journalism not taken the world of journalism by storm yet? The problem is journalists are not learning their verification techniques from their universities or editors. According to research by Stanford’s William Damon, colleagues and trial and error have been the best teachers. We are approaching a critical juncture in this area. The question is, how will we respond?

It is comical that the culture surrounding the modern press is hindering verification. We have access to so much technology that should make our jobs easier, but it is hurting the journalistic process. As Karl Marx warned, “The production of too many useful things results in too many useless people.” Al Gore is one victim of technology weakening the process, which is ironic because of the claims that he invented the Internet.

As a journalism student, I never thought I would have to think much about science. Chemistry is to remain a distant high school memory (nightmare). However Phil Meyer made a valid point when he said, “That’s what scientific method is—our humanity, our subjective impulses…directed toward deciding what to investigate by objective means.” Whether we are pursuing a study of how various cells interact or why a corporate merger is taking place, maintaining an objective method will be essential to the success of both ventures.

Throughout the past few weeks, we have learned how a focus on balance and fairness as principles can be problematic.  If 2,000 scientists support the claim that there is life on other planets, and 20 scientists say Earth is the only planet that can sustain life, it would be a distortion to have one source from each side. Journalists are too focused on being equal to both sides, but there are often more than two sides. This issue may stem from the two parties that dominate the American political system. However, even getting a Democratic and Republican source may not be enough. What about members of the Tea Party, Libertarians and Socialists?

Fairness can also be problematic because of its subjective nature. One source may claim your coverage is unfair to their stakeholder group, but you need to focus on who your loyalty belongs to, the citizens.

As Pulitzer Prize-winning author John Hersey said, journalism’s promise to citizens is “nothing here is made up.” Following from this, it makes sense that a journalist should not add anything that did not happen, and they should not deceive the audience in any way. However, it is often tempting to dramatize events to make the story juicier and more enticing, which is one reason audiences tune into CNN instead of C-SPAN.

Journalists should also attempt to be as transparent as possible. Just like the demands to know what is in our food, people have a right to know the ingredients of a particular news story. The Internet can be a major ally in an effort to be more transparent because additional sources and information can be provided through hyperlinks. David Barstow and Alejandra Xanic von Bertrab won the 2013 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting. Their coverage of bribery in Mexico involving Wal-Mart included links to notes and other pertinent records. I am glad quality journalism like this continues to be rewarded.

Being transparent also raises the issue of anonymous sources. While it is evident why a source would want to remain anonymous to protect his or her own interests, why should reporters allow some sources to remain anonymous while revealing the identities of others? It is difficult to put stock in a story that relies on anonymous sources. Have you heard the rumors about the United States and Russia teaming up to rig the pairs and ice dancing competitions? An unnamed Russian coach released this information, so it must be true, right?

In addition to being wary about the use of anonymous sources, journalists should be forthcoming about questions they are still unable to answer. During the recent developments in the Tiffany Sessions case, journalists have been honest about questions that are still unanswered.

It bugs me that network television newscasts are able to get away with saying “sources said.” Who are these mysterious sources? Television producers can say timing is of the essence, but space is a premium in newspapers and magazines. Does this shortness of space make it okay to not identify sources by name? Readers would likely not stand for this, so why should television viewers?

Journalists must not only be open with the audience, but they also should not mislead their sources. Blockbuster stories can result from masquerading, but journalists must be careful about crossing the line. Do shows like “To Catch a Predator?” go too far? The suicide of Texas prosecutor Louis Conradt Jr. during the filming of one episode makes me question whether this masquerading is appropriate.

Is the information provided by this show sufficiently vital to the public interest to justify deception? Is there no other way to get the story? Does the show explain to the audience why deception is justified, as well as being the only way to get these facts? These questions can be adapted before any masquerading is used as an investigative reporting technique.

Journalists also owe it to citizens to be original. We saw how easy it is for members of the media to utilize the same lines and material as their colleagues and competition. Does Conan O’Brien “pushing the envelope” ring a bell?

In addition to being original, journalists must be aware of the different levels of knowledge in reporting. When there is a car crash, citizens want to know what happened. Reporters must provide details about the crash location, time of the crash and who was involved. The Orlando Sentinel’s coverage of a crash in Tampa involving a few University of Southern Florida students goes into these external details.

Why was the other driver going the wrong way? What were the young men doing on the Interstate at 2 a.m.? These questions pertain to the interior world. While journalists might want to hypothesize and speculate about the answers to these questions, they need to be honest about lacking proof to make these judgments.

As Nelson Mandela once said, “I stand here before you not as a prophet, but as a humble servant of you, the people.” As the public’s provider of information and news, journalists must be skeptical about their ability to cover topics they are unfamiliar with. Journalists are expected to cover anything and everything, but they cannot be experts on every topic they write about.

If reporter Lisa Prevost were an expert on home equity loans, she would probably work in finance or real estate. Journalists should perform research and interviews to try to learn as much as they can about a topic, but they should not go into a story thinking they know exactly where it will go.

This skepticism about what a journalist knows during the reporting process should continue through the editing phase. By going line by line, you are not only looking for any fact errors but issues with sweeping assertions and assumptions. A recent Alligator article looked into how Gainesville residents were reacting to the CVS tobacco announcement. One line in the article reads “For some local convenient stores, the change could mean an increase in profits.” (This is a direct quote, but the reporter should have said convenience stores.)  However, the reporter only had one source to support this claim. When did some become reference for one? Ultimately, the reporter should have included additional sources to bolster this assertion.

I like the idea of incorporating an accuracy checklist into the reporting process. Two of the most important questions relate to whether the lead is sufficiently supported and concern over the identification and inclusion of various stakeholders. I think stories must also live up to what the headlines say. If the headline says “Experts warn of coming wave of serious cybercrime,” I want to hear from multiple sources who explain how and why this will occur. In addition, what makes these people experts in this area? I am expecting reporters Danielle Douglas and Craig Timberg to include this information.

When dealing with assumptions, anonymous sources and verification, it is important to remember that everyone has a role to play in the process. Owners and publishers must encourage transparent journalism that is supported by verifiable sources. Editors must be ready to “prosecute” stories line by line, and reporters must focus on using objective methods to remove any bias from their work. In addition, the public must maintain an active role in holding journalists accountable. As the great Edward R. Murrow once said, “To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful. It is as simple as that.”

Skeptical Editing/Reid MacCluggage

Reid MacCluggage said our biggest weakness is unchallenged information. As editors, when a reporter gives us a story, we are quick to assume that the information is accurate and truthful.

However, we all know the saying about what happens if you assume something. All joking aside, this is a serious issue. When I was recently editing a story, I checked all the names and statistics. The reporter had spelled all of the names correctly and properly included the correct percentages from the applicable report. However, I also checked the photograph accompanying the story. I am glad I did because her caption had not properly identified who was who. In the field of journalism, assumptions will only lead to embarrassing corrections and a decline in credibility.

As Sissela Bok said, incredulity is an important quality in editors. As we have always been told, “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” After the reporters complete their initial edits, we must be the next line of defense.

Editors must challenge reporters to think critically, as well as how to write about complex topics that may not have a simple explanation. As MacCluggage says, we may not be able to nail down why something is happening, so we should not report as though we are all-knowing beings. This goes hand in hand with Kovach and Rosenstiel’s discussion of humility and how journalists must be skeptical about their ability to know what something means.

MacCluggage expresses some helpful points in the section about prosecuting the story. Placing our reporters on the witness stand and grilling them as Jack McCoy does may not be appropriate, but editors need to cross-examine stories to determine holes that need to be filled and questions that still need to be answered.

While it may not be feasible to assign a naysayer to each story, this step could help in preventing unchallenged information from being released. If someone had taken on this role at “60 Minutes,” holes would have been discovered in the reporting process before Mike Wallace went on air.

Editors need to make sure reporters have the information to back up what their stories assert. As astronomer Carl Sagan once said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

ME Chapter Five

I was always a little fuzzy on what happened with the New Orleans Saints in 2011, but it disgusts me to hear about their “bounty system.” There has been a lot of discussion about concussions and other injuries throughout the NFL. While I understand why Steve Gleason would not want to betray the trust of those who worked on this project, I am glad this situation forced a discussion on this topic.

Privacy is an extremely complex topic. Merriam Webster defines privacy as “the quality or state of being apart from company or observation” or “freedom from unauthorized intrusion.” However, does everyone have a right to privacy in every situation?

The Bernie Fine investigation involved an ethical dilemma. Do you reveal the accusations before all of the information can be verified? Do you have a duty to protect the privacy of someone who could be considered a public figure in the community? When privacy and the harm principle come head to head, how do you respond?

I learned a great deal about the tort of privacy during the law of mass communication. It seems obvious that I cannot claim in an advertisement that Tim Tebow loves my cookies without his permission. However, the disclosure of embarrassing private facts is a difficult area to maneuver because privacy continues to change. A recent Cosmopolitan article looked into how relationships were impacted by abortion by talking to various couples. I doubt you would have seen an article like this in the 1970s or 1980s.

While I think many lawsuits result in excessive verdicts, it surprises me that the courts consider someone’s reputation to be more valuable than privacy. I think reputation is important, but this relates to how people perceive you to be. If my privacy is protected, including making sure no one peaks into my windows or has unlimited access to my social media accounts, I think I am better able to preserve my reputation. Do they not go hand in hand?

If the primary purpose of journalism “is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing,” journalists must care about privacy because it is an integral component of democracy. Unlike freedom of the press and freedom of speech, privacy is not listed as one of our rights in the Constitution.

However, the idea of privacy has been around since way before the Constitution. The Talmud’s focus on the role of the community is compelling. In this regard, privacy is a two-way street. As individuals, we must be on alert for any intrusion of privacy, but our fellow community members also have a role in respecting physical and emotional boundaries. While it is easy to understand that a locked door means keep out, what about password-protected sites? Are you going to attempt to fiddle with a locked door? Probably not, but we have all attempted to guess a friend’s password to access their iPhones or Facebook accounts. Think about this before you choose 1234 or password as your “clever way” of keeping people out.

Even though the government is no longer the only institution that forces you to provide private information, it is ironic that Edward Snowden gave the federal government a dose of its own medicine. Part of the reason this occurred is because of the continuously changing technology. Firewalls and other protections can only go so far. Just ask Target and Neiman Marcus.

I found it interesting how Patterson and Wilkins differentiated secrecy and privacy. What is one secret I have? I have a Disney Princess nightlight next to my bed. No one, apart from those reading this blog, knows that information. What is something I keep private? Which law school I am leaning toward attending. My parents and best friend are aware, but I am wary about who I tell. My mom, dad and best friend are each in one of what philosopher Louis Hodge calls “you plus one” circles. As I get further out to casual acquaintances, I will not share this intimate detail with them until a final decision has been made and a deposit has been sent. These circles provide a helpful tool for determining how much you trust the people in your life.

Good journalists must use discretion when handling private information. Unless your ultimate goal is to work for TMZ, you need to be careful as an information protector. This AIDS story is a little different because it involves someone coming forward with their story, but with illnesses and things outside the norm, a journalist must determine whether revealing information is intrusive and injurious.

The right to know, need to know and want to know was applicable to the case study about campaign finance. While we may have a legal right to know certain information, people often assume their want to know gives them a right to demand access to information. Were people always curious about Anderson Cooper’s sexuality? Yes, but did they have a RIGHT to know? Definitely not. Need to know is a gray area because it bridges the gap between want to know and right to know. The public does not need to know all information related to a physician’s practice. However, don’t they need to know when doctors, such as Dr. Kermit Gosnell, abuse their power? Absolutely.

When I read about people taking advantage of people’s privacy to make some money, I was not the least bit surprised. I knew several acquaintances who were charged for being in possession of alcohol while they were underage. Their mug shots were plastered all over various websites that were easily accessible with a simple click of the mouse. What was the only way to get these sites to remove the photo? Shelling out hundreds of dollars. While this public shaming is incredibly offensive, it is a product of the world we live in today. Hopefully, this will serve as a warning for anyone who wants to behave in a dangerous or illegal way.

Ultimately, I think the “veil of ignorance” boils down to removing all possible biases. As a 21-year-old female from western New York, I have biases that are different from a 52-year-old man from Kansas. In addition, I am a journalist, and let’s say he works at a manufacturing plant. Under the veil, we must put the biases that result from our backgrounds aside. If we do this, the best possible option will hopefully be decided upon.

Ethical Issue involving Coach Lute Olson

This anecdote from Lute Olson brings up a lot of interesting questions. Journalism’s first obligation is to truth. While the reporter went to the coach and likely the best source for information about Arizona’s uniforms, he did not accurately report on the information. He made assertions about the team’s uniforms costing more than those for the Phoenix Suns, an assertion made outside of the proper context. In addition, the reporter failed to do his homework by not including how Sand-Knit was no longer under the ownership of MacGregor.

While the reporter may claim he verified the information with the coach about why the Sand-Knit uniforms were purchased, the information was not portrayed accurately. Where were the editors in this process? By employing Tom French’s red pencil technique, editors would have realized the assertions did not match the facts.

I was also disturbed by the response of several members of the University of Arizona administration. They probably did not want more publicity to be devoted to this, but they should have considered how this story painted Olson in a negative light. I have much more respect for those in leadership who stand behind those below them, especially in tough times, as we saw when Jeremy Foley defended Will Muschamp.

You can tell a lot about a person by how they respond to ethical dilemmas and adversity.

PoynterVision: Ellen Shearer on what journalists need to know to cover drones

The discussion of drones is especially applicable to us as students at the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications and as residents of Gainesville. The Innovation News Center has a drone. While it may not be a predator or land drone, it could have a large impact on reporting completed by members of the WUFT news team. Gainesville is also home to a couple companies who work with drone technology, including Prioria Robotics and Altavian. If this industry grows to be worth $89 billion by 2025, we need to figure out how to use drones during the reporting process, as well as have an understanding of how the various kinds are used.

Privacy on own computer – MAXA Tools – Privacy Test

I decided to check my results while at the library this past Saturday. It was disturbing that the program knew I was in Gainesville. While I expect this pinpointing on my iPhone because of Google Maps and other applications, it freaks me out that my location can also be identified through my computer. It was also interesting how it knew I was logged into Facebook and Google. Neither of these windows were open during the completion of this exercise, so it came across as very sketchy.  I am highly considering using proxy cascades. This may also be the motivation I needed to start placing tape over my computer’s webcam.

My results from the privacy test:

Case Study 5-B Facebook: Should you opt out or in?

IWC Systematic Process

1.) Identify the Dilemma

Social media sites, including Facebook, continue to collect more and more information about users. In 2007, Facebook introduced Beacon, a service that tracked what users were doing on various websites and then announced actions and purchases to Facebook friends.  Other websites have typically done this, but the tracking often occurs without user awareness. What if you do not want Facebook to have the ability to track you? What if you were worried about your privacy? In 2009, the New York Times published a guide that showed how users had to go through 100 different steps to alter their privacy profiles. Within a year, the process was made easier, so it only took two steps. Facebook continues to introduce services where issues of privacy arise, including the automatic facial recognition service in 2011. Should you continue to use Facebook and other social media platforms, such as Twitter?

2.) Weigh alternatives

One option would be to go cold turkey and discontinue use of these platforms. However, one multi-national study in Europe found that young people who were asked to refrain from using their electronic devices, which many use for social media, displayed physical, psychological and emotional signs of withdrawal that is typically associated with addiction during the 24-hour period. In addition, social media is a way many people connect for group projects and other forums. If someone tells me they do not have a Facebook, red flags immediately go up in my head. Another alternative would be to opt in and allow Facebook to use all of your information to target advertisements based on what you like, as well as make it easier to tag photos and locations. The consequences of this choice must be considered. Do you want your future employer to see that album from spring break in Cabo San Lucas? Employers are utilizing social media as a tool to find out more about candidates. Is it worth their time to interview someone who they worry cannot even present themselves in an appropriate manner, let alone allow them to represent a company? A third option is to effectively use social media to build your brand. Employ privacy settings, so only your friends can see your posts, and be aware of what statuses and photos you post.

3.) Cite a persuasive rationale

As the phrase goes, “everything in moderation.” Social media should be maximized to the highest possible potential. A journalist’s Facebook or Twitter is another outlet to interact with readers and viewers. However, it is also integral to use proper privacy settings and always think twice before posting. It is easy to post information without vetting, something we saw applied to Twitter in chapter four. Overall, in this digital age, it is not really possible to opt out completely of social media. The important thing is to monitor settings and keep posts appropriate and tasteful on Facebook and all other platforms.

Case Study 5-C Politics and Money – What’s private and what’s not

IWC Systematic Process

1.) Identify the Dilemma

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizen’s United case revolutionized campaign finance. Corporations and unions now have the ability to donate unlimited sums of money to political campaigns. However, do citizens have a right to know who is donating to whom? Do we need to know how much these donors are contributing? As this chapter discussed, right to know, need to know and want to know are very different. A right to know pertains to the law, and a want to know emphasizes curiosity. Need to know is the most ethically compelling argument because it applies to making known information public that some want to keep private.

2.) Weigh alternatives

One potential answer to releasing information about campaign finance is to make everything public. If billionaire Harold Simmons gave $1 million to Newt Gingrich’s political action committee, we should also know who else donated and how much they gave. To support this idea, we could again point to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia saying publicity is part of the price of getting involved in the game of politics. Another alternative would be to have zero transparency. The public would know absolutely nothing about who gave to whom or how much they contributed. Members of the audience would just see the advertisements on television without any idea about how much these promotions cost. This option would provide anonymity and protection for those who wish to donate. These donors would not have to worry about how their donations will impact their businesses, something that would make Frank VanderSloot very happy. A third option would be to provide the names of donors without getting into the specifics of how much each person donated. People could see that Sheldon Adelson supported various conservative candidates, but they would not know whether he donated $50,000 or $10 million.

3.) Cite a persuasive rationale

In this dilemma, I am drawn to using Aristotle’s golden mean where virtue lies between extremes and also utilitarianism. I think the best option that “provides the greatest good for the greatest number” is providing the names of donors without the financial details. With this option, the transparency allows the public to see who is donating, while donors also maintain some of their privacy. Overall, this choice has a little something in it for everyone.

Discussion Question

How does the use of anonymous sources impact the credibility of individual journalists and their publications?

It was interesting to compare the tests various editors utilize before allowing anonymous sources to be used. However, I do not think a series of questions can fit every situation. Consider the two-question test Joe Lelyveld used when he served as the executive editor of the New York Times as applied to the Richard Jewell case. Law enforcement sources informed the Atlanta Journal Constitution that Jewell had become a suspect, but these sources also wanted to remain anonymous. Lelyveld’s first question asks “how much direct knowledge does the anonymous source have of the event?” As part of the team investigating the bombing, the reporters would say the law enforcement sources possess a significant amount of information. Lelyveld’s second question poses “what, if any, motive might the source have for misleading us, gilding the lily, or hiding important facts that might alter our impression of the information?” While law enforcement people may not want to mislead, they are often focused on finding who is responsible for a crime or act of violence as quick as possible. This can lead to a rush to judgment without proper evidence. In this case, there was no physical evidence linking Jewell to the crime and police had not even interviewed Jewell as a suspect. While these tests can be helpful guides, there are a lot of extenuating factors to consider when deciding whether to use anonymous sources.

Link to Ethical Issue of the Week

If the above link gives you any trouble, the Daily Princetonian also discussed this topic.

I came across this story about Albion College suspending the student newspaper while perusing Jim Romesnesko’s blog. The college suspended the print version of the Albion Pleiad because administrators had a problem with “content verification.” As Kovach and Rosenstiel discussed in chapter four, “the essence of journalism is a discipline of verification.” Sally Walker, the vice president for student affairs at Albion College, suspended the paper after the Pleiad published an article on Jan. 31 about the death of an Alma College student. As we have learned, journalism’s first obligation is to the truth. When the paper was contacted about an issue with the article in question, they removed it and posted a revised version of the story several hours later. Verification is under pressure because in the digital age, it is easy to post something immediately. Once an article is posted, it can easily be edited. Some publications may not even acknowledge an updated version, something Carla addressed in her ethical issue last week. However, members of the Pleiad staff acknowledged the mistakes, including the use of quotes out of context and a deviation from their fact-checking policies, on the paper’s Facebook page. I think the student newspaper took the proper steps in addressing their mistakes, and I think the college should not have enforced such a strict sanction. Do you think the college made an appropriate choice to suspend the paper? What would you have done as a member of the Pleiad staff?

Questions from Dr. Rodgers – Vocabulary Terms

• Harm principle: Each person has the right to act the way he or she wants so long as these actions do not cause harm for others. John Stuart Mill was central to developing this idea. Maintaining trust or privacy may come into conflict with the harm principle. Patterson and Wilkins discussed how people would be hurt if filmmaker Sean Pamphilon did not release how New Orleans Saints football players were targeting other players, especially those who had previously experienced injuries.
• False Light: False light is one of the four torts related to privacy. Successful claims of false light usually require that the defendant published the information widely, the publication identified the plaintiff, the plaintiff was placed in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and the defendant was at fault in publishing the information. Patterson and Wilkins said enhancing a subject’s biography to sell additional book copies is an example of false light.
• Discretion: “The intuitive ability to discern what is and is not intrusive and injurious,” according to Bok.  When a source decides to reveal private information, a reporter’s ability to discern whether this information will cause injury to the source remains the only barrier between the source and members of the public who may need or just want the information.
• Objectivity: Idea began to appear as part of journalism discussion in the 1920s because it was evident that journalists were full of bias, often bias they were unaware of. This idea was part of an appeal for journalists to develop a consistent method of checking information, so these biases would not discredit their work in any way. The more transparent the approach is, the better.
• False Equivalency: In an attempt to be balanced, journalists attempt to give equal attention to both sides. However, there are often more than two sides to a story. Patterson and Wilkins discuss how if a large percentage of scientists believe in global warming or one medical treatment is leaps and bounds ahead of the rest in terms of safety, it is a disservice to citizens to create the impression that the debate is evenly split. The media continues to struggle with this distortion.

Cassie Vangellow, cvangellow@ufl.edu