EJ Chapter Three
Do teachers get paid more money when more of their students pass a particular test? Do doctors make more money when fewer of their patients experience infection after surgery? The answer is no. In this regard, journalists should not be any different. They should be recognized for the quality reporting they provide, not for any other factors.
While I understand that news organizations need to be financially solvent, it is ridiculous that journalistic leaders have reported spending at least a third of their time on business matters rather than on journalism. Instead of focusing on objective coverage that members of their communities care about, the emphasis is being placed on dollar signs.
Even though a news organization needs to serve community institutions, advertisers and shareholders, its first allegiance and loyalty must be to citizens. These organizations do not need to act like other publicly traded companies, such as Apple. Readers and viewers do not want to question whether a journalist has ulterior motives for covering a particular story, and they do not want to worry about the coverage being slanted because of corporate relationships. Journalists have an “implied covenant” with the public that if broken will result in a major blow to credibility.
It is positive to hear about reporters standing up to management after the fallout from Jayson Blair and after the business relationship between the Los Angeles Times and the Staples Center was revealed. Reporters at both the New York Times and Los Angeles Times could have sat back and allowed management to deal with these issues however they saw fit. However, they took a stand and demonstrated their loyalty to who really matters, the public.
We all should thank Adolph Ochs for leading the way for objective journalism that people could trust. Ochs wanted “to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect or interests involved.” Do you think the New York Times continues to uphold these standards today? Their coverage of Benghazi that may have been used to protect the political careers of President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton makes me skeptical.
As Patterson and Wilkins discussed in chapter one of their book, codes of ethics can be helpful. The American Society of Newspaper Editors said “Independence: Freedom from all obligations except that of fidelity to the public interest is vital.” These code of ethics have limitations, but they provide guidelines to be used across various situations. Institutions must be willing to use these codes on a day-to-day basis, as well as during crises.
It appears that various media sources, particularly those in television, want to encapsulate their dedication to their work in catchy slogans. From “Coverage you can count on,” to “Where the news comes first,” do these slogans resonate with the public? The TVSpy article discussed how slogans can be separated into those that focus on product attributes and those whose emphasis is placed on an emotional connection.
Personally, I want to know what the news organization is bringing to the table. If you tell me your slogan is “Standing up for working class families,” I better see evidence of this in all of your reporting. This slogan speaks to me much more than the more generic “Live, Local, Late Breaking.”
As news organizations have worked to become independent sources of news without conflicting ties, separation from the community has often occurred. Reporters are not necessarily staying in the communities where they grew up. While the Gainesville Sun is a quality paper, many reporters use it as a stepping stone to larger markets. This does not have to be a bad thing, but it leads to a greater detachment from the public.
It is interesting to reflect on how the tone of journalism has shifted. Reporters and journalists seem much more ready to take up time and space inserting their analysis instead of focusing on what a particular candidate, official or person said. While this is fine for the editorial pages, it raises some issues about what constitutes news. Even prominent journalists like Anderson Cooper sometimes allow commentary and opinion to slip into the news.
Along these lines, journalists are reporting and writing about what motivated an action versus addressing the facts or what occurred. I would prefer to read the news and form my own opinions. I appreciate analysis when it is incorporated into a story correctly. However, it is becoming more difficult to tell what is the truth compared with hypotheses aiming to guess why something is happening.
A recent Politico article discussed how some Senate Democrats are disagreeing with President Obama about certain issues. Instead of focusing on the issues that seem to be dividing the senators and president, the article focused on why this must be happening: “Democrats from energy-producing states are likely to whack the administration’s energy policies and red-state Democrats up for reelection in 2014 are worried about Obamacare fallout. In some instances, the contrasts between vulnerable Senate Democrats and the White House appear to be orchestrated to counter Obama’s low approval rates in red states where incumbents will face voters this fall, congressional aides in both parties suggest.”
In an ideal world, journalism would live in a vacuum. There would be no need to worry about advertising sales and the bottom line. Unfortunately, this is not the world we live in. I was unaware that grocery and department stores were such integral parts of the newspaper business until reading this chapter. I assumed that subscription fees were where the papers made a bulk of their money.
It baffles me that newspapers focused their cuts on the parts of the budget dedicated to news. The public looks for news publications that consistently provide the best coverage on a variety of issues. How can newspapers and other sources provide this? By hiring quality reporters who can deliver these types of stories.
Managers on the business side can point to data and research, but it all comes back to loyalty. It is not the job of advertisers to keep journalists accountable for their reporting. This is the public’s duty. Managers can claim they are striving to save the industry, but what will these journalistic entities be if they continue to cut the resources devoted to news?
Management By Objective (MBO) is another practice that should be discussed. I must begin by saying I am a firm believer in incentives. If I finish my blog for ethics, I reward myself by watching an episode of “New Girl.” With MBOs, goals are set and rewards are given out based on whether the objectives have been satisfied. My issue is many of these goals pertain to the finances of the company instead of relating to journalistic standards.
Journalists should be rewarded for leaving the pack and producing unparalleled coverage. The Denver Post received the 2013 Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Reporting for its coverage of the July 2012 shooting in Aurora, Colo. This publication has won a Pulitzer Prize during each of the past four years. Journalists should be rewarded for these types of efforts, not whether shareholders are satisfied with their dividends.
Journalistic entities are focusing so much on business that even the language is changing. Readers and viewers are now being referred to as customers. However, that implies a one-way relationship where we provide the product and the chain ends. I may be a customer of Nordstrom’s, but I am someone who consumes news from USA Today and the New York Times. Journalism is a two-way street where the public and journalists can ideally have an open discussion about the issues of the day.
Reading through the comments as people discuss Hillary Clinton’s tweet about Fox News demonstrates to me how people are not passive customers in a marketplace. They have ideas and viewpoints to share. By providing these forums, journalists are able to form a bond with the audience that is much stronger than a simple business transaction.
As the journalistic and business sides of these companies continue butting heads, I wonder how these operations can exist going forward. While Robert McCormick’s two elevator banks may have been enough in the early 1900s, this will no longer be sufficient today. Duties must remain separate, but the distinct sides of these companies should unite behind their common goal of being the most credible news provider out there.
Peter Goldmark Jr., who previously served as the chairman and chief executive of the International Herald Tribune, had some thoughtful ideas about how to address this changing landscape. His idea about an annual audit of the news to monitor its independence stood out to me. The Guardian has a whole section of its website dedicated to monitoring whether the organization is carrying out its values. This effort demonstrates the company’s loyalty and dedication to serving the public. Will other news entities begin to follow this example?
It is compelling to consider the characteristics unifying companies that have “not been lost to the dark side” where money is the sole focus. It seems like it would be obvious for the owner or corporation to be committed to serving citizens first and foremost. However, today loyalty is often displayed to a board of directors or shareholders. We may no longer live in a time where one person oversees and is directly involved in every aspect of publishing, but this idea can still provide a sound foundation. While it may be overly simplistic to say it flows from the top down, media owners and the board-elected CEO ultimately determine how the newsrooms are run.
Owners and publishers must remember who to stay loyal to, but business managers must also have citizens as their priority. People are not reading the newspaper for the advertisements. If the newspaper is like a sandwich, the articles are the buns and meat, while the ads are condiments. They are bonuses, such as the ketchup or mustard on this fictitious sandwich. By providing a great product, people will keep coming back for more. Advertising departments should remember this when they try to take on the superior role.
Once standards are set, it is important to communicate what is expected. A meeting needs to be held where the standards can be discussed. This should be reminiscent of syllabus day. While people can read through the expectations themselves, it helps to discuss and reiterate the important points with a supervisor. The question is, will the reporters be up to the challenge of following these standards on a daily basis. As we are all aware, students are quick to forget important aspects of a syllabus until that critical point at the end of the semester. Hopefully, a crisis does not need to occur for reporters to live and breathe these standards.
Journalists having final say over the news may seem like an afterthought to some. With dilemmas over native advertising practices, this is a real issue. As journalists, we are not account executives trying to sell a product or public relations professionals trying to promote something. These activities should be showcased in a separate area of the paper and should not have influence on what is reported on. ABC may be a small chunk of the Disney conglomerate, but it should never have spiked a story because of how it might influence a different segment of the brand.
The most important thing these companies can do is to keep the lines of communication open with the public about what they are doing. Transparency is critical. While every little detail does not need to be released, members of the public will likely be more trusting if they understand the objectives of the company, as well as how ethics factor into what they are covering. Some people may want to know everything about Philip Seymour Hoffman’s death, but others might say sources like the New York Post go too far in invading people’s privacy. Being open with the public will allow news organizations to attract a readership or viewership that shares its values, which translates into success for advertisers and shareholders. It can be a win-win-win.
Ultimately, news organizations should start by answering the question “For whom do you work?” If the answer is not the public, a reevaluation needs to take place in order for the publication to survive in this changing media landscape.
ME Chapter Four
“To whom (or what) will I be loyal?” Whether journalists realize it or not, they answer this question whenever they hand in a story. Juan Tamayo is being loyal to members of Cuba’s elderly community. As Thomas Hobbes discussed in The Leviathan, loyalty does not have to be to God.
Hobbes also discussed how loyalty involves a social act. Tamayo cares about Cuba’s elderly population, as other people do, especially those with ties to Cuba. This agreement causes people to form a “social contract” that allows for society to function. Hobbes placed an emphasis on this contract contributing to a political society. With all of today’s issues being discussed based on ideological and party lines, I see where the political part comes into play, even if I do not see much agreement.
American theologian Josiah Royce’s succinct definition resonates with me. He describes loyalty as a social act that involves “the willing and practical and thoroughgoing devotion of a person to a cause.” Thoroughgoing tripped me up a little bit, but Merriam Webster defined it as “including every possible detail, very thorough or complete.” To me, this definition means someone is 100 percent dedicated to a realistic entity or cause. Journalists should definitely keep this in mind if and when they get to choose a particular beat.
As with other principles, loyalty has limitations. I can see how people could claim they are loyal to something when they are actually being biased. For instance, a journalist cannot be loyal to the Democratic Party or Republican Party. This allegiance would be seen as a bias, especially problematic in the careers we are pursuing.
Life would be a breeze if we were all loyal to one thing, but various entities will compete for favor. Advertisers, stakeholders and the public are all demanding of loyalty. How will you respond?
This relates to Royce’s issue with people not remaining loyal to proper ideals or individuals. Are journalists in Sri Lanka being “loyal” to a government who provides certain rewards for positive coverage? As Royce said, a cause worthy of loyalty will be viewed as such by multiple members of the community. Loyalty should not be degraded by journalists who want to abuse their power for selfish gain.
I am troubled by Patterson and Wilkins statement, “One of the problems modern news media face is that a large percentage of the U.S. public subscribes to the notion that if the media are not maximally loyal—that is, one with government, the military and so forth—then they are traitorous.” I do not want the media’s messages to be in sync with everything the government or military says. I have the highest respect for our government and servicemen and women, but I know they hide a lot of the truth. They can claim “it is in the interests of national security,” but this is often a cop out. The public should encourage journalists to ask the hard-hitting questions because if they do not, who will?
The philosophical claim that “to belong to a profession is traditionally to be held to certain standards of conduct that go beyond the norm for others” definitely applies to journalists. If a doctor writes an incorrect prescription, someone’s life could be in danger. If a lawyer cites a law that is not applicable to his or her argument, the whole case can fall apart. If a journalist spells the name of an alleged rapist wrong, another person’s life could be ruined. No one questions whether doctors and lawyers are professionals, and I am fed up with people acting as if journalists belong in a lower tier.
Another difficulty is how to address scenarios where conflicting loyalties are present. Journalists are pulled in 100 different directions based on professional standards, duty to serving the public and other employment obligations. This can be problematic, but luckily these loyalties will not come head to head with every story.
The Potter Box is another helpful tool we can use to address ethical dilemmas. By taking into consideration the facts, values, philosophical principles that may be of assistance and the loyalties at play, a situation can be better resolved. While we will not always be dealing with the pimp, prostitute, preacher conundrum, we will have to consider our loyalties.
While Gainesville publications were likely to receive a lot of attention and hits for their coverage of Mayor Craig Lowe’s arrest, they probably went through a similar process. How do you report that a well-respected community leader broke the law?
Where do your loyalties lie?
Case Study 4-A Who’s Facebook page is it anyway?
IWC Systematic Process
1.) Identify the Dilemma
Barrett Tryon, a Colorado Springs Gazette staff member, posted a link on his personal Facebook page to a Los Angeles Times story that announced the sale of the Gazette and several other papers to a Boston investment group. Along with the link, Tryon included a quote from the Los Angeles Times that demonstrated the involvement of the Gazette in the sale. Tryon was notified by his boss that his post violated Freedom Communication’s social media policy. Did Tryon violate the social media policy? Are social media policies and guidelines legal?
2.) Weigh alternatives
Instead of airing his opinions on Facebook, Tryon could have set up a meeting with his superiors to discuss the sale of the Gazette. In addition, Tryon could have discussed this issue with family and friends instead of broadcasting his feelings on a platform that has the power to reach many more people. He also could have posted the article without pulling the quote out. Would this have made a lot of difference? Maybe not, but the company may have been especially angry because additional attention was placed on them.
3.) Cite a persuasive rationale
Tryon should have set up a meeting with his boss to discuss the company changes. As journalists, we are always representing whatever news organization we work for, regardless of whether we are posting to our personal accounts. We can never fully remove the press pass from around our necks. Even though this would have been a smoother course of action, I give a lot of credit to Tryon for leaving an organization whose values conflicted with his.
Bok’s Model
This model tells us that we must have empathy for those involved in ethical decisions, while also focusing on the fundamental goal of maintaining social trust.
1.) Consult your own conscience
Journalists using social media for personal use seems to be an emerging gray area. Can the average person tweet or post on Facebook how they feel about a current issue or something that happened at work? Yes, because the average person is not seen as a representative of his or her company. For journalists, followers and friends may assume posts are indicative of how XYZ news organization feels about something. As an advanced editor and member of the WUFT web team, I am always conscious about what I am saying on social media. However, my Facebook and Twitter are ways for me to express and share my thoughts and feelings. While you should always maintain professionalism on any forum, I am not serving as a spokesperson for WUFT when I say “It seems like Governor Christie may have been more aware of what was going on in New Jersey than he let on.” In this scenario, I think Tryon was well within his rights to post what he said. He did not attack his employer, he just used a pull quote. I never questioned his loyalty to serving the public as a member of the media. Maybe I would feel different if he had included expletives or disparaging remarks, but he had a right to voice his opinion about an issue impacting him.
2.) Seek expert advice
In any situation, it is important to see if it is possible to achieve a goal without raising additional ethical issues. I would pursue the advice of the National Labor Relations Board. Are aspects of this policy unlawful? Why or why not? Was Tryon well within his rights to post his thoughts to his account? I would also contact his superiors at Freedom Communications Holdings, Inc. Why was this a violation of the social media policy? What specific provisions did he violate? What would they have recommended he do differently?
3.) If possible, conduct a public discussion
While this may only be possible in a hypothetical sense, it is still important to consider how various stakeholder groups would respond. Do members of the public feel that Tryon stepped over the line? Does it cause them to look at the publication in a different light? An important question would also be whether they were concerned that Tryon’s loyalty shifted away from his journalistic duties. It would be important to consider Tryon’s employer’s motives for putting Tryon on administrative leave. Were they trying to use Tryon as an example so other employees would not engage in this type of discussion? For Tryon, I would want to ask him if he considered the possible repercussions of his actions. What motivated him to do so? Was he worried about the future of the Gazette as a high-quality organization, or was he concerned with how this transaction would impact his paycheck?
Potter’s Box
This model adds additional depth by taking into consideration values, philosophical principles and loyalties.
1.) Understanding the facts
As discussed earlier, here are the facts: Barrett Tryon, a Colorado Springs Gazette staff member, posted a link on his personal Facebook page to a Los Angeles Times story that announced the sale of the Gazette and several other papers to a Boston investment group. Along with the link, Tryon included a quote from the Los Angeles Times that demonstrated the involvement of the Gazette in the sale. Tryon was notified by his boss that his post violated Freedom Communication’s social media policy.
2.) Outlining values
Different values are at play in this scenario. The value of free speech comes into discussion. As someone posting on his personal account, does Tryon have the right to say what he wants? Privacy also plays a role. Even though he is somewhat of a public figure, does he have the right to keep his social media separate from his professional profile? On a side note, I want to know how his boss found out about the post. Were they Facebook friends? Was his profile set to private? As discussed in the chapter, journalists must value truth above all things. Tryon posted the truth about the sale of the company. How does this influence the decision?
3.) Application of philosophical principles
It is also beneficial to consider how the philosophical principles would address these dilemmas. Kant’s categorical imperative says to act as if your choices could become universal law. If Tryon is allowed to post this, all journalists could post about issues that impact them personally. Would this prevent journalists from being seen as objective news providers? Utilitarianism says that an act’s rightness is determined by its contribution to a desirable end. Does Tryon discussing this issue start a conversation about a decision that will impact community coverage? What will the outcome be?
4.) Articulation of loyalties
At the forefront, Tryon has a loyalty to the public and the truth. Members of the community trust him to provide breaking news and enterprising stories. With this coverage, they are also expecting the truth. By taking this into account, it seems like Tryon is doing no one a disservice by linking to a relevant article.
Case Study 4-C Twitter ethics for journalists: can you scoop yourself?
IWC Systematic Process
1.) Identify the Dilemma
Twitter is changing journalism one 140-character tweet at a time. However, there are many questions about how journalists should use Twitter. David Schlesinger, the editor-in-chief at Reuters, was tweeting during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Some of his tweets actually scooped Reuters coverage. Tweets do not require vetting, and it is difficult to include context in such a limited space. How should journalists use Twitter? Should they break news on this platform? Or should journalists release breaking news in other ways that allow for more background and editorial finesse?
2.) Weigh alternatives
Schlesinger could have waited to release the information about financial speculator George Soros until Reuters released a full story. Did he potentially steal the thunder from his own news organization? Could he have sent the original Tweet and then a follow-up article with more details?
3.) Cite a persuasive rationale
In our fast-paced world, people want their news now. In order to provide the news to the public, journalists must accommodate their wishes. I think journalists can use Twitter effectively, but they must remember to make sure they are tweeting news that is factually correct. A misspelling or incorrect statement is still a fact error whether it is said in 140 characters or 140 words.
Bok’s Model
1.) Consult your own conscience
I start my day by scanning my Twitter feed. I can keep updated with what my friends are up to, as well as what is happening around the world. Monumental and life-changing news has broken on Twitter, such as the Hudson River plane crash and Boston Marathon bombings. While I think context is important, that is the beauty of resources like tinyurl. Concise tweets can be sent with a shortened link to a full story.
2.) Seek expert advice
In this situation, I am not sure who to consider an expert. I would begin by contacting the most followed journalists. At the end of 2012, Anderson Cooper, Piers Morgan and Rachel Maddow were at the top. I would be interested in find out how they deal with the lack of vetting and whether they turn to Twitter to break news. As journalists getting our start, we could learn a lot from these seasoned Twitter users.
3.) If possible, conduct a public discussion
Hearing the public’s opinion about the relationship between journalism and Twitter would be very informative. I would want to ask different community members how much trust they place on Twitter for news. Keeping in mind, this response may be different based on the age of the consumer. A 60-year-old man may not even know what Twitter is, while a 24-year-old professional woman may get all of her news from the platform. Is it fair to only break news on a site that may not reach all different groups? However, we cannot ignore the shift that has more people consulting social media for news.
Potter’s Box
1.) Understanding the facts
Twitter is changing the face of journalism. Journalists are individually able to scoop the news organizations they are working at. While the site is effective for posting quick and succinct posts, context and editing are often missing.
2.) Outlining values
Telling the truth continues to reign supreme. However, it is easy to make an error as you tweet from your phone while on the move to finding the next story. Are we willing to sacrifice accuracy in order to beat our competition to a story? Another value is credibility. If we continue to post news that is incorrect, will members of the public trust us as a news source? The saying “slow and steady wins the race” may be reason for news outlets to break news through more traditional channels.
3.) Application of philosophical principles
Virtue lies between extremes, according to Aristotle’s golden mean. The happy medium likely exists between posting everything and focusing solely on Twitter and never using this popular news platform. By being cautious, news organizations could likely avoid the embarrassment of sending out false tweets. The pluralistic theory of value, a model created by William David Ross, can also be used as a point of reference. Two duties competing for preeminence in this dilemma include the duties of fidelity and veracity. Fidelity goes hand in hand with loyalty to the people we work for, also known as the public. We are also focused on our duty to report the truth in every article or news segment published.
4.) Articulation of loyalties
Loyalty will be with members of the public. Are these consumers using Twitter? As of the beginning of 2014, Twitter has 635,750,000 users, and about 135,000 users sign up each day. It appears that journalists have a duty to use Twitter as a resource.
Case Study 4-D Where everybody knows your name: Reporting and relationships in a small market
IWC Systematic Process
1.) Identify the Dilemma
In a small town, journalists only have access to a certain number of people for sources. In a small town in Washington, Jessica Luce, a local journalist, dealt with bringing her relationship with a member of the police department to the attention of her editors. How do you address conflicts of interests that arise because of personal relationships? How does this differ in a small town versus a larger city?
2.) Weigh alternatives
Journalist Jessica Luce informed her editors about her relationship with Phil Schenck once he was promoted to the position of acting captain, which was the number two position in the department that also made him the official media spokesman. Could she have told her editors about the relationship when it first began? At that point Schenck was a police sergeant. She could have acknowledged the relationship then, but this is when they were getting to know each other. In addition, Luce could have continued to hide their relationship and stayed on the beat.
3.) Cite a persuasive rationale
Luce informed her editors about her relationship at a critical turning point. Schenck, as media spokesman and second in command, had a larger role in the department that would have made it extremely difficult for both partners in the relationship to do their jobs to the best of their abilities.
Bok’s Model
1.) Consult your own conscience
I cannot imagine having to discuss a romantic relationship with an editor. My cheeks turn red just thinking about it. However, I think it is the most responsible course of action that allows the journalist to prevent conflicts of interest from derailing his or her career. What if Luce had kept the relationship a secret and a major bombshell was discovered? Both Luce and Schenck could have put their jobs and futures in jeopardy. Even if it would take some courage, I would come clean about a relationship if it had any influence on my ability to do my job.
2.) Seek expert advice
There are a variety of helpful sources that address how to deal with potential conflicts of interest, including the NYU Journalism Handbook for Students and guidelines from the Radio Television Digital News Association.
3.) If possible, conduct a public discussion
How do members of the Sunnyside community feel about a journalist being in a relationship with a member of the relatively small police department? I think many people would say journalists have a right to keep certain aspects of their lives private, but people would also want to know when the relationship got in the way of news they are consuming. In addition, how do their respective co-workers feel about the relationship? Are fellow journalists questioning Luce’s ability to report objectively? Do other officers think Schenck is providing extra information to the Yakima Herald-Republic? By reflecting about how these various people might feel, scenarios can be better addressed when they come up.
Potter’s Box
1.) Understanding the facts
In small towns where everyone can be a source, how do journalists maintain personal relationships without causing conflicts of interest? This situation occurred with a reporter from the Yakima Herald-Republic and a member of the Sunnyside police department.
2.) Outlining values
Privacy is at the forefront of this ethical dilemma. How much privacy does a journalist have? How does privacy factor into being truthful with the public? Is hiding this relationship considered a breach of trust for readers of Luce’s articles? Also, where does personal happiness factor in. Should journalists be able to date whoever they want?
3.) Application of philosophical principles
I think Luce behaved in a way that the Aristotelian framework would support. While she did not inform her editors about the relationship from the onset, she also did not wait until a crisis to let the secret out. In addition, John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism can also be considered. By revealing the relationship, Luce contributed to a truthful discussion that addressed any potential problems. Luce was able to be placed on a different beat, a desirable outcome for all parties involved.
4.) Articulation of loyalties
This scenario demonstrates how all parties involved remained loyal to citizens. Luce told her editors about her relationship before allowing it to impact her reporting. Schenck was promoted, but he no longer worked directly with his significant other. In addition, the editors placed Luce on a different beat. All those directly involved benefited from the open communication, and the public has no need to question whether the Herald-Republic’s coverage of Sunnyside police is slanted in any way.
Discussion Question
Does a differentiation need to be made between aggregation and curation in journalism?
In recent years, we have heard a lot about aggregation. While I love Google News, as much as the next girl, I consider it to be separate from journalism. It is a collection of articles generated from a computer algorithm. In their chapter about truth, Kovach and Rosenstiel discuss how “machines using computer algorithms, are giving rise to yet a fourth model—a journalism of aggregation, which may or may not discriminate among rumor, fact, and speculation.” Now, in addition to this, we must consider curation, a term used to describe the summarizing of reporting completed by another journalist. Inside is an application that collects material from various news organizations and provides description in 300 characters or less. It was referred to as a curator. Circa is another application that is relatively new. According to a Poynter article by Sam Kirkland, Circa provides a complete overview of various stories. However, Circa has been called an aggregator. What constitutes an aggregator versus a curator? Should any application or site that uses someone else’s material be able to ascend from aggregator to curator?
Link to Ethical Issue of the Week
The role of social media during the Arab Spring cannot be underestimated. Even though President Hosni Mubarak threw journalists out of Egypt, citizens were able to turn to Facebook and Twitter. The world was able to keep track of events transpiring across the world as people uploaded personal experiences, photos and videos. Unfortunately, citizen journalism is no longer viewed as being believable and accurate in these countries. Many of these “journalists” are seen as being pawns for the parties instead of serving as independent and objective voices. Citizens of these Middle Eastern nations can now choose between the state-controlled media and people posting information mixed with lies and rumors. Neither of these options allows concerned citizens to gain access to unfiltered information that would allow them to evaluate today’s issues. About 70 activists and journalists attended the 4th Arab Bloggers Meeting in Amman, Jordan from January 20 to 23. It is easy for us to take the First Amendment, democracy and our access to news for granted. As Kovach and Rosenstiel discussed in chapter one, the primary purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing. I hope citizen journalists in this region can regroup and remember their loyalty should be to their fellow citizens.
Questions from Dr. Rodgers – Vocabulary Terms
- Social Contract: Loyalty is a social act. When people agree, such as when they unite behind a particular idea, they are able to form a “social contract.” This is the basis for political society. Thomas Hobbes expressed this idea in The Leviathan, as well as saying God does not have to be the focus of loyalty. It can also be expressed as the view that people’s moral and political obligations are dependent on an agreement with others that allow them to form a society.
- Loyalty: An implied covenant with the public that tells the audience that the coverage is not self-interested or slanted in any way. It is the basis for why citizens believe the reporting of a news organization. It is also the source of the news organization’s credibility. Journalism’s first loyalty is to citizens. Josiah Royce defined loyalty as “the willing and practical and thoroughgoing devotion of a person to a cause.” For journalists, this cause must be conveying the truth to the public in an objective manner.
Cassie Vangellow, cvangellow@ufl.edu
Vangellow, Cassie 