Ethics is a multi-dimensional concept, muddied by each person's morals and way of thinking. Ethics are based on a multitude of things like upbringing, past experiences, learned concepts, and perception of issues. A person's ethics is not something one paper/blog could cover because everyone looks at them through slightly different glasses. Some rose, some a variation of the color. Many have the same color, if however different shades.
In the case of Accuracy and Fairness I read four of the case studies. I read the one about the little girl who received bone marrow from a man with a sullied past, the car that sank in the canal, abortion trucks, and a story on a little girl who visits her dad on death row. Each of these stories prove a vast difference of opinions as far as the world of ethics goes.In the case of the story about the little girl who received the bone marrow the ethical question was whether the man who donated past, was relevant to the story. The news station chose to air his past. The mother of the little girl and two letters to the editor shamed them from doing so. My personal ethics say, Why in the world would it matter where this guy came from or what he'd done in the past? He's obviously atoned for it and we as other civilians are not his judge. A second ethics question would be how to report accurately without exposing the public to graphic images or sounds. Such was the case in both the story about a woman who called a dispatcher in a panic because she'd veered of the road and her car had gone into a canal and was sinking; and a pro-life group called The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform. In the woman in the car's case the family requested the tape not be played. This was ignored by two TV stations and a snippet was played anyway. I agree with the sentiment from the family that the call shouldn't be played. The newscasters gave a good rendition of what happened. The family asked the call not be released. The least you can do for a grieving family is respect their wishes. The pro-life group's story was much the same. Viewers don't want to see graphic images. Therefore, the newscaster/journalist can give a good overview of the story without shocking the viewer with the images. People can research on their own and go to The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform's website and they have all the images, and even videos, there. Finally, ethics can take a turn for what you see as sound moral ground. The final story covered a four-year-old little girl whose mother takes her to visit her dad on death row. The questions was posed whether or not it was ethical. There was controversy presented in the story by a phsycologist and a family liason for the prison with opposing viewpoints. One said it was ethical and the other said it wasn't. In a case such as this, it was presented in the best possible form for the viewer to make up their own mind.
The next dimension of this ethical sphere is conflict of interest. Two case studies jump to the forefront for being good examples of problems faced each day by journalists. Cokie's Conflict of Interest and To Love and Work In Denver. Cokie's Conflict is about a journalist who took a position on a volunteer force for President Bush's cabinet. She remained an employee of ABC News while doing so. The problem presented was could Cokie remain a true journalist, and loyal to the president while she served on this force. The same issue arose when a journalist married a man who ran for governor. I think each of these problems center around the same basic issue. Trust. ABC was willing to give Cokie a chance to prove she could be a faithful journalist, and a supporter to our 43rd president. However, in the case of Lesley Dahlkemper and Mike Freeley, the Colorado Radio Station KCFR did not give her the same chance. The station was concerned how it would look to the public if Lesley were to cover anything regarding Freeley. Rightfully so. In the analysis it states Dahlkemper would have had no way of proving she could be balanced. I disagree. They never gave her a chance. Understandably appearances must be kept up so as not to lose the trust of the public. However, if she was seen to have any leniency, they could have removed her.
Deception is the third issues presented. Is it ethical for journalists to use deceptions(hidden cameras, undercover work, "test" theories, etc.) to obtain a true and important story? A case in which a undercover journalist, faked being a mortician, snuck onto Dover AFB to get actual death totals from Desert Storm, was examined. He wanted to get real numbers on the death toll and had exhausted every other avenue. This journalist did right by the public because he wanted the real death tolls and would do whatever it took to get them. Undercover work does expose some very lengthy conspiracies and potentially harmful subjects. But the way that it is done and to what extent has a fine balance. As stated in one of the articles covering hidden cameras, this should only be done by experienced and reliable journalists. Despite this, how would you determine that? And what's to say a newer journalist has compromised morals just because they're new?
Diversity follows in contrast to deception. Diversity is a widespread issue. One of the articles presented is the inclusion of gay marriage in the news as being very diverse. Gay marriage is very controversial. However, it adds to the diversity of a paper and news corporation to add controversial issues to the public's reading and perception. But how diverse can you be without offending and losing readers?
Online ethics have become an ever present problem. How do you use the information you come across ethically, accurately, and without plagerising? Moreover, how do you link that information to the source and ensure that it is an accurate source of information and not shady or containing misleading facts? Linking is the most widely discussed issue ethicswise. Linking different sources to your journalistic reports that is accurate and gives the ability to the reader to research further if desired. Including linking, two other problems that were stated by journalists who took part in a conference of web journalists were anonymous feedback and interactivity. Feedback or facts often are stated quickly and at a rate so fast the journalist can't verify it. Interactivity is also a concern because it can discredit things so quickly by use of opinion instead of reserached facts from viewrs/public.
Photojournalism is a tool used to really connect with the reader/viewer and get them interested. Photojournalism serves a good purpose overall of getting out there for the reader and bringing the story to life. However, if care is not taken, the photos/video can mislead the reader. As was the case with ice boat sailing in MN. The photographer used digital editing and sped the videos and photos up to convey the speed to the viewer who wasn't there. This was a question of ethics because the photos were false and lead the viewer astray. The polar opposite would be the photo run by The Daily Press depicting a 15-year-old boy who'd be shot and robbed in the parking lot of a convenience store. The photo was controversial because the boy was dead and the paper was worried about upsetting readers. The photo and story was run anyway and the intent to help stop these crimes was strengthened by this very real photo.
Without giving ample spotlight to the source, you are considered a plagerizer. An article written by Chip Scanlan shows an interesting point of view to plagerizing I'd not thought of. What actually constitutes plagerism? We know the broad definition, don't use other people's stuff. But what about the details? Such as: Can disk jockeys read the paper on the news since they didn't contribute to it? Can you plagerize yourself if you've written a paper and then use a quote or sentence from it and don't cite it? What if you rewrite a passage from another source, and even though you phrase it in your own words, you don’t acknowledge that the ideas are someone else’s? Would this blog be considered plagerizing since I'm rephrasing and summarizing others work? These are all aspects of the plagerizing rule I'd never looked at; and certainly warrant further investigation. I'm not sure how to respond to plagerizing now. But it would be nice if some further guidelines were published on the matter.
Privacy is one of the biggest concerns of those asked to talk to newscasters and journalists. Whether it be for safety reasons(crime case) or for embarrasment(sex offenders) or you just don't want your dirty laundry being connected to a face. The news industry is a little shaky on this point. Tying back to the story about the little girl who received bone marrow from a convicted man. His privacy was invaded by having his crimes posted in an article with no effect on whether he was in jail or not. In the video provided under this section, on children in a crack house, the cameraman made sure to exclude the children's faces. However, the other two case examples of teen depression and a rape victim were much more invasive. The teens willingly opened up their stories in hopes of helping others. The rape victim had her pictures and name flashed on a screen for an Amber Alert. In both of these cases, I don't believe privacy was violated.
To round out the issue of ethics in journalism, we move to the source/reporter relationships. Several of the articles detailed how the reporters gained their stories. Most were very respectful in obtaining of information and did as was asked by the sources to build trust. However, one ethical issue I had problems with was in the case of a reporter who did a 5 month case study on children with parents who have addictions. She was able to detach from the story so far as to let a 3-year-old starve for 24 hours. I realize the importance of doing stories and getting the research out there. But I just can't go along with watching a baby go hungry. There is a line where the job doesn't come first.
As detailed in the paragraphs above, ethical issues in journalism run rampant and most are subject to personal prefernce. There will probably never be a uniform code under which you could write ethics to uphold in life or journalism. These 9 issues just scratch the surface. They by no means explore every avenue. There really is nothing to fix or say on the matter other than to tell people to follow the rules of your newspaper/news station/radio station/magazine/etc. and go along until you feel it is morally compromising.
No comments:
Post a Comment