Film Challenge: Wag the Dog

Wag the Dog very blatantly brings up an ethical dilemma and the argument of whether or not there is due cause for  actions taken. In the film, Conrad Brean and Winifred Ames enlist the help of Hollywood producer Stanley Motss to create a news-worthy event to draw attention away from the President’s sexual misconduct allegations—a war. The issue comes from the ethical and legal implications of falsely creating and reporting material in regards to an imagined war. The side of the Brean, Ames, and Motss, who are working under the jurisdiction of the President, would argue that it was necessary to distract from the libelous statements being broadcasted about a Firefly and her allegations of the President sexually assaulting her. Libel is considered a statement that is “false” and “defamatory” (Class Notes, 5.2 Libel). The actions they are taking could thus be justified as an appropriate protection for the President. However, as the President is a part of a government body, he cannot be libeled (Class Notes, 5.2 Libel), and thus the justification of protections is voided. In addition, the creating of a false war to protect the reputation of a president pulls upon issues revolving around the ethical conduct of those reporting the news and the legality of falsely implying war when clearly there is no war being fought. According to the Social Responsibility Theory, the media functions to “Provide truthful, comprehensive, intelligent account of day’s events that gives context to meaning (Class Notes, 5.1 Economics of Ethics).” In addition, the SPJ Code of Ethics preaches that reporters “seek truth and report it (Class Notes, 4.1 Seeking the Truth: Core Ethics in Reporting)” and to “Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information (SPJ Code of Ethics).” In this light, Brean, Ames, and Motss, who are involved with creating the wildfire media of the “war against Albania” and the existence of “Good Old Shoe,” intentionally distorted reality and created a situation that had never happened, which clearly violates media’s ethical guidelines. Fabricating and broadcasting an imagined war, in addition to violating ethical guidelines, also brings up issues of legality—is it legal to frighten the American public with news of a false war? According to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schneck v. United States “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. […] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent (Wikipedia).” The question is, then, whether it was protected under the constitution for Brean, Ames, and Motss to feed fear-inducing information to the media, as well as creating a false persona for the nation to attach themselves to. At-risk speech, which can often be denied protections of the First Amendment as determined by the Supreme Court (Class Notes, 2.1 The First Amendment: Five Freedoms), is often labeled as “words immediately jeopardizing national security (Class Notes, 3.1 First Amendment Challenges). In this case, then, as the pretend war brought counter actions by Albania and could have resulted in an actual attack on the United States, the fabricated news of war as created by Brean, Ames, and Motss could very well be considered illegal and punished under federal law.

In my opinion, their reaction to the allegations of sexual misconduct against the President was ethically flawed and an overall horrible decision. By creating this fake war and tacking it onto the name of the President, it not only threatens the security of the general population of America, but also could turn sour if it was discovered to be false. In this way, their plan only perpetuated the bad tune the President was receiving by feeding lies to the American public. I would have advised the President to face the bad rap, and to provide solace through launching an investigation into the allegations, thus clearing his name (if he were innocent) and not (possibly) further tarnishing his reputation.

Finally, what I believe Wag the Dog illustrates is the distortion and manipulation that is applied by the media daily, whether they are aware of it or not. The impact I think this makes on journalism, in turn, is that it is essentially suggesting that, as long as you have your ass covered, it is perfectly alright to modify, manipulate, or distort the news which you are providing to your listeners. In turn, it instills the feeling that the media cannot be trusted as a source of reliable, accurate information. The backlash I see the media receiving for the actions seen in Wag the Dog is that they will be less trusted and questioned based on their actions–is the media truthful, or is it all a fabrication?

Presentation: Transcript and Prezi

Criminal by Association

Transcript

Today, I want to talk about the 2014 shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice and the articles written by Brandon Blackwell. The articles written by Blackwell bring up questions in regards to his use of an ethical code–was it ethical for Blackwell to publish his stories in the wake of Rice’s death?

[Next Slide]

[Next Slide]

First, I want to give a little background on the case of the Tamir Rice shooting. On November 22, 2014 a Cleveland boy named Tamir Rice was shot and killed by officers responding to a call about an individual waving a gun randomly at people in the Cudell Recreation Center. The 9-1-1 caller reported that the individual, most likely a juvenile, was pointing a pistol at people. The caller also indicated that the gun might be a toy, but was unsure of that fact. This information was not relayed to officers responding to the call.

About 1.5 to 2 seconds after arriving on the scene, one of the officers opened fire on the suspect. First aid was administered about 4 minutes after the suspect had been shot; however, the first aid was not administered by the officers on the scene but by a police detective and an FBI agent who arrived on the scene after hearing shots fired. Rice was later transferred by paramedics to MetroHealth Medical Center to be treated for his injuries. He died the next day, November 23, 2014, at the age of 12 years old. An autopsy confirmed the cause of death was homicide stemming from injuries to major vessels, injuries to the intestines, and injury to the pelvis. All injuries were caused by being shot by the officer.

[Next Slide]

Just days after the shooting, Brandon Blackwell, a writer for Northeast Ohio Media Group, published two stories. The first, published on November 24, 2014, was titled “Lawyer Representing Tamir Rice’s Family Defended Boy’s Mom in Drug Trafficking Case.” Then, on November 26, 2014, Blackwell published yet another article titled “Tamir Rice’s Father Has History of Domestic Violence.” Both articles provide insight into Rice’s parent’s criminal histories and a  brief comment on how these histories may have influenced his behavior.

[Next Slide]

However, the context and timing of the articles brought up a debate of Blackwell’s ethical code among those in defense of Tamir Rice and those who believe his death was self-inflicted, to say the least. The first article, which implies its subject matter is the lawyer representing Rice’s family, contains very little about the lawyer in its content. Instead, the majority of the article focuses on the criminal history of Samaria Rice, Tamir Rice’s mother. The second article, though staying true to its title, seems to provide little-to-no context as to what relevance it has to Rice’s death. It, too, mainly focuses on the criminal past of Rice’s father, Leonard Warner.

[Next Slide]

As stated before, the article on the lawyer representing Rice’s family really has very little to do with the lawyer. Of the nine paragraphs in the story, only three mention the lawyer, with one stating “… attorney Tim Kucharski represented Samaria Rice in 2012 when she faced drug possession and trafficking charges,” marking the divergence from the subject matter implied by the title. The following paragraphs then go into detail of Rice’s previous crimes, including sentencing and what was confiscated from her person as a part of the ruling. These descriptions are carried on for four paragraphs. Within the last two paragraphs of the story, Blackwell includes a commentary on Tamir Rice’s behavior as made by Dan Flannery, a clinical child psychologist at Case Western. Flannery states: “Growing up in such an environment can be confusing for a young person… They could have questions about how to react in certain situations… or how to react to police depending on… their previous interactions with law enforcement…”

But what context does information about criminal histories and potential effects on behavior give a story about a lawyer representing a case?

[Next Slide]

The question of context is brought up again in Blackwell’s second article, where he includes Leonard Warner’s criminal history. In this article, Blackwell includes information on domestic violence cases brought against Warner in 2001–Tamir Rice had not yet been born–2010, and 2014. The article also includes the two cases of domestic violence suffered by Samaria Rice from then boyfriend Michael Wiley in 2010, including the sentence “Even though their relationship ended, Samaria Rice again found herself the victim of violence at the hands of men.” This baseless, unnecessary sentence, along with more information on Tamir Rice’s parents’ criminal histories, though providing context to Rice’s parents’ lives, seems to add little context to why he was shot and killed. It is the lack of this context that brings up the question of Blackwell’s use of ethics–was it ethical for Blackwell to publish these stories, despite their bringing little to no context to Rice’s death?

[Next Slide]

Following the publication of these articles, Blackwell faced many voices of outrage in regard to his choice to include the criminal histories in his articles. Some individuals questioned the necessity of publishing the articles, such as Vince Grzegoreck, who published in the Cleveland Scene “Response to the article was quick and harsh–as we’ve seen time and time again in cases of African  American victims and white shooters, be they police or the George Zimmerman persuasion–except this was still somehow worse. What the hell did Rice’s parent’s criminal record have to do with his being shot 1.5 seconds after a police car pulled up to the recreation center…” Others saw it as a way to pass the blame onto the victim–by Blackwell publishing Rice’s parents’ criminal histories, he essentially allowed for Rice to take the blame for his own death, as it allowed for the conversation of “he was predisposed for violent behavior.” Others still found it to be a way to perpetuate white biases, as Bryan L. Adamson commented on in his publication for Huffington Post: “The story on Samaria Rice is ostensibly about the attorney  the family hired to represent them in this tragedy… six of the nine paragraphs, however, have nothing to do with the attorney, but everything to do about Samaria’s criminal record and two sentences about its  possible impact on her son. The story about Tamir’s father, Leonard Warner, is astounding in its bias, making no attempt whatsoever to connect the father’s history to why a police officer killed a 12-year-old boy. This is journalism at its most tin-eared and irresponsible.”

[Next Slide]

The conversation of outrage also carried over to Twitter, where users voiced their anger at Blackwell and his choice to write those stories. As you can see here, many had the belief that Blackwell’s stories were unnecessary and disrespectful to Rice.

[Next Slide]

Was it ethical for Blackwell to publish his stories about Rice’s parents’ criminal histories in the wake of his death? Some aspects of ethics point to no.

The SPJ Code of Ethics provides classifications that would indicate that Blackwell violated a journalist’s code of ethics in his publications. The SPJ suggests that journalists should “provide context,” “take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing, or summarizing a story,” and to “provide access to source material when its relevant and appropriate.” The SPJ also places emphasis on minimizing harm, in which a journalist should “balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort,” “realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves…” “show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage,” and “recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.”

In ethics, specifically in the news, there is also an emphasis placed on equity. In ethics, equity equates to seeking justice for all involved in controversial issues and to treat all sources and subjects equally. In the case of Tamir Rice and Brandon Blackwell’s choice to publish his parents’ criminal histories, you may say Rice was not treated equally, as you often don’t see such a publication in regards to an individual of a different race. This same issue is covered in the ethical value of diversity, which equates to covering all segments of the audience fairly and adequately.

Finally, if following the Pluralistic Theory of Value, Blackwell has violated ethical code by publishing his articles, as it harms the victim and the family in the Tamir Rice shooting.

[Next Slide]

In response to the outrage Blackwell faced in the light of his articles, he amended his second article with a series of sentences to “… give insight into the motivation to investigate the parent’s background.” The addition reads “People from across the region have been asking whether Rice grew up around violence. The Northeast Ohio Media Group investigated the backgrounds of the parents and found the mother and father both have violent pasts.” In addition to Blackwell’s clarification, another article was published, this time by Chris Quinn, to justify NEOMG‘s choice to allow for the publication of Blackwell’s story on Rice’s father. In this publication, Quinn states “They… found that violence was no stranger to Tamir… we reported those facts and were criticized in some quarters for doing so… we believe it may shed further light on why this 12-year-old was waving a weapon around a public park. People who want to keep the focus on what the police did feel that our examining Tamir’s family is an effort by us to excuse what police did. We don’t seek to excuse anyone, just to inform.”

[Next Slide]

In defense of Brandon Blackwell and NEOMG‘s choice to publish the information on Rice’s parents, many may point to the fact that criminal records are public records. Here, I have a screen shot of the City of Cleveland’s page for public record requests. On the page, the City of Cleveland lists the most popular types of public records that are requested, which includes “policies and procedures, accident and crime reports, budget data, 911 calls, and crime statistics.” It also includes information on the Public Records Act of the State of Ohio, which states “The Division maintains many records that may be of interest which are available to the public (with few exceptions). This openness is meant to inspire faith in the police and to ensure that resources are used wisely and in the public interest.” So, as long as the documents don’t fall into the exception category, anyone could request and review Samaria Rice’s and Leonard Warner’s criminal records.

[Next Slide]

In defense of Blackwell, there are also codes of ethics that support his choice to publish his stories. Under “Seek Truth and Report It,” the SPJ states to “gather, update, and correct information throughout the life of a news story,” which is exactly what Blackwell did in clarifying the context of his story. In addition, the SPJ states to “support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant,” “respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity, and fairness,” and to “boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience.”

In regards to responding to the public’s curiosity towards Tamir Rice’s upbringing, two frames of ethics support Blackwell’s decision. The first, Communitarianism, states that “In political and social issues, community interest beats individual interest.” The second, Utilitarianism, states that “it is ethical to harm one person for the benefit of the group.” In the case of Tamir Rice, the public’s desire to understand his home life would outweigh his family’s desire to leave his parents’ criminal records out of the media.

[Next Slide]

So what do you think?  Was it ethical for Brandon Blackwell to publish his stories, despite their giving little to no context to the Tamir Rice shooting case? Did Blackwell’s addition to the story on Rice’s father clear him of any possible acts against an ethical code?In addition, do you think that public’s desire to understand Rice’s upbringing justifies Blackwell’s choice to publish the stories?

[Next Slide]

[End of Presentation]

All sources can be found in the blog post previous to this.

Presentation Slideshow and Sources

Presentation:

Criminal by Association

Sources:

iMediaEthics — Why Was 12-Year-Old Tamir Rice’s Dad’s Criminal History Reported by Cleveland Newspaper?

Cleveland Scene — Internal Backlash After Cleveland.com’s Coverage of Tamir Rice’s Father’s Criminal Record

Cleveland.com — Tamir Rice, 12-Year-Old Boy Shot Dead by Cleveland Police Officer, Had No Juvenile Court Record

Cleveland.com — Our Stories on Tamir Rice are the Latest in the Northeast Ohio Media Group’s Examination of How Cleveland Police Use Force

Cleveland.com — Lawyer Representing Tamir Rice’s Family Defended Boy’s Mom in Drug Trafficking Case

Huffington Post — Don’t Understand the Connection Between Tamir Rice’s Killing and His Parent’s History? Join the Club.

City of Cleveland, Ohio — Public Records

Wikipedia — Shooting of Tamir Rice

Cleveland.com — Tamir Rice’s Father Has History of Domestic Violence

SPJ Code of Ethics — Code of Ethics

Class Notes: 4.1 Ethical Framework

Class Notes: 4.1 Nature of Ethics

Presentation Topic Pitch

For my presentation this coming Tuesday, I am interested in covering the ethical issues revolving around a Cleveland publication, in the light of the shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice who was found with an airsoft gun, which published an article titled “Tamir Rice’s father has history of domestic violence,” in which Rice’s father’s criminal history was published with no clear intent. The publication later justified its publication by stating “… the paper reported on Rice’s parents’ criminal history because readers wanted to know and ‘we believe it may shed further light on why this 12 year old was waving a weapon around a public park.'”

“Why was 12-year-old Tamir Rice’s dad’s criminal history reported by Cleveland newspaper?”

 

 

Film Challenge: Smash His Camera

Smash His Camera, a documentary revolving around the work of Ron Galella, brings to light the issue of paparazzi and their right to photograph celebrities and public figures. As stated in the film, individuals who become the subject matter of the photographs are faced with the dilemma of whether or not their privacy is infringed upon when photographers pursue  them.

Individuals taking a stance against allowing  the paparazzi almost unlimited access to the right to photograph, such as in the case of Jackie Kennedy Onassis, lean upon the belief that these photographers invade their privacy and induce fear in the individual. This was the case in the U.S. Court of Appeals trial of Galella v. Onassis, where Onassis sued Galella for his invasion of her privacy. The court ruled in favor of Onassis, citing Galella as guilty of “harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery, commercial exploitation of Onassis’s personality, and invasion of privacy (Source 1).” The court thus “Enjoined Galella from keeping Onassis or her children under surveillance, from following them, from coming within 100 yards of Onassis’s home or the children’s schools, within 75 yards of the children, or within 50 yards of Onassis, from using the name or picture of Onassis or her children for advertising, and  from attempting to communicate with Onassis or her children (Source 1).” In addition to these concerns falls another concern that photographed individuals may hold, which was included above–using an individual’s likeness for monetary gain. As was mentioned in class lecture, it is not legal to use a person’s likeness to procure payment, or to endorse or advertise a product or service. Those being photographed would hold the stance that their likeness is their own and that they should receive a sum of the profits that their likeness earned. In the case of the paparazzi, then, it can be argued that they are using their subject’s likeness for-profit without allowing payment to the individual.

However, those who believe in the right of the paparazzi have just as much weight in their opinion. Those claiming that their constitutional right to privacy is violated by the photography of paparazzi have no just claim to such sentiments as “privacy is not in the Constitution (Source 2),” and there is “little protection against media, government, and private snooping… (Source 2)” outside the privacy of one’s home. In addition, celebrities and people of public interest do not hold the same privacy as those who are private figures as they classify as all-purpose public figures–those with “widespread fame and notoriety, [or who] occupies a position of such pervasive power that they  are deemed a public figure for all purposes (Source 3).” In terms of the privacy of the individual once their pervasive power has diminished, “people once newsworthy are always newsworthy (Source 4),” meaning that, even though they might not hold the spotlight on certain occasions, those who were once frequently in the news will again be subject to the news if their actions allow so.  Finally, it has been established that “It is legal to photograph or videotape anything and anyone on any public property (Source 5),” thus validating the paparazzi’s choice to photograph celebrities in public spaces.

Personally, in situations such as these–where individuals feel threatened by  the presence of others, no matter what their societal status may be–I find it completely valid for the individual to take legal action. In the situation of Jackie Kennedy Onassis, I found it reasonable for her to seek legal protections, especially for her children. Procuring a document that demanded that Galella stay far away from her children allows for Onassis to provide them with the privacy and safety they deserve. In addition to this, the children themselves, in my opinion, did not classify as all-purpose public figures, which should allow them the privacy and respect of private figures. Photographing children, in my book, violates the ethical code in photojournalism of “acting with compassion and sensitivity (Source 6),” as these children can potentially face harmful repercussions for their photos being taken and released across the country.

Galella, as an individual, changed the face of paparazzi as a whole. Described as “‘… the Godfather of U.S. paparazzi culture’ by Time and Vanity Fair (Source 7),” and as “… a pioneer paparazzo (Source 8),” Galella showed how much could be earned from following the most recognized faces in America. Over time, the intensity of the paparazzi, as well as their population, has greatly increased because of Galella’s adamant search for famous faces to plaster on pages. This intensity has inspired two bills in California limiting the photography of paparazzi. “One of the bills makes it illegal to interfere with someone trying to enter or leave a building,” and “… was intended to protect the children of [celebrities] (Source 9).” The other “… [expanded] the state’s definition of stalking to include unwanted surveillance that has no legitimate purpose (Source 9).” Though Galella calls the paparazzi of today  “gangbangers (Source 10)” it is no doubt that his intense love of photographing the famous has inspired many to pursue their careers as paparazzi as well, in addition to inspiring legislation to curb their ability to “…inflict emotional distress… (Source 1)” upon their subject matter.

Sources:

1. Quimbee “Galella v. Onassis Case Brief”

2.  Class Notes: 11.1 Privacy

3. Class Notes: 6.1 Libel and Public Figures

4. Class Notes: 11.1 Private Facts

5. Wikipedia “Photography and the Law”

6. Class Notes: 5.1 Ethics in Photos

7. Ron Galella “Much Has Been Written of Ron Galella”

8. Wikipedia “Ron Galella” 

9. USA Today “California Lawmakers Pass Bills to Restrict Paparazzi”

10. AARP “Where Are They Now? Ron Galella”

Film Challenge: Shattered Glass

In Shattered Glass, the young Stephen Glass, an aspiring reporter for The New Republic magazine; however, in the end of the film it is discovered that, of the many witty, audience appealing stories written by Glass, at least half of them were concocted in his vivid imagination. Because of a lack of thorough fact-checking before publishing, all of these stories were printed and sent out as the truth. The main argument contained within this predicament is whether these infractions made by Glass warranted his termination from The New Republic. While many would argue that his termination is unjust, as Glass has not committed any illegal actions that would immediately jeopardize the security of The New Republic. To those who believe in this sentiment, I would like to oppose, as would those who believe his termination is just. While not directly jeopardizing the financial stability of The New Republic, the act Glass commits does tarnish the reliability of the publication as his actions are beyond unethical. Though “ethics [are] not a requirement of being a journalist (Source 1),” the credibility of a journalist, and thus the publication in which the journalist is featured, is “tied to [the] perception [that] they are ethical (Source 1).” In this case, then, when it is revealed that Glass’ stories are nothing but concocted illusions, the ethical reliability of The New Republic will be extinguished. This assumption of Glass’ actions as unethical is based in the SPJ Code of Ethics, in which it is stated that a reporter’s duty is to “seek the truth and report it (Source 1)” as well as the general core values of journalists, which includes the value of “reporting the truth (Source 1).” With Glass reporting stories that are completely false in nature, he is ultimately violating both the SPJ Code of Ethics and the core values to which he must adhere, as no truths or facts may be pulled from these stories. In result, The New Republic will suffer a hit to their reporting reliability, as they have allowed for the publication of these unethical stories in the light that they are nothing but the truth. I believe that this situation was handled in the most appropriate manner possible—to fire Glass from the publication and, in turn, tarnish his reputation and ultimately bar him from contributing again to any publication—because it ultimately reduces the publication’s risk of additional harm. Imagine if Glass had reached into the realm of libel, where he publishes an imaged story poised as truth about a real individual. Under the conditions of libel where a statement that is “false (Source 2)” but published as “fact, not opinion (Source 2),” Glass could have lead The New Republic to a tarnished reputation as well as a costly libel suit.

In the end, what I believe that the media has taken away from the Glass situation is to fact check everything. Insufficient fact checking was the gate through which Glass’ fictitious stories were allowed to pass. With media placing a harder, more extreme emphasis on checking every little detail, making sure every person exists, and concretely determining whether or not the story is even remotely possible, it will allow itself to further avoid reputation tarnishing situations such as this.

Source 1: Class Notes, 4.1 Seeking the Truth: Core Ethics in Reporting

Source 2: Class Notes, 5.2 Libel

Film Challenge: Nothing but the Truth

The movie Nothing but the Truth, the major issue of whether or not journalists are protected when using a source who reveals information about an individual or even that threatens national security. While many believe that this speech should be protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, others find that, because it is a matter of national security and imposes the potential threat of exposing the United States to harm, it is not protected and sources should be revealed.

In 1971, in the Branzburg v. Hayes trial, it was found that “the requirement that news reporters appear before state  or federal grand juries [is not] and abridgement of the freedoms of speech and press as guaranteed by the First Amendment (Source 1)” as the “confidential information served a ‘compelling’ and ‘paramount’ state interest (Source 1).” The specific conflict of this movie came when the reporter would not reveal to a grand jury the source who provided her with compromising information about an undercover CIA operative who was involved in discovering the truth about an attempt to assassinate the current president. However, though “the District of Columbia and 49 states have some level of protections [by shield laws] from local and state agencies… no statutory protection exists at the federal level (Source 2).” Because of this lack of protection, the reporter was tried and found guilty of “obstruction of the court (Source 3)” and was sentenced to 2 years in prison.

I believe that the case, though potentially lacking some forms of ethics regarding how they prosecutors decided to treat the reporter, was handled in a strange way. Though the information found by the individual revealed as a CIA agent could have very well lead to a huge scandal in the White House and potential war with Venezuela, the country attacked for being assumed responsible for the presidential assassination attempt despite the CIA agents findings, it seemed that prosecutors mainly focused on trying to find the source who revealed the name of the agent. I feel like the reporter should not have been harassed in the way she was just because someone’s name was revealed. However, I also question the ethical choices of the reporter, as she gained the confidential information from a child. By doing so, she has put that child in danger as the revealer of the source. The SPJ Code of Ethics requires that journalists must “minimize harm (Source 4)” when reporting—in this case, the reporter has failed to reduce that harm and protect those who need to be protected.

I feel as though this movie, alongside the findings in Branzburg v. Hayes reveals to journalists that they are not completely protected from the law under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. They may assume that they have immunity because they cannot be harmed for what truths they tell, but in reality, if it compromises national security, they can be jailed for their insubordination.  What journalists should take from this is that they need to understand their rights as the media and what limitations those rights have, because I feel as though, viewing this movie, that many journalists don’t understand what limitations they really have.

Source 1: Class Notes, 4.2 Ethics-Sources

Source 2: Class Notes, 11.2 Shield Law

Source 3: Nothing but the Truth

Source 4: Class Notes, 4.1 Ethical Framework

Film Challenge: Absence of Malice

I believe that the issue and major conflict that arises in Absence of Malice has everything to do with libel. Some would believe that by Megan Carter intentionally defamed Michael Gallagher, a journalistic no-no that could result in lawsuits and is not legally protected as it comes as a balance between the First Amendment and a U.S. citizen’s right to have protected reputations (Source 1). In addition to this, some may also argue that Carter committed libel as she published false statements as the fact, not as an opinion, and she seriously harmed the reputation of Gallagher (Source 1). However, as is evident throughout the film, Carter in no means intended to intentionally harm the reputation of Gallagher as she had no previous relations with him and in no way, shape, or form had reason to destroy his reputation:

Receptionist: They’re all up watching the movies. Surveillance film. Gallagher’s funeral. It’s pretty funny. Bob Waddell gets                                                                            slugged at the end.

Megan Carter: Who’s Gallagher? (Source 2)

In addition to her absence of malice, Carter does not knowingly publish the false information. To the best of her knowledge (which has been gathered by illegally, in some senses, reading a government document professing the ongoing investigation of Gallagher and assumes he is responsible for the disappearance of Diaz) the information she has included in her article is in fact true and trustworthy. Thus, the absence of malice in Carter’s case is enough grounds to assume that libel has not been committed.

The story would hold a much different tune, however, in the case that Carter was aware of the falsity of her information, or poised an opinion she held of Gallagher as a fact. Had she in fact done this and Gallagher had brought it to court, Carter would have been found guilty of libel. This case would be very similar to the case of Curtis Publishing v. Butts (1967), where Butts was able to hold in court that libel had been committed against him and the case was unable to be appealed as Butts was not a public official (Source 3).

Another conflict that rose throughout the movie was Carter’s choice to steal information in order to get a story. Many would have considered this unethical, as she found a backwards way to gain insight onto a private individual’s life in order to create a compelling story. However, others would claim that in the event that the paper was not concealed and left out for her to see, then it was public knowledge (in a way) and that her judgment was sound. Personally, I would have managed this situation in a very different manner than how Carter managed it. Though I am not a journalist and lack the understanding of the means of finding a story, my morals are coded to believe that stealing information (especially government information, to boot) is unjust and wrong. The SPJ Code of Ethics insists on “minimizing harm” and “acting independently” (Source 4), which I have interpreted for this case as avoiding wide speculations and not taking others information for your own use.

On the topic of minimizing harm, another situation I would have managed much differently was Carter’s choice to expose Teresa Perrone’s abortion. Though Perrone does go on the record   in her statement and provides Carter with this intimate information, the phrasing Carter chooses to use in her story results in Perrone taking her own life. It would have been very simply for Carter to change the phrasing of “abortion” to something simply along the lines of “medical procedure”. In this way, though Carter does not break any laws in publishing her story, she breaks the SPJ Code of minimizing harm.

I believe that this story shows and perpetuates the media’s lack of empathy for the individuals they cover in their story. Though writers themselves may not lack empathy, their stories do hold a confusing sense of the lack of care and disregard for basic understanding of the human condition and right to privacy that many individuals find appalling. In this sense, the story elaborates the possible harm that can be done through journalism and its refusal to change their tone. Hopefully, however, as the media sphere acknowledges more and more the harm their blunt reports cause, a change with erupt throughout, leading to a more conscious effort to protect the sanity and respectability of the common man.

Sources:

Source 1: Class Notes, Section 5.2: Libel

Source 2: Absence of Malice Script (http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/a/absence-of-malice-script-transcript.html)

Source 3: Class Notes, Section 5.2: Libel Cases

Source 4: Class Notes, Section 4.1: Seeking the Truth: Core Ethics in Reporting

Film Challenge: All the President’s Men

The movie All the President’s Men  retold the story of the two reporters–Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein–who broke the story on the Watergate scandal, which occurred on June 17, 1972 when five men broke into “the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. (source 1)” However, Woodward and Bernstein’s ethics in their reporting have been questioned. While their methods, to some, appear highly unethical and intrusive, others will see them as a means to obtain a reliable story. While many people emphasize the use of ethics, “ethics [are] not [a] requirement of being a journalist (source 2),” some believe that a “[j]ournalist’s credibility [is tied to the] perception they are ethical (source 2).” Nonetheless, the pair chose the way which they went about obtaining information not because they saw it as an ethical road to audience approval, but as a means of providing their audience with the most accurate information possible.

Personally, I believe that the way they went about obtaining this story was the most appropriate way to handle such a situation. When the morals of the Nixon administration were corrupt, I believe that the ethics surrounding the case changed for reporters. I interpret the phrase “Ethics begin when there is conflict within a moral system (source 3)” as ethics having a fluid nature with the ability to adapt to the individual scenario of a publication or story. In one story–one on a much smaller scale–the approaches Woodward and Bernstein chose to use might be considered extremely unethical, and thus diminish their reliability as reporters; but, in the case of a presidential  administration tampering with an opposing party and breaking into their headquarters, these ethics are needed to uncover the truth of the story. I also agree with Woodward and Bernstein’s use of “Deep Throat” and protecting his identity. Though using an anonymous source is a “last resort (source 4)”, I believe Woodward and Bernstein would not have had the story they had if they refused to use their “Deep Throat” source. Although their choice of withholding the true identity of their anonymous source would have spoiled their reporting if the government had required it for a court hearing–as the Branzburg v. Hayes trial in 1971 found that “requiring reporters to disclose confidential information to grand juries served as ‘compelling’ and ‘paramount’ state interest and did not violate the First Amendment (source 4)”–Woodward and Bernstein allowed for a voice within the issue of Watergate to speak out and provide a more informed report.

In the end, I believe that Woodward and Bernstein’s reporting on the Watergate scandal, and their relentless searching for the truth of what happened, changed the world of journalism. As the Max Holland of Newsweek states says on the pursuit of reporting the Watergate Scandal “The media, and most prominently [Woodward and Bernstein], deserve enormous credit for keeping the story alive… Press coverage served as a prophylactic for prosecutors, allowing them to proceed steadily and without interference, in keeping with the legal adage that the ‘wheels of justice turn slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine’ (source 5).” Although there has yet to be another scandal within the governmental administrations on the same scale of Watergate, I believe it is safe to say that the reporting of Woodward and Bernstein created a fever in journalism that inspired hard-hitting, no-nonsense attitudes within  all reporters.

Source 1: Watergate Scandal on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal)

Source 2: Class Notes– 4.1 Seeking the Truth: Core Ethics in Reporting

Source 3: Class Notes– 4.1 Ethics

Source 4: Class Notes– 4.2 Working with Sources

Source 5: Beyond Deep Throat: The Hidden Watergate Sources That Helped Topple a President by Max Holland (http://www.newsweek.com/2014/10/17/many-sources-behind-woodward-and-bernsteins-deep-throat-276291.html)