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?

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”

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

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

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

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)