Posts

In our last film challenge, we viewed ‘Wag the Dog’ a film about media manipulation to the enth degree.

The characters in this film portrayed by Robert De Niro and my main man Dustin Hoffman (Rainman) completely created a news scenario — of a war with Algeria, and following with a lost soldier escapade, which nearly blew up in their face several times, but miraculously didn’t — to help win their respective political parties’ Presidential reelection campaign. This was successful, despite how far-fetched it may have seemed at times.

The fact of the matter is that this poses a real question. Does this happen in real life? The answer surprisingly is yes!

As we discussed in class, the media has private agendas, often caused by ownership of the stations (FOX NEWS) that portray things in their favor, or as distractors to their viewers.

Take the Ebola outbreak from last year.

As I mentioned in class, the outbreak was widely sensationalized. Specifically, in the months leading up to the midterm elections, the news media reported 1000 news segments pertaining to Ebola, and after dropped it down to a mere 49, according to the Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/19/ebola-midterms-cable-news-coverage-changed-after-midterms_n_6185146.html.

Also, as we talked about in class, the most spot on example of media manipulation in regards to correlating with this movie, is Bowe Bergdahl. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/03/25/bowe-bergdahl-once-missing-u-s-soldier-charged-with-desertion/

It just really hurts my soul, that for a profession that is expected to be honorable, and do what’s right always seems to do the opposite. It really makes me wonder what lies ahead, once I graduate. Am I too going to become a puppet for a media conglomerate?

Food for thought.

comm 3404 presentation

Our group project will be covering reporting inaccurately via Twitter, and what mistakes journalists make using the social media app. The debate of being first and wrong versus second and right is a big concern for journalists, as we always want to have the exclusive, or be the first to report. But this causes and issue, especially if you are inaccurate, or facts aren’t clear immediately. Breaking news happens all the time and people want to know what’s going on, but being wrong, as you will see in our presentation, can be damning for a journalist.

We are using a lot of examples where journalists have killed people off, and have lost their jobs in result!

Hope you enjoy!

Mama, there goes that man. Ron Galella is like the Evel Knievel of photojournalists. He even has a helmet and jacket to play the part. Paparazzo Superstar! And he needs it,  after all Marlon Brando did punch his lights out. But that never stopped Galella. He never took no for an answer. Galella is an icon for the paparazzi —  and rightfully so — he was the first.

After watching Smash His Camera, a documentary about Galella and his work as a paparazzo, I found that even though his tactics are shady, or downright despicable, Galella got the job done. Period. Would I want a guy like that on my team? Absolutely.

Galella often came up with schemes, or gameplans if you will on how to get the photos he needed. He camped in a warehouse for a weekend to get shots of Liz Taylor on her yacht. He stalked Jackie Kennedy Onassis for years, taking probably thousands or tens of thousands of pictures of the former first lady. Obsession much? Yes, but within reason. Some of Ron’s rules, “Sneak in, crash events,” or “Shoot Fast — get the surprised reaction,” speak to those tactics and to his quality, but from what I learn, the ones who don’t follow the rules are the most successful. The ones who dare to go against the grain tread the toughest path, but if they make it, will be the most noteworthy of men.

Most would say they would never want to be like Ron Galella, but I think in fact that if you love what you do, enjoy your work, and are good at it, why does it matter.He made quite a decent living from his work, and I’m sure he still does, as pictures are a form of art. And I think that being that he made as much as he did for what he does, justifies the actions, or tactics he uses. But, sometimes those got him into hot water.

Galella ended up in court for the stalking of Jackie, a case in which he lost, but built to his legend. Crossing the border of ones privacy differs from person to person. What is OK to one, is not OK to others, thus a fine line of acceptable behaviors is created. At the time Galella started stalking celebrities, it was unheard of. But now, we have complete news outlets that do only that, think TMZ. Now celebrities are followed everywhere, and their fans consume those pictures and videos, as if it were necessary to live. Making it OK in my eyes to make celebrities salable commodities.

People who are in the public sphere, meaning public area, or public eye, meaning celebrities, should be prepared to be photographed at any given time. That is just how the world works. They should be flattered that someone cares enough about them to want to take their photograph. I liken this situation to something similar that occurs on every family visit I take back home to see my parents. A couple of years ago, my mother bought a digital camera. Unknowingly, we were now celebrities to her. It seems as everything we do to her is noteworthy, so she takes a picture. While we’re eating, after eating, or in moments of surprise — it does not matter. It bothered me at first, but once I got used to it, it’s not so bad. Being a subject of a photo is an honor, really. And celebs, should be used to it by now, in fact most of them make their livings in front of a camera anyway.

Lastly, freedom of the press is one of the first mentioned freedoms. Our founding fathers put that high up there for a reason, our privacy on the other hand is always in question. Do we really have a right to privacy? As we mentioned in class, no, you really don’t. It is not mentioned specifically in the constitution other than against soldiers coming into your house during wartime. I can understand the frustration for those whom are being photographed against their will, but if you give them a reason to photograph you, they will! But just know, they may try to smash your camera.

Shattered Glass is a movie that shows us the story of Stephen Glass, a journalist that fabricated the majority of his stories during his time at the New Republic, a politically-charged magazine. During this time period, journalism was not into the digital age, opening a gateway, or loophole as Glass’ character said, played by Hayden Christensen. At the time, if it were, “In my notes,” it was true.

This brings me to the main topic of discussion, fact-checking, and lack-there-of, by the staff of the New Republic at the time that Glass wrote all of his phony stories. Glass worked his way up the chain to the point where he became the head of the fact-checking department at the magazine, according to writer Hanna Rosin a staff member at the time this all happened. Her testimonial of the events and subsequent interview with glass over a decade later provides further insight to the story that wasn’t shown in the movie (can be read here: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120145/stephen-glass-new-republic-scandal-still-haunts-his-law-career).

Glass had tailored the system to where he could bullshit his way through journalism — entertaining, but unethical — highly unethical. Fabrication of information is considered a cardinal sin in journalism, it may be one of the single worst things a journalist can do, at least in my opinion.

Glass worked very hard to upkeep a reputation for himself, a good-guy and someone that his fellow staff-members looked up to, further cementing his job security and keeping his speculation-meter low. But the fateful day where he got caught-red-handed, birthed a new way to fact check.

The Forbes writer Adam Penenberg, who is credited with catching Glass, used online search engines to verify the claims Glass made — sending us into the Google-zone as I’m going to call it (Penenberg’s original article on how he caught glass in his 1998 story can be read fully here: http://www.forbes.com/1998/05/11/otw3.html).

---

Our first step was to plug Jukt Micronics into a bunch of search engines. We found no web site, odd for a “big-time software firm.” Our next step was to contact the Software Publishers Association of America. Nothing. Next on our list was the California Franchise Tax Board. An official from the Tax Board confirmed that Jukt Micronics had never paid any taxes. Further investigations revealed that Jukt Micronics, if it existed at all, was not listed under any of California’s 15 area codes. Sarah Gilmer from the office of the California Secretary of State said there was no record of the company, “as a corporation, a limited liability or limited partnership.”

A search of Lexis-Nexis’ extensive database turned up only one reference to Jukt Micronics: Glass’s New Republic story. — Penenberg on Glass’ story “Hack Heaven.”

---

This story is but just one case of fabrication of journalism in recent memory (see Mike Daisey or Jayson Blair for more fabrication greatness). The sad truth about these writers is they seriously tarnished their own careers, but the field of journalism as well. Journalists are supposed to be watchdogs. They are supposed to be the checks-and-balance soldiers. And what these journalists did is misinform, and mislead people to believe false information that was completely made up, which I feel is a huge problem. It goes against everything that a journalist should stand for. Our job is to report the truth, and present facts in regards to how they appear in the world when they happen. When you take a made-up story and present it as fact, you create a more misinformed society.

Who did Glass really harm by writing these stories?

Well, the answer is everyone he worked with at the New Republic, and everyone who read his work. For everyone who trusted him, which was obviously a lot of people, they were burned for their loyalty to him. Also the person who he hurt the most was himself. Glass is still feeling the repercussions from his actions in the 90’s. Recently, he applied to practice law in the state of California and was denied because the California Supreme Court felt that Glass hadn’t changed (according to this New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/business/media/california-denies-scorned-journalist-stephen-glass-right-to-practice-law.html?_r=0) and the damage he caused was far too great to overcome.

---

“The question is: Are we prepared to say as lawyers, that a man who is no longer considered moral enough to be a journalist, is moral enough to be a lawyer? If people flame out in journalism because of dishonesty, is the law open to them? I think the answer is no,” — Stephen Gillers NYU, Law professor.

---

Kudos to the Editor

The last point I want to touch on is the great job done by Charles Lane, the Editor of the New Republic when Glass was caught. Sure he didn’t notice the entire time they (he and Glass) were working together, but he was the one voice who eventually stood up against Glass from within the New Republic. Sure, it took some prying and presenting from Forbes to get to that point, but he trusted his instincts, gave Glass ample time and opportunity to confess, (but mainly attempt to cover his tracks), and finally fired him for what he did. We need more people like Charles Lane in the field of journalism.

For me at least, I thought that this was the best film we watched thus far. It covered an important topic for all journalists — shield laws and their absence on the federal level.

As we learned in class, shield laws allow journalists to not give up their confidential sources, and in this movie Mrs. Armstrong broke a story using a confidential source, revealing the identity of a government/CIA operative, which is a federal crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.

This story is of course based upon Valerie Plame’s identity being revealed by Judith Miller and their proceeding case.

In the movie, Armstrong was courageous in her stance, not bending or breaking throughout her jail time, showing that she truly stood for what she believed; but I felt that she did it for more than just the fight for shield laws.

I believe she didn’t give up her source, even when presented a blanket waiver, because if she did she would look like a terrible journalist. Her lead source was in fact the young daughter of the CIA operative, who didn’t know she was ultimately killing her mother (harsh but true). But on the other side of the coin, what harm would she have done to the child if she did reveal that she was her initial source? I believe that she was protecting her from further damage and ruining her life (even though she still did).

Which leads me to my next point, was using the child as a source for a major story unethical? I think yes. Armstrong did verify the information with other sources, which justifies her actions in a way, but obtaining information from a child who was talking to you out of trust on a bus ride is not right. Personally, if it was me, I would not have run the story. Too much damage was caused for the sake of the news. Often, we do not see how reporting effects the lives of those we are reporting, which is one of the Society of Professional Journalists core ethics (minimize harm). Sure the story was major news, but is writing it worth ruining not only the subjects life, along with her daughter and your own. As shown in the movie, Armstrong lost her own marriage for the sake of the story and it’s cause and spent multiple years in prison.

After watching this film and debating in class, I now see the need for shield laws on the Federal level, because they are necessary to protect those who have to fear the actions that may happen after they give up coveted/private information. As Kraft stated in class, if the media/journalists are not able to check the government, who will? And the answer to that is no one. Controversial cases would be swept under the rug and be buried deep. To make sure that we can keep one of our core freedoms up and running (freedom of speech: press), as established by our forefathers, we need to recognize shield laws in federal cases. I also understand the need for protecting National Security, and protecting America, and balancing the two is going to be tough sledding going forward. Hopefully there can be a way to meet in the middle.

Sources: 

Nothing but the Truth. 2009 Yari Film Group. secured media library. osu.edu

http://uscivilliberties.org/legislation-and-legislative-action/3971-intelligence-identities-protection-act-1982.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/national/16leak.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

https://storify.com/nicole_kraft/media-law-and-ethics-in-film-comm-3404/8.1-shield-laws

The movie “Absence of Malice” showed us the power of publication. Megan Carter, published an article releasing information from an ongoing investigation which was handed to her indirectly. The information turned out to be false of course and led Carter down a spiral of poorly executed journalism ethics.

When she and her editors decided to publish the story linking Michael Gallagher to the disappearance of Joey Diaz (suspected death) they walked the fine line that is libel. By our course established definition, libel is written publication of information that is false about someone that can  damage that person’s reputation and the only true way to defend yourself from being sued for libel is to run the truth (6.1 Libel).

In this case, Carter published something that she indeed believed to be the truth. However, I do not feel as though Carter handled this initial story properly. She did not try hard enough to get a hold of Gallagher. His business would have been a great place to call to get an interview. But instead, Carter ran with pure gumshoe instinct. She researched the history of Gallagher’s father and assumed that Michael would be the same character as Big Tom Gallagher. Her actions directly caused Gallagher’s business to be shut down, causing direct monetary damages.

Carter’s second major mistake came about upon interviewing Teresa Peron, Gallagher’s friend/former lover. The abortion bomb was handled with intent to clear Gallagher from the mistake she printed initially. But in doing so, swiftly caused the suicide of Teresa. The condemnation of a Catholic woman admitting to an abortion would have jeopardized  Peron’s occupation as a catholic teaching assistant. Carter could have worded the abortion in a different way, such as: Gallagher accompanied Peron for a medical procedure in Atlanta on…

This could have saved this woman’s life. Carter’s work was unethical as not only was she making major mistakes, but she was dating one of the sources of her stories. This is shotty journalism at best and in my opinion, Carter should have been fired immediately after the suicide, or at least put on a leave of absence (for absence of balance). She was trying to play damage control after running a story which was false.

Carter believed the public had a right to know — but at what cost? Carter was covered against a libel suit because she was reporting on a news event that was breaking, believable (given Gallagher’s and his father’s reputation), the reliability of the source being Rosen from the Strike Force investigation unit (source “libel cases video,” section 6.1,  https://storify.com/nicole_kraft/media-law-and-ethics-in-film-comm-3404). These may have made Carter feel safe in her reporting, but nonetheless the accuracy and balance in the reporting done by Carter and her reckless intent for the well-being of the people involved in her stories is unacceptable for a reporter.

The only case I can see that applies to this movie is that of Gertz v.Robert Welch Inc. 1973 where a lawyer was accused of being a Leninist and a communist. Gertz lost his case by a narrow margin but the case opened up a window for ordinary citizens to have more protection from libelous statements. But what good will that do? Once a person is printed as a suspect in a murder, there reputation will never be as clean as it once was. So in my opinion Gallagher had every right to retaliate, because he knew his life would never be the same, and this happened when there was no ease of access of information a.k.a. the internet. Which would make this ring even more true today.

In sum, if I were Megan Carter or her Editors, I would have chose to hold the story about Gallagher back until an arrest was made, that way something solid and accurate could have been written and I would not have printed the info about the abortion because too much harm, even before the suicide, would have been done to Peron. It is a fine line that we walk and when other humans will be harmed we have to tread lightly.

Sources: Absence of Malice. Perf. Paul Newman and Sally Field. Columbia Pictures, 1981.

Kraft, Nicole. OSU. 2015. Libel Cases. storify.com/nicole_kraft/media-law-and-ethics-in-film-comm-3404

Bob Woodward and Carl Berstein are two of the most famous names in the history of the field of journalism — and for good reason. Their reporting led to the resignation of Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States. But the question we have on our hands here is whether or not their tactics to get those reports out there were ethical or not and to accomplish that I will be referencing the 1976 movie “All the President’s Men,” starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman.

A shot from the 1976 film “All the President’s Men.”
Photo courtesy Cinephilia and Beyond. Original photo credit unknown.

The film shows “Woodstein’s” dirty work. The backside to the story and how they used tactics — which at the time —  probably weren’t considered ethical. Those tactics included using confidential sources and the way they persistently questioned their sources and how they used ambiguous ways of confirming facts. Another way that they may have crossed the ethical border is how they termed their purpose for investigating some of the possible culprits; Woodward for example said he was researching on deep background for a profile, but in reality he was trying to link personal history together as well as financial ties.

I feel as though ambiguity teeters upon a fine line for ethics. But in this case, this was the only way that Woodstein could get anyone to talk. Most people feared for their lives as they were told to clam up by the Nixon administration. Which leads me to “Deep Throat.”

The #2 of the FBI was used as a confidential source for verification of facts and most would argue if that is ethical. Even though there is sufficient case for arguing those statements as false or made up, I believe in this instance, using confidential sources is ethical and here is why. When your source is, or can be potentially harmed, or lose their job it is your job to minimize the amount of harm that can be done to that person. Woodstein protected  W. Mark Felt because of his high ranking position in the FBI and if he was revealed, he probably would have been charged with plotting against the President. As a journalist, you have to minimize harm and report the truth, and I feel that this was accomplished to near perfection despite the tactics being used. There is always an exception to the rules of journalism and this is an exception to the established ethics of journalism in the early 1970’s.

Another point I do want to touch on is the way Berstein interviewed the bookkeeper. Many times she said she wasn’t going to talk, and many times she said she didn’t want to say anything else, but Berstein, the crafty veteran of the two reporters would not let her off the hook, often playing dumb and acting like he didn’t understand what she was saying. This in my book was unethical because he was clearly lying and using the bookkeepers empathy against her to get what he needed to know. Also, the way they verified the five names of the people who received money as well was unethical to me. I liken that to throwing darts at a dart board or playing guess and check. The two reporters painted some of their interviewees into a corner and manipulated them to spill the beans with their tactics, not necessarily fully unethical, but fully effective.

Carl Bernstein left and Bob Woodward right. Photo courtesy AP and Huffingtonpost.com

All-in-all, the reporting conducted in this case study was groundbreaking. It is the greatest example of journalism serving its purpose and protecting the people of the United States of America from corruption. Yes, their tactics pushed the envelope, yes they may have crossed the boundaries or journalistic ethics, but it was for the greater good of the public. The end result outweighs the distance of the road traveled.

Welcome to u.osu.edu. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!