“Wag the Dog” tells the story of how a White House advisor and a political spin doctor create a fake war with the help of a Hollywood producer in order to distract the public from a sex scandal the president was involved in.

The fake war in Albania was meant to not only distract the public but to not let a sex scandal influence the presidential election that was quickly approaching. Creating a war united the American public and boosted patriotism among Americans. Although it was ethically wrong to fabricate a war as a distraction, the reason was that it would be better for the American public.

Having the ability to create a fake war opens up many dangerous doors. Ethically, it is wrong to lie to millions of people about what is going on in the world. The media is what influences and shapes public opinion. Therefore, by feeding fake stories to the public, you are altering their opinions. The public deserves to know the truth about what is going on the world so their opinions can influence a decision that is best for them. The possibility of fabricating news will change history and soon it will be unclear what is true and what is not.

Members have the media have historically attempted to deceive the public for a number of different reasons. Janet Cooke fabricated a story called “Jimmy’s World” where she made up an 8-year-old heroin addict. This and many cases in which reporters lied about their sources and stories have made the media increasingly unreliable to the public. If reporters continue to fabricate stories, lie about sources, and alter public opinion then the media will become completely unreliable.

I think the situation should have been handled very differently. A scandal as minor as the sex scandal the president was involved with should have been transparent. If the public saw that the president was attempting to be honest and publicly apologized, the scandal would have soon blown over. If it ever got out that the White House fabricated an entire story just as a distraction, the repercussions would have been much worse than if the president would have just apologized.

This issue impacts the very existence of journalism. If the media is not being truthful to the best of their ability, then there is no use for it. But if the media is fabricating stories in order to distract the public, then that is not only altering public opinion but altering history.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120885/synopsis

We are doing a presentation on the Rolling Stone UVA rape story that includes an interactive online poll, discussion questions and video.

Rolling Stone UVA Final Presentation

The documentary Smash His Camera gives interesting insight into the life of Ron Galella, the first paparazzo that opened up the modern world of paparazzi. Ron Galella went to extreme heights to get candid photographs of celebrities. Galella claims he takes these extreme measures in order to get a  snapshot of celebrities in their normal everyday lives. When celebrities pursue their acting, singing, and other careers that lead to fame they are aware that it means that they will be giving up a lot of their privacy. Galella didn’t care too much about the money he made selling his photographs, but he really just cared about capturing the celebrities in their natural element and outside of a posed picture. Unlike most paparazzi today, Gallela was actually interested in the people he photographed and didn’t do it just for the money.

On the other side, Galella’s actions throughout his career took photojournalism to a different level. Celebrities’ privacy went from low to almost nonexistent. Many believed he was not only stalking but harassing his subjects and putting them in danger for attempting to get away from his photo-taking. His drastic measures led to many other paparazzi following in his footsteps and further changing the world of photographing celebrities. This new world of paparazzi not only completely takes away privacy from celebrities but puts them in danger like in the case of Princess Diana’s death.

The 4th Amendment gives people some privacy rights like search and seizure and surveillance limitations. Reporters do not have any special rights compared to other people and therefore they cannot trespass onto people’s private property like police can. Hanlon v Berger established that authorities violated the 4th Amendment when they allow members of the media accompany them in searches. Harassment came into the picture for photojournalists when paparazzi began going to extreme measures to capture photographs.

I think that paparazzi should not be considered photojournalists because most, if not all,  paparazzi focus on photographing celebrities in their normal everyday lives. Journalists report the newsworthy stories and what celebrities do in their free time should not be considered news. If I was a paparazzo in this situation I would try to capture people in their natural element but not to the point where it became stalking or harassment. Paparazzi (including Galella) want to show that celebrities do normal things like any other person but when they stalk celebrities then they themselves are making their lives unordinary.

The methods that paparazzi take to capture their photographs gets put on the same level as photojournalism and that has a negative effect on journalism. Although the photographs eventually are used for magazines and other media outlets, the methods in which paparazzi get their photographs are not ethical and do not reflect most journalists’ methods.  Professional and reputable journalists gather their news ethically and paparazzi being seen as photojournalists puts journalism in a bad light.

The film Shattered Glass tells the story of how reporter Stephen Glass of the The New Republic magazine fabricated dozens of his stories for many different magazines. In the movie we see how Stephen goes out of his way to be everybody’s friend in the office and he builds up their loyalty to him. On one side, since Stephen makes most of the people and organizations he writes about, his stories aren’t hurting anybody. This was probably the reason why he didn’t get caught for so long because nobody has any problem with what and who he was writing about. On the other hand, Stephen compulsively lied to everybody around him in order for them to like him and that is why he continued to fabricate his stories. He hurt his coworkers, his family, and multiple magazines and their credibility just so he could become a well-known and well-liked reporter. He fabricated all the stories for selfish reasons and that was unethical in every way.

A precedent case to Stephen Glass was Jayson Blair from The New York Times who not only fabricated stories but plagiarized and brought down several other people with him. I think that there is a big difference between fabricating a story completely like Stephen Glass and also plagiarizing because Jayson Blair used other’s work which hurt them and he was the reason several other people lost their jobs.

I think that a situation like Stephen Glass’ should have been handled different in respect to that fact checking. Even though Stephen knew how to get around it, such a well-known and trusted magazine should have noticed way earlier that his facts were fabricated. I think that in this case I would have fact checked more than just the notes he wrote and followed up with sources more often.

This issue greatly impacts journalism because it hinders the way the public thinks about reporters and the media. If even a few trusted journalists can get away with lying to thousands of readers then it is going to hurt every journalist because people will not know who to trust anymore. Even though there is always going to be a couple of people who are going to lie, that is why there are editors who need to be checking their reporters and their work. If journalists continue to get away with fabricating and plagiarizing stories then people will no longer trust reporters.

http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9F03E0D71430F932A05753C1A9659C8B63

In the film Nothing But the Truth, reporter Rachel Armstrong gets put in jail for outing a CIA agent and refusing to reveal her source. Rachel refuses to reveal her source because she believes that revealing her confidential source violates the First Amendment. Rachel is determined to make a stand in her belief that if the government takes away the freedom of the press to withhold sources then the government is essentially controlling the media. If sources cannot be kept confidential and reporters are put in jail/prison for not revealing them then the power lies with the government. The press is supposed to check and balance the government’s power and by punishing reporters for not revealing sources then it limits the checking and balance of the government’s internal actions.

On the other hand, it is not always safe for the public to have information on confidential issues. Sometimes sources do need to be revealing for national security purposes. In that case, when it is dealing with the security of a large amount of people the government should be able to take action when dealing with the media.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires that records held by the government should be available to the public. One of the many exemptions to FOIA is that it does not apply when dealing with national security. It is understandable for this act to take place if it means that lives will be in danger if certain information is revealed to the public. The gray area lies within what makes an issue national security or not.

I think that in most cases not revealing a source is not a national security issue. If a story surfaces that reveals a corrupt issue in the government, I think the media should have the power to not reveal their source and therefore not be put in jail for bringing to light corruption. I think that this should be a factor when dealing with newsgathering and confidential sources.

I think that what Rachel did was honorable and I agree with her actions to a certain point. She took a stand and did what was right but in the long run she hurt her family and nothing ended up changing. I would have made a deal to reveal the source (the little girl) and kept her name confidential to everyone except the CIA.

This issue has a huge impact on journalism because it gives the government the power to control what the press does. Although sometimes for good reason, the FOIA exemptions could deter journalists from investigating corrupt government issues that the public has the right to know about.

In the film Absence of Malice (1981) reporter Megan Carter reports that the FBI is investigating Micheal Gallagher for murder, and after his name is all over the papers his life begins to fall apart. Gallagher is innocent but his only alibi is his friend Teresa who was with him at the time of the crime. Teresa’s reputation will be ruined if it is revealed that Gallagher was with her when she was getting an abortion, but Carter writes about it anyway. Teresa commits suicide after it was published that she had an abortion meanwhile Gallagher’s name is cleared. Later it is revealed that the investigator who knew Gallagher wanted to trick her into thinking he was guilty.

On one side, Carter did nothing wrong at first by reporting what was she thought was true (that the FBI was investigating Gallagher). She was investigating a story and talked to the sources necessary to get her story. Carter never intended to hurt anyone with her stories, so they are not considered libel since they were true.

On the other hand, Carter was under pressure by the newspaper and the community to continue to report about Gallagher’s investigation and she didn’t check her story. She could’ve have not rushed as much to get her sources in order to get the story out and she definitely should not have slept with her source. She even violates more ethical rules when she sends Gallagher an article a day before it will be published. Carter, however, admits her mistakes at the end of the movie.

NYT v. Sullivan (1964) established what malice is, which is when something false is published in reckless disregard of the truth. I think that Carter is not guilty of malice because she did not have the intention to cause harm and she got some of her information from an investigator.  Carter reported what she thought was true although it was not completely accurate.

I think that situation like this should have been handled with a lot more investigating and with not as much urgency. If Carter would have taken more time to find more sources and investigate further she could have eventually found that Gallagher was innocent to begin with. I also think this is a very far-fetched case since she was technically tricked into reporting that Gallagher was being investigated.

I think this issue is something very important to consider in journalism. Reporters have so many expectations to report fast, accurately, and thoroughly when that is not always possible. I think this issue is a good lesson to determine what malice is in regards to whether or not a reporter is recklessly disregarding the truth. I think that if a reporter is publishing the best possible obtainable version of the truth then they are doing their job well.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=ee05e7df173bb72caa494cc1b7799d836896 

‘All the President’s Men’ (1976) gave insight into the news coverage of Washington Post reports Woodward and Bernstein on the break-in of the Democratic party headquarters in 1972, more commonly known as Watergate. Woodward and Bernstein’s questionably unethical reporting ultimately led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

After Woodward discovers a connection from the burglary at Watergate to the White House, he investigates further and is faced with sources that refuse to give information. Woodward’s main source, known as “Deep Throat”, leads Woodward and Bernstein in the right direction to uncover the truth.

Many believe some of the ways the reporters acquired information were unethical because the reporters used anonymous sources, weren’t honest when asking questions, and the ways that they had their sources confirm information. For example, Woodward tells a source he is doing a profile when in reality he is doing an investigation. Bernstein uses unusual ways of confirming information such as names like telling sources to not talk for ten seconds if certain information is true or not true.

On the other hand, because of Woodward and Bernstein’s reporting, the truth was uncovered. If it wasn’t for the way the reports got their information, justice would not have prevailed in the Watergate scandal. The reporters had to use questionably unethical ways of reporting because many of their sources had been threatened to not reveal information. Although the ways of reporting were questionably unethical, the truth surfacing is also sometimes considered ethical. According to the SPJ Code of Ethics, reporters should “seek the truth and report it” which is what Woodward and Bernstein did.

One precedent case that gives historical background on the ethics during the Watergate scandal time period is Branzburg v. Hayes (1971) which dealt with anonymous sources and whether reporters have the right to withhold information from a grand jury such as a confidential source. Reporters do not have the right to withhold information but Woodward and Bernstein still did.

I think given the situation that Woodward and Bernstein were in, most of their reporting decisions were ethical because they uncovered the truth. I would have handled the situation similarly, with the exception of lying to a source about why I am interviewing them. I think that that in this situation it would be ethical to use questionable ways of information confirmation because the sources’ lives were being threatened. It wasn’t that the sources did not want to give up the information, but that they were scared to do so. I think that sometimes that would be ethical to do because it would lead to the truth and could result in justice being served.

The impact of the Watergate reporting on journalism shaped the way society deals with what is ethical and what is not. Reporters now have to face whether or not they should make possibly unethical decisions if it means the truth will be uncovered. Woodward and Bernstein’s reporting influenced journalism to be less black and white and right and wrong to being more complex like the real world is.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/1613/All-the-President-s-Men/overview

http://www.bookrags.com/studyguide-all-the-presidents-men/#gsc.tab=0

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