Posts

Thoughts on Stephen Glass

In high school I viewed “The Shattered Glass” during a Film and Philosophy class that I took. Not only is this film one of my favorite movies, but it helped me understand the process that journalists go through at newspapers for their stories (both the right way and the wrong way).

I’ve noticed through my journalistic career so far that at times you want to just change a quote around to help your story, or add a detail that isn’t necessarily there. Obviously, Stephen Glass took it to the extreme fabricating nearly all of his stories. It almost seemed like it became an addiction to him.

I’ve said it in multiple of my previous blogs for Media Law and Ethics, but journalists need to stay honest with their audience. Now days in the computer age, I have a feeling that getting away with fabrication of stories is just not as easy as the fact checking that Stephen Glass’s stories went through.

What Glass did that was so impressive was that he knew that he had to back up his sources. He made sure that his transparency was seen by creating telephone numbers with fake voice messages and fake email addresses that he would respond with if anyone had a question.

Glass completely understood the ethics of journalism; he just didn’t apply them to his work.

Linking

I do believe that linking is good journalism, especially in this day in age when social media is releasing news rapidly. Some stories that your are going to want to write about will already have another journalist that is covering it. Linking sticks to the ethics of journalism by staying transparent with the audience and being honest. Also, linking another story can make your own story much better. The tool of linking can be used to an advantage of a journalist rather than frowning at the fact that someone got to the story first.

It must be difficult to “unpublish” a story, especially if you are an editor of a big time news organization like the New York Times. I understand the reasons why unpublishing is a real thing, but it should only be an option if it is an unethically written piece. Other than that, the organization shouldn’t have to appeal to these requests.

With Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and more, attempting to release news as fast as possible, there are naturally going to be some mistakes. Journalists just need to be aware and be as careful as possible. I personally think the best way to fix a post on a social media site is to delete the post all together and not post until you are positive that you will be correct the second go around. Social media platforms like Facebook now let a user edit the post just in case they mess up on something, however the others don’t have this feature yet.

Transparency

We have talked continuously this year in class about credibility of a journalist with the community. These articles were just another way to express the importance of transparency to the public.

 

“We attribute information to the source to show provenance.” I pulled this quote from the article that was posted in the American press institute article that was given to us to reflect on. I thought that this quote was important because provenance shows how knowledgeable we are as a reporter and a citizen. No journalist should write about a topic that they do not have evidence and knowledge on, or they will be giving the public a bad perspective. Stories must be held if they do not support themselves with the truth and nothing but the truth. To do that journalist must be open with their sources and make the most ethical decisions.

 

Earlier in the year we discussed the issue that was presented on Rolling Stone magazine when one of their reporters didn’t get all the information for her story that she did on a rape problem at the University of Virginia. The question that was posed on the SPJ article was “do you trust Rolling Stone now?” After something like this happens at a publication there is no question that they will take a hit because they lose credibility. However, I don’t think they are ruined for the rest of their existence. I firmly believe that if the magazine buckles down and is transparent to the public in all their articles and stories then they will be able to regain their following that they recently lost.

 

SPJ also reported on the cooperation of journalists and the government. Journalists are put in the society to provide checks on different quadrants of society, especially government. The government needs to allow journalists to do their work because that provides the public with what they want to know. However, journalists are sometimes known to taking too far with stories on the government, which is why the government may be “testy” at times. When journalists do their job ethically then they will for sure be given the rights by the government do their work when they do reporting on them.

 

Sometimes the journalist world will complain about how people don’t give them respect, and that is why they need to do some of the unethical act that they do. If you don’t have respect as a reporter then you need to earn it by doing the ethical actions that are expected. I have learned that you are not going to just get that respect over night.

Political Polling

Making the move to eliminate polling on the presidential primary was a smart decision for the basis of the election. It is quite surprising due to the fact that they have been doing it for such a long time, however the article mentions a few points that I agree with when it comes to the decision. The editor, Frank Newport, mentioned how the publication thinks that they need to put more time, money and brainpower to the understanding of the issues and priorities in the election. They think that if they do this, they can have a larger impact on the election. Also, a lot of the polls that are out now days are heavily inaccurate as they try to appeal to the audience, making it a poor sampling job.

Next, the Big Think article talked about the rise of horse race journalism throughout the years and how it has become such an important role in politics. As it says in the article, “Horse race journalism is fueled in part by industry trends and organizational imperatives.” These motives that creates horse race journalism doesn’t give the audience the truth, because they want the reader to be pleased with that they see on their favored political party. Political polling helps this form of journalism, and the horse race journalists will do whatever it takes to win that race.

Potential Conflicts of Interest

I believe that it is an obvious fact that journalists need to be neutral in the story that they are writing so that they can give the audience a strong perspective of both sides. If a journalist was to be bias in a story, based of a conflict of interest, then the story will almost turn into an opinion piece. Writing about friends and family is a perfect example, because it is natural for someone to speak positively about their family members, or friends. Why would someone publish a story that sheds negative light on him or her? In the New York University Journalism Handbook for Students, they talk about the multiple potential conflicts of interests that journalists need to stay away from in their work. It is essential that the journalist remains unbiased and transparent in their stories.

NPR also put out a piece that explains the conflicts of interests for journalists well. The first sentence of the article, in italics, states, “To secure the public’s trust, we must make it clear that our primary allegiance is to the public.” That statement couldn’t be anymore correct, because it is a clear description on the journalist role. The public expects to obtain the news, and gain the truth on a certain story. If journalists were to fall into the trap of conflicts of interests then that truth that the public is looking for may not be given. I have a feeling that conflicts of interest don’t only occur in journalism but all areas. If someone were to favor one side of a business proposal because his best friend in the office gave the pitch, then wouldn’t that just hurt the company and its mission for what they are trying to accomplish?

Lastly, in the article released by SPJ called “Reigning on the Parade” I think that Whelan should have the right to participate in the parade, as long he is not writing about it for the publication he works for. Although he does cover the topic in some of his column I feel as though a single event isn’t going against the ethics of journalism.

Undercover Journalism

If journalism’s role is to keep a check on the government then wouldn’t it be ethical, even if it means lying? In the “Lying to Get the Truth” article the author, Mark Lisheron, quoted Washington Post media writer, Howard Kurtz, who mentioned, “No matter how good the story, lying to get it raises as many questions about journalists as their subjects.” Although people question undercover journalism, I think it is highly necessary in our society. Everyday journalists won’t be able to catch the things an undercover journalist will. However, I think that there needs to be a way that there isn’t lying involved. I’ve always seen lying as one of the most ethically incorrect action no matter the situation. Naturally, everyone tends to do it, but it brings many problems.

In the landmark Food Lion case, I thought that the best case of undercover was displayed. Supermarkets are one of the industries that must be checked up upon and I have a feeling that the store wouldn’t let someone investigate, making undercover the only option. The ABC producers took it a little too far by videotaping footage around the non-public areas of the store, but were pretty smart becoming employees to do their investigation. I believe that becoming employees to investigate is completely correct as far as ethics go.

If a law is in placing that all parties must consent the recording device than that must be followed. Although that recording may help out the story, journalists must respect the law. If they are unable to get the truth without breaking the law then they might just have to give up on the story, which is probably a lot more difficult than we may think.

Lastly, in the “The Ethics of Undercover Journalism” the writer said, “As other observers have noted, while the use of deception in reporting can yield sensational results, it also lends the subject a weapon to wield against the journalist.” Transparency is what the journalist is looking for, making undercover journalism the easy way to obtain that transparency from their sources, rather than grilling them with questions possibly not getting the truth.

Zacchini vs. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Company

Facts: Hugo Zacchini was shot out of a cannon into a net that was 200 feet away. A reporter who did free-lance work for Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. recorded the show without asking anyone and then they aired it on the news at night. Zacchini later sued Scripps-Howard. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of Scripps-Howard. Even though Zacchini has a cause of action for his state-law right to publicity, the court found that Scripts-Howard was good to include the performance in their newscasts matters of public interest that would otherwise be protected by the right of publicity. Also, mainly because they did not have the intent to injure.

 

Issue: Do the First and Fourteenth Amendments immunize the Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. from damages for broadcasting the performance that supposedly went against an entertainer’s state-law right of publicity?

 

Holding: No

 

Rationale: Court held that Scripps-Howard’s privileged free speech did not extend to the broadcasting that performance without the permission from Zacchini.

 

Disposition: Affirmed

Person of Interest Thoughts

A characteristic that a journalist must possess is curiosity. Without curiosity there is not much interest shown in the story, but journalists must learn how to control that hunger for curiosity so that they can report the most accurate story.

The idea of the “person of interest” term revolves around the media and them having a name to put out there for a possible lede on the story. I personally don’t agree with the concept because there is nothing proven yet when putting that title on a person. Journalists are caught up with the idea that they need to get the news out as soon as possible, but need to be more obsessed with getting the story right. In the situation of the article in the American Journalism Review, I wouldn’t release any story on who was guilty for the murder until I had an official word on who it was.

Journalists only have so much power and need to remember that they are depended on for accuracy. There may not be such thing as facts, but we must make sure, as journalists, we find the closest thing to them.