Posts

The film Wag the Dog focuses on how the government manipulates the media. In the film the president is caught being inappropriate with a Firefly Girl, very close to Election Day to see if he would serve a second term as president. The government put Conrad Brean on the job to try to get the media off the trail of the president and his scandal. Brean worked with Stanley Motss, a producer in Hollywood to help create live footage of the fictional world events. Brean brain stormed that the United States went to war with Albania, and Motss piece together the video footage to follow this story to send to the media. The CIA caught up on the plans of Brean and Motss, but by the time the truth had reached the media the public had lost focus on the president’s scandal which helped him win his second term.

When the government manipulates the media, it is not ethical. The government is then lying to the public and causing the media to lose more respect in the eyes of the public. In the film Wag the Dog, Brean creates fake information and spreads it to the media who communicates with the nations, where the public believes the government created cover ups. One very important point of the SPJ Code of Ethics focuses on is to report the truth. When the media reports false information created from the government, the media definitely is not reporting the truth.

On the other side of the agreement, I can understand why the government feels the need to manipulate the media. I feel like there is more false information that our government creates and feeds to the media to change the focus change the focus of the American government. I believe that the government manipulating the media happens a lot more than we know in America. According Global Issue’s website one example of where the American government was caught manipulating the media was in March of 2005. The New York Times had reported that the Bush Administration had been used the Pentagon and other departments to create fake stories and have the media report video without attribution from the government and have members of the secret departments pose a reporter to pass along the fake news. I do not know why Bush’s Administration chose to create false news, but I can only hope that it was the to help protect our country and stand by the SPJ Code of Ethics by not creating harm.

If I were a reporter I would not feel comfortable publishing or spread manipulated news from the government. I feel that manipulation that government sometimes has on the government causes more harm than not to the people because the truth is not being presented, it is almost as bad as publishing false news or retweeting a tweet that was proven to be false. I would not want to lie to my audience. I feel that I would end up losing trust from my supporters. I am against publishing government manipulated information, I think that government could be very sneaky and I might accidently report the information provided by the government.

Since the government has been manipulating the media, journalists have faced a few major ramifications. One ramification is that the media is lying to their viewers and readers, which goes against the SPJ Code of Ethics. When reporters lie to their audience there is viscous cycle created where reporter starts to lose credibility and their audiences lose trust in their reporting. There is also a positive ramification according to Global Issue’s website reporters do receive more hours and stories through the government manipulation of the media.

Sources:
Wag the Dog, the Film
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
http://www.globalissues.org/article/532/media-manipulation#FakeNewsintheUnitedStates

Word Count 615

Group 7 developed a class presentation about how Photoshop being used in publications can change and effect historical events becuase every photo is a historical record. We created a Prezi and an interactive activity to see if our peers can tell the difference between photos that have been edited using Photoshop. We based this ethical issue off the article found on imedia.org, http://www.imediaethics.org/News/10053/Houston_chronicle_ran_doctored_photo_of_evangelist__apologizes.php The Houston Chronicle published a photo that was given to them that was edited using Photoshop. Here is our presentation.

Ron Galella was the first photo journalist to truly create today’s modern paparazzi and obsession with celebrities. In Galella’s career he has been able to snap hundreds to thousands of candid photos of celebrities in normal everyday life situations, but I think at times in Galella’s career he took things too far, specifically with his photographs of Jackie Kennedy Onassis. Galella did definitely change the industry of photo journalism, but he did not always take the most ethical paths over the years.

Galella did start the trend for current day paparazzi, but his tactics to start this trend have not been the most ethical. One example of Galella’s questionable ethics is that he closely followed Jackie Kennedy Onassis and her children. Galella I believe went too far to break into venues to find celebrities or cut shrubbery to invade celebrities’ privacy. Galella’s tips to become a paparazzi from the film, Smash His Camera, were also a bit unethical because he said, “Sneak in, crash events, always dress the part, kitchen is a good way of getting in, forge credentials—get someone’s invite and duplicate at Kinko’s, shoot fast – get the surprised expression.” Galella followed the SPJ Code of Ethics to a point because he did not harm the celebrities, he watched them from afar.

Although Galella was unethical, he was still within his rights ensured under the first and fourth ademendment to be able to take pictures of any person in public. When Onassis accused Galella of stalking her, she took him to court, but Onassis did not realize she was a public figure even though she was the late President Kennedy’s wife, and she also married an older gentleman, Mr. Onassis who was old money in New York City. Galella was ethical when he took pictures of public figures out in public. Galella did not harm the celebrities, he just wanted to take their pictures and interact with them. If Galella was causing harm to the celebrities then he would be violating one of the SPJ Code of Ethics.

I feel like Galella’s job would be extremely exciting, and slightly stressful. I feel like following around celebrities and being able to sneak into celebrity events would glamourous and so much fun. Although the ethics I would use as a paparazzi would be much different than the ethics Galella displayed. I would have not violated the celebrities’ privacy. I would have chosen to just take pictures of the famous public figures only while they are in a public place. I would not want to chance stepping over the boundaries to get a great picture. I would also not continuously follow one celebrity because I would not want them to consider me to be stalking them. I would probably not be good as a member of the paparazzi because I value my ethics and would want to up hold them over getting a great picture.

As I have stated previously in this piece, Galella really truly did create the trend of how celebrities are perceived. According to the New York magazine article The Man in the Bushes written by Emily Nussbaum, “He (Galella) stalked Jackie, was pummeled by Brando, and gave birth to the idea of modern American celebrity. Without Ron Galella, there’d be no TMZ.” Galella did more than set the stand for the industry though. Through Galella and Onassis’ trail where Onassis took Galella to court over harassment and then Galella countered her with a harassment claim as well, Galella was better able to define photo journalists’ rights.

Sources:
The Film “Smash His Camera”
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
http://nymag.com/news/features/50264/
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/gallela.html

Word Count 516

The film “Shattering Glass” brings up the reality that some reporters do not follow the SPJ Code of Ethics and do not follow through on stories with fair and accurate reporting. Stephen Glass in the film fabricates his headline stories for The New Republic magazine. This film “Shattering Glass” is based from Glass’s real experiences from his days as a reporter. Glass makes current reporters more aware of much making up information, or fabricating a story can effect a publication, a reporter personal, the reporter’s fellow staff, and the industry of media overall.

Glass fabricated multiple stories for The New Republic. Fabrication definitely goes against the SPJ Code of Ethics which states to hold reporters to the standard of telling the truth and reporting the truth. The problem of fabrication has become more real. According to Wikipedia, Janet Cooke was the first reporter to get caught in a lie, she created a nonexistent person to try to inform others of the heroin problems in Washing D.C. In the film Glass made up one lie and he kept running on his lies.

What Glass did with making up the stories was morally and ethically incorrect, but I could see why Glass thought fabrication was the only answer to his problems. Reporters and media are held accountable to high standards, and many journalists feel the pressure. The pressure of needing to have a story on a deadline and always having to the report the truth has been an issue recently in journalism.

I would never fabricate my work. I would grow up the gumption to say to my editor that I do not have the story. I would not be willing to risk my job and career to lie about a story. I would not stand to screw over my morals to just move up and become popular in my career. My morals of telling the truth and being someone with responsibility and pride I would admit fault, no matter how hard it is. I would also not pawn my work onto my other co-workers. Glass tried to pawn parts of his stories off on his fellow writers to help him cover and edit his stories. I saw this as Glass asking for help to try to reveal himself for fabrication, but I could also see it as Glass trying to share his work, so others could be blamed for the fabrication that was happening at The New Republic.

I think the film “Shattering Glass” is a scary revelation to the journalism industry. In our class discussions we discussed how this film revealed a scary reality that more reporters than we think could be fabricating information, and we do not even know it. In the recent future many different reporter that have fabricated have been focused on which is causing the public to loose respectability in the media as was brought up in one of our class debates. I believe that journalists need to cling to and truly follow the SPJ Code of Ethics because those rules are set up in order to avoid things such as fabrication.

Sources:
The film “Shattering Glass”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Cooke
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Word Count 516
The film “Shattering Glass” brings up the reality that some reporters do not follow the SPJ Code of Ethics and do not follow through on stories with fair and accurate reporting. Stephen Glass in the film fabricates his headline stories for The New Republic magazine. This film “Shattering Glass” is based from Glass’s real experiences from his days as a reporter. Glass makes current reporters more aware of much making up information, or fabricating a story can effect a publication, a reporter personal, the reporter’s fellow staff, and the industry of media overall.
Glass fabricated multiple stories for The New Republic. Fabrication definitely goes against the SPJ Code of Ethics which states to hold reporters to the standard of telling the truth and reporting the truth. The problem of fabrication has become more real. According to Wikipedia, Janet Cooke was the first reporter to get caught in a lie, she created a nonexistent person to try to inform others of the heroin problems in Washing D.C. In the film Glass made up one lie and he kept running on his lies.
What Glass did with making up the stories was morally and ethically incorrect, but I could see why Glass thought fabrication was the only answer to his problems. Reporters and media are held accountable to high standards, and many journalists feel the pressure. The pressure of needing to have a story on a deadline and always having to the report the truth has been an issue recently in journalism.
I would never fabricate my work. I would grow up the gumption to say to my editor that I do not have the story. I would not be willing to risk my job and career to lie about a story. I would not stand to screw over my morals to just move up and become popular in my career. My morals of telling the truth and being someone with responsibility and pride I would admit fault, no matter how hard it is. I would also not pawn my work onto my other co-workers. Glass tried to pawn parts of his stories off on his fellow writers to help him cover and edit his stories. I saw this as Glass asking for help to try to reveal himself for fabrication, but I could also see it as Glass trying to share his work, so others could be blamed for the fabrication that was happening at The New Republic.
I think the film “Shattering Glass” is a scary revelation to the journalism industry. In our class discussions we discussed how this film revealed a scary reality that more reporters than we think could be fabricating information, and we do not even know it. In the recent future many different reporter that have fabricated have been focused on which is causing the public to loose respectability in the media as was brought up in one of our class debates. I believe that journalists need to cling to and truly follow the SPJ Code of Ethics because those rules are set up in order to avoid things such as fabrication.

Sources:
The film “Shattering Glass”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Cooke
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Word Count: 546

The film “Absence of Malice” helps to better describe ethical problems and what libel really is and to whom it can affect. Megan Carter, the crime reporter for the Miami Standard newspaper took many unethical actions to report the truth, but at times Carter went too far. Carter avoided libel by telling the truth, but that fact that Carter would not reveal her sources made it harder to prove her information was true. Carter did though report the truth, so her writing was absent of malice.

Carter did do many unethical things in the film, but she never once lied in her reporting. Carter also worked or flirted with her sources to be able to get the story of them. She also did not commit libel throughout the movie. Still know there was harm and hurt involved in the articles that Carter wrote, she still report the all the facts. Carter took the time to realize that Michael Gallagher was a private figure instead of a public figure, so she loosely attempted to check her facts for her articles. Carter’s case differs from the Curtis verses Butts because Carter’s case was not an all access individual, but about a private person and her story about the crime was breaking news.

Carter was great at being able to get the facts for her stories, but she was not always the best at being to write her stories in a way that did not cause harm to her sources. Teresa Peron gave Carter personal information that would end up embarrassing Peron enough to kill her. Gallagher was too harmed by Carter’s articles. Gallagher did not commit the crimes that he was then publically associated with. When Carter’s article was published saying that Gallagher was thought to have been a suspect in the Joey Diaz case, Diaz’s former union members stopped working for Gallagher and caused his business to slow down. The SPJ Code of Ethics states to try keep harm out to a minimum, which means respecting sources.

I would have handled this situation at the Miami Standard newspaper in a much different way. To start off I would not have looked at the file on Rosen’s desk because it is a crime to look at classified information without permission.  Even if I thought that the file was left out for me to see. I would not have published the information about Peron’s abortion because that was harmful towards her, yes it prove Gallagher’s innocence, but caused Peron’s suicide. I would never under any circumstances have sexual relations with any source of mine.   When a reporter gets closer to a source or develops a relationship with the source a conflict of interest is brought up, which I believe leads to the reporter losing credibility.

The film “Absence of Malice” impacted the journalism community in many different accepts. The film made journalists more aware of libel and the line is very close to crossing over to libel. In our class discussions we talked how in order to be libel the words have to harmful and incorrect.  We also discussed how telling the truth is the best way to deny libel. This film reminded reporters to not harm others with their writing and not to report on conflicts of interest.

Sources:

The film, “Absence of Malice”

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/curtis.html

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Word Count 532

The film all the “President’s Men” brings the history of Watergate reporting to life. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were the reporters from The Washington Post who reported the scandal information and interviewed many different people to cover the story and report the truth. Woodward and Bernstein made history through their reporting, but the way this duo reported caused them to cross ethical lines to just to get sources to develop the story.

Woodward and Bernstein pushed the ethical rules a little when reporting. They found ways to enter into their potential sources’ houses without out being invited into their homes which was a very close line to trespassing. The two reporters followed up with their sources, but pushed very hard to get the information they wanted out of them. Sometimes this would include guessing the names of people of people involved on the President’s Board of Re-elects and crimes that followed, or even guessing situations that happen to get more information from their anonymous “Deep Throat.” Needless to say that Woodward and Bernstein challenged their ethics to be the first to cover a story, but they did follow their rights according to the first amendment to the United States Constitution.

On the other hand Woodward and Bernstein were doing their job to report to the nation what was really happening with the break in of the Democratic National Committee Headquarters. According to our class discussions the government works as a group of checks and balances within its branches, but the media’s job is to also keep the government in check by informing the citizens of what is happening in their country. Woodward and Bernstein did stick to publishing the truth because of their positon as journalist.

This situation was stuck in-between following ethics and reporting a breaking story. I think I personally would have handled the situation in a different way.  I personally would have published the name of the unnamed source “Deep Throat,” as soon as I had reached the final story. I would have also published the names of the other sources that remained secret throughout the film that helped lead Woodward and Bernstein to more information to move the story along. I would not “stalk” my sources to get interviews or push then to give me information they were unwilling to share. I would want my sources to give me direct quotes, not head nods, or other tactics that provide indirect approval of the research I would have conducted. I would have not covered the story until there were sources that would talk voluntarily, but my ethics are tight so that I can report the truth.

The Washington Post’s coverage of Watergate had a huge impact on the journalism community. This situation showed reporters breaking a huge story with an anonymous source. According to the Harry Ransom Center at The University of Texas at Austin’s website, “Between 1972 and 1976, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein emerged as two of the most famous journalists in America and became forever identified as the reporters who broke the biggest story in American politics.” Woodward and Bernstein also won the Pulitzer Prize for their articles on Watergate published in The Washington Post.

Sources:

The Film, “All the President’s Men”

http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/first-amendment

http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/web/woodstein/

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