Posts

One of the opening sequences of “Smash His Camera” shows clips of contrasting perspectives of Ron Galella. Some people call him a genius while others think of him as nothing more than a pest.

This is reflective of how people generally feel about the paparazzi. But, of course, Galella is no ordinary paparazzi. He devoted his life to capturing the most elite of celebrities in the most ordinary of situations. He took up gardening and donned helmets all in an attempt at the perfect shot.

But why? Galella believed that moments like Jackie O biking with her kids through Central Park and celebrities leaving Studio 54 completely hammered were what the public wanted and needed to see.

Others say, “They’re just normal people. Give them some privacy! No one cares!”

If no one really cared, Galella wouldn’t have had ten books published of the photos.

If people didn’t care today, there wouldn’t be People magazine.

Cases have been made against paparazzi, including Galella himself. Galella sued Onassis and the Secret Service for interfering with his profession when they had him arrested after jumping out in front of Onassis’ son riding a bike. Onassis countersued for invasion of privacy, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and harassment.

Galella’s case was dismissed and he was given restraining orders to stay away from Onassis and her children.

In the movie, Galella said that was soon dropped because it hindered his profession.

Galella took photos in public spaces— parks, sidewalks, etc. That is legal.

But is it ethical to doggedly follow people’s every move? Even if they are celebrities?

As Deputy Chief Tim Becker told the class on Thursday, not all celebrities choose the spotlight.

But the paparazzi is there. They’re there outside celebrities’ homes. They’re chasing cars to the point of them crashing into pillars.

One coroner jury found that Princess Diana and her boyfriend were “unlawfully killed because their driver and pursuing paparazzi were reckless

I know some people want to be government watchdogs. They want to listen to police scanners and be the first on the scene of the crime. They want to scrutinize and digest reports that are hundreds of pages long.

There’s no question of whether or not that’s journalism.

But what about an episode of TMZ? Harvey Levin stands at the front of the newsroom as reporters (that look a little something like the photo to the left) gather around and share the news of where Bob Saget and John Stamos ate lunch together.

Is it necessary that the public knows this information? No.

Is it interesting and entertaining to some? Absolutely.

I’ve always loved entertaining people— it’s why I tell so many stories and laugh so loud at others’. It might not save lives, but it makes life better.

Journalists and paparazzi should never put people’s lives in danger. But they should also be willing to take a punch.

This is my favorite movie thus far. I was hooked from the start when Stephen Glass mused on what he values in journalism and sharing peoples’ stories. And you know my ears perked up when his teacher mentioned he freelanced with Rolling Stone.

But his character went downhill from there. Stephen Glass was shady.

Glass would constantly deny any affiliation to other media outlets. His constant response of “Oh, it’s nothing. I don’t know why they’re calling. Send it to voicemail,” would be comedic if it wasn’t sad how tangled in lies and in denial he was.

I don’t believe it is unethical to freelance for other publications while working already working at one. I just think it’s really weird to deny it.

It is flat out unethical to make up details of a story and have your brother pretend to be a source, however.

In the SPJ Code of Ethics, it says journalists should “take responsibility for the accuracy of their work.” Glass didn’t take any responsibility at all. He covered up lies with more lies. I think something must  have been messed up in his head. I just can’t fathom how someone could go through so many hurdles to produce something that was pure fiction. Writing fiction takes a lot of work. I think going out and interacting with real people isn’t as hard. You might not get fantastic, incredible stories every time, but the point of journalism isn’t to tell epic tales. It’s to report the truth.

The question in “Nothing but the Truth” is “When is there too much truth?”

Journalists duty is, according to the SPJ Code of Ethics, “seek truth and report it.” But what if said truth endangers others? That goes right against the other pillar of “do no harm.” What if revealing the truth is a federal crime?

In class, few of my classmates raised their hands when asked if they’re willing to go to prison for a story. Sure, you can report on culinary trends and rock bands without fear of persecution. But when you report on the government and deal with off the record, private information, there is that threat.

I think it is ethical that Armstrong didn’t give up her source. I do not, however, think it is ethical that she wrote the story.

The federal government didn’t think it was too lawful either.

When journalism students sit in class and imagine their future, I don’t think they picture their friends and subjects being killed before their eyes or spending the rest of their own lives behind bars. That shouldn’t be a deterrent. It just should be recognized.

Journalists should also be able to answer how much of the truth they think is necessary. That has to be determined on a personal level.

—-

SPJ Code of Ethics

In order to win a defamation case, a malice intent has to be proven. No intent, absence of malice, and the case is shut.

I do not think Megan Carter had any intent of malice. I mean, there’s many scenes in the movie proving she felt something completely different towards Gallagher.

Instead of aiming to harm, I think she was simply careless.

She wasn’t the only one. Her editor had no right to go in to her lead and change “suspect” to “prime suspect,” and other such changes. Changes like that made a pretty weak story into something worth publishing. Was it worth it?

I don’t think it was for Gallagher when his union workers quit.

I don’t think it was for Peron. That story was not worth her life.

Carter didn’t put the blade to Peron’s wrists but she did put her name in the paper when she explicitly asked to not be named.

A case can be made that Carter wouldn’t have been interested in the alibi if it wasn’t for her romantic flirtation with Gallagher. That conflict of interest propelled her to prove his innocence. Newspapers publish stories every day about people being arrested. Few have stories when they’re let go.

Why did Gallagher deserve to have his name cleared?

The whole story did come out at the end. I know that makes my classmates, who thought that it was unfair to not have followup stories, happy. I think that was also part of clearing the paper’s name after they damaged it in the beginning.

Journalists could learn from Carter’s mistakes though.

Don’t embellish the truth to make your own story better. It’s not worth someone’s life and their livelihood.

Don’t get on a boat with sources and drink their wine. It’s a slippery slope.

The message in this movie is similar to the one in House of Cards: Don’t. Sleep. With. Sources.

You only end up getting screwed again.

Journalists should stay true to themselves and true to their stories. They don’t need no man.

“You’re no Woodward and Bernstein,” is a common phrase aimed at reporters who are getting too big for their britches (that saying is courtesy of my southern grandma).

But what does it mean to be Woodward and Bernstein? What are their ethics? Are they still relevant in modern journalism?

The Washington Post’s Watergate story hinged on information given to them from “Deep Throat,” their source on deep background. This is one point of ethical debate– whether so much of a story can be dependent on a source that won’t even go on record. Other sources of theirs also refused to go on the record, preferring to stay on background for fear of backlash from their job and the government.

One side would say that all sources need to reveal themselves and take ownership of what they say. Otherwise what’s to say that they aren’t just making things up to attack or manipulate others in power? Naming sources creates credibility.

But from Woodward and Bernstein’s side, this was the only option to get information. It was a sensitive, scandalous issue. It’s reasonable that people wouldn’t want to go on record. Plus, hopefully, anything they say can be validated by other, on the record, sources.

People may say that some of Woodward and Bernstein’s actions put people in harm’s way, for example, the bookkeeper who seemed panicked and afraid on the phone. The Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics says “do no harm.” But it also says, “Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.” That’s exactly what Woodward and Bernstein did.

BUT, another section of the code of ethics says, “Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.”

It gets to be like an ethical game of table tennis.

Hindsight is always 20/20 and people are great at giving advice on situations that they aren’t personally responsible for.

I respect what Woodward and Bernstein did. I don’t think I could’ve handled it better than they did. I have a cute giggle and charm, but that wasn’t going to make Deep Throat reveal his true name or sources feel like their lives were safe in my hands.

If I was editor, I hope I would have held the story until it was backed up more in fact– like Ben Bradlee did. But I also know the journalistic world we live in and the blood pumping feeling when you have a scoop you want to share with the Twitterverse.

Social medias come and go though. Integrity is forever. It’s what separates the journalists who knock on door after door from the bloggers who sit on their couch going through beer after beer. It’s not right to alarm a nation to a scandal that’s actually false. It’s a privilege to be a watchdog who has sniffed out all the right details to make your case.

It’s a privilege to be a Woodward and Bernstein.

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