The best ways for publishers to build credibility through transparency

I found this article to be beneficial in terms of being a writer and reader of journalism. I know most of us really wonder how truthful journalists can be and how much of what they say is truth and how much is simply propaganda. After looking at how different new sources can report on the same topic in such different ways in class, it really makes me question who can trust and who is actually being transparent. I enjoyed the link that this piece made by stating reporters job is to report the truth, therefor they themselves should also be truthful. I think it’s awful that people feel the need to twist facts to engage their audience, often altering the truth but it is so prominent in todays media. I think the best point made is to create credibility be as tranpsparent as possible. I think this is great advice because the more that is out there and openely known, the less there is to create false ideas about. I also thought the below list was helpful:

1. Show the reporting and sources that support your work
2. Collaborate with the audience
3. Curate and attribute information responsibly
4. Offer disclosures and statements of values
5. Correct website and social media errors effectively

https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/strategy-studies/transparency-credibility/

Do Times Journalists Pay Attention to Readers’ Comments?

I think that this is an interesting topic. It seems like today everyone has an opinion about absolutely everything and its no surprise to me that these reportes state that their stories often get hundreds of comments. I mean someone can post a single picture of a cat on facebook and get a million comments, so its only natural a story with real content get some. I find it refreshing to hear that journalists so high in their profession still take time to see what the readers are saying since its them they are writing for. I think its cool that these journalists in particular said that there comments help with follow up stories and help them at times gain sources. Maybe, its a bit of inspiration to comment more since those comments are being heard.

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/do-times-journalists-pay-attention-to-readers-comments/

Do You Trust Rolling Stone?

After focussing pretty heavily on The Rolling Stones rape at UV story throughout this semester and finding so many errors in their reporting process for that story i find it slightly difficult to be able to sit down and read a story from them and take it as facts, although this is often hard to do when reading any news source completely. Honestly, everyone makes mistakes, but to me atleast, a mistake as big as the UV rape case is one that causes me to question the credibility of Rollings Stones entire writing/editorial process. Yes, the subject lied… a lot, but she was a young girl looking for fame. The writer, editors and fact checkers are professionals with a sole job of reporting truth. With so many holes in the story someone along the line should have said “hey, this doesnt add up” and the story should have been halted then and there, end of story. For them to go back and place blame on the subject is very dishonorable since it’s their job to check facts out. So while i strongly believe everyone does make mistakes, i feel like this one was a little too large to ignore and the company should look into enforcing more intense procedures for fact checking.

http://blogs.spjnetwork.org/ethics/2015/04/06/do-you-trust-rolling-stone/

Lyin’ Williams

This article examines a pretty well known story of Williams being over seas reporting and being around close to the same time helicopters had been shot down. In reality he was behind them, but as time progressed his story changed putting him in the helicopter that was attacked. While i do believe that he may have exxagerated the story to help make it more dramatic while honoring a veteran, i dont buy that he forgot. He talked about the incident correctly in the past, and during such a traumatic event he would have remembered the details. I really dont have much to say other than how dumb can someone be? You’re on national tv reporting a story that you have previously spoken about in a different way, you think no one is going to notice? Come on!

http://thesak.tumblr.com/post/110195051742/lyin-williams

What We Should Ask About Williams’ Mistake

I like how this article was formed in a more step by step format showing how the corrections and/or the consequences progress. I also think the medical perspective is important, although i dont buy it in these instances. Everything else about this article basically alligned with the previous in terms of facts stated. I think its important this showed the consequences because we often are unaware to how things like this play out. I think suspension without pay was a good start, but if there is continued evidence of this happening on key details consitently i think he either needs his brain checked or fired becuase he is creating serious credibility issues for himself and his parent news organization, i mean he’s not seeking truth, he’s just reporting fictional stories.

http://blogs.spjnetwork.org/ethics/2015/02/06/what-we-should-be-asking-about-williams-mistake/

I’m uploading the assignment syllabus with links to all RN subjects to look at in the future.

Assignment-Syllabus-2015-2hfndkb

Native ads aren’t as clear as outlets think

This article addresses something that I think is very relevant in today’s society and that is branding things so people think they are consuming one thing, while in reality it is something published with different intents and often times the consumer is unaware. While I think this is a problem, we all know corporations are out for one thing, and that is economic success, and many achieve conveying there products through native ads. I think that while it is a very widespread issue that creates problems it is hard to monitor because it is just out there in so many forms and is often times hard to even differentiate from other types of ads. I think the most important quote from this article is as follows: “The gravest threat is to the media themselves,” said Bob Garfield, co-host of On The Media and a MediaPost columnist. “With every transaction, publishers are mining and exporting that rarest of rare resources: trust. Those deals (with advertisers) will not save the media industry. They will, in a matter of years, destroy the media industry, one boatload of shit at a time.”

Editorial Guidelines

I think that these guidelines seem pretty common sense but it is a good thing to document for future reference. I think that its interesting that there are these guidelines and how some companies can follow them yet still create ads that are often able to be confused for editorial items. I oftentimes encounter ads that work to look like editorial items in magazines like Cosmopolitan and find myself starting to read them until I come across the line that states its an advertisement. Below is the link with the full list of guidelines for future reference. http://www.magazine.org/asme/editorial-guidelines

Yet again, ABC has disclosure problems

While it is seen unethical is the journalism world to pay subjects of stories and interviews, I don’t see how people are surprised by the act. In todays society money talks and in most cases is the only way to get people to talk. We often hear of media paying celebrities for photos of their wedding or newborn baby, so what’s different in paying subjects for personal photos? While I do agree that it may have been proper for the payment information to be disclosed to the public I wonder and question if it would have changed anything? I don’t believe that the output, or input of information would have changed greatly and I don’t think that it is that big of a deal. Im interested to hear others opinions on this topic and what others think the issue with the payment may be?

Cooperating with the Government

I think this case study posed an interesting argument on when cooperating with government is needed and who is responsible for the majority of the cooperation. In the prison standoff mentioned in the article I don’t think that the government was asking anything unreasonable by urging media not to publish names in hopes of protecting all parties as one of the major codes of ethics is to minimize harm. I think that in other scenarios that cooperation can be a bit more cloudy because someone will know something and leak some information and people will want to know more. I think as long as the request is reasonable than it should be respected to the extent that it will do more good than harm to not disclose all information immediately. I also think in regards to people creating rumors around lacking evidence is something that will inevitably happen and media can avoid this by disclosing enough information that the story line is clear without producing harm.

Michigan Needs a New Voice: Challenging Censorship in the Wolverine State

This article goes along with a case that we discussed earlier in class, therefore a lot of the background information on this issue was previously discussed in the RN. I think the act that is being discussed in Michigan is of grave importance as I agree with the author that the majority of schools administrations does look down upon on the importance of journalism in schools. I think the common sense approach is honestly common sense, but in both public schools and universities common sense is a thing often forgotten. In regards to the particular article mentioned about the hookah pen article, it provided no harm to anyone and actually addressed a legitimate concern. Personally, having many experiences in high school where my speech was limited in both yearbook, and broadcasting I see how it is a rising issue, and how even the faculty that advises these groups suffer from the reach of the faculty too. I think that if this act passed it would be a reassuring action for all young journalists, and I would hope other states would follow.

Terrorists Strike Charlie Hebdo Newspaper in Paris, Leaving 12 Dead

I think that this article is just another example of extremists in our world today that threaten the safety of all in their surroundings. Im not sure if there are more crazies now than in the past or if they are just covered more in the media today than in the past? Regardless, it is quite frightening that we live in a world with people like this. I think what these two Paris born Muslims was unthinkable, even if Hebdo offended them. I mean come on, Hebdo offends everyone at some point.

Political Polling’s Unfavorables Are on the Rise

This article made me more aware of the corruption and how politicians use polling to advance there cause. honestly, prior to this article I kind of just took polling as an honest representation of peoples opinions and never thought how it could be used to alter opinion. I also found it interesting how such a big operation, like Gallup, found their own practices so corrupt and came clean about them. I cant believe that they were noble enough to withdraw themselves from reporting on the presidential race in fear of credibility.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/gallup-poll-2016-presidential-primary-fivethirtyeight/409531/

Horse Race Coverage & the Political Spectacle

This article was quite lengthy and addressed many of the ideas mentioned in the above piece. Due to its length I will post the link for future reference also. I think that horse racr journalism has come to be the only way to report on politics today because everyone wants to strike it big with there story I think that the most important idea in the entirety of this piece was as follows:

63% of the campaign stories focused on political and tactical aspects compared to just 17% that focused on the personal backgrounds of the candidates, 15% that focused on the candidates’ ideas and policy proposals and just 1% of stories that examined the candidates’ records or past public performance.

http://bigthink.com/age-of-engagement/horse-race-coverage-the-political-spectacle

Zacchini v.Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Company

The facts: A free lance reporter recorded footage of a performer doing a stunt and the footage was aired on TV, then the performer tried to sue the broadcasting company because he felt footage of him was his property.

• The issue: Do the First and Fourteenth Amendments immunize the Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. from damages for its alleged infringement of an entertainer’s state-law right of publicity?

• The rule: The first amendment protects free speech, while the fourteenth protects property, the question that lies within this case is does the rule protect the defendant or the respondent.

• The holding: The amendment mentioned above do not allow the media to broadcast a performers act in its entirety without their consent.

• The rationale: Broadcasting part of a performance is considered newsworthy, therefor broadcasting entities are allowed to air pieces of a performance without permission, but the entire act was determined to be categorically different and requires the consent of the performer.

“Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Company.” Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Nov 9, 2015. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/76-577>

Lying to Get the Truth

This piece published on the American Journalism Review website, although quite long, presented readers with an interesting perspective on undercover journalism. I feel like in movies we always see journalists being portrayed as being ultra sneaky and always going  undercover, almost like spies, but in reality that’s not really the case. This article talks about how Silverstein creates a fake identity and company and takes on the lobbying groups in Washington. All the companies bought his alter-ego, and took the bait, and from the there a story was crafted on how lobbying is a big money business and it’s tactic’s are often questionable at best. His findings revealed some things that weren’t necessarily common knowledge, and made the public more aware of how business is done in Washington. Personally, I don’t think that the findings helped a lot, as it is noted that the company’s clientele remained loyal, but with the same facts in mind I also don’t see it being very harmful, it just happened.

The latter part of the piece focuses more on how this had an effect on public perception of journalists, and how other journalists and media officials responded to Silverstein’s undercover ventures. It is argued quite in depth that since Silverstein used sneaky tactics to gain access and was willing to lie about his identity for the information, how do readers know that he is also not lying about the information. Some more public figures like Fuller who was mentioned several times in the piece said things like “We would not allow reporters to misrepresent themselves in any way, and I don’t think we would be the hidden owners of anything,”. It is quite apparent that many didnt like the tactics used, and find undercover journalism to be un-sensational and cause for questions on validity to arise. Silverstein took to the criticism saying “I could have written about sleazy lobbyists. I’ve written that story before,” Silverstein says. “It was in the way that they behave, the presentation, that gives the story its impact. I think it’s in the public interest to present that story.”, basically saying that he regrets nothing and feels that he is doing the public good.

Personally, I don’t see that much wrong with the whole act of undercover journalism. Our country, along with all other nations, use spies all the time to spy on subjects that they think are being disloyal, so as journalists seek truth and represent the public, why can’t we as the public employ them to be our spies who look into matters? I also don’t necesarily think that this makes journalists less likely for the public to trust, yes maybe the people being reported may not trust them, but why would the public trust them any less? We always say media lies, so I think this just is another instance where we should decide for ourselves. The only fault I think Silverstein made was not going back for comments from the company, there is nothing less satisfying to read than a completely one sided story, and i feel that the companies input would have given a more rounded representation of the issue at hand.

The landmark Food Lion case

This was a rather short read, and basically just talked about how news gathering entities aren’t protected by the First amendment if they seek a job by using false information with intentions to only stay for a short time and use footage gathered at said job for a news story. The case that this claim was based off of involved two ABC employees seeking employment at Food Lion where they worked for two short weeks gathering footage and inside information on the way that the meat there was handled and sold. They aired the footage and claimed that Food Lion and it’s employees used unsafe and unsanitary practices in regards to their meat. Food Lion initially sought out to sue ABC for fraud, breach of the duty of loyalty, trespass and unfair trade practices under North Carolina law. The case went through several courts before “The court held that the lower court correctly declined to apply a First Amendment analysis to Food Lion’s breach of loyalty and trespass claims. The laws regarding employee loyalty and trespass were laws of general application, from which the press could not be exempt, and the application of those laws to the media would have merely “an ‘incidental effect’ on newsgathering,” the court found. (Ramussen)”.

Recording — State hidden camera statutes

For journalist, this, in my opinion, may be one of the most important reads out there. It provides a general outline of the laws that involve recording both audio of conversations and video surveillance. Since I think that these may be important things to know, I will provide an even more summarized version of these guidelines.

– If both parties openly consent to audio recording it is legal, this includes scenarios that the recording device is openly visible in which consent is presumed.

– In 38 out of 50 states, including Ohio, allow you to record a conversation to which you are a party without consent of the other parties. Federal wiretap statutes also permit this so-called one-party-consent recording of telephone conversations in most circumstances although state laws may have different laws in regards to wire tapping.

– The federal wiretap law, passed in 1968, permits surreptitious recording of conversations when one party consents, “unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.”

-Most of the states permit the recording of speeches and conversations that take place where the parties may reasonably expect to be recorded.

– The laws of 13 states expressly prohibit the unauthorized installation or use of cameras in private places, although Ohio is not one of these. Be extra careful with this law as if convicted, you may be faced with a felony in some states.

https://www.rcfp.org/first-amendment-handbook/introduction-recording-state-hidden-camera-statutes

The Ethics of Undercover Journalism

This article seemed very similar to the “Lying to get the Truth” article we also read for class today. This article focused on O’Keefe and his very unorthodox tactics of gathering information and creating stories, with a even greater focus on how he did this in regards to trying to tap into a New Orleans senators phone to see if she was in fact ignoring her constituents calls. O’Keefe defended himself and the way he works by saying the following: “on reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation,” he also told Hannity he was operating in an established tradition: “We used the same tactics that investigative journalists have been using. In all the videos I do, I pose as something I’m not to try to get to the bottom of the truth.”. This piece goes on to mention that the motivation for O’Keefe to do these things are even more unorthodox and cloud the idea that he may or may not be a true journalist. The author also mentions a couple other cases of undercover journalism that we have read about for today. I think the most important information in this piece is in regards to when undercover journalism may be acceptable, since it is widely apparent many people dislike such tactics. It is stated in this piece which is a citation from Bob Steele, They state that deception and hidden cameras may be appropriate:

– When the information obtained is of profound importance. It must be of vital public interest, such as revealing great “system failure” at the top      levels, or it must prevent profound harm to individuals.

– When all other alternatives for obtaining the same information have been exhausted.

Attached is the link to the Ohio Sunshine Laws:

http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/YellowBook

and this link is a shorter, more summarized version of the laws since the one above is so extensive.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/ohio/ohio-protections-sources-and-source-material