Class Reflection

The issue of race and the law enforcement of police has always been a touchy and topic, especially these year. Most parts of the class discussion about reconfirmed my opinions of this topic. I think media coverage plays an important role in how the public interpret and respond to the incidents covered, thus maintaining objective and fair towards the subjects covered become even more critical than in covering other topics.

 

 

Class Reflection

I definitely believe that people’s political opinion can be largely influenced by how people around them think and behave, that’s how polling impacts the choices people make when it comes to political life as well as other aspects of public life in a democratic society. Then it is interesting to think about the role media coverage is playing in formulating public opinions. I personally believe that for individuals living in today’s society, being exposed and influenced by media is inevitable as well as necessary to some extent- what others think do matters and what media presents can reflect the fact for the most part, however, I also believe that what being aware of such influence can be important. I mean, yes we will and somehow should be influenced by media, but the better we realize and understand this influence, the better we could make rational decisions when we vote or express our opinions towards critical social issues.

Class Reflection

Last week we discussed about undercover journalism. Personally I think judging whether or not undercover journalism is ethical is a case-by-case discussion, because in many stories that need to be covered can not be covered in a normal way, which would require journalists to “undercover” it. However, journalists definitely need to be very cautious when they are “undercovering” something, since somehow this special way of reporting and covering news could lead to problems of journalistic transparency and credibility when the reporters are not handling them well.

Class Reflection

Last week’s class discussion about open public records was really interesting and resonated with some of the class materials we read in the past. Open public records, overall, is about the freedom of information.  In the past , we discussed Sunshine Laws  and FOI a lot in and out of this class. Knowledge and tools to access public records, which plays a central role to the well-being of our democracy and journalists’ role as the “watch dog”. The difficulties today’s journalists are confronting in access to public records perfectly presents the dilemma of the “age of information”- several clicks can lead you to what you want to know, however it may take tons of time and energy to work around the “gatekeepers” of the information and get to know what you really need to know, which are public records in this case. Both articles have offered pretty effective tools to defend the freedom of information as well as to cast “sunshine” to the lay public, which could be helpful to us journalists as well as citizens.

Reflection#7

James McCarty began to talk about a case at Cleveland state about 20 years ago, where 9 Cleveland State baseball players had alleged rape charges. He talks about how poorly the players were treated, as they were brought out of the cell in handcuffs just so the media could take pictures of them. There was a tape recording that had been tampered with, with evidence that the sex was consensual. Jay, who played the tape for James, believed that the defendants should have some type of media supporting their side of the case. James stated that the defense lawyer, Jay, showed it to him. They knew that people might view this as unethical. In the end, Jay ended up being praised because the release of the tapes are what got the students off of the case. This was extremely interesting because lawyers sharing unreleased evidence with the media was unheard of, which paved the way for ethical hurdles down the road.

Reflection#5

The Charlie Hebdo case is no doubt a huge deal.  I think the legitimacy of the right Charlie Hebdo holds as a publication to challenge the ideals and ideas of Muslim governments should be defended, even though one doesn’t necessarily need to agree with the content the magazine published.

I hold this idea because I simply don’t think what Charlie Hebdo was aggressively criticizing has anything to do with the religion per se, but in fact, it’s all about politics, or more specifically, a pretty tyrannic way of governance cloaked by religion. Prophet Mohammed or Koran don’t tell people to bomb those who criticize Islam, but the governments/terrorists who take advantage of fundamentalism do. Anyone’s religious belief should be respected, however, politics and governments should be under the surveillance of citizens and media. No government would love to be criticized,  but only dictators kill people criticizing them.  To me, the Charlie Hebdo slaughter is just a horrifying incident that reminds me there are still such extreme dictatorship that couldn’t allow dissenting ideas to exist, it has nothing to do with religion.

Reflection#4

I still believe that the freedom of speech should be limited within the school system in a sense that the schools should have the right to enforce its rules when students behaviors or speech are inappropriate or being offensive to other students. What’s more, considering the educational purpose of school, the limit to the freedom speech within the school system is necessary also because it is an important way to teach the students how to utilize their right to free speech properly.

Reporter’s Notebook#6 Report Truth vs. Minimize Harm

The ethical issue raised by five articles assigned this week is the dilemmas between reporting truth and minimizing harm, especially when reporting on sensitive issues that could put journalists on sketchy ground ethically and legally.

Liability for intrusive or harassing news-gathering activities discuss the privacy-intrusive approach of news gathering such as  overly aggressive surveillance and the use of telephoto lens to capture photographs against news subjects especially public figures. The author of the article believes a useful way to determine whether or not a news-gathering activity is being overly aggressive and intrusive to the subject’s privacy is to ask yourself if you would assume it is the place where your would be photographed, videoed or sound-recorded.

SPJ Code of Ethics says to “avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public”, which also offers principles to the news gathering activities mentioned above.

How a Minneapolis Journalist Turned a Difficult Situation into a Human Triumph, Recommendations of Reporting on Suicide and Naming Victims of Sex Crimes, the three articles direct at a unified topic that how reporters could appropriately cover sensitive subjects, providing the public with clear and adequate information without traumatizing the related subjects or victims. the SPJ Code of Ethics offers pretty clear principles to direct journalists’ practice in reporting such topics-“show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage.Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent, ” states SPJ Code Ethics. However, unlike the ethics code which sounds pretty clear, in the real world, journalists may often find it extremely difficult to strike a balance between keeping the public informed and eliminating the potential harm to people involved. It requires not only well-grounded knowledge in what they are reporting, but also thorough understanding of the overall situation.

Where the Journal News went wrong in publishing names, addresses of gun owners discussed whether publishing a interactive gun ownership map should be considered ethical. The last part of the article, which discusses about the journalistic purpose of publishing some public records, kind of cast light on the ultimate question of all media coverage about sensitive topics-why we are covering it in the way we are covering it now? “If publishing the data because it is public and the public seems to be interested in the topic right now is reason enough, then there are endless databases to exploit,” said the author. Similarly, if publishing the privacy of a public figure, interrogating a victim of sexual crime or uncovering details of a suicide only because the public are curious about the topic, then it simply is not a good reason to cover it. Such an idea also echos SPJ Code of Ethics, which states that “avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.”

 

Reporter’s Notebook#5-Freedom of Information and Avoiding Steroetypes

Several articles of this week about avoiding stereotypes and drawing lines between news and opinions make a lot of sense to me. The ethical issue these articles raised is journalistic objectivity. The SPJ Code of Ethics says to seek truth and report it, which including avoid stereotypes and bias when reporting. Baron Calame’s article calls for a clearer line between opinion pieces and news articles. He thinks The New York Times isn’t doing a very good job in distinguishing news between commentary and analytical forms of journalism and both readers and the newspaper can benefit from a clearer line between the two. I’m personally an avid reader of all sorts of opinion pieces and believe that commentary and analytical content could be more important than dry facts-human beings are born opinionated after all. As long as the comments and analyses are rational and civilized, promoting well-thought conversations between citizens and remarkable insights into important social issues, there’s no reason to believe they deserve less respect than traditional news.  However it is because I see the value of opinion, it becomes even more necessary to make it crystal clear that opinions are NOT news that people can process and interpret them in different ways, otherwise opinion pieces would become hazard for journalism objectivity instead of a great arena for civilized debates.

Attitudes and Mindsets Hinder Journalists in and 3 things journalists can learn from ‘Linsanity’ cut into the topic of reporting accurately and objectively in a really interesting angle- the stereotypes overcast the minority groups in news reporting that have always been there, affecting both journalists and audience in one way or another. Mary Weston’s article says that “unconsciously journalists often replicate the distorted images and stereotypes of Native peoples that have been part of our culture since the first European contacts with peoples of the Americas” while “Jeremy Lin is ascribed to Asian Americans in a stereotypical way”. I think the best thing we could do to avoid the stereotype over minorities in our news coverage is to be aware of the existence of the stereotype in our mind and never jump to any easy conclusion by simply tagging someone by his/her identity. Struggle more over what’s presumed as common sense, think thoroughly, be suspicious to ourselves, and then we could do better on this.

Sunshine Laws  and FOI provide us with knowledge and tools to access public records, which plays a central role to the well-being of our democracy and journalists’ role as the “watch dog”. The difficulties today’s journalists are confronting in access to public records perfectly presents the dilemma of the “age of information”- several clicks can lead you to what you want to know, however it may take tons of time and energy to work around the “gatekeepers” of the information and get to know what you really need to know, which are public records in this case. Both articles have offered pretty effective tools to defend the freedom of information as well as to cast “sunshine” to the lay public, which could be helpful to us journalists as well as citizens.

 

Reflection#3

Last week’s class made me think a lot about the topic of libel and “actual malice” when it come to public figures. I think the current law makes it almost impossible to “libel” a public figure because the standard for it is held super high and proving “actual malice” extremely hard. I personally believe it is sort of unfair, given the fact that the rumors and groundless speeches are all over the place on tabloids, a large proportion of which are, by any standards, privacy of public figures. I’m all for the freedom of speech and press, however, I think more disciplines on the speeches about privacy of public figures are for the good of the public figures and the good of all.

I also like the presentations about the content and demographics of media. I think getting to know the political inclination of different media and who are watching it help me to be more aware of the fact that what I read are not absolute facts, so are other’s- they are just information processed and interpreted, which means they could be biased and even wrong. I believe for journalists, being aware of the existence of bias is of similar importance to adjusting the bias when reporting.