Posts

Wag The Dog, produced and directed by Barry Levinson, is a fictional black comedy film in which a well known ‘spin doctor’ attempts to cover up the current President’s wrongdoings with an underage ‘firefly girl’ as he attempts to get re-electing in the coming days. In order to direct attention away from the ‘firefly girl,’ Conrad Brean, the spin doctor, elects to create a fake TV war in Albania. With the help of Hollywood producer Stanley Motss, Brean is able to make the pseudo-war believable through the use of fake videos and a fake war hero, leading to the American public completely diverting its attention away from the alleged sexual advances by the current President. Eventually, with the extreme support form the American public concerning the ‘war,’ the current President was able to remain in office for another term.

I’m not sure if there is any U.S. citizen (or any human for that matter), that would be ok with governmental manipulation in the media. Although Wag The Dog portrays a completely fictitious and otherwise completely impractical premise, it does raise many relevant questions and ideas concerning manipulation in media. What spin doctor Conrad Brean and his team was not ethical, as they, along with the President, misled and lied to the general public on a very serious matter. Although the immediate implications regarding the President’s ‘false’ election, if it were to ever come out that the war in Albania was not true, more than the Presidency would be at stake. The American public, as suspicious as they are now, would question everything that makes up the government regarding secrecy and national security. Ironically, the U.S. government, in conjunction with the U.S. Patriot Act, is able to know all that is going on with its citizens. Conversely, the American public has little to no idea of all that is going on behind the scenes with the U.S. government.

Journalistically speaking, media manipulation varies on a case to case basis. For Wag The Dog, the media outlets running the story had no knowledge that the war was completely fabricated; however they could have made an attempt to legitimize the war accounts on a first-hand basis.

In 2013, CNN was caught staging news segments on Syria with actors that staged news reports among other topics. Other examples stem from local news broadcasts reusing the same dialogue for a segment, and even completely staging a news segment about the First Gulf War (CNN as well). A journalist’s primary duty is to report nothing but the truth and the whole truth; in the case of CNN, their false reports directly infringe on what it means to be a journalist. CNN knew what they were delivering was false, but they elected to run it anyway, as convincing it may have been at the time.

It appears as though most of media manipulation occurs via broadcast journalism. Personally, I don’t plan on going into broadcast journalism, so I’m probably less likely to encounter a time when manipulating media is a possibility. With that being said, I still do not condone any sort of false reporting and I believe there is no place for it in journalism. With the ever-increasing accessibility of information available, the ability to willingly manipulate news has drastically decreased. I have no doubt that if a Presidential campaign attempted to stage a war, someone would almost immediately find it to be completely false. Journalists need to recognize the ethical implications before attempting to manipulate news. What does it mean to be a journalist? It definitely doesn’t mean creating fake stories or newscasts to misinform the general public.

SOURCE LIST

CNN’s Fake Newscast From The First Gulf War

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gd8SdV80AL8

Newscasters Agree: A Christmas Present Or Two Or Ten Edition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM8L7bdwVaA

Vibes, JG. “CNN Caught Staging News Segments on Syria with Actors.”Intellihub. Unbound Media Group, 7 Dec. 2013. Web. 19 Apr. 2015.

Wag The Dog. Dir. Barry. Levinson. Perf. Robert De Niro, Anne Heche, Dustin Hoffman. New Line Cinema, 1997. Stream.

Photo Manipulation in the Media (1)

Smash His Camera, directed by Leon Gast, recalls the life and career of Galella, a notorious paparazzo who many call “the Godfather of the U.S. paparazzi culture.” Throughout the documentary, Ron Galella recounts his various endeavors as a photographer. Now 84, Ron Galella continues to photograph celebrities for a living. Intention or not, Smash His Camera, brings to light a number of different ethical issues ranging from privacy to the types of figures (public v. private).

Ron Galella has made a rather lucrative living photographing celebrities without their consent. Unsurprisingly, almost all of those photographed did not want to be photographed, often resorting to avoiding the camera by covering their face or with the use of bodyguards. Perhaps the most well known subject of Ron Galella’s photography was former First Lady of the United States Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. ‘Jackie’ was so upset over Galella’s constant pursuit that she eventually filed a legal suit against Galella, leading to the 1972 free speech trial Galella v. Onassis that resulted in a restraining order that required Galella to remain at least 25 feet away from Jackie at all times. The title of the documentary, Smash His Camera, is taken from a quote from Jackie Kennedy when Galella pursued her and her son. This court case brought about the issue of privacy; specifically concerning public figures. In the trial, Jackie argued that he was not in fact a public figure, so her rights to privacy were greater than the typical celebrity. However, during the trial, hundreds of people gathered to watch the proceedings, perhaps showing that she was a public figure. According to the lectures, an all purpose public figure is one who has widespread fame or notoriety; I would argue that Jackie Onassis was an all purpose figure as she garnered notoriety wherever she went.

Conversely, I don’t think what Ron Galella does is ethical. Again looking at the lectures provided for class regarding ethics and photography, a checklist can be used to determine whether or not one should shoot or not. The checklist goes as follows: 1. Should this moment be made public? 2. Will being photographed lead to further trauma? 3. Am I at least obtrusive distance possible? 4. Am I acting with compassion and sensitivity? When looking at this checklist, I don’t think Ron Galella, or any other paparazzi member should ever take a photograph of a celebrity without their consent. The paparazzi violates all four of the checklist questions, especially the last question; Galella is always acting in personal interest when photographing celebrities, never thinking about how the celebrities feel about being intruded upon.

I don’t agree with Galella or any other paparazzo’s actions, but what they do is not strictly illegal. I don’t plan on ever becoming a paparazzo, as I don’t have a particular interest in kowing about celebrities’ daily lives, but I know there are millions of people who do. As long as there is a demand for intrusive and revealing photos of public figures, the paparazzi will continue to intrude upon celebrities no matter the circumstance. Ethics doesn’t seem to exist in the code of  the paparazzi. I don’t think the average person can be a paparazzo; it takes a special breed of people to pursue celebrities without hesitation.

SOURCE LIST

“Galella v. Onassis Case Brief.” Galella v. Onassis Case Brief. 4LawSchool, 2012. Web. 02 Apr. 2015.

Smash His Camera. Dir. Leon Gast. Perf. Ron Galella. Magnolia Pictures, 2010. OSU Media Library. Web. 31 Mar. 2015.

3404 Lecture Video: Libel and Public Figures. Prod. Nicole Kraft. 8 Sept. 2013. Web. 2 Apr. 2015.

3404 Lecture Video: Ethics and Photography. Prod. Nicole Kraft. 3 Sept. 2013. Web. 2 Apr. 2015.

Based on a true story, Shattered Glass (2003) details the rise and fall of young and ambitious reporter Stephen Glass. While working for The New Republic during the mid 1990s, Stephen Glass effectively fabricated 27 of his 41 articles published by The New Republic. All of Glass’ wrongdoings were eventually brought to light in the midst of a published article about a young hacker who had reportedly hacked a large technology company resulting in  a security job for said hacker. In the article, numerous details were given about the negotiation between the hacker and the CEO of Jukt Micronics, the supposed company that was subject to the hack. After the article is published, a reporter at Forbes Digital Tool begins researching the story to discover how Glass was able to find the hacker. Following the inquiry, the same reporter is unable to uncover any evidence for Glass’ story and immediately brings his concerns to his editor and The New Republic, resulting in the unraveling of numerous stories found to be fabricated by Stephen Glass.

The overarching journalistic theme examined in this film is the complex issue of fabrication concerning the publication of articles. As mentioned in the film, The New Republic is the official publication of Air Force One, generating the reputation as being reputable and highly respected. For Stephen Glass, writing for one of the most prestigious papers in the United States, falsifying stories and/or sources is a serious matter. A journalist’s primary responsibility is to seek the truth and report it; according to the SPJ Code of Ethics, a journalists should always “identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.” By fabricating his stories, Stephen Glass is directly violating one of the most important duties of a journalist. In the case of ‘Hacker Haven,’ the article about the teenaged hacker, Glass completely lied about all the events in the story and the subjects of the story; Glass was effectively writing fiction as nonfiction. The act of fabricating a news story is not illegal per se, however, the consequences that follow if caught are sometimes far more damaging than jail time. A journalist’s credibility is based solely on his/her’s ability to tell and report the truth. After Glass was found out to be a fraud, he was fired from his job at The New Republic, as the publication had to apologize publicly for Glass’ wrongdoings. Reputation is everything for a news publication, and fabrication is the easiest way to lose said reputation.

As mentioned, Stephen Glass’ story is completely nonfiction (unlike his 27 stories). After Glass was fired from The New Republic, he opted to attend law school. However, upon graduation, Glass was not admitted to the bar in California after failing the moral fitness test, stemming from his history of journalistic deception. Glass is not the only journalist to falsify stories and/or sources. Others who have fabricated stories include Mike Daisy, who fabricated details of his experiences with Apple factories in China, and Janet Cook, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1981 for a fabricated article about an eight year old heroin addict. A more recent occurrence of news fabrication came when Brian Williams, anchor and editor of NBC Nightly News, was found to have misrepresented events during the Iraqi War in 2003. All the journalists mentioned have seen their share of criticism and consequences; currently, Brian Williams is suspended for six months from NBC. From now on, Brian Williams’ reputation will be tarnished. Williams, like all of those who are found out to have fabricated stories, will never attain the same amount of credibility that they had before their finding out.

Provided I do attain a career as a journalist, I plan to never fabricate any part of my stories. While watching the film, knowing that Glass had completely faked the entire story beforehand, I became increasingly more uncomfortable as Glass dug himself a deeper hole. The feeling that I get when I lie is one of the worst I have ever experienced, I can’t imagine that feeling on a much greater scale, where your reputation as an honest person is everything. As a child, I have had the unpleasant feeling of lying on top of other lies that were eventually found out to be untrue. Based solely on my moralistic values, I don’t think I will ever attempt to fabricate any sort story.

SOURCE LIST

Cooke, Janet. “Jimmy’s World.” The Washington Post 28 Sept. 1980: A1. The Washington Post Archive. The Washington Post. Web. 11 Mar. 2015.

Fallows, James. “The Sad and Infuriating Mike Daisey Case.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 17 Mar. 2012. Web. 11 Mar. 2015.

Plotz, David. “Stephen Glass Should Be A Lawyer.” Slate. The Slate Group, 27 Jan. 2014. Web. 11 Mar. 2015.

Shattered Glass. Dir. Billy. Ray. Perf. Hayden Christensen and Chloe Sevigny. Lions Gate Films Inc., 2003. Online Stream.

“SPJ Code of Ethics.” Society of Professional Journalists. Society of Professional Journalists, n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

Nothing But The Truth, written and directed by Rod Lurie, follows the life of a reporter named Rachel Armstrong in the midst of a legal battler after refusing to reveal her original source regarding (former) CIA operative Erica Van Doren. Armstrong’s story about Van Buren has serious national implications, as Van Doren was investigating the recent assassination attempt of the President of United States in Venezuela. In addition, because revealing a covert operative’s identity is a form of treason, and because the Rachel’s source is a potential threat to national security, federal prosecutor Patton Dubois demands to know who the source is for the sake of national security. After Armstrong refuses to reveal her source, she is jailed for contempt of court. Even after almost an entire year of jailing, the collapse of her marriage, and the murder of Van Doren, Armstrong still maintains her integrity and does not reveal her source.

In the view of Armstrong and her newspaper, by simply publishing the article about Van Doren, she did nothing illegal. Because the story is 100% accurate, it cannot be considered libelous, even if it does damage Van Doren’s standing as a government operative. By refusing to reveal her source, Armstrong maintains her journalistic integrity, knowing that if she did reveal her source, her career would be in jeopardy. As her attorney stated to both the Supreme Court and Judge Hall, by revealing her source, Armstrong, along with her newspaper, would never again be able to use anonymous sources. Moreover, Armstrong’s defense attorney, standing before the Supreme Court, used the court case Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) to help Armstrong’s case. Even though the SCOTUS ruled against the right to withhold the names of their sources before a grand jury in a close 5-4 decision, the court went on to say “as the years pass, the power of government becomes more and more pervasive. Those in power, whatever their politics, want only to perpetuate it, and the people are the victims.” Burnside, Armstrong’s attorney, argues that the years have passed, and Armstrong’s decision to stay quiet should be treated differently than the similar court case of 1972.

Even though Armstrong’s article did not break any laws, her source, unknowingly or not, committed an act of treason by revealing a covert operative’s identity, it is in the government’s best interest concerning security to find who revealed the confidential information. National security as at the most risk in this particular case; if the source were a ‘mole’ in the CIA, the entire county could be compromised at an international level. Obviously, once the viewer learns the identity of the source, none of what was mentioned above was true, but that’e not the point. The government, regardless of the circumstances, needs to do what it takes to keep its citizens safe; for all they know, Armstrong’s source could have other intentions relating to the CIA.

The Intelligence Identity Act of 1882 is a federal lawthat makes it a crime for those with access to classified information, or those who systematically seek to identify and expose covert agents of the U.S., to intentionally reveal the identity of an agent whom one knows to be in or recently in certain covert roles with a U.S. intelligence agency. For Armstrong, this law was the direct grounds for her arrest; Armstrong had direct knowledge of Van Buren’s operations in Venezuela, and, as a journalist, made her intent to expose said operative. Had Armstrong been fully aware of this act, perhaps she would have gone about this story differently and more cautiously.

Had I been in Armstrong’s gold mine turned predicament, it’s easy to say that I wouldn’t have run the story. However, this type of story is what a journalist lives for, so, acting on instinct, I think I would have run the story. However, being faced with almost a year’s worth of jail time, I think I would have revealed my source. Because the source was a child, unknowingly breaking the law, I think the situation would have been much less consequential than what both Armstrong and Dubois anticipated.

Nothing But The Truth was loosely inspired by the case of journalist Judith Miller, who was jailed for contempt of court for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury investigating a leak naming Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative. Although Armstrong’s story does not completely link to Miller’s case, the roots for both of their arrests are practically indistinguishable. As with any confidential source, journalists always need to be aware of the many implications both ethically and legally. With information being easier to obtain than ever before, journalists and sources alike need to always be conscious of the laws, regulations, and ramifications regarding anonymous sources.

SOURCE LIST

Branzburg v. Hayes. OYEZ. Supreme Court Of The United States. 29 June 1972.

Elsea, Jennifer K. Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1982. Congressional Research Service, 10 Apr. 2011. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.

Liptak, Adam, and Clifford J. Levy. “The Miller Case: A Notebook, A Cause, a Jail Cell and a Deal.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Oct. 2005. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.

Nothing But The Truth. Dir. Rod Lurie. Perf. Kate Beckinsale and Mat Dillon. Yari Film Group, 2008. Online Stream.

“Absence of Malice,” directed by Sydney Pollack, follows the investigation of Michael Gallagher, mostly in part by a an investigative journalist named Megan Carter. Throughout the film, several ethical decisions are made, not only by Carter, but by others involved in the investigation as well. In short, the D.A., lead by two men named Bob Balaban and Elliot Rosen, manipulate Carter into writing a story implicating Michael Gallagher as a key suspect in a crime involving a murder of a local longshoreman.

As Carter investigates Gallagher further, she starts to realize his innocence in the murder, eventually leading to Carter meeting with one of Gallagher’s close friends. Teresa Peron, a devout Catholic and friend of Gallagher’s, tells Carter in confidence that Gallagher couldn’t have been involved in the murder because he was driving her out of town for an abortion. Because of her religion, Peron wishes that Carter not reveal this publicly. It is at this point where Carter is faced with perhaps the largest ethical decision presented in the film. Does she run the story in it’s entirety, or does she keep Peron’s account private?

A journalist’s primary objective is to report the truth, and Carter does so concerning Peron’s account of Gallagher’s whereabouts during the alleged murder. What Carter writes in her story is factually accurate and is in no way illegal to print. In addition, Peron’s testimony to Carter immensely helps Gallagher’s case of innocence. Carter’s livelihood is predicated on reporting the news, one could easily argue that Carter was simply doing her job as an investigative reporter.

Conversely, when observing Carter’s decision to run the story about Peron and Gallagher, it can be argued that Carter failed to forsee the possible consequences that could arise with the running of the story. After the story ran, Peron, ashamed of herself, committed suicide. Obviously Carter was not at all involved in Peron’s decision to get an abortion, but Peron was very clear that she did not want the story run. Carter had already ruined Gallagher’s business by reporting the supposed investigation in the first place, so it might’ve  been in Carter’s best interest to hold off on the Peron story and attempt to find other evidence regarding Gallagher’s innocence.

Had I been in Carter’s position, having already looked at the planted investigation file about Gallagher and reported the story, I don’t think I would have immediately run the story about Peron’s abortion. In this particular scenario, I would have already done enough harm to Gallagher and his business, running the story with such consequential and personal information would be extremely risky both in part of Peron’s well-being, but also my own. However, if I were unable to uncover any more information linked to Gallagher’s supposed innocence, I would seriously consider running the story of Peron’s account; provided that it was the only way I could prove Gallagher’s innocence.

Privacy is not in the Constitution, and in this case, Peron’s privacy regarding her abortion is in question. According to the online lecture regarding privacy, the court says ‘liberty’ includes personal privacy, more specifically bedroom protections (contraceptive distribution, same sex contact, and abortion.) So, without further context, perhaps Carter was not only ethically in the wrong by publishing her story, but also lawfully as well. However, because Peron explicitly told Carter about the abortion (publicly), Peron’s abortion can no longer be considered private information, no matter how much Peron doesn’t want it disclosed. Moreover, Carter’s story had larger implications than just reporting a Catholic woman’s abortion. Peron’s alibi directly involves a murder case, it is perfectly possible that her account is the only thing that prevents Gallagher from being wrongly convicted.

50% of journalists are sued at one point in time during their careers, Megan Carter’s complex situation can be paralleled to almost every investigative journalist today. And unless journalists know their limits regarding privacy, malice, etc., it is very likely that they will face serious consequences. “Absence of Malice” provides its viewer with a very real situation brought about by immediate reporting and the want to break a story first. In today’s internet driven world, attention to journalism ethics is even more important than ever before. Nothing on the internet is truly removed, so any mistake a journalist may make can always come back to hurt their careers.

Source List:

Absence of Malice. Dir. Sydney Pollack. Columbia Pictures, 1981. Online.

Throughout the film All The President’s Men, Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein are subjected to a number of difficult ethical situations while trying to uncover all the facts regarding Watergate. As Woodward and Bernstein gradually put the pieces together, it became evident that those involved (directly or not) would be apprehensive in providing the reporters with useful and definite evidence. Because of the severity and implications of the Watergate scandal, Woodward and Bernstein had a wearisome time trying to get someone to go on record concerning Watergate, specifically confirming the Haldeman connection. As a result, Woodward and Bernstein had to resort to a number of morally and ethically gray methods for obtaining information.

What Bernstein and Woodward did to get the information they needed for their story can be interpreted in a number of different ways. According to the SPJ Code of Ethics, under the Minimize Harm subheading, journalists should “balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.” By this standard, Woodward and Bernstein should not have continually pursued their sources for definite information. Based on the movie’s portrayal of the events, all sources linked to Haldeman were visibly hesitant and even more so uncomfortable when approached by the two reporters. On the other hand, a journalist’s primary duty is to seek the truth and report it. Ultimately, Woodward and Bernstein were able to gather enough conclusive evidence concerning Haldeman’s involvement, thus fulfilling their ultimate job objective. Due to the major national implications, the Watergate scandal is perhaps the greatest and most well known example of investigative reporting. Had Woodward and Bernstein not unearthed the vital facts involving the break in’s implications, perhaps no one else would have either. After the entirety of the facts were released regarding CREEP’s involvement, Richard Nixon elected to resign as President of the United States. It can be argued that had Woodward and Bernstein not been so persistent with their sources, American History could have been drastically different.

In addition to perhaps overly pursuing sources, Bob Woodward was aided by an anonymous source codenamed “Deep Throat.” Again, looking at the SPJ Code of Ethics, it is advised against using “surreptitious methods of gathering information,” however, the same statute goes on to say that said “surreptitious methods” may be necessary to provide the vital information to the public. In this particular case, I am under the impression that Deep Throat was completely necessary in Woodward and Bernstein’s investigation, as Deep Throat was the one who told Woodward that the Watergate break-in and cover-up was masterminded by Haldeman. Deep Throat also claimed that the cover-up was to hide the covert operations involving the entire U.S. intelligence community. Without the use of Woodward’s anonymous source (who would come out publicly 32 years later), the Watergate story would likely have not been broken to the extent that it was.

In my opinion, to put it bluntly, Woodward and Bernstein did the right thing in the ways they uncovered the facts. Whether they were overly persistent in gathering information, or using shady anonymous sources, the two reporters were able to successfully break arguably the most influential story in American journalism. To this day, Richard Nixon is the only U.S president to resign, and even if he hadn’t, Congress would have impeached him. The Watergate scandal and investigative process helped pave the way for thousands of future journalists wishing to get into the field. Because of the major ramifications and the direct effect it had on thousands of individuals, Woodward and Bernstein’s morally gray methods were necessary and most of all effective.

SOURCE LIST:

All the President’s Men. Dir. Alan J. Pakula. Perf. Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. Wildwood Enterprises, 1976.

“SPJ Code of Ethics.” Society of Professional Journalists. Society of Professional Journalists, 1909. Web. 2 Feb. 2015.

Von Drehle, David. “FBI’s No. 2 Was ‘Deep Throat’: Mark Felt Ends 30-Year Mystery of The Post’s Watergate Source.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 1 June 2005. Web. 2 Feb. 2015.

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