The Religion Beat

It is something that some news industries shy away from; reporting on news pertaining to certain religions. The job of the journalist is to try to stay impartial and credible. But what happens when their religion hinders their ability to report on a subject, or in this scenario, it is a beat that pays the bills.

The ethical dilemma in most newsrooms is to either report the facts yet have the freedom of religion. Both are right. Faith and neutrality collide in this sense. But this time instead of keeping religion out of the story, it IS the story. Objectivity could possibly be lost in this example.

Since reporters identify with different religions (Catholic, Jewish, Wicca, Muslim) this begs the question, are journalists ever really objective? A reporter would most likely, if trained properly, would put aside his or her beliefs and be objective for the report. But this has to be a difficult thing to accomplish and take a lot of practice and experience. A journalist is to be present as a reporter, not a Jew, or Christian, or Muslim.

Many reporters have to do it, but, is it ethical to push religious beliefs to the back while reporting in order to maintain objective, neutral and impartial?

The ends and means of WikiLeaks

I got a sneak preview of Ulvy’s Ethics presentation during our shared Media Management class last night. During a brief intermission, she ran the basic premise by me: Is it right to use information obtained illegally from another source?

The source, in this particular case, was the now infamous WikiLeaks, which just recently released a batch of secret cables that paint the U.S. in a rather negative light. I won’t dive into Ulvy’s take—I’ll leave that to her. But her question did make me think.

We’ve discussed previously that, as a general rule, it’s not ethical to obtain information through illegal action. Hidden cameras, breaking-and-entering—these are areas best avoided for any upstanding journalist. The ends rarely justify the means here, although their might exist extreme examples in which the truth is so compelling than it needs to be uncovered through relatively “shady” practices.

But what if someone else is doing the dirty work for you? Is it ethically right then? As I’ve done throughout most of the semester, I’ve tried to frame the debate using Kidder’s notion of right-versus-right. The first “right,” in this case, is easy:Right No. 1: It is right to inform readers.

But what is the clashing value at play here? I don’t think we could justify: It is right to get said information through any means necessary. As I’ve described above, that can lead us down a slippery slope of illegal and immoral action.

Upon careful review, I started to think about the issue from a different perspective. The dilemma at play here seems to be a matter of editorial judgment—of discretion. So instead of framing this debate as a discussion of should you use the WikiLeaks cables, perhaps it’s better to frame it from the counter perspective. Thus we get our second right:

Right No. 2: It is right to withhold some information from readers.

By choosing not to run the leaked information from WikiLeaks—whatever your motives or ethical justification—you’re essentially making a judgment call to withhold news from your audience. I’m not one to throw editorial discretion out the window. A good journalist makes for a good gatekeeper; they funnel only the most relevant and important information to readers. But if you’re withholding that info from readers for mere ethical purposes, are you doing them a disservice?

I’m curious to see what Ulvy has to say on the topic later this evening. It’s an interesting topic that journalists the world over are dealing with right now. It seems most of the major news outlets have chosen the former route, releasing the newsworthy tidbits from the secret cables as they see fit. But that doesn’t make their behavior right.

Serial Killers and the Media

***Once again, I'm without a blog topic this week. So, I decided to give a little information about my presentation topic. I decided to present on Killers and the Media.

Sadly, I have a sick fascination with serial killers, or maybe I just enjoy psychology a little too much. Either way, I spent a bit of my time looking up serial killers who were so bold and narcissistic that they contact the media via letters and phone calls. Oddly enough, Jack the Ripper even sent letters giving the cops advice on how to catch him, and the Zodiac Killer's last card was sent to The San Francisco Chronicle in 2007. Because it's the anniversary of John Lennon's death, I will also mention Mark David Chapman, who gunned down Lennon in front of the Dakota in New York, and who immediately told law enforcement that he wanted to be known, and he wanted his name in the papers.

These are literally people who have broken the law and become famous for it. So the ethical dilemma, I believe, is in the decision of how to handle this type of situation. I think the murders should be reported, because people do have a right to know; but should we make celebrities out of the people who kill people for sport? How do we avoid doing this and still inform our audience on what's going on around them?

***Hold on to your answers to these questions for my presentation. :-)

RE

Digital Death

Did anyone see the twitter and facebook "deaths" of many celebrities last week?

Well, twitter and many other media outlets were advertising the "deaths" of celebrities like Kim Kardashian, Alicia Keys, Lady Gaga, Usher, and Ryan Seacrest.

The charity that the digital deaths were raising money for was Keep a Child Alive. The "deaths" were all alive individuals who would upon donations totaling 1 million dollars would become "alive" again.

But the ethical question at hand, was there a better way to go about this? Was using pictures of these celebrities in coffin's the best way to raise money for the children fighting HIV/AIDS?

The charity was developed by Alicia Keys. She is an advocate for the prevention/fighting of HIV/AIDS in Africa and India.

After multiple discussions with my grad friends, we all had very different feelings about the way this was advertised and used in online media.

So what do you think? Ethical temptation, ethical dilemma, or something else.....

German Celebrity Stunt Show Accident: Does reality TV go to far?

The TV show is called “Wetten Dass” meaning Bet it was in its 30th year of production when everything went horribly wrong. Just before the pop singer Justin Beiber was to perform, a stunt man named Samuel Koch was attempting to flip over a moving car driven by his dad, while using spring loaded shoes. Koch cleared the car but went face first into the ground. He had multiple broken bones and fractured vertebrae. Doctors did not give a projected recovery time as his injuries were so extensive that they were not even sure if he would make it out alive. They did say that he was exhibiting signs of paralysis.
This event has raised questions about the ethics of reality TV shows. Do they push people too far and lead them into destructive situations, or are they simply just televising what goes on anyways? The right versus right dilemma here is it is right to show people newsworthy events and it is also right to keep people safe and not encourage them to do things that could harm them.
While this was a potentially dangerous stunt from the start, Koch and his dad had previously performed the stunt successfully. In essence, the show was more of a showcase of their talents, not a dare or a challenge. It was unfortunate that the stunt ended this way. In addition, the show has been on air for 30 years. This is the first serious accident that they have had. While the stunt performed are dangerous, they have had an amazing rate of success and safety. They are obviously taking precautions to help the performers be successful and safe.

India media scandal

Since the leak of the "Radia Tapes" that is making headlines in Indian news, the issue of journalistic ethics has once again come to the forefront.

In this case, the phones of Niira Radia, a corporate lobbyist in India were tapped in a case that was investigating the possibility of her evading taxes and the potentially illegal movement of funds in and out of India.

Approximately 100 tapes with 5,000 recordings of Radia were leaked by an unknown source and have been made public.

What makes this case very important is that these recorded phone calls expose many well known journalists and media personalities as people who were being influenced by powerful lobbyists such as Niira Radia and were bowing to their needs.

These conversations expose the unethical practice of `planting’ of stories by lobbyists whose vested interests are obvious, and journalists ready to throw to the winds the cardinal principles of journalism.

The conversations have Radia talking with business journalists about the gas pricing dispute between the Ambani brothers in India, mostly about favourable coverage for Mukesh Ambani, the older brother. In one conversation, Barkha Dutt, the group editor for New Delhi Television, a station I interned for in 2008, asks Niira Radia what she should tell her Congress contacts and what she shouldn't. In another conversation Vir Sanghvi, a famous reporter, writer and household name in India, asks what kind of story she wants him to do on the gas dispute between the two Ambani brothers.

What is shocking is that Radia was heard completely dictating the content and coverage of what certain newspapers should report on.

Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi are two journalists I grew up watching, reading, admiring and now I feel so let down and disappointed because in a country where people are so corrupt, these famous journalists were the one's we'd rely on to get some semblance of the truth. Because of the Radia Tapes controversy, I really wonder if most journalists, at least in India, are really as ethical as we hope they are. This case really is a real blow to the track record of the Indian media being one that is free, honest, ethical and accurate.

“Final Ethics Practice”

That was for the first time that I faced ethical dilemma in a real life since I have been taking my Ethics Class. I went to one of the KSU Departments to interview a professor for my final project. The interviewee was about 10 -15 minutes late and I started to get worried as she told me that she would stay with me just for 30 minutes and have another appointment right after the interview. I was fortune, another professor from the next office noticed my anxious and gave me mobile number of the professor I was waiting for. Of course, I called her, reminded about our appointment.

Before the interview she asked me how I had got her personal number. I explained that I got it from one of her colleagues. She insisted on identifying the person. I faced a real dilemma.

It was right for her to know the information related her that I keep

It was right not to disclose the name of your source.

I asked her not to insisted on that, but she kept doing that. Finally, she aimed that her only purpose to get this information is that she wanted to warn that person not to do it any more:

‘If you don’t name this person I am going to be suspicious about every colleague of mine” .

She convinced me that she was not going to be rude with that person.

Finally I showed her the office of that person.

But I am still worried and not sure that if I did right.

The only thing that helps me to justify my decision is that the person who gave me the number did not ask me to keep her name in secret.

But there might be another option and I could have inform that person that the professor wanted to know her name, before indicating her.

Conflicts on the other side of the table

I came across a really great discussion about conflicts of interest in the Columbia Journalism Review this week. The subject was the focal point of an article written by Emily Brill about journalists’ responsibilities in reporting on big tech companies.

On August 9, Google and Verizon announced an alliance in which Google, which Brill accurately dubbed “the champion of the free, open Internet,” would partially bow to Verizon’s long-held stance that distributors of bandwidth-intensive content should pay to get priority when using Verizon’s Internet network.

Newsweek responded with a quick Q&A on its website with Harvard professor and net-neutrality champion Jonathan Zittrain. Brill described him as a “kind of academic messiah of ‘network neutrality;’” the man has for years argued that all Internet content should be treated equally in terms of access.

So when Newsweek asked Zittrain if Google had sold it, anyone familiar with the professor’s work would have been surprised to find him maintaining a decidedly diplomatic stance:

I wouldn’t expect Google to do much more than represent its own interests—which may overlap with that of the average Internet user, but not always. So I’d take both Google and Verizon at their word that they offer the framework as a suggestion, and then it’s up to the public—and its elected representatives—to decide what to do with the proposal.

What Newsweek didn’t tell its readers is that Google is the biggest corporate donor to Harvard’s Berkman Center, of which Zittrain is a co-director. The tech company has donated roughly $500,000 in the past two years, part of the 10 percent of Berkman’s overall operating budget of approximately $5 million that comes from corporate donors.

For our purposes, this example is interesting for two reasons:

First, it provides a clear example of a real conflict of interest. Case studies discussed in class provide a useful benchmark for analysis, but it’s such real-world instances that are most salient.

Second, it makes us think of conflicts of interest from the other side of the table. Much of our discussion in class has revolved around our own conflicts of interest. It’s one thing to adhere to employee guidelines espoused by media organizations like NPR (as was the case when the company reminded its employers they couldn’t attend the Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert rallies this fall), but the press’s responsibilities on this issue extend beyond our own actions. We must also consider potential conflicts of interest in sources.

This is a relatively easy task on its surface. Most of us would understand that if you send a query to a company’s PR rep, they’re likely to respond with glowing praise for the company they represent.

But the press in general has a checkered past in taking extra initiative in less obvious instances, Brill argues. She points to the disclosure of ties between health-care professionals and the big drug manufacturers who fund their research as a particularly apt example.

In these instances and the case of Zittrain above, a journalist has the responsibility to go that extra step to sift out any potential conflicts. From there, we can either cut the source from our article entirely or at least disclose any relevant conflicts and let the readers come to their own assumptions. But the important thing is that we address it at all.

WikiLeaks and Media ethics

The recent cables recently published by WikiLeaks as the main countries of the world shacked Caucuses as well. It was obvious from the documents redacted in the New York Times that Ilham Aliyev, the president of Azerbaijan, has talked behind his Iranian, Turkish and Russian colleagues though normally Azerbaijan has good relationships with these leaders.

Aliyev’s statement on Iran sounds more endangering. According to WikiLeaks the president said that Iranian provocations in Azerbaijan were on the rise. He specifically cited not only the financing of radical Islamic groups and Hezbollah terrorists, but also:

-- the Iranian financing of violent Ashura ceremonies in Nakhchivan,

-- the organization of demonstrations in front of the Azeri consulates in Tabriz and Istanbul,

-- a violent religious procession recently in Baku, and etc.

Dealing with Iran has always been one of the biggest challenges for Azerbaijani diplomacy. First of all the country is believed to back Armenia, which Azerbaijan in the war situation, secondly , Iranian leaders has for several times publicly threatened Azerbaijan, sending military jets to the country area without getting permission.

There live more than 30 million of ethnic Azerbaijani people in the certain area of Iran which is historically used to belong to Azerbaijan.

Some local experts believe that the recent publications of the leading newspapers based on the cables by WikiLeaks is going to damage the relationships especially between in Iran and Azerbaijan.

I am not sure what will happen in the future, but I believe that publishing any information not checking that, not asking for the opinion of the opposite side is absolutely unethical for media professionals. Especially considering possible outcome of the news, it is really important to analyze the story from the community prospective. The newspapers publishing the leaks has violated main professional values like:

Objectivity

Accuracy

Empathy

Privacy

Minimizing harm .

Kate Middleton

So the news is out. Prince William will soon marry long-time girlfriend Kate Middleton. When I first heard this news, I thought, "That's great," and I went on about my day. Since then, I have learned everything possible to learn about Middleton and her self-made millionaire parents. Some of the information was relevant; some of it was just downright stupid.

Yes, this is newsworthy information, and everyone should be jumping on board to get as much information as possible. However, I couldn't help but think if this will be history repeating itself. Will the media hound Middleton as they did Princess Diana in the '80s and '90s? Will every intimate detail of her life be told to the public which includes people she's never even met?

Even though she is now officially a public figure that every person is concerned about and interested in, at what point does the media make the decision to keep out of the private lives of those who have been thrust into the limelight?

In her case, it seems she's being punished for who she loves and chooses to marry. In other words, her entire life will be on display--positive or negative--and the public is now the judge and jury of how she lives her life. So far, there are already rumors about the wedding, the dress, her favorite alcoholic beverages, possible pregnancy, etc. I mean, where exactly does the media draw the line?

The Ex-King of Cleveland

Tyler Gast, 8, and his brother Carter, 6, right, of Brook Park, Ohio, express their feelings about the "Decision" of LeBron James' departure. Courtesy AP/The Plain Dealer/Marvin Fong.

It seems to be all that Cleveland sports fans are talking about. Well, its what ALL sports fans are talking about. What will happen tomorrow, Thursday December 2nd, when the ex-king of Cleveland, LeBron James, makes his first appearance in Quicken Loans Arena after "taking his talents down to South Beach." Will there be riots? Will there be fights? Will fans throw objects onto the court? It's been done before. There is guaranteed to be thousands of bitter Cavs fans BOO-ing LeBron has he enters from the opponent side of the building. Some Clevelanders still have the knives in their backs from James' ESPN press conference this past summer.

The media is all over this. Not just Ohio media, but national as well. CNN is rumored to be present at tomorrow's game. Everyone wants to know how Cavs fans will respond. Whatever we do, it's going to get on camera, it's going to get on the news, and it's going to be ugly. Obviously, this game is newsworthy, it's what people are talking about. But the media has to have some hunch that the game is going to be an intense, and the fans are going to make themselves heard. Those attending the game are going to be a part of history and possibly a part of the chaos that is obviously going to occur.

Is it ethical for the news media to take advantage of the angry fans and broadcast their emotions on national television? Is it ethical to ask the fans to refrain from wearing "any negative or profane t-shirts referring to LeBron James?" It's freedom of the press against freedom of speech. I believe Cleveland fans have a right to be bitter for the way LeBron broadcast his decision without telling his coach, his teammates or his fans first. As of today, sportscasters have been wondering if LeBron will be permitted to do his ritual talcum powder display before the game begins. Why? It will be a showcase of LeBron laughing in the face of Cleveland fans yet again.

Hopefully, everyone at the game and around Cleveland behaves themselves. One man in an interview done by "Chuck's Last Call" on Sportstime Ohio suggested that instead of BOO-ing the now Miami Heat player, everyone in the stadium turn around silently in protest. Whatever happens, the media will be there, showcasing the fans reactions, whether it be newsworthy, embarrassing or both.

The ghost of Abu Ghraib

Last class' presentation on Abu Ghraib was very disturbing and yet extremely interesting because it involves an ethical dilemma: Should stories of that nature be covered and shown in detail on American news channels?

There is the possibility of endangering the lives of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan by doing so. Besides, many of the pictures from Abu Ghraib are disturbing and might be shocking to American audiences.

On the other side of the coin, people would argue that Americans have a right to know about what is going on over seas. They have a right to know how the soldiers are conducting themselves in countries the U.S.A. is at war with.
Reporters stand for the truth, and by not reporting on such stories, they are straying away from the truth.

My personal opinion is that stories such as these should be shown in length because people in America need to wake up and smell the coffee. It is shocking how many people are completely ignorant about what is happening outside of their backyards, and a lot of that has to do with the way the news is covered, or rather not covered. I understand that television news cannot show full length documentaries, they just don't have the time for it, but it is imperative to show as much detail as is possible in the time that they do have.

The reasoning behind not showing these stories, to protect the troops, is the most absurd reasoning ever, because the terrorists are not angry because of what they see on American news. They already know what is happening in their countries. They are aware of Abu Ghraib. They don't need American television to enlighten them. It's the Americans who need to know what is happening. They remain blissfully unaware of these crimes in foreign countries because they are protected by those who report the news.

Not reporting in this case does not help anyone. The enemy knows what is happening, the American people don't. I think by showing such news stories, there will be more accountability for those who cannot be monitored at all times. The troops need to know that people in America will know what they are up to and that this will make them behave in a better manner. the Muslim world is angry enough, their reasons are their own, and they do not need any more reasons. Those reasons are not what is shown on the news. Is it what the soldiers are up to. So that needs to stop, not the reporting of the crimes. Secrecy will only make things worse.

Social Networking

Recently I read a really interesting article on social networking and ethics. The article, based on a longer version of a journal article, discussed the hidden issues of privacy and the "ethical responsibility of Social Networking Site(s)."

It was really interesting because it posed the the dilemma of the moral obligation to protect individual's privacy. The reason privacy is such a focus is because of cyberstalking and identify theft.

The two questions they posed were:

Is it the responsibility of social networking sites, like facebook, to protect privacy? or

Is it the responsibility of the social networking user to protect their own privacy?

This could appear to be an ethical dilemma.

The social networking site may need to provide the proper privacy settings along with an ease to apply those settings, while users need to realize the importance to privacy and protecting themselves.

Personally I believe ethical issues like this are going to grow as the world becomes more technologically advanced, and more people use online social networks. A realization that may conclude with many different answers being sought. Perhaps a combination of both the social networking sites and its users will need to be made more aware of privacy issues to help find a definite answer to these questions.