jmcethicsblogspot

The Religion Beat

2010-12-08T15:51:00.003-05:00

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

2010-12-08T15:31:00.003-05:00

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

2010-12-08T12:31:00.003-05:00

***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

2010-12-08T12:13:00.009-05:00

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?

2010-12-08T09:15:00.000-05:00

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

2010-12-08T05:28:00.004-05:00

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”

2010-12-06T12:14:00.000-05:00

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

2010-12-05T17:33:00.002-05:00

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

2010-12-01T17:52:00.001-05:00

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

2010-12-01T14:23:00.005-05:00

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

2010-12-01T13:36:00.010-05:00

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

2010-12-01T01:37:00.005-05:00

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

2010-11-30T14:43:00.013-05:00

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.

Recent Wikileaks document seems to be nothing more than gossip.

2010-11-29T21:17:00.000-05:00

CNN reported on a recent Wikileaks document release that alleges an affair between Moammar Gadhafi and his nurse, which they characterized as ‘voluptuous’. Then the article proceeded to comment on his eccentric behavior regarding flying. Also, the French President was called “Challenging partner”. Some argued that the information was diplomatically embarrassing.

The two rights here are: 1. It is right to let the public know the truth, and 2. It is right to maintain the dignity of those you are reporting on.

The purpose of Wikileaks is to publish and comment on leaked documents that allege government and corporate misconduct.

Yet, this article seems to be mere observations and opinions of character not factual records of misconduct.

While this information may be interesting, it is not necessary or pivotal in regulating governmental misconduct. The information is defamatory and not only diminishes respect for the people being commented on, but is also weakens the credibility of Wikileaks as a source.

It is this type of information being published that leads to Iranian President Ahmadinejad to say that Wikileaks information is ‘unvaluable’. He describes the site as propaganda and psychological warfare ‘games’.

A journalist, or a politician?

2010-11-17T18:03:00.000-05:00

I have never been in rallies or in demonstrations against the government held in my country although I have always supported the democratic wing and strongly against the policy of the ruling party.

But you can see a lot of journalists from the pro-opposition newspapers being active in the demonstrations against the government.

I can understand a journalist’s desire to take part in the democratization process of the country, unless this participation does not shadow his/her credibility.

I personally can not trust on the objectivity of the political analyses written by the journalist who obviously supports an opposition leader in demonstrations. I am not sure that he does not have personal interest to get a good position in the government if the opposition party comes to the power.

My conclusion is that as the textbook says a journalist should always behave trying not to shadow his/her credibility, objectivity.

The fate of aggregation? TBD

2010-11-17T14:31:00.001-05:00

If there’s anything most industry practitioners can agree upon, it’s that plagiarism is bad. Call it commandment No. 1: Thou shall not steal other’s content. The tenant is as old as most legacy players still operating within the industry today.

The digital space—with its fuzzy boarders and calls for content sharing—has blurred that perception, however. What’s yours is mine and mine is yours. This idea of the free exchange of information is why the Internet has sped so gloriously out of control, and why old- and new-school journalists alike are having a hard time jumping aboard and finding their footing amid the constantly shifting landscape.

It’s also why we’ve seen a wealth of fascinating new media enterprises emerge in virtually every market segment and locale. Take TBD, for example, a much-hyped Washington, D.C. news site that aimed to cover the 5-million person metropolis with only a skeletal staff and the power of the Web.

10 years ago, this would have been a pipe dream. To cover a region that big, newsrooms required a bustling hive of intrepid reporters, each with his or her own beat and area of coverage.

But under the supervision of Jim Brady, himself a former employee of the Washington Post, TBD’s pipe dream was more than practical. How, you ask? It goes back to that whole power of the Web thing.

Brady planned to use staff reporting for big stories, along with aggregation, data and geolocation for neighborhood-level news. The business model wasn’t particularly new; other sites have thrived off of this unique reporting/content aggregation model. (See The Huffington Post.) TBD just was one of the first to stress hyper-local content within a more ambitious metropolitan shell.

So how went the venture? Just ask Brady. He was recently let go by publisher Robert Allbritton for focusing more on aggregation than original content.

“To me, the creation of outstanding original content has always been what will determine the long-term success of TBD,” Allbiritton wrote in a memo.

Brady responded, downplaying the focus, arguing "What journalist isn't interested in having more original content? Being anti-content is like being anti-puppy,” according to a Poynter blog.

This is only one instance of aggregation-related argument, but I think it represents the next major hurdle for the journalism industry. The debate isn’t a matter of old media versus new or print versus digital—it’s my content versus your content.

Content aggregation has watered down the pool of information dramatically and devastatingly. The struggling newspaper industry is doing most of the work, while bloggers, skeletal news sites and even the most transparent of aggregators are reaping the benefits.

What’s most interesting is how intertwined the dynamics of business and ethics are in this case. If parasitic aggregators keep borrowing (stealing?) content from hard-working media outlets, those outlets can’t survive, and the aggregators won’t have anyone to sustain them. Along the same lines, as aggregators continue to water down the pool of information, repackaging bits of news and information without first verifying or doing their own reporting, credibility suffers and audiences become increasingly wary.

So maybe commandment No. 1 needs an amendment: Thou shall not steal other’s content—especially not on the Web.

Frisky business

2010-11-17T02:09:00.002-05:00

Today I saw a story on CNN about how people get very offended when patted down or frisked at the airport. They compare that security measure to being sexually harassed. Many are against the scanners as well because they show off the body's curves, but not the face.

To me this is an ethical dilemma. Two rights pitted against each other.

It is right for the airports to want to be safe. After 9/11 they are making sure nothing or no one is taken for granted. Being complacent and not checking everyone fully could one day lead to something catastrophic. That's exactly what a terrorist needs- a slight lapse in security.

However, it is also right for people to want to be treated with dignity. Especially for pilots who say they already have to go through FBI checks to get the positions. Pilots say they feel uncomfortable being frisked and patted down right to the inner thighs or buttocks. They say if passengers see them being frisked like that, they might think the pilots are not trustworthy.

In my opinion, I think scanners and frisking are necessary but annoying. Passengers don't have to go through both. If somebody refuses to go through the scanner, they can opt to be patted down. In an age of terrorism, one has to be careful. The metal detectors in airports only detect metal. So if somebody happens to be carrying a dangerous, wooden knife on them, or other objects that can cause harm to another person, the detector won't catch it. That's where the scanners and frisking comes in.

It's unfortunate that so many people feel as though they are being violated every time they have to catch a flight, but it is something they will have to get used to, because it's a whole lot better than having a repeat 9/11. This is a good example of the individual versus the community.

Charlie Rangel "guilty"

2010-11-16T12:57:00.003-05:00

New York Congressman Charlie Rangel was recently found "guilty" of 11 counts including failure to pay taxes on a Dominican Republic home and improper use of a government mail service and letterhead. The decision was made by a House ethics subcommittee that found "clear and convincing" evidence for all charges.

Rangel was originally facing 13 charges. The ethics committee--ful name being Committee on Standards of Official Conduct now is in the process of deciding and recommending a punishment for Rangel which can range from a fine to expulsion.

I found this interesting because I originally heard this news while watching CNN. The CNN correspondent reported this information by saying Rangel was found "guilty." She also added that "guilty" was not the word usually used in ethical issues such as these (and I don't think that line was in the original script). I thought this was something to think about because technically he just made a few crappy decisions (and abused power) and was caught (NOTE: Tax evasion is a felony and a person can be found "guilty" of this charge.).

Making a decision in an ethical dilemma that may not be the best one apparently does not make a person guilty. It reveals that the person's decision-making process--and/or the person--may be flawed. Bad decisions occur just as often as good decisions. "Guilty" is probably not the best word to describe it. Mistake. Unfortunate decision. Who knows what it should be called. What's most important is that the actor learns from the decision in order to make a better one the next time around.

P.S. I think Rangel should get a fine on top of all the money he owes the government.

***The title of this blog is a link to the CNN story on the ethics committee's decision.

Cheers,

Jillian Micheals or the LA Times: Who is the Biggest Loser?

2010-11-15T11:32:00.000-05:00

On Oct. 13, 2010, the Los Angeles Times published an opinion piece about Jillian Micheals, the celebrity trainer from the Biggest Loser. In the article professional trainer James Fell criticized Jillian for improper techniques in kettle bell excercises. He said that her excercises could likely cause someone to be injured and further criticized her by saying, "Michaels is not actually a real fitness trainer; she's an actress playing the role of fitness trainer on TV and in a line of popular DVDs.” (examiner.com) His comments were confirmed by another professional trainer who is “an expert in kettle bell excercises.” Fell went even further in saying that Micheals was unqualified to be a professional trainer, as her certifications were 17 years old.
Micheals responded by saying that she has two current certifications, on which is in free weights, and that she intends to sue Fell for defamation of character. She claims that he intentionally lied and did not check the facts.

I think this is in an interesting case of ethics because it is right to inform people of unsafe fitness practices, and yet it is also right to not to defame one’s character. I think Fell was justified in critiquing her techniques with the kettle bells as this was something he was an expert in and he got expert advise from a second trainer. I think he was wrong in attacking Micheals credentials, as from the article, he had only checked her website boigraphy for information. He did not do his research and in effect gave misinformed information to the public.

On Nov. 1, 2010 the Los Angeles Times printed a correction statement, confirming Micheals’ credentials. Now you tell me who the Biggest Loser is?

"Pedophile" book withdrawn from Amazon.com

2010-11-14T19:07:00.003-05:00

Late last week, if one was browsing through the online book selection at Amazon.com, a very controversial option could be found. "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure" was available for purchase for the Kindle. As one might imagine, this led to a firestorm of angry Amazon customers, asking why the company would make a book like that available. People threatened to boycott Amazon if the book and others "promoting" pedophilia were not removed from the website. As of Thursday of last week, it produced and error page that the page was not a functioning website.

Amazon issued this statement: "Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain book simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. Amazon does not promote or support hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions." In light of that statement, negative publicity for the book may have had the opposite effect. In the beginning of the week the book was ranked 155,221 out of all books available for sale. By the end of the week, it was ranked in the top 100 and rising.

Another interesting fact was that the book's author, Philip Greaves, who was interviewed by his local TV station in Colorado, said "Every time you see them (pedophiles) on television, they're either murderers, rapists or kidnappers, and, you know, that's just not an accurate presentation of that particular sexuality, it's not."

In general, it is likely that the majority of the population (like me, and Dr. Whitmore) disagrees with the practice of pedosexuals. This act hurts children physically, mentally and emotionally. The majority of the population probably also disagrees with censorship. So who is right here? It is right for individuals to love who they wish. It is also right for individuals to search for and read books or articles that they are interested in. If someone wanted to read Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, they would find 622 results on Amazon.com. Again, a majority of people most likely disagree with the totalitarianism of Hitler and the genocide of the Jewish people in World War II. But should the book be banned or censored because a majority of people disagree with it? Would this ignite a slippery slope of censorship for other books about homosexuality, bomb-making, murder or other titles of minority?

Keith Olbermann

2010-11-12T21:55:00.009-05:00

So I don't know who remembers, but in class a few weeks ago I asked Dr. Whitmore if any reporter had ever been fired, then rehired by the same station. I believe that nobody, students and professor included, could recall a situation where the reporter was rehired, although a few had made some small strides in the same career field.

Well, now we have a new answer to the question: Keith Olbermann.

In early November, Olbermann was suspended indefinitely

without pay because of political money donations to a specific party. MSNBC, Olbermann's employer, had specific guidelines which prevented their employees from making any political donations. Ironically enough, Olbermann was asked backed to the station not long after, but apparently demanded that MSNBC change their policies so that the employees can do what they want, with the money they earn.

Although I see Olbermann's point, it seems almost ridiculous that employees can now demand changes, almost conditions, to returning to companies. To me, this really does imply that Olbermann is not only the face of MSNBC, but perhaps the "ruler," if you will.

I guess the overall ethical issue I see here, is not that Olbermann made the donations, but that he made the donations with the MSNBC policy looming overhead. MSNBC should not have fired Olbermann if they were going to so easily overturn their policy. They should have been more considerate of the ethical issues involved, including the issue of firing, rehiring, changing policies for one specific employee, not changing the issues, etc...

Overall, I think that MSNBC may now have lost some quality face with their viewers. They made quick decisions where perhaps they should have weighed out the situation from the very beginning, before firing Olbermann.

Covering a song contest scandal

2010-11-10T15:52:00.007-05:00

Last year Eurovision song contest was accompanied by a scandal: Azerbaijani security service interrogated Rovshan Nasirli, a young Azerbaijani man, who voted for the singer of Armenia in the contest. Azerbaijan and Armenia has a disputed area, Nagorni Garabagh and as it is stated in UN resolutions Armenia has occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijani territories. Azerbaijan has more than 1 million refugees from these territories.
Rovshan Nasirli told in his interview to Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty that the security service official blamed him in betraying to the motherland and questioned his patriotism during the interrogation and insulted him for voting to the rival country singer in the contest.
Many international media organization, like CNN and BBC, discussed this news for a certain time after Radio Free Europe had published the story.
The local media and the government accused Radio Free Europe for not defending interest of Azerbaijan and discrediting him for the sake of Armenia.
I was one of the Radio Free Europe reporters who covered the story.
Before doing that I questioned myself for a while.
Should I keep my eyes to the human rights violations because my country can be internationally discredited?

Do I betray my nation by covering the story?

I think I did not.

As I told in my previous blogs, I am trying to follow Kantian way of thinking – have you values and principals and follow them. To lighten dark places is my professional principle. And also defending the truth is also my personal value.
My government did wrong to insult a person for voting for the rival country singer. It was his right to vote for whoever he wanted.
I should have covered it not considering the result of news. If not I should have had expect all the reporters in the world to hide the truth for the sake of their government and the country.

Transparency at the Times

2010-11-10T15:52:00.004-05:00

As one of the last great bastions of journalistic integrity, The New York Times doesn’t seem to give a hoot about transparency as it applies to a particularly important area: readers’ wallets.

According to Jeff Bercovici’s “Mixed Media” blog:

During a panel discussion at the Digital Hollywood New York conference, Gerald Marzorati, the Times’s assistant managing editor for new media and strategic initiatives, explained why the paper’s print business is still robust. “We have north of 800,000 subscribers paying north of $700 a year for home delivery,” Marzorati said. “Of course, they don’t seem to know that.”

Marzorati (pictured left) would then go on to explain what happened when the paper raised its home-delivery price by 5 percent during the recession: Only 0.01 percent of subscribers canceled.

“I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that they’re literally not understanding what they’re paying,” he said. “That’s the beauty of the credit card.”

Does it bother anyone else that Marzorati, a man who drives the news philosophy in the company’s new media enterprises, seems to care so little about reader wellbeing or full transparency? Granted, readers share most of the blame here; they’re ultimately the ones who should keep a closer eye on personal finances. And I guess there’s no reason to think that’s not the case. Maybe these readers did notice the price increase but are such loyal Times readers that they didn’t cancel their subscription or raise a voice of protest.

But this view gives the reader too much credit—or at least Marzorati appears to think so. His blunt note of condescension suggests a callous disregard or respect for his audience. I don’t know what’s worse: the man’s arrogance or his lack of any effort to communicate the price change with readers.

After all, you’d want to know when any recurring payment goes up in price. Just think if a university tried to silently raise tuition by a few hundred dollars. Not only would students be outraged, but the underhanded deception of the university would serve as media fodder for weeks.

It would be interesting if a Times staffer turned around and uncovered the company’s own deception. But then again, I’m sure such reporting would be a bit too transparent for the likes of Marzorati. I guess that even for a venerable legacy player like the Times, transparency is purely elective.

Dedicated to the Facts

2010-11-10T14:10:00.004-05:00

Because I'm without an intriguing topic for this week, I'm writing about journalism's continuous dedication to the facts. Despite Janet Cooke's fraudulent Jimmy's World article for The Washington Post, and Jayson Blair's plaigarized work for The New York Times, the world of journalism still exists and is still dedicated to the facts and finding the truth though some professionals have taken advantage of society's trust.

Journalism has been given chance after chance by society despite the possibility of some lone journalist sitting in his cubicle writing fiction and passing it off as fact. Even though some believe print journalism is dead or dying, it continues to be a necessity. Regardless of past scandals and inspite of semi-popular belief, the world of journalism will continue to grow and evolve, ethically and technologically.

So why does society continue to rely on media (of all forms) for information? Journalism has been here longer. It has a much better reputation than blog sites and message boards. We have seniority here. That doesn't say that we are given permission to lie to the public; it means that we are human and we've made mistakes in the past. Because of our history, we are rightfully the best source because we have progressed and learned from the errors of our peers/coworkers in the past.

Issue

2010-11-10T13:53:00.003-05:00

Last week one of my friends, still enrolled as an undergraduate at Hiram, asked me to help edit one of her papers for a class. It seemed reasonable. I had taken the class my junior year and had a lot of fun in the course. As I was reading the paper I got the feeling that I had heard a very similar presentation based on the same paper. I continued reading with no extra thought of the issue, because she is a really close friend. After reading the paper I told her that there were probably some areas were citations were needed and that some of her sentences were run-ons. She thanked me and that was the end of the editing process.

Well I did not feel comfortable after reading the paper. There was just something that seemed too similar. I decided to look over my notebook from junior year, just because it seemed too similar.

After looking over my notebook last night, I realized that one of my basketball teammates, a year younger than me, had written and presented the paper when we had taken the class together. Instantly I knew that the paper I had looked over must have been a duplicate or almost duplicate.

So what should I do? Currently I am going through the ethical thought process of right vs right. Specfically, I am looking at the aspect of truth versus loyalty. Is this my responsbiliy?

Over the weekend I plan on discussing this with sombody close to me so I can figure out what is the right decisison.

When being objective becomes a challenge

2010-11-10T04:58:00.003-05:00

We've discussed the topic of being objective several times in class. It is one of those values that defines whether a journalist is considered a good journalist or not. I hope to be a good journalist one day and I'm working hard towards it, but sometimes it is so difficult to remain objective.

I am a very opinionated person. Yes, I'm one of those people who tends to debate over practically every issue affecting people today. However, I don't have a problem keeping those opinions out of my stories. Usually it's fairly easy to do that, but there have been times in the past when it was difficult for me to filter my own opinions either out of my stories, or while interviewing people.

One such example was during election day, November 4, 2010. I met a lot of really interesting people that day, and interesting is a very kind way of putting it.

There was this one girl at the Student Recreational Center, a polling place that day, who really wanted to share her opinion on camera. She desperately tried to get my attention while I interviewed others and when I finally approached her for a sound bite, she said something along the lines of, "I will not vote for McCain because I'm afraid he will die while in office and then Sarah Palin will replace him. It is not her job to be a politician. Women should stay at home and cook for their husbands and sons. Palin should do that and not try for the role of President when that is clearly a man's job."

I was so irritated by that comment and I could hardly contain myself. This girl was either trying to be controversial so she would get some TV2 airtime or she was truly an idiot.

I turned off my camera and said to that girl, "I can't believe you actually think that way. You should be ashamed of yourself. What you just said goes against everything women have fought for for centuries. " She then said, "whatever," the most intelligent comeback one could possibly think of, and stormed off.

One of my professors happened to be there and she told me I should never behave like that if I hoped to be a good journalist one day. I completely understood why she rebuked me. I had regretted saying what I had said the moment the words came out of my mouth.

My question is, how do you remain completely neutral at all times? Does it get easier with experience or are some people just better at doing that than others? Perhaps Ray is right when she says people have to teach themselves to become more like robots if they hope to be completely objective in reporting their stories.

Police Demote Sergeant for Public Urination

2010-11-09T09:01:00.000-05:00

Last night Fox 8 news covered a story about a Sandusky officer who was being investigated for being “unavailable while on duty”. The video then cut to a clip from the dashboard camera of a police car. Illuminated by the headlights was not a traffic stop but a cop peeing off a boat dock.

What was the greater good? The story was to cover why the sergeant was not responding to calls while he was on duty. I don’t think that him peeing was the reason for his absence. Why does the public need to see him doing these indecencies? Half the reason why urinating in public is a crime is because people don’t want to see it, so why would we show it o TV?

The story also stated that “among other things” they discovered this infraction. What were the other things? Wouldn’t these videos be just as valid to show? Why did they choose this clip?

In defense of the news station, I will say that the video was ‘censored’ in a sense that you could not see any private parts or urine. But I think it is just poor taste to put this on the news. I don’t think it taught anything to the public and it humiliates the officer and his city.

Fusion Photoshoot

2010-11-08T21:03:00.003-05:00

Today I was fortunate to take part in a fun experience for a good cause. A friend of mine asked me to be a model for Fusion magazine, Kent State's magazine for the LGBT community. The article I was to illustrate (and others partaking in the fun) spoke about the terms that are associated to the culture. I was made to illustrate "seafood," which is actually a term used to describe a homosexual sailor. Another term I was unfamiliar with was "breeder." This term is used to describe heterosexual individuals. Another was the term "gaby," which is a baby adopted by a same-sex couple.

As I was getting hair and make-up done, I thought about the progressiveness that today's writers are entitled to. Forty or fifty years ago, a magazine who's target audience would be the LGBT community would be unheard of. There might even be difficulty searching for an article about homosexuality all together. Saying this, I'm sure that there are still writers out there who are censored by certain individuals or topics. But how lucky this generation is! We have the ability to freely express and write about whatever we want, geared towards whoever we want. The First Amendment gives us that freedom, as does our culture and our community.

In today's terms, would censoring an article about lesbian, gay, homosexual or transgendered people be ethical? Would discontinuing an entire magazine because of it's target audience be ethical? Major magazines like Cosmopolitan, Vanity Fair and People splash "sex" around their covers on a monthly basis (in word and picture form). What is so different?

If you are unaware of Fusion, click the title link, it will take you to their website.

A journalist or a human being?

2010-11-03T17:40:00.000-04:00

It happened in 2003 in Azerbaijan, during one of the rallies held by the main opposition parties against the results of the presidential election. A male photographer of Reuters news agency did not tried to defend a female college being beaten by a police officer in the rally, though took the pictures whole the beating process.
How he could do that?
Did not he feel pity for the female college being beaten?
Did not he think that the woman could be even die of the police punch?
How would he feel if the woman died?
Was he not interested in anything but getting compelling pictures?
This is one side of the ethical dilemma, I would say
The another side is about the profession and loyalty to the audience and to the company he worked for.
If he did not take the pictures of the police severely beating the female journalist no one would be aware of the brutality of the Azerbaijani police at that time. He might defend one woman, but thousands of women and men would be still suffered from the illegal behavior of the government, or millions of people would be deprived of chance to be aware of the fact!
The journalists in Azerbaijan still argue about the position of the Reuter’s photographer. Coming to my position, I have been thinking about solving this dilemma for a long time and to be honest have not found a net answer until today.

Venting about vendors

2010-11-03T14:47:00.001-04:00

I just walked out of a fascinating (perhaps “heated” is a better word) meeting with our editorial team. The topic: vendors.

In the world of the trade press, vendors—those people and businesses that sell products to readers—are both a blessing and a curse. They’re a blessing in that they provide the bulk of traditional advertising revenue. They’re a curse because they control the purse strings and thus often have a frightening amount of influence on your content.

Fortunately, our company president has repeatedly told us never to let revenue concerns impact the quality of our content. He believes, as does every optimistic journalist, that good reporting and editing will draw eyeballs like bees on honey—and advertisers will come clamoring after.

As reassuring as our president is though, our team can’t help but feel pressured (if only self-consciously) to drive revenue to the bottom line. We’ve got a good gig, but we don’t have a free pass.

Which brings us to that meeting … We received a query from a vendor who asked if he could submit content. We’ve always maintained a vendor-free policy for our website. We don’t ever include vendors as sources, and we certainly wouldn’t publish a submitted column.

But what if it serves the reader? Vendors often boast expertise in relevant fields of coverage, so why wouldn’t we pursue the best possible source if it made for the best possible content?

Thus far in our young, two-year history, we’ve perhaps sacrificed what’s best for our readers and have fallen on the side of credibility. By avoiding vendors, our readers never think twice or assume we operate under a pay-to-play business model where vendors can buy their ways into articles by purchasing ads or sponsorship packages. As such, readers know our content is unbiased. Credibility might be more a matter of perception than practice, but it’s an important matter nonetheless.

Not everyone agreed whole-heartedly with this argument. One of my colleagues—a new but savvy hire—made an interesting counter argument. He asked if we think twice when we see sources from major manufacturing or technology companies interviewed in CNN or The Wall Street Journal. No, he argued; venerable institutions use editorial judgment to weed out self-promoting bias from sources to deliver only the most relevant information. Doing so fosters a relationship of trust between news outlet and reader—one that ultimately allows for delivery of the most pertinent news, no matter from where it’s sourced.

Besides, he continued, developing a black-and-white policy on the issue is akin to painting oneself into a corner; there might be articles or revenue-generating opportunities in the future that we’d miss because of obstinate thinking.

So what’s the answer? I wish I could tell you. We weren’t able to reach consensus—and that’s OK for the time being. This is a big issue, and one that deserves more consideration than a 45-minute meeting allows.

If our discussions in this course have taught me anything, it’s that ethical decisions making takes time and reflection. Here’s hoping that when we do chart our course of action we choose the best “right.”

1992 LA Riots and the Akron Beacon Journal

2010-11-03T11:44:00.007-04:00

I know this is not a current event, but I read something in our Media Ethics book and it really struck me as interesting. There were a couple of paragraphs that talked about the Rodney King incident and the LA Riots that occurred 6 days after the trial. For clarification purposes, here's the background story.

Rodney King, an African American was driving down a California freeway when highway patrol attempted to pull him over. King drove faster because he had been drinking and a DUI would violate his parole in his robbery conviction. Speeds reached up to 115 miles per hour until King finally pulled over. There, the events get fuzzy. Amateur video shot by a nearby apartment building shows police, all Caucasian brutally attacking King with their batons, and at one point an officer kicks him in the head. The officers say they were threatened, and reported that King came at one of them and struck another in the chest, though that is hard to see in the video. The case went to court and ultimately the officers were acquitted of their charges. After that announcement, there were 6 days of rioting in Los Angeles, California, fueled by racial anger.

What I did not know was that the Akron Beacon Journal, when covering this story, published a year-long series called "A Question of Color" that talked about different black and write realities of the residents. The Beacon Journal focus groups were conducted by independent research contractors and was facilitated by reporters. During the series, the paper invited area organizations to volunteer to establish projects addressing race relations. The publisher, John Dotson, hired 2 facilitators to direct planning efforts among the groups. The project was an effort to move the community beyond previous conversations about race, and ask why there were still noticeable gaps in quantifiable areas like housing, wages and educational opportunities. In December 1993, the paper ran a front page "coupon" that asked people to take it a step further than just actively talk about black and white race relations. The readers were to sign and return the coupon, pledging to fight racism in 1994. The Akron Beacon Journal subsequently won a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service.

Our Media Ethics book then talks about the critics of the series. They ask if the paper had gone too far with their role asking for community participation. Had the Akron Beacon Journal surpassed their role of impartial observer and disseminator of news? What affect does it have on their credibility? Personally, the critics raise some good ethical questions, but the way I think about it is that the paper was thinking of their community as a whole, but in order to make a dramatic change in the way community members are thinking, sitting back and letting it happen with no discourse does not solve anything. Yes, a circulation paper should try and stay impartial (except for their opinion page) but in hopes of another event like the LA Riots occurring again, I think the Akron Beacon Journal made the right steps to at least get people thinking about the subject.

Read a book

2010-11-02T23:04:00.007-04:00

In 2007 Black Entertainment Television aired a single called "Read a Book." The creators of this cartoon music video said it was meant to be a satire of African American stereotypes and was a part of their "literacy program."

This video starts with a cartoon rapper named D’Mite rapping about the benefits of reading books. Suggestions to brush teeth, not spend money on expensive car rims and use deodorant followed suit.

The song makes use of a plethora of politically incorrect words and we see images of gyrating women with the word “book” written on the back of their low-slung pink pants. The video also showed a man spanking a woman, a woman's bottom on a magazine called "Blaxim," and black men shooting guns loaded with books, implying all black people are violent. Finally, the song says black people should learn to "raise their kids."

I get it. It's a satire. A parody. But What I do not get is why something like this would be shown in the middle of the day, on BET, with young children watching. Apparently, the video was intended for BET’s demographic of 18- to 34-year-olds, but who was monitoring whether it was indeed that demographic that was watching the video?

The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times covered this story and the video was played on national broadcast stations as well.

I think when a television channel decides to air such controversial videos they need to keep in mind who the stakeholders are. One of the stakeholders in this case would be the African American community. If I were African American, I would not find this amusing or funny or educational in any way. I would be offended. It stereotypes every black person out there and that is honestly, quite unfair.

Airing this video late at night would be one thing, but to show it during the day shows the producers at BET had no regard for the viewers at all. It seems like an ethical temptation to me. It is right to enjoy the freedom of expression and make a satire out of existing stereotypes, but one needs to keep in mind levels of decency, especially when children are involved and may be watching.

HS Newspaper Student Censored by Principal

2010-11-02T22:47:00.000-04:00

Recently, I learned about a story of ethics and journalism in my own school. A high school senior newspaper student was censored and forbidden to run her story last week. The intent of the story was to alert the students of potential security breaches in the school. The student, who was also the newspaper editor, had done extensive investigative work to compile the facts and information. The principal said she would not allow the story to run because it would make the school look bad and could be valuable information for intruders. The principal later took measures to increase security and safety of its students using the information from the scrapped story.

The right versus right dilemma here is that the public has a right to the truth and the principal has a right to protect the school. I can see both sides of the story here. The student had put a lot of hard work into the story and had finally found something that would capture the interest of the students. It would be controversial and create a buzz throughout the school. She felt defeated when all her hard work was going to waste. And then there is the principal. Hard-nosed and arrogant, or is she? She has a duty to protect her students and uphold the name of the school. She also has the right to veto anything she deems detrimental to the greater population of the school.

So which is more important? Knowledge or safety? Personally, I think that the principal made the right decision. She needed to protect her students and she even made extra efforts to fix the problem that was exposed. Exposing security breaches at the school would leave the population vulnerable to anyone who gained the information. I also think it was a character building exercise and a lesson in ethics for the student.

Election Time

2010-11-02T15:34:00.006-04:00

Today is election day.

So does anyone ever wonder who gets to go vote?

The credentials I know of:

-You HAVE to be a U.S. citizen

-You HAVE to be eighteen-years-old

-You HAVE to be a resident of that state (if voting in a certain state)

-You CANNOT be convicted of a felony

Personally, I understand that these rules for voting have been in place for a long time, but I find that the last "well-known" credential to potentially be an ethical dilemma.

Should convicted felons be allowed to vote in the United States? A few months ago I was reading an article on this issue, and unfortunately I do not remember where it was from. Luckily, this is a topic that is controversial and draws attention to not only this election, but years past.

The three sites/articles I looked at were Pro/Con: Felon Voting, an NPR story from yesterday, and an article from Congress.org.

A lot of the issues involved with letting or not letting a felon vote may be opinion. So whether it is right to let felons have the right to vote, or whether it is right to not let the felons vote.

One interesting fact on the NPR story is "A new study by the Sentencing Project shows that some 800,000 people with felony convictions have been given the right to vote over the past decade, thanks to reforms to laws governing eligibility in 23 states. But at least 5.3 million felons of voting age remain disenfranchised." That fact was really eye opening to me. That in 23 states felons were given the right to vote but not the other 27? That is almost split 50/50.

Personally, I just wanted to raise this ethical dilemma (minus the law issue involving the states).

Is it right to allow felons to vote or is it right for felons not to vote?

I discussed the issue over dinner with my parents and because the topic of elections and voting is so sensitive I will not reveal what "right" decision we came to after our 45 minute discussion, but I would like to point out some of the stakeholders.

YOU (the average voter), the individuals running for election, the citizens who may be awaiting trial/mid-trial/post trial for felonies, anyone that works with a prison that would need to deal with the convicted felon's ballots, board of elections, and the government.

I believe everyone WILL have an opinion on this issue, but perhaps after rationally finding the ethical dilemma and weighing the two sides you can find what you believe is the best "right" decision.

Reason No. 1 for why you should not use Facebook as a diary

2010-10-29T17:29:00.002-04:00

During one state of insomnia Wednesday night, I heard Anderson Cooper talking about a man who was a member of a school board in Arkansas who made some really awful comments about LGBTQ on his Facebook page (brilliant right?). Apparently, the district faculty and staff were asked to wear purple in honor of the lives lost due to gay suicides and to show support to the prevention of all forms of bullying.

Clint McCance, who was actually the vice president of the school district, has now resigned after being condemned for his Facebook posts in which he indicated that he would never wear purple for this cause unless all gays killed themselves. McClance also made a comment saying he was glad gays spread AIDS to each other and died.

You can only imagine the wonderful responses he received. So now, Mr. McClance is cleaning up quite a mess he's made. He has made the very best decision by stepping down from his position. This way, he can at least leave with an ounce of dignity. Midland School District would have surely fired him anyway because after McCance's comments were discovered, they made it quite clear that they were not supporting him and it went against their efforts to stop bullying of all forms.

McCance has now spoken out to explain himself. He has been quoted as saying he would never support bullying or kids' suicides. I must say sarcastically, nice try. But he's in a little deeper, so a lie won't work. I would suggest the Isaiah Washington route, but his career hasn't picked up either after his slip up.

On a positive note, I must commend the media on not making this a big deal. It's not splattered all over CNN like the Florida reverend, so I can only imagine that the different media outlets had to make the decision whether to make this worse than it already is or to move on to more important news like weird packages sent to Chicago from Yemen. McCance was mentioned on Anderson Cooper at 1 a.m. while I was pacing the floor, but I haven't heard or read about it otherwise.

My suggestion to Mr. McCance: go into hiding until the next idiot slips up (it appears to be happening often, so we'll forget about him in a month or so). Oh and buy a diary; don't put your idiotic comments on the web for the world to see (including your employers).

**Have a safe and exciting Halloween everyone!**

RE

I guess it was for the first time in the TV news history

2010-10-27T15:19:00.001-04:00

In my Face book homepage the most discussed topic now is the story that Lider TV, one of the pro-government TV channels in Azerbaijan aired sex video of the director of a local pro-oppositional newspaper a few days ago.
In my previous blog I wrote about this video when it was shared on You Tube and Face book. After a few days the TV channel aired the video in the evening news program and the next daytime.
While engaging in oral sex, the Lider TV moderator said "we have to show this to the Western world, especially to France, so they know that their methods are very close to our opposition."

The moderator said that the video was distributed publicly by a rival opposition group. "This shows how 'united' our opposition is," the moderator added.

After studying two months media ethics, and coming so close to the values a journalist should meet, I was really upset, or even shocked by the behavior of Lider TV.
I can somehow understand Face book and YouTube that they can not control the video content immediately and allow this kind of materials to be shared though they can ban after you report about the violation. But for the professional media of course it is completely unacceptable to enter one’s private life so immorally.

How the manager could be so unethical, or how could the moderator be so cruel to cause harm to the people in the video?
Did they feel any voice inside themselves while doing that?
How can they justify violating personal privacy so cruelly to their kids, family members?
Did they think, or analyze any single minute before making the decision to air this piece or not?
Do they care of the audience which is about 95 percent Muslim people and quite conservative about talking of sexual life publicly, let alone watching it on TV news with family members in a prime time.
I still wonder of the answer for this questions. I wish I could get an answer for them one day.

Privacy? What privacy?

2010-10-27T12:57:00.001-04:00

In an interesting coincidence, our class reading assignment on privacy was scheduled during the same week the growing buzz surrounding HTML 5 boiled over to a noticeable concerns. The new Web language is the fifth installment of the ubiquitous Hypertext Markup Language that shapes not only Web pages but also how we interact on them. (It’s already in limited use and will soon come to dominate Internet browsing.)

From a technological perspective, HTML 5 is both the product of evolution and enterprising genius. It was only a matter of time before a new version of this coding was ushered into use—one that, as a New York Times article put succinctly, “will make it easier for users to view multimedia content without downloading extra software; check e-mail offline; or find a favorite restaurant or shop on a smartphone.”

But with those advances come some disturbing infringements on privacy. In addition to the usual “cookies” that track user behavior in most browsers, HTML 5 includes more invasive software that collects and stores large amounts of data about how and what you’re browsing online.

“Because of that process, advertisers and others could, experts say, see weeks or even months of personal data. That could include a user’s location, time zone, photographs, text from blogs, shopping cart contents, e-mails and a history of the Web pages visited,” according to the Times report.

Or as Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum put succinctly: “HTML 5 opens Pandora’s box of tracking in the Internet.”

In our text, Patterson and Wilkins discuss the right to privacy versus the need for privacy. The two concepts are intrinsically intertwined. In this case, you could argue that Internet users have a right to keep their browsing habits and history private (as long as habits and history are legal). You could just as easily maintain that privacy is necessary to continue the free exchange of ideas that has fueled growth on the online medium for the last two decades. (If you knew your every move was being watched, would you be so willing to shop or communicate online? I wouldn’t.)

The authors put it best when they argue, “Privacy is not a luxury or even a gift from a benevolent government. It is a necessary component of a democracy and the foundation of freedom, individual dignity and autonomy” (p. 125).

While the Internet in many ways operates outside of the control of the government, it is also perhaps the most democratic of mediums. As long as you have a connection and a means to communicate, you have a voice.

It will be interesting to see how those voices respond to HTML 5. The Times cites numerous lawsuits and protests to current tracking mechanisms. I can only imagine these will grow more numerous and outspoken in the coming weeks and months. Here’s hoping tracking software picks up the outrage and programmers scale back their spying.

Flash Notes

2010-10-27T12:38:00.005-04:00

I don't know how many of you read the Daily Kent Stater on Monday, but there was an article, written by Morgan Galloway, that discussed Flash Notes.

If you haven't read the article you are welcomed to click the "article" link above or I will briefly describe what Flash Notes are, and what I believe the ethical issue is that involves them.

Flash Notes is a dot com site that provides students with class notes, book summaries, and other class materials (no tests included). The one catch to the information provided is that you have to pay a small fee to receive these materials and all of these are uploaded by other students.

This may sound like a gold mine, and great idea but could potentially cause major issues. The website offers payment from the notes that they take during their classes, but is that right?

Is it the right of the professors to be the only ones allowed to put the knowledge they have attained, and the lectures they speak about, up for money?
Is it right for students to be asked to pay for these notes, if a student is taking the notes and it may not be the best material available?
Is it right for students from other universities or even non-students, that have not paid for the classes, to have access to those notes with only a small payment and NOT tuition?
Is it right for students to slack off, perhaps not attend lectures, or not take notes, and still receive decent grades by using other student's notes?
Is it right for students who may have had a computer crash or a backpack stolen, be able to have access to notes online?

These are just a few of the questions that instantly came to me after reading the article.

Although I do believe that the individual, a Kent State alum, that created the idea for the site was very aware of the want/needs of students it may have created a real ethical issue. It is an issue that I have played around with in my head the past few days and really cannot determine what I think is the "best" right decision...

Does Osama Bin Laden deserve a stage?

2010-10-27T10:13:00.002-04:00

In September, France passed a law banning women from wearing full-face burqas. Their reasoning was that it was a security risk and that it violated women’s human rights. Today, an audio tape was released. A person claiming to be Osama Bin Laden scolded France for impending on Muslim women’s rights to wear a burqa. Then he went further to threaten the country saying, “To the French people, I say that the formula is simple and clear: As you kill, you will be killed; as you imprison us, you will be imprisoned; as you threaten our security, we will threaten yours, and the one who started the oppression is the one to be blamed."

My question is this, Should we continue to allow Osama Bin Laden to have a national stage. Airing his statements affect a lot of people. First, the people that he is threatening (France and its people) become terrorized and may worry about possible attacks. Second, it affects al Qaeda followers giving them support and motivation to continue their resistance and terrorization. On the lighter side, his statements may empower Muslim women in knowing that someone is upset and fighting for their rights. Yet even there, who really wants to agree with Osama Bin Laden on any issue. He and his group are associated with killings and terrorist attacks all over the world.

I think that by putting Bin Laden on the national stage only allows him to continue to spread terror. In addition, they are not even sure that it is him speaking. I think that until they were sure, they shouldn’t have even thought about airing it. Even then, the media organizations need to understand that they are giving power to a terrorist by spreading his words of hate. Even though he is in hiding and his numbers have dwindled significantly due to the war, our publicizing of his hate keeps him strong and gives him a vehicle to spread his terror.

Moving Forward

2010-10-27T09:48:00.002-04:00

In yesterday's Reporting for Mass Media class, I asked: When do publications normally move on from a tragedy? In other words, when will journalists stop publishing information about tragedies that happened years ago? Let's take Sept. 11 as an example.

I asked this question because I seriously believe in moving forward. So what exactly is the ethical explanation for bringing up tragic occurrences each year? Okay, so the 9/11 remembrance was in honor of the lives lost. Build a memorial and let's move this country forward. It just seems like a huge hinderance to me.

I hate to say it, but I feel this way about the May 4 incident at Kent State University as well. The Daily Kent Stater has printed at least one story a week about May 4 for what seems like the past month and a half. I understand that this was a very serious and tragic event, and there have been some new developments in this story. But hasn't it been 40 years?

So is it okay to put these tragedies to rest after 5 years? 10 years? To me it just feels like we're reporting on the "anniversaries" of these tragedies because we're waiting for the next tragedy to occur so we can report on that instead. Besides, what's so ethical about reminding an audience of the loved ones they've lost?

Fashion, magazines and anorexia

2010-10-27T02:31:00.005-04:00

I hardly ever see women on campus who look like those women on runways in Milan or in Vogue magazine. I think magazines, with their fake air-brushed models, really need to stop promoting the idea that skinny is beautiful. Girls develop a low self esteem after looking at the perfect bodies of models displayed in magazines. Never do the magazines show pictures of unattractive models or chubby ones. This promotes the idea that thin is good.

The entire fashion industry, from the fashion houses and model coordinators to the fashion magazines, should all share the blame for creating and perpetuating the “ideal” female body shape and size. Therefore, to put a stop to this, they should use models with realistic figures regular girls can relate to.

One cannot pinpoint exactly when this perception took shape, that clothes look good on a skinny model, and that body shape must not come in the way of a fashion catwalk. Magazines and Fashion houses promote the idea that clothes are important and models should not distract from the garments and be, in effect, “shadows.” As a result of this unrealistic fashion standard, models have gone from slim to thin, and thin to skinny and shapeless. Young girls look at these skinny models and get the notion that they too must look like them.

It all starts with strict diets, which bring about a state of semi-starvation, which lead to severe malnutrition, loss of weight, anemia, infertility and loss of sexual desire. Young girls then enter a state of Anorexia Nervosa, which is a serious eating disorder.

Anorexia Nervosa is a disorder where the sufferer starves herself because she has the irrational belief that she is too fat, is not losing weight and does not need either treatment or food.

Bulimia is an offshoot of Anorexia, where vomiting is self-induced after a bout of binge eating. The binge eating itself is a result of depression, severely low self esteem and a dissatisfaction with one’s body or self-image.

It is said that out of every four college-aged women, uses unhealthy methods of weight control such as fasting, skipping meals, excessive exercise, laxative abuse and self-induced vomiting to become skinny and that statistic is shocking to me. The magazines we read sell the diet industry to women, making them feel anxious about their body image.

The media, in collusion with the fashion houses, and their unrealistic, bizarre dictates, have created a culture where thinness is regarded as perfect or ideal. Women’s magazines help in promoting this idea because advertisements and articles found in these magazines continuously promote weight loss and body weight change, either by diet control, exercising or cosmetic surgery.

So fashion houses and fashion magazines should squarely take the blame. They started the trend and it is up to them to put a stop to it. How? By asking models to be realistic about their weights. I understand magazines want to make sales, and usually pretty people on the covers will sell magazines fast, but the people in the fashion industry must realize the negative impact their magazines have on women, and perhaps even men. Magazines and fashion houses should make a woman feel good about herself. By doing so they can save a lot of women, teens and children from succumbing to illnesses such as Anorexia and Bulimia.

Juan Williams... yes, you have to read about him again

2010-10-25T20:05:00.007-04:00

There seemed to be a national hub-bub about the firing of Juan Williams from NPR. If you haven't heard about him, he was fired from NPR for controversial statments he made while on air on the Bill O'Reilly show. These comments had to do with Muslims and how he "gets nervous" when he sees them in their "Muslim garb" when he is traveling on a airplane.

Vivian Schiller, CEO of NPR, later apologized of the way the situation was handled, and that the severing of Williams' contract should have been after they had a face-to-face chat and also after she had notified the other employees at NPR. She has since written a public statement of apology.

But at the core of the issue here is whether there were grounds to fire Williams. Wasn't he just stating his opinion? Maybe the statement he made does not fit in with the culture of listeners of NPR but in any event, it is his opinion. He also has the freedom of speech given to him by the First Amendment. And, unfortunately, I'm sure if these statements were uttered on September 12, 2001 there would have been no media storm concerned enough about the loss of his job.

And Williams is not the only pundit to contribute to the "Islamophobia" (or the fear of Muslims in America) movement. Here are a few.

Bill O'Reilly while on ABC's The View, said that "Muslim's killed us on 9/11." This statement caused hostesses Joy Behar and Whoppi Goldberg to walk off of the set right in the middle of the interview.
Sarah Palin defended Billy Graham's son when she said that the god of Islam is part of a "very evil and wicked religion" that was said back in 2001.
Pamela Geller, the conservative blogger that runs Atlas Shrugs, had her blog ignite the fire that was the Ground Zero mosque planned at the site of the WTC bombings.

None of the above people have been disciplined. O'Reilly has his own show, Palin is a "celebrity" and Geller got as much attention as the planned Mosque got. Also, at the time of this posting, Williams has accepted a multi-year, $2 million job at FOX (surprised?)

I'm not saying that I agree with Williams (or O'Reilly or Palin or Geller), I think the whole idea that Muslim people are continuously subjected to the hate that some Americans dole out is plain ridiculous. Think of it this way... should all Christians be labeled as "extremists" because of Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh?

It is difficult for me to analyze it

2010-10-20T18:03:00.001-04:00

A few days ago Azerbaijan opened its morning with a shocking news. There was a sex video of on You Tube, of a technical director of oppositional newspaper, Azadliq. The video spread on the social media, especially on Face book very fast. The director did not say that the person in the video was not him, while the editor –in –chief of the newspaper claimed that it was a blackmail from the government against the newspaper.
I can see two sides of the story here.
1. Should the technical director be considered as a public figure and can he be expected to have public figure responsibilities?
2. Should the social media like YouTube and Face book have more restriction about this kind of discrediting materials.

Of course, people who did it behaved completely unethical.

What about the journalist in the video?
I think being a representative of oppositional newspaper the director has had a social responsibility too, because from time to time he even talked as a spokesman of the newspaper.
In Azerbaijan people doing media business are more expected to have more disciplined life.
On the other hand like other people he also had right to have the lifestyle he wants.
I can not come up with the conclusion and either to justify or not to justify him.
Another question is that should Face book and YouTube control the content of the materials before accepting them. It also seems to be impossible or hard but on the other hand disturbing such kind of discrediting materials may make harm for people. Of course, you can report and have the materials deleted it later, but in this case it can be even late.

Double standards of advertising

2010-10-20T15:22:00.009-04:00

When I first came to the United States five years ago, I started noticing the great publicity certain ad campaigns were getting in this country. One such example was Dove and its parent company, Unilever. Dove had started two campaigns: The Real Beauty Campaign and the Pro-Age Campaign. The Real Beauty campaign celebrated women, no matter what they looked like, and encouraged women to love the way they looked, irrespective of their body type.

The other campaign, the Pro-Age campaign was to show that women over the age of 50 were beautiful too. These campaigns are great and I think there should be more campaigns like them. However, one thing really, really annoys me. Two words- Double Standards.

The same company, Unilever, has a very different definition of beauty in Asian countries. In India, Unilever manufactures products such as Fair and Lovely and Ponds White Beauty. These are skin lightening products and the commercials show that if one is not fair, one is not beautiful.

They don't just stop there. The commercials go on to show that if one is dusky or dark skinned, she will never find love, will not get a job and she will not be successful in anything she does.

The commercials usually start off by showing a girl who is really dark and really unhappy with her life (most of these women are not that dark in my opinion, but the producers of the commercial obviously think otherwise). She usually admires a man who shows no interest in her and that makes her even more unhappy. Then the girl's mother gives her a tube of Fair and Lovely and tells her that she will get a "pinkish-white" glow by using this and her life will essentially change. The girl then uses the cream and from a dark brown skinned girl she suddenly becomes really light skinned. Of course, the commercials end with the boy falling in love with her, or the girl getting the job of her dreams, or husband, or something she has greatly desired.

I think these commercials are ludicrous and the worst part is, Fair and Lovely makes millions in sales. This product is one of the highest sold products in India, China, Malaysia, Thailand and other Asian countries.

Products such as Fair and Lovely promote racism in a way, arguing that one cannot be dark and beautiful, or capable of doing a good job, and honestly they don't even work. I have seen my friends use this product, convincing themselves that they have indeed become lighter by applying it, and to be honest, I see no change at all.

I think Fair and Lovely is actually very unfair and ugly because it makes women dislike the way they look. In India, the general conception of beauty is that which is equivalent to fair skin. That concept is so idiotic. I saw this everyday of my life when I lived in India. Lighter skinned girls got the boys, or they were more popular in school, Bollywood is filled with mostly light skinned actors and the news anchors are mostly "fair and lovely." I wouldn't stand a chance of becoming an anchor in India myself because I am not light skinned and I don't wish to be.

Products such as these reinforce that belief. It makes me so angry to see those commercials. What makes me even angrier is the double standards applied by the companies that manufacture these products. How, I ask, is it right to promote the Real-Beauty campaign in one country, and in another country, tell people they are ugly because they are dark? That in my opinion is a complete ethical temptation.

Choosing a Photo

2010-10-20T10:07:00.002-04:00

For my position paper, I decided to write about controversial pictures and videos in the media. So borrowing from my paper topic because I can't seem to find anything else worth writing about this week, I will briefly discuss my opinion on this issue.

Photojournalists face ethical dilemmas just like anyone involved in the media. One of the biggest dilemmas they come across is when to print and when not to print controversial pictures. While resarching for my paper, I found that many publications decided to print pictures of grieving parents, embarrassing moments, and even death.

While looking through some of these pictures that showed up on front pages years ago, I admitted to myself that the pictures were really good. However, a publication is not a talent show, and printing a picture of a woman covered in her own son's blood after he's been hit by a car is not the best idea (Riverside Press-Enterprise dilemma). I'm a journalist, but I'm also human. When coming to this decision, I put myself in that person's shoes. I would never want a picture of my personal grief on the front page of a newspaper for everyone to see. It's a private moment (which is another topic in itself) not meant to be seen or shared.

Like journalists, photographers have to show some sensitivity to topics such as death and gore, juveniles, and sexuality (or rape). Also like journalists, photographers should still get the whole story. In other words, take the picture; get all the facts. But notice when you have an ethical dilemma before you when deciding what to include in the publication and be aware of the sensitive topic.

RE

The Social Network

2010-10-18T15:35:00.006-04:00

This past weekend, I went to see the film The Social Network. It is based on the book "The Accidental Billionaires" by Ben Mezrich. It is also a fictional version of the life of the Facebook creator, Mark Zuckerberg. The film portrays the success and difficulties of the Harvard sophomore studying computer programming. Zuckerberg's character, Jesse Eisenberg, gets into an argument with his girlfriend and in his depressing haste he blogs about the breakup. In the film, because of these events, he develops the idea for The Facebook. In subsequent scenes in the movie, the viewer sees the jealousy, hurt, and betrayal between Zuckerberg and his friends. Zuckerberg went through years of court hearings and litigations that accuse him of stealing intellectual property and other betraying acts. As I watched this film, I kept asking myself why a Harvard sophomore would be, excuse me, "dumb" enough to post hurtful statements on the internet and betray friends and partners? At what point would you stop and say, "enough is enough?"

If I were attempting to build a business or some kind of start-up website, I would not have my friends come into business with me. I think this might be the first fault of Zuckerberg's character. I would rather employ individuals that knew what they were doing; however, if my friends happen to be genious computer programmers, that would help. Secondly, I would try to go about it in a legally responsible way. Zuckerberg's character seemed to know an awful lot about computer hacking and accessing information that was not necessarily public information. At the same time, I could understand that in order to be a standout business or to have a top-notch idea, sometimes the rules need to be broken.

I know some of you are planning to see the film, so I won't go into detail about the rest of the film. If you do end up seeing the movie, or if you already have, I'm interested if you thought the same thing about the unethical decisions Zuckerberg's character made throughout the film.

Also, the title of this blog links to an article that talks about the REAL Mark Zuckerberg. Enjoy!

The only position

2010-10-17T17:52:00.002-04:00

While reviewing topics for my first class position paper, I encountered a news item detailing the resignation of the Tribune Company’s Lee Abrams, who served as the company’s chief innovation officer. As part of his role, Abrams sent out weekly e-mails to all employees in hopes of inspiring them to reconsider print and broadcast conventions.

The endeavor sounded noble enough—until you analyze the content of the e-mails in question. Last week’s edition included a link to video newscast parodies containing profanity and nudity. Abrams labeled it appropriately enough; the hyperlink read “Sluts.”

It didn’t take long for a number of Tribune employees to lodge complaints with HR. A few days later, Tribune chief Randy Michaels announced he had accepted Abrams’ resignation.

After glancing through this story, my mind quickly began framing the particulars within the constructs of ethical theory and practice. I immediately thought of Kidder’s justice vs. mercy ethical paradigm as I sat down to begin my position paper.

Fortunately, it didn’t take long to realize a major problem with this particular topic: Abram’s resignation involved no ethical dilemma. Yes, there were certainly elements of justice at work, but I couldn’t rationalize any acceptable application of mercy, nor could I identify more than one convincing “right.” It is right to assure all employees a safe, healthy work environment—one that’s free of sexual harassment and inappropriate e-mails. But then what? Was there a conflicting “right” at work here?

The answer, of course, is no. What Abrams did was wrong, plain and simple, and the consequences of his actions were easily justified.

I didn’t realize this at first, however. The abstract realm of ethics asks us to approach issues from a variety of viewpoints and theory. We must consider every alternative; there is rarely one right answer, and the middle ground is rife with different paths to similar ends. So when I sat down to write my paper, I assumed a variety of potential solutions would materialize.

But while the practice challenges our perceptions and beliefs, that doesn’t mean we should rationalize despicable behavior. Sometimes, certain actions are just wrong. Abram’s e-mail should never have been sent, and the acceptance of his resignation didn’t require any application of mercy.

Admittedly, this particular case would have made for any easy position paper. I wouldn’t have had to put much thought into siding with the only responsible outcome. But by the same token, my professor wouldn’t have had to put much thought into granting me the only rationale grade: an F. (Here’s hoping I’ve approached my new topic with an A-worthy analysis.)

Hurricane Katrina Photos

2010-10-15T22:55:00.004-04:00

The two images to the left were recently introduced to me, during my Reporting for Mass Media class. My class had a brief discussion about ethics in the media and were asked to look at these two photos and the captions that were attached to them.

Notice a difference?

In the top photograph a young, black male was "looting" food from a grocery store.

In the bottom photograph an adult white male, and an adult Hispanic woman were "finding" food from a grocery story.

So which of these statements is the "right" one to use during this time in the Katrina aftermath.

At first glance I have to say I was angry. I "knew" it was RIGHT to state the same action being done in both photographs, but then I had to reconsider. As I was reconsidering the photographs and the captions, it seemed like this could be an ethical dilemma.

Is it right to post the photographs? (Even if the top photo could be a minor)

Is it right to interview these individuals before posting and putting a caption with these photos? (To find out what was actually going on, or if they had already had the food)

Well our class professor discussed that during this time if individuals found food it was "ok" to take it, it may have been looting but it was not going to be a charged crime. So are both captions right?

I do believe that perhaps both captions are right, but one caption alludes to criminal activity with an African-American child, which is a stereotype. Not ok. The Associated Press should have taken that into consideration when they used this image and caption.

At the same time I do realize that these are two different news agencies so maybe if they were both consistent with their photograph captions then that decides what is "right?"

Example: If the Associated Press printed multiple photographs of people, all different races, carrying food and stated that all of them were looting, then it wouldn't be an issue? Or it could be their "right."

Be attentivly

2010-10-13T17:52:00.000-04:00

About a year ago a local correspondent of the media company İ used to work for, made a radio story on narcomania and send it for edition.
By an accident the editor was me. I had to read out the narration, edit the sound bytes together and put it on the list for broadcasting. The author introduced one of the narcomans with a symbol name mentioning that he did not want his name to be disclosed as his family was not aware of his troubles regarding narcomania. After two months when my another colleauge was reviewing archive material found out that in the sound byte the man was saying both his first and last name and neither me, no the author had paid an attention to that. We should have chosen this part of the quote actually. It was completely unethical. I really felt shy when knew about this mistake. I should have been especially sensitive because it was a story on a sensitive people –narcomans.

The Moment of Truth

2010-10-12T22:06:00.009-04:00

Sacch ka saamna is an Indian show based on the American show, The Moment of Truth. In this show, the participants answer 50 questions prior to the start of the show while hooked up to a polygraph machine. The pulse rate and blood pressure of the contestants are measured and used by the polygraph to decide whether the answer is true or not. The contestants are not told what the machine finds.

Thereafter, when they are on the show, they are asked 21 questions out of the ones that were asked before the show. They get money for answering correctly and move on to the next round. However, if the machine catches them lying they lose and go home.

The questions become extremely personal and embarrassing as the value gets higher. The contestants usually come to the show with their family members and friends, and many of the questions asked are about these family members or friends.

When Sacch ka Saamna aired in India for the first time, within the first week the show was surrounded by controversy. Many people demanded the show be stopped because they believed the general population would start acting immorally after watching the people on the show admitting to acts that are considered morally unacceptable in the Indian society. These people thought others would be encouraged to indulge in similar activity, thereby leading to a gradual weakening of society's morals.

Kamal Akhtar, a Minister of Parliament in India, and member of the Samajwadi Party, was a staunch opponent of this show and took up the matter in the Rajya Sabha, or the upper house of parliament. He said the nature of the questions asked went against the Indian culture.

The show continued to be aired but many people, including high profile politicians, were very angry about it. Many Indians will see this issue as an ethical dilemma: It is right to air reality shows that the public might enjoy and it is also right to preserve the culture of the nation.

However, I look at this as an ethical temptation. I think it is wrong for politicians to try and interfere in the television industry in the country. People who don't like the show do not have to watch it. I look at it as an infringement of the Freedom of expression that is a fundamental right enjoyed by Indians. In my opinion it is a matter of choice for viewers, and policy makers should not try to ban shows they do not like.

The Indian Ministry of Information and Broadcasting believes there should be a defined limit to the content shown on television, which is understandable, but this show does not cross the limit. I personally do not watch the show because it is voyeurism at its worst, but if others want to watch it, they should be able to make that decision for themselves.

Big Tobacco Compromises Shards-O-Glass Commercials

2010-10-12T21:40:00.003-04:00

If you watch TV at all, you must have seen the Shards-O-Glass recall commercial. The tobacco situation is an obvious right versus wrong situation, thus an ethical temptation. So why are the tobacco companies still allowed to produce their product, and furthermore why does the media continue to ignore this issue?

In case you have been living under a rock, let me summarize the commercial for you. Shards-O-Glass is a sham company that represents the tobacco companies in America today. They “produce” a product, candy with bits of broken glass in it, which is obviously harmful to the people that consume it. They run commercials that show the audacity of the tobacco companies in making a product that kills their own supporters and subversively marketing their product to minors. Most recently, they are airing a commercial in which they recall their own product due to its lethality.

While these ads are extremely powerful in their message, it seems that they are falling on deaf ears. When I ran a search on Google for CNN stories about tobacco, the latest story I could find dated back to June 2009. In a further search, I found a few stories covered by Fox News and the Today Show. Yet none of them mentioned the Shards-O-Glass commercial. Why is this?

I am not sure where to find the answers to my question, but I can guess the answer has something to do with money and political power. Yet CNN claims to be a transparent news source, so this shouldn’t affect them. Right?

In our class we continually talk about ethical dilemmas. But I see the tobacco situation as a right versus wrong. It is wrong to produce a product that will kill its consumers. And it is right to speak out against those who produce deadly products. Yet, the lack of media coverage shows me otherwise.

I think that the media sources in America are being compromised by the money from big tobacco. I believe that is why they are not covering the obvious wrongdoings of the tobacco companies.

What Would You Do

2010-10-12T18:08:00.005-04:00

What would you do?

Have you seen the ABC Show What Would You Do? It is hosted by John Quinones, and its goal is to put individuals into situations that would be considered ethical dilemmas while a hidden camera films them.

The show tackles issues like: racism, attacks, abuse, drunk driving...etc...etc..

I was sitting with my parents a couple weeks ago and was watching an episode and it was just really fascinating. Every week we talk about how to "attack" an ethical dilemma if we face one, and really in each of the show's situations it was no different.

The episode I was watching had a coach and a young teen in a public park. The coach was verbally harassing the teen, trying to push the teen to insane limits, yelling, screaming, name calling, anything evil you think a coach could say or do, this coach was doing it. The dilemma challenged what would an average citizen who was passing by do?

With What Would You Do, the ABC film crew tapes people as they walk by, and they discuss the actions they see that person, or people take. Individuals are then asked (on the record) to say why they did or did not do something in the situation.

It is so intriguing to witness people's reactions of horrible scenes, and then do nothing. But they usually discuss afterwords the ethical reasoning that took place in their heads.

An example, is that one individual, a male, dismissed the coach and teenager immediately, like he did not even see them. Later, while the camera was rolling, the gentleman said that one reason he did not want to get involved is that there could be counter reactions for the player. He said that he did not want to get involved if the coach could possibly get MORE mad and then take it out on the player at another time. While this individual thought it would be best to ignore the situation another individual, a female, went right over to the teenager and said he was coming with her to call his parents. She said that she did not like what the coach was saying or doing, and that the teen could go with her to escape the situation.

While watching the show I have yet to see two individuals with the exact same reasoning. There is always a slight different between one thought process and another. It is really interesting to watch and learn what does go through the mind of someone else.

As I watch this show and am forced to think about what I would do in the ethical dilemmas it has me using the steps and different options we have learned in class. I consider all the stakeholders, who is involved, and many aspects which I would not have thoroughly considered before I took our ethics class.

My main concern is if I am put into a situation like this, I would have to think fast. After the hours we spend in class pondering one case it seems almost unfathomable that we have to make right vs. right situation decisions in split seconds, maybe even every day. It really makes me worry that I am going to make a "bad" decision if I am forced to make a decision so suddenly. Although I do have to realize that these are supposed to be right vs. right decisions; therefore, maybe I make a decision that I think afterwards is "bad" it does not mean that it was the wrong decision.

Overall, I believe that this show is really interesting and that everyone in our class should watch it, at least once. It makes ethics seems almost more "real" and "daily."

Ethics and Section 230 of the CDA

2010-10-12T10:31:00.002-04:00

According to section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), a website operator can correct, edit, and even remove content and still be immune from defamation claims (Citizen Media Law Project).

In some cases, a person may request for defamatory information to be removed, but the website operator has the right to refuse. Still, the web operator is covered by secton 230 if this person decides to sue. Personally, after receiving this kind of request I think I would feel obligated to look into it and if the information is found defamatory, I think the "nice" thing to do would be to remove the post.

Section 230 gives the web hosts the option of removing content. When requests for removal arise, I think it gives a web operator the chance to "sharpen" or improve their ethical thinking. I personally couldn't include that kind of information in anything I am a part of. But it has happened. Craigslist is one example and the case Donato v. Moldow is also an example of web operators exercising their right to keep up all content provided by a third party.

My point: Despite the fact that I wouldn't be breaking a law, my conscience wouldn't allow me to display defamatory information on my website. I guess it's against my morals to provide that type of information to viewers.

RE

2010-10-11T13:39:00.000-04:00

I always find claims of “objective reporting” interesting, if not downright humorous. For one thing, absolute objectivity is impossible; we each bring to the table our own general biases, experiences and cultural/religious/political ideologies, not to mention our own viewpoints and perceptions about a given topic or issue on which we’re called to report.

For another, those news outlets that claim to be the most objective are often just the opposite. It’s as if they think mantras of fair reporting or balanced news coverage can offset day-to-day reality.

And besides, who said there was anything wrong with a little … (gasp) … subjectivity?

Journalistic blasphemy? Hardly. Promoting or least admitting some degree of subjectivity not only addresses realty, but it also fosters analysis—an element that is conspicuously absent from many legacy publishers.

Granted, nearly every mass news magazine has substituted breaking news coverage—something of an oxymoron in the dreadfully slow, weekly production schedules of print publications—with news analysis. But even more news outlets still stick to the same tired he-said/she-said reporting formula.

“Get both sides of the story,” we’re told. “Report the facts and let the readers decide.” But in an era when a reader has access to more raw information than a library has books, simply letting them decide might not be good enough. Instead, why not help them decide?

“Woah, woah, woah,” some of you might be saying. “Surely journalism isn’t meant to push our own opinions on the unsuspecting reader!”

Of course not. Thorough analysis doesn’t have to fall under the header of “op-ed.” It simply should put facts in context; it should lay out the players, themes and situations, and organize them in a way in which the audience is better capable of making an informed decision.

And not only might subjectivity better serve our readers, it might better serve us too. In the new information age, those sites that can best analyze information are likely the ones that have the best chance to survive. Look no further than The Week (an example I cited in my last blog). Though the magazine is first-and-foremost a news aggregator, it does provide great analysis when piecing together the most pertinent bits of information from the past week. Readers have responded, and the magazine has seen impressive gains where other news weeklies have witnessed considerable setbacks.

Candidate Profiles

2010-10-10T21:01:00.004-04:00

In Sunday's Stow Sentry, there was a section that listed the profiles of candidates who will appear on the November 2nd election ballots. The Record Publishing Co. mailed out questionnaires to these people asking them questions that might inform the reader more about the candidate they might vote for. The candidates are running for Summit County Council At-Large and Ohio House of Representatives. Included in these candidates profiles were their home addresses.

This struck me as odd at first, that a newspaper would publish the home addresses of these candidates. After thinking about it a little, I assume it is to show proof of residency. However, I do not see what other good this information does for the reader. Is it ethical for a circulation newpaper to print home addresses of government candidates? To me, it is like printing the address of Paris Hilton or Will Smith. There has to be some privacy statute involved?

I do not mean to think in a negative manner about this subject, but as soon as I saw the home addresses of the candidates running, I really wasn't concerned about the rest of their profile. I am thinking, what if someone who reads this goes to their home to vandalize it? Or worse, to hurt them or their family members? If I were running for a government position (which more than likely will not happen, but for the sake of argument, just go with it) I would feel very uncomfortable with printing my home address to a news circulation, especially if I wanted to protect myself and my family. Let's face it, there are some strange and scary people in this world. Anyone could now just show up at a candidates' house, for whatever reason it may be.

Does the newspaper need to print that information, even though it was accessed by a third party? Furthermore, does the home address of the candidate sway voters in one way or another?

From the Poynter Kent State Media Ethics Workshop

2010-10-07T12:08:00.005-04:00

A few weeks ago I attended the Poynter Kent State Media Ethics Workshop and there was one statement made that really stuck out to me.

Kelly McBride, the Ethics Group Leader at the Poynter Institute, was one of the first speakers at the conference and discussed many issues relating to ethics, but one statement that I heard was: "everyone is a journalist."

Is this statement correct? Should everyone (every blogger, every website creator, every reporter, etc...) be considered a journalist?

Perhaps now that the internet is such a dominant force it is time to enforce more rules and regulations. But is that a breaching of the first amendment?

What if all individuals whom wanted to be considered a true "journalist" would need to get specific degrees, go through specific master's programs, or apply for some form of identification?

When McBride was discussing ethics and made the statement previously mentioned I can honestly say that the remaining time, or the majority of the remaining time, she was speaking I kept thinking about what defines a true journalist and whether it is right to consider everyone a journalist.

Is it right to consider only certain individuals as true journalists? Is it right to consider every james/jane doe as a journalist? Is it right to force individuals whom are already talented journalists to go through the schooling process? Is it right to make a "real" journalist pay dues to be considered a "real" journalist? Why defines a "real" journalist?

These are all questions to a true ethical dilemma. As i scoured the internet for answers I googled the topic "what defines a journalist."

Two answers I found were:

"People who work in news and information, in print and broadcasting, call themselves journalists because journalism is what they do." -NPR Does this include bloggers? Anybody who says "I am working for myself and I am a blogging journalist?"
Under an adopted amendment the Nieman Journalism Lab states that a journalist is defined as someone who: "(iii) obtains the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, an entity—
(I) that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means; and
(II) that—
(aa) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;
(bb) operates a radio or television broadcast station, network, cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier;
(cc) operates a programming service; or
(dd) operates a news agency or wire service;"

Although these are two great examples, and one is an amendment, there seems to be some heavy interpretations that must go on when deciding whether an individual is to be considered a journalist or not. Perhaps more than an amendment is needed. Perhaps there should be more done for clarification.

jmcethicsblogspot: To do or not to do?

2010-10-06T18:22:00.000-04:00

jmcethicsblogspot: To do or not to do?

To do or not to do?

2010-10-06T18:19:00.002-04:00

My roommate has faced an ethical dilemma which really hurts her. Her friend who is a 28 years-old male student from Nigeria studying in Ukraine, wants her to send him money: “Even when my family had financial hardship I did not share my small salary with them but with him. I have been financially supporting his education for more than three years”, says my roommate.

After coming to the US to study she continued sending him money as he still was insisting that as a friend she should do that. Within two months the girl has sent him about 1 000 USD from her student stipend. The dilemma aroused when the man asked her to send him more 500 USD, to pay for his education: “500 USD is almost half of my monthly salary. Being an unemployed international student I also have financial difficulties here, in the US, it is not fair to send him 500 USD every month, but he accuses me in being disloyal to him, not paying attention to the friends’ problems”, says my roommate, “it is right not to give half of your stipend to a person who is not even your close friend, but it is also right not leave a person alone and to help when he needs money”.

This case seemed me to be right versus right situation as I also somehow agree with my roommate’s analysis that it is right to support a person who needs you (duty –based thinking), but it is also right not to spoil a person, especially a man, by feeding him for years. (ends- based thinking). Another right is that the roommates’ family also needs her financial support. What would I do in the roommate’s case?

Trying to remain loyal to my value not to leave a person who needs my help in difficult times,(otherwise I have to expect it from all people in the world in this situation to behave like that, as Kant argues)I would probably continue sending him money.

On the other hand, following Aristotle’s Golden Mean, I would try to find a balance and not send him the half of my stipend, as he demands, just 250 USD may be, and send another 250 USD to my family.

2010-10-06T10:39:00.000-04:00

Last night, I watched TV and every time my program went to commercial, the screen was inundated with a plethora of political ads. As Election Day is drawing nearer, I have begun think about which candidates I would like to vote for. I tried to think back to the ads and what I learned from them. Mostly, what I remember is that most of the ads were negative, saying all the things that politicians did wrong and not to vote for them.

Over $17 million has been spent to create political ads in Ohio (Ohio.com), just for this election! This leads me to ask, was this money wisely spent? Who pays for these ads? What kind of ads did this money produce? Will these ads even persuade Ohio citizens to go out and vote?

It is not just politicians who pay for their own ads. Political commercials are also funded by private organizations and labor unions. The ads are custom made to reflect the beliefs and interests of these parties. They can either endorse a candidate/issue or give reasons to vote it down. Most of the Ohio ads focus on the gubernatorial. The ads of the primary candidates Strickland and Kasich, are both predominantly negative. They talk about who is outsourcing of jobs, who is taxing more and who voted with Obama or Clinton.

Will these ads even make a difference? Is anyone listening? There was so much information packed into each commercial, that it left my head spinning. Instead of trying to compute this complex information, I just brushed it off as being irrelevant. I, myself, had to do my own research in order to know the candidates and issues. Yet I really don’t believe that most Ohioans or even Ohio voters will do this. The media and more importantly television remains the best way to reach citizens.

So, how can ads be more productive? I would say, keep the message simple and repeat it at least 3 times. In this atmosphere, where most of the ads are telling people not to vote for something, I would run a more positive, assertive ad. I would focus on how the candidate could improve their lives and better their situation. I want to hear about what they can do for me, not how they have wronged me in the past. In my opinion, the money spent on the 2010 gubernatorial race was not well spent. It was too many facts, too much negative talk and no clear message.

Do people overreact to Sesame Street controversies?

2010-10-06T00:26:00.007-04:00

Some believe Sesame Street is starting to trade the alphabets for adult content in their shows.

Recently, PBS pulled Katy Perry's duet with Elmo off the air because they thought it was too heavy on the cleavage. Apparently, Perry's "Hot and Cold" was just too hot for the young audiences.

I personally think PBS and parents watching the show made a big deal out of the whole thing. Yes, Katy did show some cleavage, but it was really not enough to be as offensive as people made it out to be. Children do watch cartoons that show some cleavage. I remember I used to watch Betty Boop and other cartoons when I was young and those cartoons did show hints of cleavage. There was a Hannah Barbara cartoon that I used to watch that showed more than a little cleavage. Miss Vavoom was a singer who would appear on Droopy D every now and then. Here is a picture of her:

I thought Katy's song with Elmo was actually rather cute. Katy wanted Elmo to play dress up, but Elmo was more interested in playing tag. Most protective mothers and fathers probably never even got to the tag part at the end, because they thought Katy Perry’s cleavage was the single most offensive thing their children would ever see.

This is an ethical dilemma though, because the producers of Sesame Street have a right to show something that might be considered cute by many. However, it is also right to not show cleavage on a children's show.

However, in my opinion people tend to make a big deal out of little things they see on Sesame Street. I remember people complained about the Cookie Monster promoting binge eating among children. Sesame Street then started showing the Cookie Monster eating veggies and tasting a cookie or two only sometimes. His name should have been changed to the "Veggie Monster."

There was also the controversy surrounding the characters of Bert and Ernie. Because Sesame Street showed the two friends sharing a room, a rumor started that Bert and Ernie were actually homosexuals. People really have a way of perverting things and making a big deal out of nothing. They were two friends who were close in spite of their differences and that's all there was to it.

In my opinion, I think people react so adversely to anything that has a hint of indecency on Sesame Street because it is something very close to them. It is something they grew up on so they take it very personally. However, I never resorted to binge eating after watching the Cookie Monster devour cookies and when I watched Sesame Street I was too young to know what homosexual even meant. I had sleep overs at my friends' houses and I thought that's exactly what Bert and Ernie were doing. I think it is right to want to protect your children from indecency on television, but I personally feel like the reactions to the Sesame Street controversies are too over the top.

October marks National Bullying Prevention Month

2010-10-04T16:16:00.002-04:00

In today's society the Internet is a useful tool for communication and research; however, the online world can also be used for cyber bullying. Cyber bullying is the act of tormenting, intimidating and viciously attacking another individual via the Internet, text messages and social networking sites. Internet bullying results in depression, and in the following case, suicide.

The latest case of cyber bullying has been the case of Tyler Clementi, a New Jersey freshman, who took his own life after a sexual encounter of him and another male was recorded and broadcast over the Internet. Two students at Rutgers have been charged with invasion of privacy, and at the time of this posting the charge of bias is being considered as well. Clementi had no knowledge that a web cam had been place in his room. After he initial devastation, he jumped off of the George Washington bridge that separates New York and New Jersey. His body was recovered from the Hudson River a day later, and his phone and wallet were found on the bridge.

Parry Aftab, the founder of StopCyberBullying.org said "These young people had to have known the devastating effects of their actions. And while they may not have foreseen death, they had to have known how much pain that this would cause."

The Cyber bullying Research Center, an organization tracking the Internet bullying trend, surveyed 4,400 children and in their findings, 1 in 5 youths between age 10 and 18 have been a victim of cyber bullying or participated in cyber bullying. It is a daily occurrence to kids all over the world.

What are the consequences of a cyber bully? What happens to them legally? Are parents controlling their child's online usage? Unfortunately, this disgusting trend doesn't look like it is going away anytime soon. It is just another example of the evil that can be done with the online tools of our technological era.

Rick Sanchez out of a job

2010-10-03T19:16:00.004-04:00

If you don't already know, CNN's Rick Sanchez was fired on Friday due to some off-the-wall comments he made during an interview on a satellite radio show. Sanchez's show, Rick's List, aired from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. and he basically ad-libbed about current events and breaking news stories. The purpose of his show was to be entertaining and informative.

Just to summarize, Sanchez's comments during this interview indicated that the Jewish run the media, including CNN. Let's not forget he called Jon Stewart a bigot.

Anyway, the moral of the story here is one of my favorites: Don't bite the hand that feeds you. However, I can't help thinking that he has a right to his opinion (even if that opinion is utterly ridiculous). What he doesn't have the right to do--it seems--is spread that opinion to listeners and viewers, defaming people in the process.

Whether we know it or not, society expects a certain level of intelligence, accuracy, and objectivity from the people who report the news (or at least I do). Even though Sanchez has a book, everyone knows him from CNN. In other words, he's still CNN's Rick Sanchez when he's interviewed for other media outlets.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is, during this interview, he was still a journalist. One of CNN's employees to be exact, and what he said was just completely out of line. Spread your insane opinions on your on time, not when you're representing your employer/company/network. or there will be repercussions.

**The title of this blog post is a link to a CNN discussion about this event.**

What’s yours is mine

2010-10-03T13:03:00.004-04:00

In June of 2008, The Hartford Courant cut 95 jobs from its news department, roughly half of its news staff, in two rounds of layoffs. But within a few months, with an online news hole to fill and a reduced staff, the paper started aggregating local news from surrounding dailies. (Patterson and Wilkins, 2011 p. 38)

The above example, taken from an article written by University of Missouri’s Chad Painter and reprinted in Patterson and Wilkins’ Media Ethics: Issues & Cases, highlights a growing trend in journalism: As resources get cut, news outlets are increasingly turning towards content aggregation to fill gaps in reporting.

The concept of aggregation, as Painter describes, is fraught with ethical challenges. For one, is it ever acceptable to take the work of

other journalists, even when such work is given proper attribution? Furthermore, how can journalists who take the work of others ensure that work’s credibility?

There are many within the field who would just as soon eliminate the practice altogether. The Associate Press, for example, is battling aggregating websites like Google over use of unauthorized content.

But what of readers? Given the rise in popularity of aggregation websites, most notably The Huffington Post, it seems readers, at least in the online space, are less concerned with the source of their information as much as they are with finding it in one convenient place.

A more interesting example has arisen in the news weekly, The Week. While other news magazines have declined in both readership and advertising revenue, publishers of this news aggregator were expecting in 2009 its first profit since its creation in 2001.

Is such success an emphatic vote of support from readers for news aggregation in general? Is traditional, unique content a thing of the past? Will the future of journalism comprise a murky web of watered-down content sourced from one outlet to the next?

Not necessarily. If the success of The Week tells us anything, it’s that readers respond favorably to news aggregation when it’s down responsibly, ethically and sourced from respectable news outlets.

Take, for example, this article that introduces Pete Rouse as President Obama’s new chief of staff.

It’s an important subject, one which The Week presents by pulling from good reports by The Washington Post, Politico and The New York Times, just to name a few. Whenever information is sourced from a third-party news outlet, The Week includes a hyperlink. In nearly all cases, each citation also includes the original author’s name and the publication for which they write.

There’s a sense of transparency here. The Week makes no claims of original reporting, making very clear this particular article was sourced from third-party news outlets. But by pulling together relevant information from some of the most venerable journalistic institutions in the country, it establishes an impressive level of authority by association.

Of course, the effect would be lost if not for the enterprising efforts of other journalists. In this way, The Week is a parasite of sorts. Sure, it’s a respectful parasite, one whose methods might work for the time being, but what happens as the parasites proliferate and the number of willing hosts dwindles?

NY Times Text

2010-09-29T10:57:00.003-04:00

On Monday, September 27 I received a text the New York Times Text Alert, at 3:17 a.m., stating:

"U.S. Is Working to Ease Wiretapping on the Internet."

As I rolled over in bed, to check this text, I knew I was going to be further investigating the article later in the morning.

The article addresses that current technology, i.e. the internet, is evolving the way people are communicating with one another. Gone are the days where you chat on the phone for hours to your bff. But what they say is the real problem with this uprising in on-line communicating is that they are being "left in the dark" when it comes to terrorism and criminals.

Congress wants all e-mail transmitters, essentially every social network possible, to be compliant if a wiretap order is served.

My first thought, my first reaction: So now the government is not only going to be able to track me if they want, but they are going to be able to know, see, investigate every e-mail, every wall post, every, message, that I send out across the internet. So now I will literally have no privacy, ever?

Well the article does quote Valerie E. Caproni, of the FBI, where she states that this will only be allowed in "lawfully authorized intercepts."

Well who would regulate these intercepts? Is this an ethical dilemma of my freedom?

They discuss throughout the article that there could be severe consequences, loop holes, and other miscellaneous problems with developing these types of internet regulations.

I really do believe that this is going to cause a huge uproar as the Obama administration submits this to lawmakers (apparently next year.) This could open doors for many hackers to see people's information from across the nation. Along with, I really do feel like my freedom is slowly being taken away piece-by-piece from the government.

It really does seem like it could become a heated topic with individuals torn between what could be passed as new regulations. And although I do feel like this could be over taking my individual freedom rights, at the same time I have to consider the safety of my fellow American citizens and myself. Do I want these potential terrorists, or criminals to be allowed to plan operations, laugh about attacks, or recruit more individuals by way of the internet? Do I feel like the government should be allowed to get these internet wiretaps?

The article really posed this interesting concept of new regulations and I honestly do not know how I feel. It may cause an uproar, but perhaps an uproar is what is needed to help make the "right" decision in this right versus right situation.

Peer pressure

2010-09-29T07:33:00.000-04:00

In the age of online journalism, many a news site feature some form of content curation—that is, compiling content on a niche topic from external news sources for delivery to your audience. Some sites use this model exclusively with varying levels of ethical validity. (The Huffington Post, for example, often has been criticized for its liberal repurposing of others’ content.)

The site at which I’m employed executes a limited form of content curation via our e-newsletter. I say “limited” because, in truth, we use it sparingly. When we put together our newsletter, most of our content has been created in-house. If there are gaps in our editorial coverage—a four-person reporting staff can’t cover the going-ons of the entire world—we supplement our offerings with external links from outside news sources, such as the International Herald Tribune and The Wall Street Journal.

Where we run into difficulty, and some shades of ethical grey, is when we encounter a particular article or subject that, in a vacuum, we wouldn’t necessarily cover; however, all of our competitors are doing so. Watching our industry peers is typically a good way of establishing an editorial benchmark. If everyone is reporting on a particular issue or topic, that issue or topic generally has some value to our readers.

But that’s not always the case. There are times in which we still challenge the worthiness of a particular topic even despite the widespread attention given to it by our peers.

Therein lies the dilemma: Do we stick to our guns and familiarity with our unique readership and not include article in question, thus providing a consciously edited, concise offering of news? Or do we include the article in question, ignoring our own judgment in an attempt to arm our readers with as much information as possible?

Both options are “right,” in an ethical sense. And depending on the situation, we’ve sided with both sides of the dilemma.

The question can most accurately be framed within the context of gatekeeping. The Fourth Estate has long been valued for its news judgment. Journalists can’t cover everything; therefore, they use their discretion to cover the most newsworthy events of the day. This concept was especially important when folios provided a finite space in which to run editorial copy.

In the limitless expanse of the Web, however, it’s tempting to include as much as everything—an attempt to be all things to all people. But the online journalist should be mindful of his gatekeeping responsibilities; choosing not to include particular articles, I think, does as much to clarify your editorial philosophy as those articles you do include.

Like I mentioned above, editorial peer pressures is a good way to benchmark your efforts against your competitors. If we see a sudden spike in coverage of a particular topic, we’ll discuss why this has happened, decide if we should present our own unbiased take on the subject, or if we don’t have the time our resources to do so, select the most thoroughly reported article and include it in our own e-newsletter. One thing we don’t do: include content simply because others are doing so. As I’m sure Kidder and my peers would agree, there is no ethical right in caving to peer pressure.

16 year olds on Chatroulette

2010-09-29T04:53:00.006-04:00

I didn't know about Chatroulette until a friend recently told me about his experience with it one night.

Chatroulette is a social networking website that allows people to connect with random strangers from all over the world with their webcams. If the person who is selected is not someone you would like to talk to, you can hit "next" and be moved to a new person. It is like spinning the wheel while playing roulette, only with a webcam and hence the name. My friend also told me about how his experience had left him mildly disturbed because every second person he was connected to either wanted to do a strip tease on the webcam, did do a strip tease or asked to see him do one.

Chatroulette started less than a year ago and it has already created quite a stir amongst those who are aware of its existence. The site says one has to be 16 in order to chat, but there is no way of monitoring the ages of those who sign up. The site, according to an article in The New York Times, is operated by a 17-year-old high school student in Moscow.

I decided to see what the hype was all about and gave it a shot. At first it seemed innocent enough. I met another girl from India, who seemed very sweet and polite. It was also her first time and she was just curious to see what it was all about. I then talked to a girl from Taiwan who had trouble communicating in English, so that conversation did not go too far. By spinning the wheel for the third time, I saw the ugly, perverted side of Chatroulette. There was a man who, without warning, showed me things I had no intention of seeing. That was it. I was quite done with the website.

What worries me is that there may be teenagers or worse, children, who want to try this for the sake of curiosity too. Some of these children may be unenlightened enough to think stripping for a stranger is fun. If they are completely brainless they may make the mistake of telling people exactly who they are and where they are from. I worry there are sexual predators or other sick people who will take advantage of this. I know it is possible to record skype video conversations, so perhaps someone may know how to record these chatroulette conversations. With technology being as advanced as it is today, one could grow up to find his or her childhood stripping-for-fun-mistakes posted all over the internet by someone who happened to record the chat session.

The internet is a wonderful medium. It has truly revolutionized the world and life as we all once knew it. I will openly admit, I am quite addicted to it. However, I do believe it gives children an access to things and sites they should not be seeing. Chatroulette is such a site. The problem with the internet is a lack of accountability. It is so easy to just pick any random birth date to prove you are of age to enter a given site. A friend's little cousin, who is eleven, is on Myspace with a fake birth date.

Like Jamie asked in her blog, "Where are the parents?" I ask this too because when I was young, my computer activity was monitored by my parents. If children are getting on Chatroulette and talking to random strangers from all over the world, obviously the parents have no clue. What does a 16 year old need a webcam for anyway? Parents need to either keep the computers of their children in public areas like the living room or their own bedrooms or at the least not give them a webcam. It is right for the parents to give their children privacy but it is also right for them to protect their children from getting into harm's way. In the short-term, the children might resent the parents, but in the long-term they will be safer and more protected from the crazy people waiting to expose themselves on the other end of the camera.

Teenage Paparazzo?

2010-09-27T14:53:00.003-04:00

With all of the coverage celebrities receive (most of which sometimes not even newsworthy), it was only a matter of time that the nation discovers the lives of the paparazzi. But a documentary by actor Adrian Grenier showcases the daily life of one very special paparazzo. This certain paparazzo's name is Austin and he's 13 years old.

13 years old.

Paparzzo is defined as "one who takes candid pictures of celebrities for publication; freelance photographer." Most celebrities find these individuals annoying because they are constantly trying to snap the best or most controversial picture. If a paparazzo happens to catch a celebrity coming out of the restaurant with their trousers unzipped, paycheck. If a celebrity has been in a car accident and a paparazzo is on the scene, paycheck. This is a way of life for these individuals. It is how they pay for their child's school or feed themselves for the week. Austin doesn't have to worry about that. He's only 13.

The documentary (set to air on HBO tonight, Monday, at 9pm) follows Austin as he snaps pictures of Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, and other big name celebrities. He has his own camera, stays out until the wee hours of the night, and gets paid for his photographs. Is this ethical?

Where are his parents???

Everyone raises children differently. Some are strict and some are lenient; however, should a mother and father let their child go out into the streets at night alone to take photographs of celebrities? Maybe they believe it will be a phase and Austin will decide he does not want to choose this way of life for a career. Maybe they accept his hobby and want to teach him at a young age how difficult the lifestyle can be. But are the dark streets of Los Angeles a place for a 13 year old? Is it safe for him to be out there with people who are twice his size? Are there child labor laws involved here? When does he go to school, since he most likely sleeps in the daytime?

I've linked the title of this blog entry to the HBO site where you can watch the trailer.

Lindsay Lohan; Million Dollar News Story?

2010-09-27T07:53:00.010-04:00

I was listening to a radio show early this morning. The main topic of discussion was if Lindsay Lohan would return to jail. After being released from rehab, she failed two drug tests for cocaine. She was ordered to appear in court last Friday. The judge overturned his previous ruling that Lohan would serve 30 days in jail for each infraction. Instead she posted bail and plans to return to rehab. She has also been spotted spending time with children at a local homeless shelter, perhaps trying to make amends with the larger community for her violations.

The first question I would ask is if this is news worthy. Every case that involves probation violations and failed drug tests does not make the morning news. Literally there would be too many cases to cover. Yet when a celebrity commits one of these crimes it makes national news. I would ponder that this is because they are in the public eye and they were previously charged with being a role model. This could be important to show that celebrities are not perfect and that they face the same repercussions that everyone else does.

The second question I am going to pose is was the judge's ruling fair. It is my understanding that this is the 5th time Lohan has appeared in front of the judge for probation violations. I watched the last time she was in court on TV. She was missing her appointments for rehab. That time the judge sentenced her to a month in jail. Since then the judge has stepped down and a new judge has taken her place. I believe that this new judge has failed her, as she has already been forgiven and let off the hook several times. The last time she was in court the judge came down on her and held her accountable for her actions. In addition, I believe that the only way Lohan will learn to not do drugs or not violate her probation is to be consistent. She has already been given many second chances and has moved into the next phase of being accountable for her actions. I believe that the judge did a disservice to her by dismissing her charges. Instead of learning from her actions, instead she will understand that money can get you out of trouble.

Finally, I want to ponder whether it was appropriate for Lohan to visit a community shelter. I believe that Lohan visited the community shelter to better her image for the court and the community as a whole. Yet I think it was unwise for her to do this. I believe that by visiting children she is increasing her popularity amongst the younger generation. Currently she is not following the rules of the court and the laws of the community. She serves as a role model because of her celebrity status, but she is not doing the things an ideal citizen should do. I do not think this is what we should expose our kids to. Instead I think it would be wiser if she did community service that helped the people, but did not increase her popularity, such as picking up trash on the highway or cleaning graffiti off of walls. In addition, I think these type of activities would be more difficult and more likely to teach her a lesson.

Overall, I think that it was appropriate for this story to be covered. Yet I think the decisions of Lohan and the judge were inappropriate.

This May Be A Problem

2010-09-25T00:40:00.002-04:00

Recently, I decided to write about student cooks on campus for my Reporting for Mass Media class. I specifically want to focus on the students in Rosie's Diner & Rations. For research, I sat in the diner and observed everything about the students cooks and the customers they deal with every day.

The next day, I asked one of the student workers for information about the manager. I was given a name and told that she was one of the nicest people I would ever meet. I recorded this information and went along with my daily routine. Later that day, I asked a different student for the best time to speak with the manager (using the full name that I was given earlier), and I was pointed in the right direction.

From speaking with the manager, I found out that I couldn't speak with anyone employed in the department unless it was approved by the dining services director. On the other hand, one of the student workers told me something that I'm assuming he thought would be helpful. "You could always ask one of us to speak with you after we clock out."

My Train of Thought:
Technically, he wouldn't be an employee of dining services if I spoke with him outside of the diner. It wouldn't really cause any conflicts with that department. Besides, it's just a class assignment.

While I am keeping this option in mind, I don't like to burn bridges (specifically ones that haven't been created yet). I am currently trying to get in contact with the director of dining services because it's just the ethical thing to do. Simply, it just feels right.

The economic and the ethical values

2010-09-22T18:08:00.001-04:00

What a fellow of mine from Media Management course told about at the last class really raised a crucial question for me: Have I been unethical whole my life? Am I not a good person?

The example the fellow gave yesterday still in my mind and hurts.

He told about the importance of copyrighting issues, adding that he has two kids of 15 and 16 years-old and he usually tries to make sure that the music records they have on their iPod’s are licensed and copyrighted. “I always remind them that using any intellectual property without paying is still stealing and bad behavior”.

… In the countries like mine copyrighting is not on the table neither as an low, nor as an ethical issue. People having to deal a plenty of problems do not even have time for this kind of problems.

… I don’t even remember if I have ever paid for any single computer program. People in my country like me even do not have an imagination that it is possible to pay for computer programs. Many of them, including me, us pirate version.

…The example a fellow of mine gave in the class made me wake up and to think seriously about it: Was I stealing all the time. Do I still steal other peoples’ intellectual property? Do I do it because nobody watches me out and nobody blames me? The worst thing is that the answer for all the questions listed above is YES!

Local School District Publishes Photos without Written Consent!

2010-09-22T17:14:00.002-04:00

I work for a local school system that seems to have an ethics issue. Today was National Father's Walk Your Children to School Day. They had a local judge come and even the founder of program! Of course the district had PR representatives there and they were taking lots of photos of the dignitaries, the children and their dads. I also noticed that they were having the parents sign consent forms for their children's pictures to be in publications for the school district. While they had forms for the children, they did not ask any of the adults for their permission. They even took a picture of me without even asking. This made me ask questions to myself. Who needs legal consent? Whose consent do they need? When do you need written consent and when is verbal consent okay? Are public dignitaries exempt from this consent?

A few years ago, when my school district came out with the media consent forms, I was really impressed. I thought wow, we are really on the ball. They even had us sign consent forms for showing artwork made by the children. After starting my ethics class and seeing how the PR department works, I am not so sure. I still think its great that we have consent forms for the kids and of course, it keeps us legal. But shouldn't we get consent from everyone? Okay, I can understand public dignitaries, like the judge and the founder, because they put themselves in the public eye and it was an event centered around them. I am an employee so maybe she has my permission by default. In addition, I actually knew the photographer, so I was cool with her snapping my photo. The only hang up I have is with the parents. What if they did not want their picture to be public? For what ever reason, shouldn't they had the right to consent?

I believe that the school district was in the right in this instance. They got written consent from the minors and non verbal consent from the adults. As they had the right to say, I would not like my picture taken. Also, when they signed for their children, they were informed of how the media would be used. I know, I might have made a big deal out of nothing, but I think I learned a little bit about everyday ethics of PR in my field.

A 12x12 Cell?

2010-09-22T00:10:00.002-04:00

I am struck with a dilemma. An issue that pertains to all of the classes I am currently enrolled in.

Earlier today in my reporting for mass media class, we were supposed to arrive with three story topics. My first topic was...ok. My second topic, I was too embarrassed to admit that I had even thought about it, and my third story was quite intriguing.

Due to the fact that this is a blog, I am not going to release the topic of my story in case I do decide to write about it but, it could be a very controversial piece that involves college athletes, specifically football players.

For the story, I would be asking them (the football players) to provide me with some of the most personal aspects of each team member. It could mean interviewing players and asking them to exploit some very private information about their teammates. The very individuals they turn to on a daily basis. The very individuals who they may refer to as their best friends, their brothers, their family.

The questions I would be asking during my interviews would be challenging the players to go above and beyond a standard news source. I could quite possibly be asking them to question their morals or ethical thinking.

Yes, I believe this story may be asking a lot of the players involved, but it will also be making me further contemplate the ethical dilemma that includes me.

I have to decide if 1)I want to write this story, 2)I write this story will it be in the best interest of the public, 3)I should keep my sources confidential and 4)I keep my sources confidential and somehow this manages to get involved with upper authorities, called to court, and tried, would I be able to keep my sources confidential even if it means I would have to go to jail?

That is where my real ethical dilemma comes into play because, as of right now, I believe I do have a right vs. right situation. Currently, I do believe that the public would benefit from knowing the information I would like to gather for my news story, and I also believe that keeping my sources confidential would be the right course of action.

But am I willing to go to jail? I believe I could never take on a confidential sources unless I’d be willing to go to jail for that source or news story.

This is where I am torn...and this is where my thoughts will keep me tied up.

Am I willing to go to jail? A 12x12 cell. An inmate.

Jail?

Photoshop and ethics

2010-09-21T22:24:00.020-04:00

Today we live in an image based society and with software such as Photoshop available, it is getting harder and harder to tell the difference between natural, unaltered pictures and those that have been digitally manipulated. One girl I know regularly alters her Facebook pictures. I know this because her Facebook pictures show her as being a really tiny, petite girl when in reality she is much bigger than that.

Magazines are notorious for air-brushing pictures to make celebrities look better and this has caused insecurities in so many women.

Recently, an Egyptian newspaper completely altered the entire picture. It was a picture taken by Pablo Martinez Monsivais of the Associated Press and it showed President Barack Obama with Middle-Eastern leaders in Washington, D.C. The leaders were there to start a round of peace talks. The leaders at the meeting were President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, President Barack Obama, President Mahmoud Abbas of Palestine and King Abdullah II of Jordan.

This was the original picture taken at the White House:
However, last week Egypt’s largest state-run newspaper, Al-Ahram, printed the newspaper with this image:
In this picture we see Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak now leading. He was originally on the far left of the photo. Not only has he been moved, he’s also been flopped so his right leg is in front of the left leg.

The NPPA (National Press Photographers Associations) Board of Directors say, "We the National Press Photographers Association, reaffirm the basis of our ethics: Accurate representation is the benchmark of our profession. We believe photojournalistic guidelines for fair and accurate reporting should be the criteria for judging what may be done electronically to a photograph. Altering the editorial content ... is a breach of the ethical standards recognized by the NPPA."

The NPPA is an American organization so one can argue that Egyptian newspapers don't follow the same rules and codes of ethics. In my previous blog I mentioned how ethics differed from country to country but in my opinion no matter where the journalist is from he or she should never digitally manipulate a picture. A picture is supposed to be worth a thousand words but if it is Photoshopped it loses its credibility completely.

Define Journalist

2010-09-21T20:13:00.003-04:00

In 2001, Vanessa Leggett spent 168 days in jail because she did not reveal information about a Houston murder that she researched and planned to write a book about. That is the longest time any American journalist has ever spent in jail for refusing to respond to a subpoena.

Because reporter's privilege was not recognized in the Fifth Circuit (includes Texas), Leggett did her time, and the U.S. Department of Justice didn't get involved because according to their definition, "an unpublished author is not a journalist."

So what exactly is a journalist? Though reporter's privilege is recognized in some states, we're not quite sure who qualifies to be covered by these shield laws. According to dictionary.com, a journalist is defined as 1) "a person who practices the occupation or profession of journalism" and 2) "a person who keeps a journal, diary, or other record of daily events."

With today's technology, not many people are getting their news from one source; they're definitely not referring only to newspapers or only to television. People get their news from everywhere, including blogs. Blogs can be considered "online" diaries or journals. So why aren't bloggers covered by shield laws?

The Internet is always evolving, and Congress has tried to adjust to figure out who has freedom of the press and who qualifies for reporter's privilege. We can say that they have shown effort and is at least acknowledging that technology is changing the world of journalism. Considering the "new journalist", Congress may want to start with a detailed explanation of what a journalist is in order to weed out the bloggers in pajamas claiming to be journalists.

What would you do?

2010-09-21T17:59:00.006-04:00

Last night in my Cybermedia Law class, we spent most of class talking about reporter's privilege and the First Amendment. One of the hypothetical questions that arose was "would you be willing to go to jail for a source?" I think this is a great ethical question that a journalist should think about when in the business of news gathering.

Think about it. You are a reporter working on a big story about illegal drug problems in your community. You are able to contact several sources that are willing to be interviewed. You promise your sources anonymity because they could face negative repercussions for talking to you. Next thing you know, you receive a subpoena from the courts that require you to release your sources since they are participating in illegal activity.

What would you do?

After going through some examples in my law class, I came to the personnal conclusion that I would indeed keep my promise to my sources to protect their well-being and have the possibility of being jailed than give them up to the courts.

My major reason for coming to that decision is because it speaks of a reporter's credibility. If I promise a source that I would not reveal their name, I intend to do just that. What would it say of a reporter's credibility when they go back on their word and publish the names of the sources when they had previously promised anonymity. The next story they work on might not go as well when the sources do not trust the reporter writing the story.

The second reason I would choose this reasoning is the Branzburg v. Hayes case of 1972. The case involves a reporter, Branzburg, who was called to testify to the grand jury (twice, actually) about drug crimes he was investigating. Both times, Branzburg refused to testify. The courts however generally agree it is the obligation of every citizen to cooperate with the government and testify before the proper authorites. This reasoning being that reporters should not be held at a higher standard than the average citizen. I agree with that statement but I think that "freedom of the press" was put in the Constitution for a reason.

I think that the road to my reasoning is using the care-based thinking described in Kidder's book that we are all reading for Ethics class. I generally put myself in other's shoes before I make most of my decisions. If I were the source that had agreed to talk to a reporter about what I know about a certain topic, I would want the reporter to keep my name confidential. If the reporter betrayed my trust, that would make me less likely to talk to the press regarding this or any other stories.

It makes you think, though. Most of us that are going into the reporting business has to be mindful of this scenario, hopeful that it never comes up, but aware that it is a possibility. So I pose the question to you.

What would you do?

Team colors

2010-09-19T16:52:00.002-04:00

I’m sitting here at 4:00 pm Sunday afternoon, insulated from the full-blown hysteria in downtown Cleveland that normally surrounds the Browns home opener. (I have the game DVRed, so please don’t tell me the score.) The event is usually preceded by a breadth of tailgate promotions in area grocery stores and state liquor agencies, many of which I’ve encountered in my usual comings-and-goings during the past few weeks.

One in particular stood out—not because of its reach and connection to me as a consumer, but rather it’s relation to an ethics case study I read for this course.

The case study, found in Patterson and Wilkins’ “Media Ethics: Issues & Cases,” dealt with an Anheuser-Busch campaign in which the company’s Bud Light product was distributed in color-coordinated cans that matched the team colors of a given university’s college football team. College administrators quickly expressed their concerns over the distribution and promotion of Bud Light to underage drinkers and whether the cans infringed on trademark rights. Anheuser-Busch agreed to drop the program within any college market that requested it. That was 2009.

Fast forward to present day, and you can now find the Browns teams colors splashed on orange Bud Light cans in grocery stores throughout Northeast Ohio.

In an attempt to exercise my ethical fitness, I want to quickly work through one of many micro issues the Browns color-coordinated cans presents: Whether or not the campaign promotes underage drinking.

While the density of underage drinkers in Cleveland is perhaps less pronounced than a college campus, the city is not without its die-hard Browns fans who would engage in a wealth of activities—legal or not—to show their team spirit. This is no less true for the 20-and-younger crowd, who are just as likely to see the orange cans displayed in grocery stores as are consumers of drinking age.

The discussion here could quickly divulge into one of extremes: Either you allow the Browns-colored cans to be sold or you don’t. But as Kidder reminds us, ethical decision-making often takes us down a middle ground.

That middle ground, as it were, is one already established by government regulations on the sale of alcohol to minors. Post-prohibition era, the argument is not whether not to sell alcohol in general, but rather what restraints on those sales promote some sense of social responsibility. So back to our original question: Do the orange cans promote underage drinking? I don’t think so. For one thing, the cans are not included in targeted outreach to underage audiences. Secondly, the cans are sold within the same restraints as other alcoholic beverages.

Furthermore, the discussion seems to assume responsibility lies solely on Anheuser-Busch. But what about the underage demographic itself? Obviously, young adults deserve an extra veil of protection until they grow into more mature moral agents, but statues limiting the consumption of alcohol by minors are as well-established as those for operating a motor vehicle; if you drink beer when you’re under 21 years of age, you likely know it’s wrong.

The orange can issue, then, emerges more as a result of heterogeneous audiences than anything else. As Patterson and Wilkins state, “Often, advertising intended for one group is seen by another.” Does this mean we eliminate advertising altogether? Of course not. It does mean we exercise some level of restraint, however. And seeing that the Bud Light promotion is not a deliberate attempt to confuse or target minors, I don’t see any dilemma.

OK … time for me to rush home and turn on the Browns game, but not before I make a quick stop to pick up a six-pack; all this talk of beer has made me thirsty.

Breaking the System

2010-09-15T09:10:00.002-04:00

If you and a few friends uncovered a really big secret who would you tell? What if it was a secret that could save thousands of people a lot of money but it was uhhh...wrong in many people’s eyes?

Well in my cybermedia law class we have been discussing the the first amendment and were assigned readings to get a better understanding. One of the readings we had to do was about three MIT students who had a lawsuit filed against them.

Although the story dates back to August 2008 it is intriguing and definitely pertains to not only the first amendment but ethics as well.

From the First Amendment Center’s website it states that “three MIT students were barred from talking publicly about security flaws they discovered in the state's automated mass transit fare system.” See the three students found “breaks” throughout the MBTA, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, transit system. It included locating gates that were unlocked, finding important keys laying around, how to make your own transit card and how to find materials to pose as a MBTA worker.

They were going to present the information at an annual hackers conference but were stopped due to a temporary restraining order, from MBTA, that prevented them from reporting their findings. Eventually a judge overturned the restraining order and did not allow a five-month injunction to be placed on the college students.

My thought goes further then just the first amendment and their right to freedom of press. This goes into whether it was ethically ok for them to publicly present private findings at a conference. There is an act, the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, that is meant to protect many different aspects of the “private” computer world so were these students violating this act even if the judge said they were not? The information that they were coming forth with was very sensitive to the MBTA. Although they did have slides in their presentation that said the information was only for education purposes how could they prove that? Couldn’t attendees at the conference been anyone? Perhaps...

Do you think they should have been allowed to present this information which they uncovered? Do you think it was ethically ok for them to present their findings even though it is technically breaking rules? Although I pose many questions, personally I would have tried to present the information in the same way as the students. They were highly intelligent and were thorough enough to find all these breeches in the system. The MBTA should have been more careful to protect themselves. I mean they were leaving GATES OPEN. That seems a little absurd to me. I say that if anyone finds a gate open well then...go through it. Although a little voice in my head says it is not the right thing to do and perhaps because of my morals I would hesitate for a second but....well...you have to be able to survive in the real world. I would go through those gates, I would present that information, and I would do it with my head held high. (haha)

Catching fire

2010-09-15T07:28:00.002-04:00

If a small town pastor threatens to burn the Quran in front his tiny congregation, does anyone in the media hear it?

The answer: A resounding yes.

When news first broke of Rev. Terry Jones’ public demonstration (if you can call it that) to protest the proposed Islamic center near ground zero, the story caught on like wildfire.

The coverage comprised a disappointing assortment of sensationalized non news. Why “non news,” you ask? Because there was nothing worth reporting. To begin with, Jones had yet to act on his threats; he planned to do so on September 11, but eventually cancelled. What’s more, the claims amounted to nothing more than the desperate cries for attention of a hate-filled crackpot. There are not enough reporters in the world to cover such obnoxious outbursts.

Admittedly, the story did have a certain buzzworthiness. Toss around works like “Quran,” “burning” and “9/11,” and you’re bound to attract a few eyeballs.

However, I still maintain Jones’s rants should have been ignored.

As I’ve already said, the story was non news. Secondly, unjustified media attention only further encourages more copycat Quran burners who want their share of the spotlight. Thirdly, the event could—an eventually did—spark violence. At least two people were killed in Afghanistan Sunday during protests, even though Jones had by then cancelled the burning. And finally, every second devoted to highlighting the ignorance and hatred of Jones distracted from more legitimate discussion on Islamic-American relations.

Now, Jones’ threats did spark some substantial debate on that last point. For example, CNN gathered numerous analysts to discuss the state of Islamic-American relations domestically, as well as how our efforts in the Middle East were either helping or hurting the cause. The media outlet even interviewed President Obama, who discussed how footage of Jones’ protest could be used as propaganda to recruit new members to Al Qaeda, let alone spark violence throughout the world.

But when all was said and done, even CNN seemed to recognize its errors in giving so much attention to a single crackpot. The outlet posted an article to its site Tuesday titled “Lessons from the whole Quran episode” that compiled contributors’ observations on the event and the way in which it was covered.

As Bob Steele, director of the Janet Prindle Institute for Ethics at DePauw University and the Nelson Poynter Scholar for Journalism Values at the Poynter Institute, said: “Regrettably, the saga of the Rev. Terry Jones and his Quran-burning threat proves that many journalists and news organizations too easily abandon news judgment, professionalism and ethical standards in a zealous quest for a controversial story.”

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Justice the Right Way

2010-09-14T20:42:00.005-04:00

This summer, I watched Rizzoli & Isles, a new show on TNT.

Basic Overview:

Jane Rizzoli is a cop for Boston PD, and Dr. Maura Isles is a medical examiner with the same police department. Essentially, the show is about their friendship and the different criminal cases they handle. That's pretty much it in a nutshell; there's no need to get more technical than that.

Getting to my point/actual blog:

Last week, Rizzoli was investigating a murdered "John Doe." Isles examined the body and sent a DNA sample to the lab. The lab called Isles, requesting another sample because the previous sample was contaminated (somehow Isles' DNA was mixed). Isles, being the perfectionist that she is, knew for sure she didn't contaminate the sample. She checked the results sent to her by the lab and came to the conclusion that the body she examined was none other than her own half-brother (she's adopted). When the father came to identify the body, he willingly gave Isles a sample of his blood, knowing that he was her biological father and that she was seeking answers.

**I swear I'm getting to a point.**

Isles' father turned out to be a well-known hit man, and the mob wanted him dead. So, they came to the conclusion that their victim was killed by the mob to get the attention of Isles' father, the mob's real target. Isles' father explained to her that when she and Rizzoli had a solid suspect, call him (he provided her with an untraceable cell phone) and he would handle it.

**Getting closer...**

Isles of course told Rizzoli and they contemplated this option. In my opinion, the main question that they asked themselves is: "Is it so bad to rid the city of this nuisance by allowing a known killer to 'handle it'?"

Almost immediately, Rizzoli responded by saying they should call once they had a suspect. Isles, the "do-gooder" didn't like the idea. Some things that Rizzoli may have been thinking:

"This could minimize my paperwork/make my report on this case much easier."

"He's one of the best hit men in the city, so why not let someone else do the dirty work."

"They're both scum; I hope they take each other out in a gruesome shoot out."

My conclusion (I know you're really excited about it):

I can definitely see why this may have been a hard decision; on the other hand, I think it's wrong to allow criminals to be the judge and jury for each other. Yes, the life and paperwork of a cop would be much easier. But is it civil? Is it right?

Take it a step further: How would police departments be able to redeem their respect and their authority after allowing this type of scenario to go on for a period of time? I know this would cause an uproar because the police departments would essentially send out the message that criminals have no rights to a trial.

This is mainly why laws and rules and regulations are important. And ethics (whether professional or personal) are vital to the decisions we make. Hasty decisions without considering consequences and how actions will affect our lives, as well as the lives around us, is a dangerous practice.

I won't ruin the ending for you. I have included a link to TNT's Website and what I hope is the actual full episode. I think I also made the title a link, so try either one of those to see how the episode ends. If they don't work, TNT's Website is easy to navigate so you can try that as well. www.tnt.tv

Cheers!

jmcethicsblogspot: Sting operations legal in Indian media

2010-09-14T18:42:00.000-04:00

jmcethicsblogspot: Sting operations legal in Indian media

Sting operations legal in Indian media

2010-09-14T18:35:00.003-04:00

I’ve always wondered whether sting operations in India, conducted by the media, were legal. By doing a little research I found they are. This shows that media ethics are different from county to county, because in the USA sting operations conducted by the media would be considered unethical.

Although, the Indian Constitution does not expressly mention the liberty of the press, it is evident that the liberty of the press is included in the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1).

In India the media have a right to impart the information to the public. Freedom of speech includes freedom to communicate, advertise, publish or propagate ideas and the dissemination of information. Furthermore Art. 19(1) also incorporates within itself right to receive information about any event, happening or incident etc.

Sting Operations in India are legal because according to the Indian media, the heart of journalism has to be public interest, and sting operations in their opinion serve public interest.

A Sting Operation is an operation designed to catch a person committing a crime by means of deception. The word “sting” derives its origin from American usage to mean a police undercover operation designed to ensnare criminals. In more refined terms, it can be called Investigative Journalism or Undercover Journalism.

Sting operations in India are classified as “positive” or “negative” operations. It is positive when it exposes corruption in the government and creates transparency, and negative when it hurts an individual, but does not benefit society.

Sting operations first became popular in India with www.Tehelka.com in 2000, when the news website carried out an exposé on former several prominent politicians accepting bribes from journalists posing as businessmen. This defense sting, called Operation Westend got international attention and it led to the resignation of Indian Defence Minister at the time.

Operation West End exposed bribery at the Ministry of Defense in India. It set up a fake London-based company, and contacted MoD officials for selling thermal binoculars to the Government of India. Tehelka claimed to have filmed the secretary of the BJP, the ruling party at the time, taking a bribe for helping the bogus company in procuring government contracts. Tehelka also accused the MoD officials of accepting alcohol and services of prostitutes.
This website also broke the story on match-fixing in professional Cricket in the country.

In 2007, New Delhi Television or NDTV ran a sting operation which exposed the corrupt judicial system in the country. It was one of India’s most high profile cases in recent years. It involved the son of a rich arms dealer who was accused of killing six people in 1999 when his BMW crashed through a police checkpoint. The prosecution say he was drunk.
The case took eight years to go to trial and during those eight years six of the seven witnesses ‘turned hostile’ – i.e. retracted their evidence and statements.
The seventh and last witness remained. However footage being played by NDTV showed him colluding with the defence and the prosecution lawyers to make sure that the accused went free.

Both the lawyers in this case were incredibly senior, the defence counsel being a former Congress member of the Rajya Sabha (upper house).
The NDTV case was brought before the Supreme Court of India and the news station won the case.

In my opinion sting operations are useful in India, a county where witnesses are paid off or simply pressured into retracting their statements, police are paid to contaminate evidence or refuse to register cases, lawyers are paid to go soft on opposition witnesses and, if all else fails, judges are paid to reach convenient verdicts. This just shows that standards for media ethics can be different from country to country, and even though sting operations would be considered a dishonest way of collecting information in the United States, in India it just helps keeping evreything just a little more transparent.

Making tough choices

2010-09-13T19:07:00.001-04:00

A friend of mine from Azerbaijan wrote the following story on her blog and it grabbed my attention as an ethical dilemma.
This is a story of a woman with Azerbaijani nationality who lives in Iran and has hard days with the local government. Her husband is arrested for defending national rights of about 30 million Azerbaijani people living in Iran; she replaces the husband in breaking iron information curtain and spreading the news to the international media about the human rights violation of Azerbaijani people living in Iran.

Once she was officially told by the Iranian government that it was illegal and she might be arrested for sharing this kind of political information with the international media.
A friend of mine who is also a journalist being aware of the thread of the Iranian government, was worrying about the fate of the woman and her 11 years old daughter and asked her not to give any information about the violations taking place in her town.
But the woman still insisted in spreading information saying that she would be doing it until she got arrested and even she was arrested, she had taught her 11 years –old daughter how to get information from the Azerbaijani activists and how to spread it and the girl would continue the parents mission anyway.

Of course, both my friend and the woman faced with an ethical dilemma making these tough decisions.

In journalist’s case it is mostly the individual versus the community problem.

Interviewing the woman who had been threaten by the government for doing it, might make a danger for her, but on the other hand the woman is an experienced and reliable resource about the Azerbaijani people problems living in Iran. If the journalist refuses to interview the woman because of the woman’s individual interests, she might harm the community which have really serious problems that need to be covered by the international media.

In the woman’s case it is mostly look like right versus right dilemma: It is right to defend your community and to share the information about the problems they face and it is also right to care of your child and to be keep silence.

I think the woman followed Kantian rules –based approach in decision making : thinking of the virtues- if I am scared of the the government and give up, I should expect from all the women in my situation in the world to do the same. At least she had virtues as Aristotle said and she preferred to follow them which I highly appreciate.
It is not easy to understand the journalist decision motivation to force her to ask the woman not to deliver news from Iran to her company any more after the thread made by the Iranian government to keep silence and not to spread information of the situation of Azerbaijani people living in Iran.
The journalist’s motivation is mostly close to utilitarian – ends-based approach: she probably assessed the problems that the woman could have faced if she still continued delivering information to the international media. If the journalist’s have approached the problem from the Kantian prospective she probably would not ask the woman to do it, as Kant insists in following the rule like – if you defend the a woman against the favor of the community you should expect from all the journalists in the world to do the same.

Islamic Center issue hit too close to home?

2010-09-12T20:06:00.009-04:00

On September 11, 2001, I remember exactly where I was when the terrorists slammed into the second tower of the World Trade Center. I watched it happen. I actually saw the second plane hit the tower. I was a sophomore in high school, just about to start religion class. Nine years later, I find that fact ironic, especially with the controversy concerning the Islamic Community Center planned at a site several blocks from ground zero. Has the media used this day of sensitivity to try to appeal to Americans about their freedoms promised to them by the Constitution?

With emotions running high, those in favor and opposed to the community center gathered in New York with hand-made signs and ready to voice their opinions. Below is a photograph from CBS.com depicting supporters of both sides. "Support freedom of religion," and "Remember 9/11/01" are written on the signs.

Is it ethical to deny the rights of American citizens to pray or worship in a place and form of their choosing? Would there be such a media storm if, say for example, Christians wanted to build a church near ground zero?

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America so states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; of abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It seems there are two major issues being demonstrated about the Islamic Community Center.

One. The Constitution promises the freedom of religion. Whatever religion that may be. Those who practice any sort of worship are promised the right to convene and pray when and where they want to. Just because the proposed center is very close to the memorial of the attacks of 9/11, that should not be a reason for community uprising.

Two. The Constitution also promises the freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. Those opposed to the building of an Islamic center are well within their right to display their distress. They believe that by constructing an Islamic center near ground zero will dishonor the 3,000 American citizens that lost their lives that day.

So who is right? Is it ethical to deny the rights of Muslims in America to worship where they choose? Or, is it ethical to deny the rights of New Yorkers to display their grievances to other Americans feeling vulnerable about the anniversary of terrorist actions? Those media representatives tread carefully when reporting this story and be aware of the thin ice America is walking on.

Philosophers agree with coverage of Quran BurningPhilosophers agree with coverage of Quran Burning.

2010-09-12T08:10:00.004-04:00

http://www.onthemedia.org/go.py?r=http%3A//www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/09/10/01

This is a link to cnn coverage of the quran burning.

The picture is a link to a cnn story of 2 muslims traveling across america.

I am in a feel good mood today. After Dr. Von's posing of the question is it ethical to cover the Quran burning, I felt like there were no clear answers. I knew in my heart it would be better that no one cover the event. But I also knew that that would never happen in america. In addition, the wise philosophers, that we researched, pretty much all agreed that there should be coverage. I didn't understand this. But today it ll came to me!
I was searching for a topic for my blog and decided I was interested enough to check out how they covered the burning. To my surprise and happiness, they burning never took place! This was an outcome that I never would have predicted. It was too good to be true!
Turns out the world wide pressure brought on by the media persuaded him to cancel the burning. As the news story became more popular, it demanded attention.From the vatican to the obama administration, everybody was ranting and passing the blame. Then there was the warning of violence towards the troops. According to the first news story posted, the pastor received calls from prominent figures world wide urging him not to follow through with his plans. It worked! The pastor publicly canceled his plans.

I decided to look back at what had happened and how our wise philosophers could have called such a bet. First, with my philosopher Kant, he says treat people as the ends not the means. When the pastor was faced with the realities of what his protest had at stake, he logically decided it was unwise to continue. By respecting him as a human we allowed him to make the right choice.
Next look at JOhn Stuart Mill. He believes in utilitarianism, basically the end justifies the means. Thus, if there was no political pressure, then the pastor would have no reason to cancel his plans.
Finally, many of our philosophers were kind of in the middle, saying that we should cover the event but give depth and cover the whole story. Our media enterprises also came through on this running stories about morning for the victims and acceptance/tolerance. One example is CNN running the story of two muslims traveling across america experiencing not only tolerance, but being welcomed into their communities.

I really was confused leaving class on wed night. But now I am a little more confident in the media and its philosophical law makers!

The opposite of your heart

2010-09-08T15:57:00.001-04:00

I was anxious and frustrated, but at the same time was completely sure that I had done the right thing… I could not allow anyone in my program to insult even the worst person in the world.

Of course, I did understand him, the father of the imprisoned journalist. It was hard for him to face such kind of base manner towards his son: this prisoner witnessed at the court that he had seen the journalist using narcotics for several time. As a result of this witness the journalist could stay in prison for more 2,5 years. On the other hand this witness himself had been convicted for raping for his own 3 years old daughter.

It was not the first time that the government used immoral people against critical journalists to make them silent. But when journalist” s father wanted to insult the witness prisoner I immediately asked him to stop it, although I also agree with the father in the depth of my heart!

What Do I Stand For?

2010-09-08T14:24:00.002-04:00

I stand for the idea that women can pee standing up...if they really wanted to.

I stand for the hope that women will eventually be paid the same as men.

I stand for the reality that women are equal to men.

I stand for the little girl, the mother of five, the business lady down the street...I stand for my gender: WOMEN!

The equal rights movement is an important part of every woman’s life, I believe. And in that same statement, perhaps I should include to every male’s life as well. If it were not for equal rights then perhaps women would be struggling harder than they do today to be seen as equal to men. Would a husband want his wife to be seen as “beneath” him? Would a father want his daughter or granddaughters to be treated with disrespect? I would hope not.

Now I may seem somewhat scattered in my thoughts, but honestly, I stand for the girl, woman, young lady, whomever, that is going to take a stand for her gender. It does not mean that she has to be a full-fledged feminist willing to risk her life. It requires very little effort and may only be recognized from time to time. Perhaps it is in a classroom when all the immature, want-to-show-off-for-their-friends-boys say that no girl can be equal. My thoughts on this: STAND UP! TAKE ACTION! DO NOT let some immature preteen take away what our grandmothers, mothers, aunts, neighbors, teachers, etc... have given to us.

I know that today, tomorrow, the day after, the day after that, the day after that day, etc, etc, etc... I will be the young woman who will not be trampled on because of my gender. Nobody, male or female, should be! Why does it matter if someone is born with breasts or...-ahem-other body parts if we can all “get the job done.” Perhaps men should see it as a challenge, embrace it. A man should work harder for his job if he believes the woman sitting next to him may do a better job. And that does not mean that a woman should not have to work as hard...she should work harder too!

You see if we all worked to be equal to or better than the people around us then perhaps, well maybe, we could live in a society that is full of ambitious, uncharacteristically hard workers who are willing to go above any other society. You see? If women were always seen as equal, at every job, in every school, then as a country we could become even more united and powerful.

So I guess that leads me to stand for WOMEN, MEN, and OUR SOCIETY.

What do you stand for?

2010-09-07T22:42:00.005-04:00

I stand for honesty, credibility, integrity, family, justice and many other things that were either said or indicated in our class discussion just last week. I stand for these things in my life and somewhat expect the same from the people who surround me. In this post, I will only address honesty and credibility, not to decrease the importance of the others listed.

Mark Twain once said something along the lines of "If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything." This stands true to this day; one lie is only the beginning of a series of lies. And lies can be the root of a small catastrophe. I personally just avoid them at all costs, knowing the end result will only cause me to have to clean up my mess (Besides, I'm pretty awful at lying).

As a journalist, the last thing I want is for a source to lie to me or to find out my government is lying to me. And that is what journalism is about, seeking and publishing the "honest" truth (redundant) about issues that concern journalists and the people who surround them. It's important to keep people "in the know" whether it's for their own safety or just for general knowledge.

My word is my bond. In other words, credibility is everything. My credibility is tied in with my honesty. I could never publish a story knowing that I didn't gather all of the facts. I could never even think to change a direct quote or use false sources. It would never enter my mind to do such a thing. Why? Because I will not be labeled as unreliable. I will not be seen as a liar. I will not be known as a bad example of a journalist.

I can truly say that what I stand for has a lot to do with the "who, what, where, why, and how." In other words, what I stand for is influenced by how I was raised, where I was raised, who raised me, and what they raised me to be. All of these elements are strong influences in my life and my character that I am extremely proud of.

Slipping though the cracks

2010-09-07T14:06:00.000-04:00

Amid the frenzy of last week’s daily news cycle, my fellow editors and I let slip through the cracks an article that lacked an important viewpoint on a particularly controversial topic. It was only a matter of minutes before an executive from our parent company, which had its own skin in the game, came calling. While their opposition dealt more with our right to run the article in general—a charge which we vehemently and rightly defended—the concern was warranted nonetheless.

How could we, a start-up news organization that has garnered considerable respect in our industry, run an incomplete article? The excuses, at that point, were moot. We screwed up, and we immediately updated the article once the necessary comment was obtained.

But our error did raise an important conversation on what we as a news organization stood for. Amid some constructive debate, our editorial director spoke up: “From day one,” he said, “I’ve told people we are an organization that promises two things above all others: integrity and fairness.”

And despite our momentary lapse, it’s something, we all agreed, that we worked hard to preserve: integrity in that our reports are accurate, adhere to basic journalistic principles and are never compromised by advertisers, and fairness in that we represent all sides of an issue or angle.

Those are two tenets that I’ve worked hard to preserve on an individual basis while working in the field. In doing so, I’m exercising another very important principle: hard work. It’s a unifying theme that ties both my professional and personal lives.

While sitting behind my editors desk, it’s hard work that pushes me to pursue all sides of a story (though as the above can attest, I’m not infallible in that aim), to push our news organization through evolving technological hurdles and to never have a second wasted. In my personal life, it’s hard work that helps me be the best spouse for my wife, to be a good son for my parents, and to be a reliable companion for my friends.
This principle isn’t driven by ambition—a mere mean’s to an end. Rather, it’s to constantly keep working to better myself.

I’m never going to be the perfect journalist, the one who never makes a mistake or errs. I don’t think any practicing journalist can boast those things. But by working at it, maybe my colleagues and I can inch a little bit closer to that aim—or at least be a bit more careful when sourcing particularly controversial articles in the future.

Teen Mom Ethical?

2010-09-07T11:42:00.000-04:00

Teen Mom is a reality show that aired on the MTV network in December, 2009. It is a spinoff of the show 16 and Pregnant that follows 4 teen mothers through their first year of parenthood. It highlights the relationships and struggles young mothers face in their family, health and education. The show just by sheer numbers is a hit. Drawing 2.1 million viewers for the premiere (Alex Weprin -- Broadcasting & Cable, 12/9/2009 6:23:35 PM). While this popular show is a huge success for MTV economically, what are the implications it will have on society? Furthermore, is it ethical to put these teenage mothers on a platform where they are idolized as role models and open to the scrutiny of critical viewers worldwide?

First of all, let’s discuss the risks of teenage pregnancy. Obviously, there are health factors. Some of these include premature births, low birth weight, high blood pressure and statistically, lack of prenatal care. In addition to the health risks, children born to teenage mothers are more likely to suffer socially, emotionally and economically. Boys born to teenage mothers are 13% more likely to be incarcerated later in life. Girls born to teenage mothers are 22% more likely to become teenage mothers themselves. (womenshealthchannel.com) Violence overall, is more common in households of teenage mothers. This is illustrated in the Teen Mom series through both Amber and Farrah’s stories. In a season 1 episode, Amber slaps and chokes her boyfriend Gary in a dispute over a comment made about her father. Then in the premier of season 2, Farrah and her mother get into a physical alteration resulting in the police being called and a domestic violence charge being issued.

Education is also an issue with teenage moms. Overall, about half (51%) of teen moms have a high school diploma compared to 89% of women who didn’t have a teen birth. In addition, less than two percent of young teen mothers (those who have a baby before age 18) attain a college degree by age 30, (thenationalcampaign.org). This is consistent with the depictions of the show, as Amber has yet to get her GED and Maci being the only mom working on her college degree. This complexes the fact that, About 64 percent of children born to an unmarried teenage high-school dropout live in poverty, compared to 7 percent of children born to women over age 20 who are married and high school graduates. National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Why It Matters. Money problems plague the mothers across the board in the Teen Mom series.

Now that we have established some of the risks of teen pregnancy, let us contemplate some of the benefits of airing the stories of these teen moms. First of all, this series humanizes the teenage mothers as average people, going through struggles that many of us face. They are not complacent and negative about their situation. They are hopeful and proactive in making a better life for their children. They are dealing with their issues in the best way they know how and refuse to give up. Their adamancy to succeed throughout their struggles makes them excellent role models for other people going through similar situations. The series also serves as a form of birth control to its viewers. It sends a message to everyone that you need to either be abstinent, using birth control or changing your entire life around for another individual.

Opposingly, some see this series as ludicrous in popularizing that which we wish to deter. A study conducted in 2006 found that adolescents who were more exposed to sexuality in the media were also more likely to engage in sexual activity themselves. (L’Engle, Kelly Ladin, Jane D.Brown, and Kristin Kenneavy. 2006). This indicates that the more we show teen pregnancy in the media, the more it will be encouraged in real life. In addition, putting these 4 adolescents on a platform opens them up to the harsh scrutiny of the millions of viewers who watch the show. MTV even has an area on their website where viewers can blog and discuss their opinions of the shows stars. They scrutinize everything about the characters from their appearance to their relationships to their decisions about their children. The last thing that these struggling mothers need is the criticism of the world weighing them down.

As, I look back on this paper and this topic as a whole, it is much broader and more complicated than can be discussed in a single blog. Teen Pregnancy is an important issue and while we don’t want to glamorize it, yet it is extremely interesting. I find myself glued to the television for each episodes premiere, (btw Tuesday s at 10 on mtv). Am I abandoning my morals and ethics by watching this show, or am I recognizing reality and helping myself to understand others?

What Do I Stand For?

2010-09-06T22:38:00.002-04:00

Posed is this question: What do you stand for? Personally? Professionally? Both? This is a daunting question for most. Usually it is a question that takes some thought, reflection and time. I did not know what to answer at first. Different answers run through your mind. Family. Integrity. Happiness. God. After some thought, I have resolved to one answer. I stand for all the above-mentioned words, but another in particular really sticks out in my mind.
Honesty.
Most have heard the common phrase, "Honesty is the best policy." I believe that if people told the truth more often, it would not come back to hurt them in the end. This word could have been helpful to professional golfer Tiger Woods, television personality Jesse James and former democratic presidential candidate John Edwards. All three of these men have been deceitful and unfaithful to their significant other. I truly believe that if these men had said something to their wives in the beginning, the subsequent drama and heartbreak could have been prevented. This goes with any couple that may be going through a hard time. As a woman, I believe that if my significant other were having a problem with the relationship, whatever it may be, I would want him to come to me first. Be honest. Even if it hurts. Obviously, Mr. Woods, Mr. James and Mr. Edwards were/are in the spotlight of the media to make their marrital problems more prevelent to Americans throughout the country. This does infact add a significant amount of attention that focuses on the couple; however, this does not give them a "get out of jail free" card. If they had mentioned to their wives that there were issues in the beginning, I am fairly sure that the media would not have blown it out of proportion and that the ladies would be more apt to help their husbands get out of the bad habits that they formed.
Sincerity, truthfulness and honesty are attitudes that are lacking in today's society. If I were to be frank right now, I would say that in most cases, the one doing the lying is only thinking of themselves. They are being selfish and trying to save their own behind. Dealing with infidelity, communicate, talk out the problems with your spouse. Dealing with everyday life, little white lies do not soften the blow of the truth. Be honest. Especially with the ones you care about the most in this world. Eventually, the truth comes out. It is better to be honest than selfish.
So what do I stand for?
Honestly, honesty.