The term “checkbook journalism” dates to 1963. According to an essay by Robert Boynton, the director of New York University's magazine writing program, titled “Checkbook Journalism Revisited,” in 1963 Esquire paid Cassius Clay (who later changed his name to Muhammad Ali) $150, which is equivalent to approximately $1,000 today, for providing information and assistance to Tom Wolfe for his article, “The Marvelous Mouth.”
The practice violates the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics. Specifically, checkbook journalism violates the final entry under the “Act Independently” section, which reads: “Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.”
The practice of paying sources forbade because of the risks involved. A paid source may feel compelled to embellished his or her story or provide false or biased information. Furthermore, paying sources reeks of yellow journalism.
According to Boynton's essay, in 1970 Esquire paid Lt. William Calley $20,000, which has a current value of approximately $100,000, for an article titled “The Confessions of Lt. Calley.” In addition, John Sack, who received $10,000 for writing the article, allowed his agent to negotiate with the magazine for Calley.
Paying sources can also have legal consequences.
According to an article for the BBC Website written by Nick Higham in June 2003, the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain has tried to pass legislation that would make checkbook journalism (or chequebook journalism) a criminal offense more than once. The most recent attempt to outlaw checkbook journalism came after members of the press paid witnesses for information regarding the trial of five men charged with plotting to kidnap Victoria Beckham. The trial was dismissed because of the interference of the press. The legislation did not pass, but the dismissal sparked fears that paid witnesses will embellish their evidence.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Covering Tragedy and Death
By Lindsey and Javier
Dealing with tragedy and death is a difficult and touchy issue. Journalists who report on death and tragedy must make ethical decisions about the best way to handle it.
In the news today, especially television news, death is usually reported as a top story, but we usually only hear a small blurb of information about what happened. We don't hear much about the person who died and sometimes the reason for death is not specified.
Like we discussed in class, many obituaries leave out the reasons for death. Oftentimes it is important to include why the death or tragedy occurred so that it will not happen again. Sometimes the reason is left out because it may seem embarrassing to the family, but that is an ethical decision that the reporter needs to make.
Another thing to consider is your audience. The tragic events of the past decade, such as 9/11, the war in Iraq and hurricane Katrina have in a way desensitized us to death because it has been in the news all the time.
The ethical question regarding death is how far do you go in your investigation. A journalist must determine what kinds of questions are appropriate to ask the family or friends of the deceased person, and what details to include in his or her story.
Photographers also have to deal with ethical questions regarding death. When is it appropriate to photograph a dead body?
In one example, a photographer took a photo from a helicopter of a rescue attempt of a kidnapped child in Vancouver in 2006. It was a high-profile kidnapping case and had been in the news for weeks. In the photo, the young girl’s dead body could be seen visibly floating in a lake. The photo was published and put on the front page. The family of the girl found out about her death this way. Was it ethical of the paper to run the photo? Yes and no. Yes because it was for the sake of news and getting the story out. No because the family of the victim was hurt by it. Those are the decisions journalists and photographers must make.
Essentially, the best way dealing with this would be on a “need to know” basis.
Dealing with tragedy and death is a difficult and touchy issue. Journalists who report on death and tragedy must make ethical decisions about the best way to handle it.
In the news today, especially television news, death is usually reported as a top story, but we usually only hear a small blurb of information about what happened. We don't hear much about the person who died and sometimes the reason for death is not specified.
Like we discussed in class, many obituaries leave out the reasons for death. Oftentimes it is important to include why the death or tragedy occurred so that it will not happen again. Sometimes the reason is left out because it may seem embarrassing to the family, but that is an ethical decision that the reporter needs to make.
Another thing to consider is your audience. The tragic events of the past decade, such as 9/11, the war in Iraq and hurricane Katrina have in a way desensitized us to death because it has been in the news all the time.
The ethical question regarding death is how far do you go in your investigation. A journalist must determine what kinds of questions are appropriate to ask the family or friends of the deceased person, and what details to include in his or her story.
Photographers also have to deal with ethical questions regarding death. When is it appropriate to photograph a dead body?
In one example, a photographer took a photo from a helicopter of a rescue attempt of a kidnapped child in Vancouver in 2006. It was a high-profile kidnapping case and had been in the news for weeks. In the photo, the young girl’s dead body could be seen visibly floating in a lake. The photo was published and put on the front page. The family of the girl found out about her death this way. Was it ethical of the paper to run the photo? Yes and no. Yes because it was for the sake of news and getting the story out. No because the family of the victim was hurt by it. Those are the decisions journalists and photographers must make.
Essentially, the best way dealing with this would be on a “need to know” basis.
The use of disturbing images in the media
With the recent lift of President Bush’s ban on media observing the return of fallen soldiers in caskets, the use of disturbing and offensive images continues to divide the public and the media. What is considered offensive to some may not be to others. Whether the images are of coffins or piles of dead bodies, is it the medias’ job to utilize them? According to a Los Angeles Times article, the question is if the media is obligated to report the news, especially in times of war, no matter how horrific or offensive, or should they be considerate of the families and the impact of what may be seen as propaganda?
During the Vietnam War, the media was a powerful tool in exposing the truth to the public. The graphic images informed people of the devastating reality. The tragedy of 9/11 exposed our generation to images of terrorism, casualties of war, torture and execution.
The coverage of 9/11 will forever be engraved in our minds. Seeing United Airlines Flight 175 crash into the
Showing images of war has had editors debating on the importance of the photos to the story and the potential impact they will have on the public. As
The coverage of
The Internet has made the sharing of images much easier, which has resulted in Web news having different standards than traditional media. News websites are more likely to push the envelope and readers expect to find the information online that wasn’t published in the newspaper. The sites often publish slideshows to help illustrate the stories and will warn users if the content contains graphic images. If a newspaper decided not to publish graphic images of 9/11 or tortured Iraqis, it is easy for a reader to find numerous results on the Internet.
How do the media decide what images to publish? It is important to consider the audience and the type of publication. How will the images impact the audience? Will the images help the audience understand the truth? Will they help make the audience more knowledgeable? What images tare used can also depend on the type of publication. A small-town newspaper is less likely to run a photo of casualties of war than the New York Times or an on-line publication.
After all of these issues have been addressed, the journalist must remember that it is not their job to satisfy everyone all of the time. They must be focused in giving honest information so that readers can make an informed decision. The intent of the news it to inform, not exploit.
Undercover Journalism
By Carline Schwartz
Summary:
When a reporter chooses to go undercover he/she chooses to lie about his/her identity to get facts. Undercover journalism is a topic that has been debated among those in the news business for a long time. Some think it's justified, while some say lying about one's identity can cause people to distrust a news organization. As student reporters aspiring to enter the professional world of journalism, it's important for us to come up with a conclusion concerning the ethics of undercover journalism.
Summary:
When a reporter chooses to go undercover he/she chooses to lie about his/her identity to get facts. Undercover journalism is a topic that has been debated among those in the news business for a long time. Some think it's justified, while some say lying about one's identity can cause people to distrust a news organization. As student reporters aspiring to enter the professional world of journalism, it's important for us to come up with a conclusion concerning the ethics of undercover journalism.
Off The Record - Michael Mancha
The issue of “off the record” statements in an interview has been a questionable topic for journalists. On one hand it is professional to respect the wishes of an interviewee but at the same time it is the duty of a journalist to tell the story.
An instance of this debate occurred on a January 5, 1995 airing of CBS News’ “Eye to Eye” with Connie Chung, an exchange between Chung and Kathleen Gingrich, Newt Gingrich’s mother, became the center of a debate about “off the record” statements.
In an obvious interview situation, is anything off the record. This was the argument about Chung’s actions.
In a similar situation, Scottish journalist Gerri Peev reported an off-the-record comment made by Obama advisor Samantha Powers that subsequently got Powers fired.
When a source agrees to an interview it is understood that the journalist will regard everything as on the record, but if the request is made understanding why is important. For example, if they are asking for anonymity or out of respect.
Though there are reasons to respect an off the record request, it should not be a hindrance to a good journalist. Asking precise questions and listening can curtail something said off the record. Also, taking the information and finding a quotable source to verify will work.
Overall, good judgment about knowing when and when not to accept a request is the key to avoiding barriers.
An instance of this debate occurred on a January 5, 1995 airing of CBS News’ “Eye to Eye” with Connie Chung, an exchange between Chung and Kathleen Gingrich, Newt Gingrich’s mother, became the center of a debate about “off the record” statements.
In an obvious interview situation, is anything off the record. This was the argument about Chung’s actions.
In a similar situation, Scottish journalist Gerri Peev reported an off-the-record comment made by Obama advisor Samantha Powers that subsequently got Powers fired.
When a source agrees to an interview it is understood that the journalist will regard everything as on the record, but if the request is made understanding why is important. For example, if they are asking for anonymity or out of respect.
Though there are reasons to respect an off the record request, it should not be a hindrance to a good journalist. Asking precise questions and listening can curtail something said off the record. Also, taking the information and finding a quotable source to verify will work.
Overall, good judgment about knowing when and when not to accept a request is the key to avoiding barriers.
Staging for video production
Now that print journalists are expected to contribute to multimedia presentations on news Web sites, these journalists are having to learn a whole new ethical set of rules. It has been ingrained into them that they shouldn't plagiarize, fabricate or exaggerate (though of course this still goes on), but now, they have to worry about video and photo ethics as well. Journalists are having to learn the technical aspects of video at breakneck speeds, editors should remember to instruct them on the moral and ethical aspects as well. I think there are ethical violations going on out of ignorance, not malice, right now. Especially given how quickly editors want online content wrapped.
First of all the act of staging is wrong. A journalist should never direct his or her source as a hollywood director does. This is put in the National Press Photographers Association ethics guide as "while photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter or seek to alter or influence events."
Of course, there are grey areas. For instance, the camera has limitations that need to be overcome. If you are interviewing a source, and a train rolls by blaring its horn and it screws up your audio, can you tell the source to wait a couple of minutes? I say yes. The source will still probably say the same thing, he or she will just say it later.
Also, if you are shooting an event at night or in a dark bar, is it okay to use lighting? Keep in mind, you are affecting how the scene looks. I say yes, once again you are just overcoming the limitations of the camera. The human eye might see the people in the bar just fine. To the person watching it on screen, however, they might appear as vague figures in the darkness.
What good videographers need to ask themselves is "am I lying to the audience?" When it come to most lighting or filming A-roll (interview footage) the answer is no. However, if you ask a source to do something that he or she would otherwise not be doing at that time, even if it is something as simple as typing on the computer or talking on the phone, that is staging and it crosses an ethical line.
Karen Slattery and Erik Ugland, faculty members at the College of Communication at Marquette University, wrote a paper called "The Ethics of Staging." In it, they tell a story of a photojournalist who arrived at a field trip he was supposed to shoot too late. He asked the school children to walk through the cemetary of American soldiers they were visiting. He got the photo and it was on page one. However, I would argue the photojournalist crossed an ethical line. I'm sure he was thinking more about his deadline than moral practices, but that is not an excuse for what he did. Another option would have been for him to take a portrait photo of the girls. Portrait photos typically aren't as well received or engaging, it's the subject staring at a camera. His editor might have even yelled at him. But he still would have had a photo and would not have crossed any ethical line.
If he had a video camera he could have gotten audio from the girls, then put that over a picture slideshow of the girls on the bus, then gone back to the cometary and taken photos of the grave stones. Once again, this is not as good, but it does not cross any lines.
Criticizing Amateur Athletes
By Michael Schneider and Kirk Gholson
We are looking at the dilemma of the media criticizing amateur athletes' character rather than just issues pertaining to their performance. Is the media intentionally trying to embarrass the athletes? If that is the case, what are their motives for doing so? When does this criticism cross the line to personal attacks that could affect the athlete's personal life and possibly even the athlete's family? In a post-game press conference Oklahoma State head coach Mike Gundy defends his player, quarterback Bobby Reid, from what he calls a personal attack by journalist Jenni Carlson. Even though he didn't handle the situation professionally, he had a valid point in protecting his player. He points out that, if you want to criticize an amateur athlete, it should be an athlete that doesn't do the right thing. Furthermore, you shouldn't downgrade the athlete. It is fair to make constructive, analytical criticism from the sport's perspective , but it is not fair to attack the athlete's character. The athletes are not professionals and are not getting paid for their abilities. Some might have the opportunity to take their ability to the professional level, but some might be simply trying to earn an education. The motive for criticizing an amateur athlete might start by simply trying to increase readers. When does that turn into the unethical dilemma of possibly attacking an amateur athlete's character and damaging his reputation?
We are looking at the dilemma of the media criticizing amateur athletes' character rather than just issues pertaining to their performance. Is the media intentionally trying to embarrass the athletes? If that is the case, what are their motives for doing so? When does this criticism cross the line to personal attacks that could affect the athlete's personal life and possibly even the athlete's family? In a post-game press conference Oklahoma State head coach Mike Gundy defends his player, quarterback Bobby Reid, from what he calls a personal attack by journalist Jenni Carlson. Even though he didn't handle the situation professionally, he had a valid point in protecting his player. He points out that, if you want to criticize an amateur athlete, it should be an athlete that doesn't do the right thing. Furthermore, you shouldn't downgrade the athlete. It is fair to make constructive, analytical criticism from the sport's perspective , but it is not fair to attack the athlete's character. The athletes are not professionals and are not getting paid for their abilities. Some might have the opportunity to take their ability to the professional level, but some might be simply trying to earn an education. The motive for criticizing an amateur athlete might start by simply trying to increase readers. When does that turn into the unethical dilemma of possibly attacking an amateur athlete's character and damaging his reputation?
Staging the News
By: Katie Carmichael and Patricia Drew
The media has long been criticized for its’ presentation of news in many forms. Some accuse the media of being biased, or for failing to present the news in a useful, thorough context. But there is a fine line between getting the story you need, staging events, and altering news to convey your intended message. The Urban Dictionary defines staging the news as, “re-creation on television news of some event that is believed to have happened or which could have happened.” Many journalists face tremendous pressure from editors and deadlines. Under this pressure, some resort to unethical practices to complete their assignment and make their bosses happy.
Staging or altering news can happen through any news medium. In photojournalism, there are many techniques that lend themselves to altering photos. Programs have become widely available, such as Photoshop, which makes doctoring photographs much easier than in the past. A prime example would be the Times cover featuring O.J. Simpson’s mug shot. Techniques were used to make the photo appear much darker and give the reader an uneasy, sinister feeling not conveyed in the original picture. There is controversy in whether this is actually unethical.
In print journalism, there is a temptation to stage news in the form of falsifying quotes, or exaggeration of actual events to make the story more interesting and enticing. Again, many journalists feel the pressure of getting a story in on time, on top of making it an interesting story for their readers. Some journalists will manipulate information to tell the story they want to tell. One such case would be Judith Miller and her reporting of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction when the United States was first becoming involved in the ‘War on Terror’. Although she had information that certain metal canisters found were not used in the making of WMD’s, she ignored that information and ran with the story.
Another frightening aspect of staging the news is when government staging events and the media plays directly into the sham. The Bush administration received much criticism for its manipulation of the media. One famous occurrence was when FEMA apparently staged a news conference to bolster its image after Hurricane Katrina. When receiving news, it is vital that the viewer or reader keep in mind the source of information. But what about when the source of information is unclear and untraceable, specifically in cases when the government is controlling the message?
There are many negative effects of staging or altering news. The primary duty of the press is to serve as “watchdogs” for the American people. By presenting fake news, the media is failing at their most important task and disowning the truth, which should be the goal of every journalist. In addition to misleading the American public, journalists face many repercussions for such unethical behavior. One could loose their job, ruin their reputation as a journalist of integrity, or harm their sources. In this age of technology, information can be transmitted in an instant all over the world. The chance of getting caught for staging or altering news has greatly increased. It is a fine line that journalists, as well as receivers of news, must be cautious and aware of.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Ethics of Privacy in Journalism
By: Lexie Aebi and Casey Aldridge
The ethics of privacy in journalism is based on a variety of factors. When determining how much privacy an individual has, one must consider who the individual is and where the situation is taking place.
There are different categories of involvement in the public eye. A private individual is someone who is not sought out by the media. If intimate facts are released about a private person, and no public good is served, an invasion of privacy occurs. However, if the public good outweighs the personal damage, then there is no invasion of privacy.
The more contact an individual has with the public, the less privacy they have. For example, judges, police officers and school teachers have limited privacy. However, there are also people who become involuntary public figures and limited public figures because of situations they become involved in.
Individuals have little to no right of privacy in a public place. If everyone in that public place can see you, the media can photograph you, write about what you did there and publish the pictures.
However, some public places are not always accessible to the media. For example, a reporter cannot walk into a school without following proper procedures.
Semi-public places are privately owned but open to the public. Reporters and photographers may enter, but they must leave if the owner asks them to or it becomes trespassing.
The best way to determine what is ethical when it comes to privacy in the media is to base reporting on a “need to know” basis.
By: Lexie Aebi and Casey Aldridge
The ethics of privacy in journalism is based on a variety of factors. When determining how much privacy an individual has, one must consider who the individual is and where the situation is taking place.
There are different categories of involvement in the public eye. A private individual is someone who is not sought out by the media. If intimate facts are released about a private person, and no public good is served, an invasion of privacy occurs. However, if the public good outweighs the personal damage, then there is no invasion of privacy.
The more contact an individual has with the public, the less privacy they have. For example, judges, police officers and school teachers have limited privacy. However, there are also people who become involuntary public figures and limited public figures because of situations they become involved in.
Individuals have little to no right of privacy in a public place. If everyone in that public place can see you, the media can photograph you, write about what you did there and publish the pictures.
However, some public places are not always accessible to the media. For example, a reporter cannot walk into a school without following proper procedures.
Semi-public places are privately owned but open to the public. Reporters and photographers may enter, but they must leave if the owner asks them to or it becomes trespassing.
The best way to determine what is ethical when it comes to privacy in the media is to base reporting on a “need to know” basis.
Altering Photographs in Photojournalism
By: Amanda Sena and Haley Hickey
Summary:
In early years, the faking of photographs was done either through stage direction by the photographer or through darkroom manipulation. These days, however, photographic faking has taken on a whole different dimension, as images can be digitized and manipulated, appearing seamless to the naked eye.
One example of early staged photography is Roger Fenton’s two versions of “Valley of the Shadow of Death,” depicting the aftermath of a battle during the Crimean War in 1855. The first version has no cannonballs in the middle of the road, while the second has many cannonballs strewed across by Fenton to create a more graphic image.
Darkroom manipulation was very popular among dictators, as they often airbrushed their enemies out of their photographs. In the 1930s, Joseph Stalin removed a commissar from one of his photos after the commissar fell out of favor with him.
Today, digital manipulation has been used in many publications, where with a few clicks of a button, an image can be changed completely. In Vanity Fair’s 2007 “Africa Issue,” only two of the 20 different covers by Annie Leibovitz are real, while the others are composites, including the one of Oprah Winfrey and George Clooney.
Some photographers have even lost their jobs for manipulating photos, including Brian Walski, who was fired by the Los Angeles Times in 2003 for creating a composite of two different images he took. Both were of a British soldier in Basra, gesturing to Iraqi civilians to seek cover shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Walski combined the two to “improve” the composition.
Summary:
In early years, the faking of photographs was done either through stage direction by the photographer or through darkroom manipulation. These days, however, photographic faking has taken on a whole different dimension, as images can be digitized and manipulated, appearing seamless to the naked eye.
One example of early staged photography is Roger Fenton’s two versions of “Valley of the Shadow of Death,” depicting the aftermath of a battle during the Crimean War in 1855. The first version has no cannonballs in the middle of the road, while the second has many cannonballs strewed across by Fenton to create a more graphic image.
Darkroom manipulation was very popular among dictators, as they often airbrushed their enemies out of their photographs. In the 1930s, Joseph Stalin removed a commissar from one of his photos after the commissar fell out of favor with him.
Today, digital manipulation has been used in many publications, where with a few clicks of a button, an image can be changed completely. In Vanity Fair’s 2007 “Africa Issue,” only two of the 20 different covers by Annie Leibovitz are real, while the others are composites, including the one of Oprah Winfrey and George Clooney.
Some photographers have even lost their jobs for manipulating photos, including Brian Walski, who was fired by the Los Angeles Times in 2003 for creating a composite of two different images he took. Both were of a British soldier in Basra, gesturing to Iraqi civilians to seek cover shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Walski combined the two to “improve” the composition.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Ethical Issues behind Anonymous Sources
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)