Trading Tragedy for Technology at Tech

One year after the Virginia Tech shootings, The Roanoake Times, proposed a new multimedia means of storytelling to document the feelings of the faculty and students at the university. On the anniversary of the tragedy, reporters were live blogging at the cite of the school's memorial candle while others were taking audio clip interviews and sound bites. With all of these mediums, the Times hoped to capture a story that, "continues to affect this region, and the nation, every day."

While the Virginia Tech shootings, along with the NIU tragedy, have forced colleges and universities to rethink their student services and safety programs, I don't think the affect of the shootings was profound enough to warrant such intense media coverage. If every tragedy were treated with such extravagance, we'd be celebrating a sad anniversary every day. The Times' idea of multimedia coverage is a great one, but I think it is wasted on an event that isn't really an "event." Students and faculty are likely trying to get on with their classes and their lives, and while I'm sure they have intense feelings about the tragedy, it seems as if the media are provoking them into creating a story rather than covering something that is actually happening.

Any school shooting is a tragedy, and our nation should remember those who so needlessly lost their lives and work to reach out to those who are in need of help before such acts of violence occur again. The Roanoke Times should be covering the anniversary of this sad event, but it should not be using the occasion to try out its new media methods or to re-open the still-smarting wounds of a community that has just begun to heal.

Us on U.S.

Their reputation for bad grammar and personal ranting aside, I've been trying to give blogs their due credit, and am finding that they are a great source to find all of people's frustration on the media. From personal to professional blogs, our classroom discussions to our papers, it is apparent that we are being beat over the head with examples of how the public "doesn't care" and therefore, the media will not cover specific events -- at the peril of our democracy.

One blog in particular that I found was linked up to the SPJ site, al-Sahafiyeen. The author of the article, RayHanania, expressed disgust at the lack of coverage by national and local news of the problems and mistakes surrounding the Iraq War and the current administration:

"Over the past few years, the U.S. Attorneys office has indicted, charged, prosecuted and convicted a handful of managers at Halliburton and KBR involved in bribe-taking and corruption. Another case is being prosecuted this week, but you wouldn't know about it, except that "another" Iraq war corruption case is being vetted by the Government."


What especially caught my eye on this particular blog though, was this observation by the author:

"The cases have been sent to low-profile regional federal court rooms, prosecuted under the national media's radar screen (as if we even have one, really). The latest invovles Jeff Mazon, a guy from suburban Chicago (my neck of the woods otherwise I might not have even seen anything about these cases) tied to Halliburton and KBR. He's being tried in Rockford, Illinois and it is being covered by Iowa's Quad-Cities Times (thankfully one paper is interested)."

As someone who received the Quad-City Times for most of their life, I happen to know that they have very little interest in exposing national crises and cover-ups, but are instead scraping to find local stories with any kind of relevance. It is this particular knowledge that has shown me how happy many newspapers are to be ignorant, and it makes me feel incredibly cheated.

While I believe most papers would argue that they are using their ethical codes to decide what they cover in regards to relevance, I question the standard of what these papers may consider "relevant." I believe that it's relevant that the government is trying is darndest to cover up any mistakes it possibly can, but the QC Times may think it's more relevant to tell me about Dr. Phil's latest "good deed" or an update on how the Illinois rest stop system is developing. Consumers of news need to demand relevance in regards to what affects them in their daily lives-- and be specific.

A Fair Warning to Journalism

In what has now become a tradition, an online source has yet again taken the major media to task. The Smoking Gun, a Web site that promises, "exclusive documents" that are "cool, confidential, [and] quirky", recently claimed that the L.A. Times used fake documents in an interest story on deceased rapper, Tupac Shakur. Russ Stanton, the most recent top editor at the long-troubled Times, encouraged a full inquiry into the background of the documents which were found to be false.

While it is embarrassing for mainstream journalism to be called out and reprimanded by smaller, less prevalent news sources, Poynter Online's Bob Steele points out the real problem as quality control in the newsroom. In his article, he provides an outline for how to investigate such charges as those made by The Smoking Gun. These, in turn, give insight to journalists on how to gather valid information efficiently. Some of his suggestions are specific to the situation of the Times, but pose excellent questions as to the ethics of the changes being made in the media industry:

• Did the reporter on the story have enough substantive conversations with his editor as the story was developing? When did those conversations take place?
• What questions was the editor asking the reporter? Were those questions rigorous enough given the nature of the story, the scope of the assertions and the weight of the accusations?
• When and how were the questionable documents obtained by the reporter?
• What process was used by the reporter and editor to scrutinize the source of the documents as well as the source(s) for other key pieces of information in the story?
• What process of verification and cross-checking was applied to various pieces of information provided by sources, including the documents that now appear to have been a hoax?
• Were assumptions made at key points that needed greater challenging? If so, why didn’t that happen?
• At what point were other editors brought into the process to weigh in on the methods of reporting, writing and editing the story? What expertise and perspective did those editors bring to the process?
• What questions were those editors asking? What questions were not asked that should have been asked? Why weren’t those other questions asked?
• Were there contrarians among those involved in the reporting and editing on this story?
• How and why were decisions made about presenting this story first on the Web site and then in the newspaper two days later? Were those decisions driven by journalistic purpose or by other factors? Did those decisions affect the checks and balances process for vetting this story?
• Have recent cutbacks in staffing at the Los Angeles Times and the loss of some veteran editors affected the quality control process on stories like this one? If so, how?

To maintain quality in our major and minor newsrooms, we must look to the ethics that we abide by. To be ethical is to investigate -- not to take all sources and documents at face value. Consider this a wake-up call to the current and future news gathering community: Keep your staff and quality, or lose your credibility and your integrity.

The Long Arm of the Law: Should It Include Journalists?

The Society of Professional Journalists recently took on the Bush Administration, the Department of Justice, and the Senate in an attempt to encourage the passage of a new section of the Free Flow of Information Act which would protect journalists from having to testify in legal cases or reveal their sources in court.

People have been speaking out to politicians such as Joe Lieberman to fight against the amendment in the belief that it would, "make the United States both less secure and less free by subverting the enforcement of criminal laws and the Federal Government's investigatory powers" (Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, 2008). On the other side, journalists argue that this new section will encourage people to speak out as well as help the public's right to know.

The exact language of the amendment was not included in the SPJ's article, but a Web site by the Dept. of Justice has been set up to provide a forum for viewpoints on it.

From an ethical standpoint, journalists should not have to reveal their sources. The promise of anonymity to any informant gives citizens incentive to share whatever information they may have. Journalism is our greatest monitor of power, and the public plays a crucial role in maintaining that position. While law enforcement is also vital to the health of our nation, the people's right to give and receive information is the very foundation of our country and its values.

Why are journalists stuck in 1984?

J. Patrick Coolican, a writer for the Las Vegas Sun, has recently confessed one of the major slip-ups of journalists that especially tends to show itself in the campaign season. In an article for Poynter Online, Coolican admits the influence of "groupthink" when journalists spend too much time together on the trail. This constant interaction often leads to the group coming to a consensus about an issue, i.e.~ Clinton is winning, Obama was hurt in the long run by Reverend Wright's comments, McCain is too old to assume the presidency, etc. Instead of each journalist providing their own view of the action, they rely on each other to come to a conclusion of how the story will be presented. While this is mostly unintentional on the part of the journalist, the temptation to follow what the crowd is thinking is strong.

The effect of groupthink, or as journalists call it, a "narrative", is that the many nuances of a story are lost to the public when all of the storytellers seems to be saying the same thing. At the very worst, journalists could ultimately agree on certain "truths" that later prove themselves to be false, to the major disadvantage or detriment of the public. While several journalistic ethical codes warn of aligning with people and companies outside of who the journalist works for, this aspect seems more difficult to prevent. Journalists have a responsibility to the public, but they are only human and are open to the influences of others. In a time when fewer people are trusting journalists, it seems that the they are more willing to put more trust in each other.

For Future Reference . . .

While doing research for our ethical case studies this past week, I ran across an interesting story in the Society of Professional Journalists' magazine, the Online Quill. The story had to do with a college journalism class, not dissimilar to our own Media Ethics course, that had to learn an ethical lesson in one of the most terrifying ways possible. In the wake of such tragedies as the University of North Carolina and Northern Illinois University shootings, this is a story that every young journalist should read.

NBA (No Bloggers Allowed)

How powerful have blogs become? It seems that they have gained so much influence that they have been banned from the some of the locker rooms of the National Basketball Association.

The Society of Professional Journalists complained to NBA Commissioner David Stern last week after the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, Mike Cuban, created a policy that officially bans all bloggers from the locker rooms where journalists have traditionally been allowed to gather to cover the sports beat. The reasoning behind this new policy is that there is a space concern, meaning that all journalists would not have the room they needed to cover the NBA "fairly".

With fairness as a defense, it is interesting that the only blogger to be specifically removed from the locker room was Dallas Morning News blogger Tim MacMahon. It was also noted that MacMahon had, incidentally, written an unflattering story about Maverick's coach, Avery Johnson. While all of the official newspaper and broadcast writers were allowed to stay, it makes one wonder if bloggers, despite their influence, are truly respected in the news industry.

Though many breaking stories in recent years have been released by bloggers, their position as legitimate news gatherers seems to be questioned by the creators and consumers of news, or in this case, the news subjects. While it is true that anyone these days can have access to a blog, (as shown here) this should not determine who can and cannot have access to the information that creates news. Blogs are certainly not the oldest and most respected of media forms, but they have proven themselves again and again as a way to reveal the truth more quickly and to a wider audience. To discount the bloggers becomes an ethical issue of who the "real" news gatherers are, and who has the right to say who is legitimate or not. Finally, to specifically move a journalist of any medium, as Mike Cuban did, not only raises the suspicions of the concerned public, but also goes against our vital sense of freedom of speech and information.

The Prince and the Poser

Well, Matt Drudge has done it again. In a sensational stunt that has become his trademark, the world's most famous unofficial journalist has done it again by revealing the location of Prince Harry and his battalion in Afghanistan. The Ministry of Defence is up in arms over the revelation after going to great lengths to arrange an agreement with the British press which had been successful in keeping the prince's location safe and secret since December. The source for Drudge's story is thought to have been an Australian women's magazine, of all things, called New Idea, but the German magazine Bild has also been implicated in releasing information as well. New Idea has claimed ignorance of the blackout.

After a week of going over the Kidder model as related to the John McCain story in class, I feel that I am somewhat able to gauge whether publishing a story is ethical or not. In this case, I see no reason why people would need to know the exact location of Prince Harry. The whereabouts of the third-in-line to the throne are not immediately pressing to the British public, and are certainly not pertinent to the everyday lives of the American people. On a more serious level, the revealing of the prince's location could become a danger to him, and to his fellow troops. The fact that we know he is there serving in the military seems to be enough. While it is true that Drudge was not the first to reveal the story, he had to have been aware that the information had been missed by the majority of the public, as well as the fact that his site would generate the more awareness and discussion in the world community, thus creating more of a danger to the young prince and his military colleagues.

Drudge has placed several links on his Web site to British media outlets that have come out with the story since his initial breaking of the silence. To me, it seems as if Drudge is sending a message with this; something like, "Yeah, I did it. But they're doing it too!" Though the news blackout has some people questioning whether the Ministry of Defense and the British press coming to such an agreement is ethical, Drudge's motivation seems to be solely for a juicy news story. His avaunt-garde style does not seem to provide ample information for a democratic public, but instead, creates a trend of sensationalism (re: Monica and Bill). While the media blackout was not binding, even for the British media, and the First Amendment allows anyone to say what they please, I believe that if Drudge really cared about the good of the people, he would learn when to keep his mouth shut.

Newspapers on Newspapers

In our class discussions about the situation of the The Los Angeles Times this week, I began to wonder how this publication had been handling the news of its troubles with their publisher, David Hiller, and its corporate parent, the Tribune Co. To be completely honest would certainly undermine many readers' faith in the paper, but the situation cannot be simply overlooked. With several other news sources covering the ongoing staff and budget cuts, the Times can either ignore the problem, or step in with their own perspective.

In researching this particular situation, I found testaments from editors who had been in similar situations on Indiana University's School of Journalism web site. When confronted with being less than perfect in the eyes of the public, these newspapers took different routes from covering itself, to waiting for other outlets to cover what they could and let the publicity die down. The respective danger of these tactics of course, would be the bias that may come through in self-coverage, or being seen as cowardly in refraining to speak about it.

In order to find how the paper had been covering its in-office issues, I went to the Times's web page and used their search engine by simply typing "David Hiller." The first listing, surprisingly, turned out to be a memo from David Hiller to his staff announcing more cuts in the newsroom and asking their continued support for his actions. This only seemed to confirm the image of Hiller that was presented in The New York Times article classifying him as a people pleaser, but someone who will continue to carry out the Tribune Co.'s wishes.

The release of this memo raised even more questions for me. Should a newspaper be completely honest when they are put in the news in an unflattering light? How much should they be required to tell? Are there issues within the company that are too sensitive for public knowledge? The case of the Times highlights many ethical issues that are still being debated within its newsroom, and at papers across the country.

Guts, Glory & Guilt

When most people think of a college football player, it conjures up the image of the perfect, all-American male hero. These young men are icons of the talent, skill and drive that Americans deem so necessary to become successful in our society. Since many consider them the prodigal sons of our country, it is hard to admit when they need to be reprimanded, or in some cases, severely penalized.

Recently, Ken Armstrong and Nick Perry, journalists at the Seattle Times, have written a series of articles called "Victory and Ruins" that investigate the University of Washington's 2000 college football team, winners of the 2001 Rose Bowl. The men that comprised this team were loved and venerated by all fans of the Huskie football program and had much respect from the wider college football community. However, behind the scenes of the gridiron action, many of the players did not have such a winning relationship with the law.

In Armstrong and Perry's series, they bring to light many of the scandals and cover-ups of the 2000 Huskie team. By paralleling the timeline of events of the football season with the underlying criminal conduct of the players, it becomes apparent that a winning season outweighed justice when it came to University of Washington football. Though the articles have helped many to understand the problems with the current rebuilding of this program, the question has been asked, how far should journalists go in exposing the lives of the Huskie athletes and administrators? Do "off-field" antics warrant less attention than game time plays?

An avid college football fan myself, I can understand the hero worship that accompanies the sport. However, someone who has earned the privilege to play for such a program also takes on the burden of constant vigilance by the media. This is especially true for the administrators who have taken on leadership roles in the college and in the community. As model citizens they should behave as such, and when they do not, they should be as subject to the media, and the law, as all other citizens are.

AP: Advancing Periodicals or Augmenting Prices?

Last summer, the Associated Press announced a new payment plan for its customers that allows the purchase of its stories "a la carte", rather than charging a lump sum for any number of articles that it has produced. The plan was created to help newspapers and periodicals save money in an economy that is not in their favor and is also meant to tailor to the specific interests of these individual publications by keeping their options flexible. This new form of payment will not take effect until 2009, but already there has been ample protest from newspapers who are dissatisfied with this plan.

The complaint of many editors is that the new pricing system will not lower prices, but rather, keep them the same or even raise them. AP President Tom Curley has admitted that, ""about 80% would get a cutback, 10% will remain the same and 10% would go up." This seems like a good deal for most newspapers, but is the AP in a position to make such a deal with its customers?

If you look at any newspaper these days, a good percentage (sometimes most) of the stories used are from the AP. Without these stories, much of the news that we depend on would be absent. Indeed, local news would be highly available, but national and international news would be hard to come by. Becasue newspapers and the general public rely so much on the services of the AP, should it be free to make its own restructuring decisions, or do they have the responsibility to provide for those who depend on it? As one of the biggest names and most trusted sources in the news community, ethically, the AP must choose wisely.

For Journalists, Ethics Are A Way Of Life

Question: When should a journalist be aware of how their actions are reflecting on their employer? Anwer: All of the time.

Sid Hartman, a writer for the Star Tribune, has been put in some ethical hot water recently for appearing in a commercial for Sun Country Airlines, a company that frequently runs ads in the Star Tribune. Hartman did not consult with his editors before appearing in the commercial and claimed that he was giving the company free advertising by holding a Star Tribune and claiming to be reading "the greatest newspaper in the world."

The major concern in this issue is whether this apparent show of brand loyalty would affect how the newspaper would cover stories about the airline company and its competitors. While some could say that Hartman was merely supporting his paper, it could also be said that he ignored ethical principles to earn a quick buck. While his decision was obviously not the greatest, it brings to light how journalists must sign on to an ethical lifestyle before their first by line is in print.

Hindsight 20/20: Could the Media Have Prevented the Iraq War?

Recently, The Center For Public Integrity released an interesting bit of reading called, "The War Card: Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War". The article, as one could imply by the title, is an expose of the many lies and half-truths that were told by the Bush Administration to initiate war on Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

While these deceptions are maddening in themselves, much heat has been put on the press for repeating these lies, though they may have been unaware of the truth at the time. The media, who are suppose to be the watchdogs of such underhanded politics, could be accused of not doing their homework before printing such statements. The question remains though, did the press not follow through with their job, or are they merely suppose to provide the public with these statements to allow us to make our own judgements? Should the media be instructors, or should they be guides?

As discussed in class, Plato would have us follow our leaders and experts unflinchingly, but what if their words are untrue and left uninterpreted? Should the public take more responsibility for itself, or should the media be dissecting every quote they print? While all of this questioning could become a blame game, I believe it's high-time to think about what we expect from the press and from ourselves as democratic citizens.

No Good Noose

The golf world is currently in an uproar (for how much golf people can be in an uproar) about some very touchy race issues. Kelly Tilghman, a correspondent for the Golf Channel, was suspended recently for a comment she made about lynching in reference to golf superstar, Tiger Woods. In response to the situation, Golfweek Magazine ran a cover of a noose with the tag line, "Caught in a Noose: Tilghman slips up, and Golf Channel can't wriggle free."

While Tilghman's comment was in poor taste, the public showed decidedly more opposition to the Golfweek cover. Many claimed that the issue would have blown over had the specialty magazine not used such an offensive picture. Even PGA Tour commissioner, Tim Finchem, saw the cover as a poor journalistic choice, calling it, "outrageous and irresponsible" and claiming that the picture choice made the magazine look more like a gossip magazine rather than a serious golf journal.

Dave Seanor, the vice president and editor of Golfweek who has been fired over the controversy, was surprised by the public's reaction to the cover. He has openly claimed responsibility for the choice, but has taken it as a learning experience in gauging the public. In any case, the ethics of the issue have not escaped Mr. Seanor. His reaction and attitude seem to reflect the dilemma that many journalists will experience.

"We're a weekly news magazine. The big story of the previous week was Kelly Tilghman, and that's what we chose," Seanor said. "How to illustrate that? It was tough. Do you put Kelly Tilghman out there? But was it so much about her or the uproar?"

One of the major issues facing Golfweek is defending their motivation: are they merely seeking to sell more magazines, or are they truly interested in bringing up a topic that has so long been avoided in the golf world? Should something as sensitive as race be splashed in such an upfront way on the cover of a magazine, or does the issue need to addressed less directly? These are the questions that journalists, as well as the golf community, will need to answer very soon.

They're Just Trying To Pay the Mortgage

Those of us going into the world of journalism after college have high hopes that we will become the ordained "truth tellers" for our society. Our starry-eyed ambitions lead us to believe that we will go on to expose the lies of evil politicians, uncover the realities of human suffering and fight for the average American in their pursuit to obtain knowledge about the world around them.

Sadly though, a person does have to make a living . . .

Anybody who hasn't been locked in Azkaban the last few years knows that the media these days have been erring more and more on the side of entertainment rather than hardcore news stories. We hear more and more with each passing day the situation of the unfortunate Spears girls, but it is unlikely that many would be able to tell you about any current news about the war in Iraq. I'm pleased to tell you that Atonement has seven Golden Globe nominations, but please don't ask me about any updates about the state of Pakistan since the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Even if a journalist wants to get down to the nitty gritty when it comes to news, they're street smart enough to know what the people really want to know (you can tell what by which links you most likely wanted to click through this last paragraph); but the question still lingers: what does the public need to know?

In a 2006 article for MarketWatch.com, Thomas Kostigen wrote about ten news stories that had been given shockingly low coverage in America's news outlets. These stories ranged from Halliburton disclosing nuclear information to Iraq, to the rising effects of global warming, to the unveiling of the many corruptions of the Bush Administration. The article was taken from information that was released by the Sonoma State University research group Project Censored that tracks prevalent stories in the news . . . and those that are noticeably left out.

The question that all of this ultimately brings up is, what is the journalist's responsibility to the public? Is their true duty to give the people what they want, or what they need to know? While the cry of "freedom of the press!" rings in one's ears, the essential need of the public to be informed is what makes them "free". Only when armed with the necessary information can Americans truly carry out their democratic responsibility. Without the ethical consideration of journalists, this information could go forgotten and unnoticed.