THE RABID WATCHDOG

Today in our comms 239 class we were given a presentation from our peers about how journalists and news organizations must be a monitor on power, AKA "the watchdog principle". During our discussion it was stated that journalists as watchdogs take a subjective approach to there journalism, meaning journalists take sides... with the truth. This led us to the discussion of how scrupulous should journalist be in keeping an eye on prominent and powerful organizations in our society, as well as prominent and powerful figures.  

One of the purposes of this watchdog principle is to hold these organizations and people accountable for the wrong that they do.  One issue is whether or not we should hold them accountable for mistakes or crimes they've committed in the past, say 10, 20, or 30 years ago.  Often times journalists will dig up this information just to get a story. We agreed that sometimes this information is relevant and sometimes it isn't.  Sometimes journalists use this information which discredits this person just for the sake of a story, ultimately having no relevance to the public.  We must be good judges as journalists.  

I would now like to present to you the case of the "Blogger" in all this.  Journalism outlets now take the form of blogs and one might even say "tweets".  As unofficial news sources should these news outlets be subject to such journalistic ethics as traditional news organizations are? The case which arouses this question appeared in a Nov 26th NYTimes article "Network feels the wrath of a blogger misled" http://tinyurl.com/ylrhbda in the business section. 

An editor from www.deadspin.com http://tinyurl.com/yze67pt basically uses his popular sports blog to reinforce (not so flattering) rumors about an ESPN employee.  In a way a blog editor has twisted this idea of watchdog journalism to slander a person and a companies reputation without following a proper journalistic ethical procedure to verify his information.  

This is a problem with so much new media and it acting as independent news outlets.  Not all bad comes from this new media taking on the role of journalism, however; we must be mindful of the abuses that are occurring within them.  

Ethics of Objectivity in Journalism

A journalist from Baltimore once said " the objective viewpoint is the one that agrees with mine."  To some degree objectivity in journalism is a fantasy.  As humans by nature we have biased views and affiliations.  So journalists (as humans, we think anyways) are biased. 

 I suppose because of it's inherent nature we put so much enfasis on the idea of objectivity in the news.  Its the duty of news organizations not to deceive the pubic or their audiences, and we feel the best way for them NOT to do that is by presenting both sides of the stories that are published.  For a journalist to do his job objectively he should represent voices from both sides or even multiple sides of an issue, that way a reader can come to a fair or balanced conclusion. 

 In our Comms 239 class some of us came to agree that journalists are not objective but their methods or form of journalism can be.  

This focus on objectivity some what bothers me.  As I continue to read and view multiple news sources i notice that objectivity leaves me unfulfilled or with a vague view of what the real picture is.   A program that i feel proves my point is the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

  I understand that it is a mock news source but in its subjectivity it makes strong affirmative statements about how things really are. An objective approach is hesitant to make affirmative statements in fear that it might be wrong.  Last week Jon Stewart criticized CNN for a lack of fact checking on their part.  Those sort of things are good for the public to know, and it takes a subjective approach to do that.  

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-12-2009/cnn-leaves-it-there

Another example, and its kind of an extreme one, is Bush and the Iraq War. The media continually published and objective view of the facts or on what the government was telling the public.  Of the few news organizations that investigated and tried to portray a subjective view point and make an affirmative statement that the president was wrong were hardly ever published.  

Regarding objectivity: it's a good general rule that probably should be followed most of the time, however; focusing on the ethics of it journalists loose perspective of the picture they are really portraying to their audiences and of the picture the public really might need to see.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=objectivity%20in%20journalism&oe=UTF-8&safe=active&um=1&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iv&start=0#

Thoughts on the future of print journalism

I read two article recently; one dealing with apple's new gizmo titled the apple "tablet"(http://bit.ly/C0y1V), and another discussing the future demise of print newspapers.  Both article's i felt discussed the same issue but from different perspectives.   

The first article (go to http://bit.ly/XBVaB) addresses the wave of new online media that is revolutionizing newspapers as we speak.  The article claims that print is loosing its value because audiences are all going online for their news.  Print subscriptions are dropping for all major newspapers across the country. News organizations are trying to keep up by downsizing their employee numbers and by moving more content onto the internet.  Government bailouts have been spoken of but most agree as does the writer of the article that this is a bad idea.  But does print journalism need to die and is the sooner it dies the better?  

Its obvious with the appearance of gadgets like the apple "tablet" or the "kindle" that the future of print is bleak. However, their is something artifact-esqe about having a tangible paper or magazine in your hand that holds value and will throughout the ages.  

I remember being a kid and going into my parents basement and on the bookshelf their were hundreds of yellow National Geographic magazines lining two or three entire shelves.  It was sacrilegious to throw one of those magazines away.  One of my favorite possessions is the 1983 National Geographic with a cover portrait of the Afghan girl.

Besides the timeless value of physical print, the truth is advertisers are still paying to put their ads in newspapers and not online.  Sure, most larger national newspapers or struggling but local newspapers are doing reasonably better. Frankly that is where newspapers are doing a decent job; covering local stories (not international news).  

Preparations for handling online audiences need to be made by every major and minor newspaper organizations, its true, but as long as people are still confiding in their local print papers and as long as advertisers are still willing to put their ads in the printed papers and not so much online, then print will be around to stay.   

Thoughts on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Media

Last Friday night after my soccer game I went out to eat with my brother and some friends. One of my friends had just gotten back from the BYU Jerusalem Center and my brother having lived in Palestine and Iraq: naturally a discussion of the middle east was sparked. We discussed Israeli and Palestinian views of Americans and westerners and about how we as Americans view Israelis, Palestinians and other countries in the Middle East.
We agreed that most Muslims or middle easterners have a positive view of Americans and treat them with respect, yet they are able to distinguish good American citizens from the defects and vices of the American Government. U.S. citizens; however, have a harder time distiguishing between citizens and governements of Middle Eastern countries.
My brother reasoned that one of the reasons why is due to western media. He gave the example of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's President, and how we portrayed him as someone who wishes to "destroy" the nation of Israel and the U.S. and who denies the event of the Holocaust.
I decided to do some research. Tons of hits came up in newspapers and videos under "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad destroy Israel speech". Many of the articles focused primarily on Ahmadinejad talking about destroying Israel and video showed his speeches with subtitles reading "death to Israel" and "death to America".
Next I searched some news sources that weren't so pro-western media like Al Jazeera. As i searched their database for the same thing, "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad destroy israel speech", not a single item came up. My next source was actually text of Ahmadinejad. I read through some of his speeches and found nothing that directly of the destrucion of israel through fighting or bloodshed.
This was exactly my brother's point. Ahmadinejad used frases like "wipe Israel and the Zionist regime from the pages of time" or "remove Israel from the world map." Ahmadinejad uses the past Iranian dictatorship regime of the Ayatollah as an example. Just as the old Iranian regime was replace or removed by another governement, so should the Zionist regime in Israel be replaced by another governement.
In recent class discussions of Comms 239 we have talked about the loss of credibility of the Media in the U.S. I realize that this is only one case, but now i understand little better why the media is viewed as less credible.

Links to Ahmadinejad's speeches:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6107339

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/04/21/full-text-of-president-ahmadinejads-remarks-at-un-conference-on-racism/

The Abuses of Social Media

After reading the news article in the New York Times about famous college athletes like Tim Tebow, Sam Bradford, and Colt McKoy and their frustration with the crazies out there that want to take pictures  of these athletes in some inappropriate scenario, i at first felt some sympathy and frustration for them.  In the article it describes how fans of these athletes use their cell phones to post pictures on facebook and twitter of these athletes and their personal lives.  One girl even tried to get a picture of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow with her shirt off.  

As I pondered these situations and the infringing qualities of cell phones and social networks like facebook and twitter I actually noticed a positive side to the whole mess.  Being in the spotlight as these athletes are and knowing everyone is watching there every move and has the ability to expose it to the world i notice these athletes taking a more responsible approach to their lives and their actions.  They might think twice about doing something to embarrass themselves, their schools, and their family. 

 If more college students around the country could be aware of this and the consequences that could occur, they might reconsider how they act during their college years.

To Publish or Not to Publish

 http://tinyurl.com/ltdz95

A Photo really is worth a 1,000 words.  Photographs are some of the most powerful, most influential and most memorable forms of media that exist today, especially in news media and journalism.  Thousands of images are used daily to help communicate stories, even to the point where a body of images can tell a complete story in and of themselves.

A single image has the power to motivate a person or even an entire nation; an image can inspire or offend countless people more so than the most eloquently written news story. Kenneth F. Irby from the Poynter Institute states that “ photojournalism…is universal and transcends cultural and language bounds”(Burkholder).   Due to the fact, however, that these photojournalistic images are so powerful, they tend to be at the center of many ethical media issues.  

With such a powerful tool in their hands, photojournalists have a responsibility to be sensitive, considerate, and to portray the story as accurately as possible to the public.  History needs to be recorded and the camera lens is the eyepiece through which it is recorded.  More often than we like events in history are offensive and insulting, gruesome and graphic, repulsive or embarrassing.  The question is then, should such controversial and shocking images be published in the media?

 

Publishing Controversial Images

Cons

On many occasions the printing of an image is controversial because of how it affects the public or the individuals that are closely associated with the subject of the image.  A published image can invade a person’s privacy, damage a reputation and embarrass, or cause pain and suffering to remain with individuals long after a tragic event has occurred.

Such was the case with a photo of a fireman carrying the lifeless body of young boy who had been trapped in a burning house. The photo was published in the Detroit Free Press.  Readers complained that the picture was disgusting, sickening, and inappropriate.  “The paper was accused of overstepping the bounds of good taste. Joan Byrd, a Washington Post ombudsman summarized his argument: “The family should not have to see news photos of a family member killed in an accident or a crime.  Families of victims have said that years later something haunts them every single day: The picture of the body at the scene [or] the description of the person in the newspaper…”  (Kobre). This debate of journalism ethics is called absolutism…if the picture hurts just a few relatives and friends, it is wrong to run the picture because the media must protect those few from more pain (Kobre).

In addition to causing embarrassment or pain to individuals by publishing graphic or controversial images, often times these images divert attention away from the real message of the story. Detroit Free Press columnist Susan Watson explained that the [above] photo is “a chilling reminder of the ungodly price we pay when we take risks with our children…. It screamed, loudly and rudely, that we have to stop endangering our loved ones to protect our belongings.” (Kobre).  However, 50% of the readers of the Detroit Free Press complained about the image, focused on criticizing the paper and as a result overlooked the story’s important message (Kobre). 

Pros

Unlike the “fireman image”, many controversial images strongly influence the public for good. A photo of a boy who had drowned lying partially exposed in a body bag surrounded by his grief-stricken family members was printed in the Bakersfield Californian. The paper received 400 phone calls, 500 letters, and a bomb threat; however, the number of drownings in the Bakersfield area dropped from fourteen in the previous month to just two in the month following the photo’s publication (Blumenkrantz)

.

Photographer Stanley Forman took a photo of a woman and child falling from a collapsing fire escape on the side of a building—the women died but the child miraculously survived.  The photo was printed on more than o

ne hundred front pages across the country.  Later, phone calls rang in accusing the papers of sensationalism and insensitivity all for the purpose of selling more newspapers.  Newspapers today are subscription based do not have much to gain from one day sales increases.  Furt

hermore, as a result of the image, improvements were made regarding fire-safety laws in Boston  (Blumenkrantz).

Newspapers and magazines that chose not to publish such controversial images can be accused of whitewashing the truth or not portraying the even accurately.  During the events surrounding September 11, 2002 a photo was taken of a man plunging to his death from one of the twin towers.   Some editors felt that this im

age was too graphic and should not ran as a front-page image.  Eric Meskauskas, director of photography for the tabloid New York Daily News thought differently as he states, “…an incredibly disturbing thing happened and that is the truth of the matter… (Hanson).  Victims jumping to their deaths…” was part of the story and we shouldn’t shield our readers from it.”  (Kobre).

  http://tinyurl.com/ltdz95

Controversial Images Should be Published

            The law does not forbid any photographer from taking controversial photos such as the ones mentioned above, so it is left to the photojournalists and editors to be sensitive and ethical in their decisions to run controversial photographs. "Images affect memory, and behavior, and values. Images affect what you believe about yourself, about others, and about the world out there…” (Winslow).  Due to the strong impact of photojournalism, journalists and photojournalists alike need to guide their 

decisions by the basic principles of journalism—truth-telling, serving the public interest, acting responsibly and being accountable (Burkholder). 

I believe the greater good should be sought after.  As a photojournalist myself I can speak from personal experience and say that if publishing a controversial image will bring about the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, than that image should be published.

            It is interesting to note that the majority of photojournalists who win Pulitzer Prizes and other international competitions are almost

 always witness to excruciatingly painful human tragedies (Paul Martin Lester).  So why do these images win Pulitzer Prizes? They win Pulitzer Prizes because they are powerful images that evoke emotion, they carry with them an inherent call to action, which is made manifest through the viewer and they bring change to society and bring the greatest good to the greatest amount of people.

            Controversial images have brought about awareness and change to social issues around the globe for decades now.  In response to the starvation in Somalia, Africa U.S. troops were sent over as peacekeepers.  While there Paul Watson photographed a U.S. soldier that was killed and dragged through the city streets by cheering Somalia crowd.  The picture was so shocking to the American public that it quickly

 reversed policy and pulled U.S. troops out of Somalia. 

            One of the most memorable images of all time is Dorothea Lange’s “The Migrant Mother.” The mother in the image later suffered a stroke and her family could not pay her medical expenses.  Nevertheless, because of the po

pularity of the image and how people were touched by it, people from around the country donated over $15,000. Thompson complained that Lange received fame for the picture while she lived in relative poverty, but ultimately the photograph saved Florence Thompson’s own life (Lester).

            Sometimes, those who feel they could be directly harmed by the publishing of a controversial image realize recognize the greater good and encourage the printi

ng of an image.  Kenneth Kobre in his book Photojournalism: The Professional’s Approach gives the example a photo of an accident victim killed by a drunk driver.  Ultimately the photo will raise awareness of the dangers of drunk driving. 

Controversial images have the ability to impact the world for good as has been demonstrated by numerous examples mentioned above.  This influence for good comes from the truth that is captured in these photos.  As people are shown how things truly are in the world than they can make accurate decisions accordingly.  If we whitewash the stories in the news by not publishing the images that are valid, newsworthy, and truthful than the public cannot be shown how to help in bringing about the greater good.

The Online "Menace"

New, unfamiliar things are always a bit scary, especially in the world of media. When the first renditions of printed news came about in the 18th century politicians became fearful of its ability to discredit their reputation by providing the public with information regarding their less appropriate actions.
After newspapers became established a new media threat appeared. With the geographical and timely advantages of radio technology, newspapers were challenged as advertisers left print and took their business to radio. With voices like Edward R. Murrow reporting on World War II radio gained a loyal news audience.
However, the threat of new media doesn't end with radio. Just like newspapers and radio before it Television was viewed as a threat to the already existing media.
Now,the 21st century has done it again. The world wide web has started a media revolution especially within the industry of journalism. Newspaper organizations have their hands full with the mess of adjusting to the online world. Some agencies are using both print and online versions, others or weening off of print altogether in order to take full advantage of seemingly limitless online possibilities. Others are firing all their employees and rewriting their job descriptions to make room for those employees best equip to carry their agency through this media revolution.
Despite the jittery state that journalists and news agencies find themselves in the format for distributing news is changing. The internet has given the public more access and more vocal clout than it has previously been exposed to. News has become (or could become) more of dialogue, a conversation, a collaborative effort between both journalists and the public to present all the facts and all the truth.
As "radio has given the President [FDR] a weapon such as no ruler has ever known," said Radio Guide editor of 1934, so will the internet give journalists and the public a means of changing the way we view news and the media.

American Journalism in Historical Perspective (Overholser)
http://mediactive.com/2009/09/12/eleven-things-id-do-if-i-ran-a-news-organization/
http://yeetorrents.com/news4/2009/09/15/7-ways-to-make-news-sites-more-social/