Women in media: Where are you?

Posted on March 28, 2015 by Chelsey Sellars

By CHELSEY SELLARS

Don’t get me wrong, Anderson Cooper is one of my favorite players in the news game, but where are the female reporters?

In the studies conducted by the Women’s Media Center, there was a huge lack of representation of women in the United States media industry in 2014.

“The American media have exceedingly more distance to travel on the road to gender-blind parity,” said Julie Burton, president of Women’s Media Center.

The studies included all aspects of media: newspapers/magazines, TV/digital news, sports journalism, and entertainment/film to name a few.

Amongst all categories, men ruled the media. More specifically, white men were the largest represented demographic.

Gender representation in a newspaper newsroom, years 1999-2013

As an Hispanic, female reporter, what does that mean for me? I already have two strikes placed upon me; right off the bat, I’m at a disadvantage.

Gender disparity in journalism leads to a loss in content quality. For a media company to best serve its audience, it needs to appeal to the public with a variety of voices and topics.

An article on the winged-eyeliner or ailments to menstrual cramps just doesn’t seem as credible coming from a male than a female.

The way a news story comes together is also heavily affected by the gender of the reporter. For example, the University of Nevada at Las Vegas analyzed how many front page stories of The New York Times included female sources in January and February 2013. A whopping 19% of the sources came from females. Nothing shocking here; with such a high volume of men in the media, it only seems natural that they would gravitate towards a male source.

So, to put this in perspective, imagine a headline about a treatment for hair loss. If all the sources for this headline are male, how will this article appeal to women? This privation of women sources can lead to bias in the media; as if there wasn’t enough already.

Innocent until proven guilty?

Posted on March 20, 2015 by S. Molly Dominick

By S. MOLLY DOMINICK

Often times in the news, victims of a crime remain unnamed. Ethical practices dictate that journalists must help shield victims from the unfavorable limelight of the media and the unforgiving public eye.

But what about alleged perpetrators? Their names are always included in the news, no questions asked — even when their involvement is not yet confirmed.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Having the story of your victimization published in the news will likely be traumatizing, understandably. But less often acknowledged is that having your name plastered on headlines for a crime you didn’t commit will absolutely shatter your world and all of your connections. Your name will be stained forever because of the association now drawn between you and the incident, even after being proven innocent.

Take the story of Jordan Johnson, for example. He was a University of Montana student found not guilty of rape in a 2013 decision. According to the justice system, this young student is innocent. But look when you type “Jordan Johnson” into Google:

Three of the five pictures loaded first by Google are this student on trial.

Largely due to the media coverage he received, these false allegations will follow him for the rest of his life.

So, omit his name? But how do you avoid including his name when journalists are obligated to provide the public with thorough information? Seemingly, you can’t … yet journalists have collectively decided leaving this informational hole is okay when it comes to the victim.

There is no right answer to what should be done here. Journalism ethics, like any other form of ethics, is a wishy-washy mess of conflicting strong feelings and shaken fists.

But there needs to be some consistency. Either respect the lives of both victim and alleged perpetrator by including neither name, or honor journalism’s obligation to thoroughness and include both.

Don’t miss your deadline!

Posted on March 16, 2015 by S. Molly Dominick

By S. MOLLY DOMINICK

Since coming to the University of Miami in August last year, I’ve been working on the student newspaper The Miami Hurricane. In that time, one word has been etched into my brain as being most critical to my job as a reporter: Deadlines.

Deadlines. All-day deadline work sessions. Don’t miss your deadline. From the get-go, the word “deadline” has been repeated again and again, with intense focus given to the importance of timeliness.

But timeliness often comes into conflict with accuracy. In fact, this conflict is so pressingly problematic that the Code of Ethics for the Society of Professional Journalists includes the following statement:

“Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.”

Noting this, it’s interesting to me that there’s been such a sharp focus on timeliness, within an organization that trains future journalists, when well-regarded standards of practice warn against doing so.

Even if not heralded as the most important aspect of journalism, timeliness receives the most attention. News, like anything else, is a business—specifically, the business of being first. And from an ethical standpoint, timeliness is essential to bringing news that is relevant and important to the public it intends to serve.

But ideologically, accuracy clearly reigns as just as — or more — crucial. Even if you are the speediest news writer in the world, it will mean nothing if your work is riddled with errors.

But during my experience as a student reporter, I’ve noticed that accuracy is only brought up in conversation once someone has already made an error.

Because accuracy is so important, people assume that others recognize it as such—like it goes without saying. But when you don’t say, it leaves the forefront of people’s minds to be replaced with what you are talking about: deadlines. And people are talking about those constantly.

If we give accuracy as much—or more—time in the spotlight as deadlines, hopefully we can better train ourselves as future journalists to avoid ethical gaffes before they occur.

There’s always another side to the story

Posted on March 5, 2015 by Chelsey Sellars

By CHELSEY SELLARS

As I placed my items on the grocery store conveyor belt, I glanced over at the gum
and magazine rack.

Upon all the fashion and sugary goods, I found a picture of President Obama’s contorted face on the cover of the lovely Globe: In small print next to Obama’s face, once you get past the bright yellow “psychopathic rages” and “egomania” accusations, reads “making crazy faces in healthcare video February 2015.”

Globe is infamous in America for its questionable headlines and material, so naturally I was skeptical about these allegations. I quickly Googled “Obama makes faces” and stumbled upon this quirky video of Obama teaming up with BuzzFeed to remind millenials of the deadline for Obamacare:

The clip is called “Things Everybody Does But Doesn’t Talk About,” which features Obama taking selfies and making bizarre faces in the mirror. I realized that the picture from Globe was the same one as this screenshot of the video.

As stated before, Globe is notorious for creating tabloids, but what if you did not know that first hand? What if you were in America as a traveler, and happened to see this crazy headline? You might believe it and go on to share the news.

The media are there to inform the public of what is going on beyond their backyard. However, we cannot be sponges and simply absorb the information. I believe that we should always yearn for knowledge and have some skepticism when it comes to media; the more we investigate, the more media literate we will become.

NBC reveals much in Williams’ case

Posted on February 13, 2015 by S. Molly Dominick

By S. MOLLY DOMINICK

If I was reporting even a low-profile story in my town and fabricated a piece of information, I would be fired. For that matter, if I’m on the job under any circumstances and I fabricate information, I better start packing up my things. It’s a gross violation of the journalistic code, no questions asked.

But for some reason, when NBC anchor Brian Williams does it — with multiple instances of the crime, and in high-profile situations to boot — the network doesn’t know what to do with him.

He hasn’t been fired, yet. Instead, he’s been suspended for six months without pay, and that suspension was only announced once the popular anchor’s television ratings dropped following the outbreak of scandal.

The decisions made regarding Williams’ job, as well as the timeline of those decisions, are revealing. What separates me and Brian Williams (other than his wry smile, iconic silvery slicked-back hair and practically everything else) comes down to clout, and thus, money. Being the anchor of the number one evening news program, this even separates him from other big name anchors. And that appears to be why he’s receiving special, or lenient, treatment.

But there should be no room for special treatment regarding matters of journalistic integrity.

In this same vein, the coverage of the Williams scandal is also disproportionate. With article after article speculating the fate of his job, it is easy to forget that while in that helicopter in Iraq and while reporting on Hurricane Katrina, Williams was not alone. He was with a news team. People witnessed the truth, and their silence contributed to the cover-up for years until the scandal only recently broke.

Their crimes were just as severe as those of Williams, yet I’ve heard next to nothing about the state of those jobs. Since they aren’t the big name money-makers for NBC, it seems the media don’t regard their company-wide breach in integrity as too important, judging from the amount of media coverage they’ve received since the scandal.

As a journalist-hopeful, it’s troubling that our priorities are so out of line.

Is media coverage too free?

Posted on February 6, 2015 by Nadia Bacchus

By NADIA BACCHUS

Although freedom of speech and personal expression are undoubtedly celebrated in the media by the wide range of topics covered, the recent execution of Japanese journalist and ISIS hostage Kenji Goto lead me to wonder whether certain topics should be covered?

The late Kenji Goto was a freelance video journalist who covered topics such as wars and conflicts, poverty, AIDS and child education around the world. Goto was captured by Islamic State militants only a day after entering Syria to try and rescue Japanese hostage Haruna Yukawa, despite being warned not to.

ISIL released a video on Jan. 20 demanding $200 million from the Japanese government for the release of Goto and Yukawa. A few days later, another video was released with Goto holding a photo of the decapitated Yukawa and audio saying they would exchange Goto’s life for the return of Sajida Mubarak Atrous al-Rishawi, a suicide bomber. When ISIL realized the exchange would not happen, a video was released of Goto’s beheading.

In another story of a journalist being held hostage, a New York Times journalist, David Rohde, and two of his associates were kidnapped by the Taliban while in Afghanistan doing research for a book in November 2008. Their kidnappers were quick to make contact with many American news outlets including The New York Times. Their ransom: the release of Taliban prisoners being held in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay and millions of dollars. The men were held captive for seven months before Rohde and Ludin made an escape.

The difference between the stories of Goto and Rohde were how much the media covered their capture. The capture of Goto was widely publicized on international news outlets all the way down to local station across the world. On the other hand, when Rohde was captured, the media barely covered it.

That is not to say one life was more important than the other. Rhode’s capture was not widely publicized because The New York Times requested a media blackout of the abduction in order to maximize Rhode’s chances of survival.

This difference in story coverage could lead to the question of whether it is ethical for journalist to hide a story when it is their obligation to report timely events. I personally think the difference in coverage really just shows the balancing act and difficult choices the media must sometimes make: informing the public or potentially further endangering the life of someone.

Although each hostage case is different and many factors must be taken in account, it is hard not to wonder whether Goto’s story could have ended differently.

Social media: From tweets to articles

Posted on January 30, 2015 by Chelsey Sellars

By CHELSEY SELLARS

In recent news, Harry Potter star Emma Watson announced her recent casting as Belle in Disney’s upcoming, live-action movie “Beauty and the Beast.”

As I read the Entertainment Weekly article, I wondered how did she release the news? Watson made the news public via Facebook as fans cheered across the Internet.

I, a young and ambitious journalist, had to wonder if this was acceptable in the news media. Is it ethically correct for journalists to use social media as reliable and trustworthy sources when reporting?

Continuing my search for answers, I found another example of social media being used as news sources. Surprise, surprise; Watson is the shining star in an “Entertainment Tonight” article.

This time, Watson used Twitter. Fans constantly tweet at A-list celebrities such as Watson and, on occasion, receive replies from them. It appears that Watson was having a little Q&A session through tweets, speaking about her HeForShe campaign and giving young women advice.

I concluded that social media as news sources are not entirely unethical. Watson has her social media accounts displayed for public viewing. Moreover, Watson has given consent for us to see these updates; allowing us to share and converse about them. Because there is permission from the original source, a journalist can use Watson’s tweets and posts as fuel for a news story.

However, what if this consent was never given? What if an Einstein computer hacker helped a journalist enter right into Watson’s Facebook and essentially leak her private posts?

If this were the case, the journalist would be ethically unjust. A reporter cannot simply use information without consent from the source and without verifying that information.

Kuwaiti journalists often restricted

Posted on January 30, 2015 by Hanya ALKhamis

By HANYA ALKHAMIS

As my father once said “Where will studying journalism take you? What will your job be, once you graduate?” “Kuwait and the Middle East don’t appreciate journalists the way the West does!”

Being a journalist in Kuwait means including yourself in a narrow tunnel that is suppressed by the government. It is a tunnel surrounded by rules and regulations of do’s and don’ts. One would just have the chance to work in newspaper or magazines since we don’t have a wide range of media genres in my country. This leaves our society to be private and secretive.

Reporting should be part of freedom of speech and expression. Media surround our lives everyday, from listening to the radio to viewing one’s Snapchat. This media outburst weakened the power of breaking news and announcements. Snapchat now can help someone to enjoy news in a different manner. Journalism and broadcasting organizations should also take into consideration these changes and allow news to appear more often onto these popular apps that are constantly used and abused by millions.

From Snapchat to Instagram and to Twitter, one must be up to date with all of these media products to view what people enjoy and take in. Just so, journalism is now revolving around and transforming to become part of these products, new and up to date.

Being brought up into a closed-minded society, journalism, reporting and broadcasting are monitored by the government leaving the people wondering whether what was said was true or false.

Censorship shouldn’t be included in Kuwait’s media and maybe this may change in time, but one shouldn’t be watched and judged for what he or she may have to say. What’s the point of journalism when there’s false news behind the screen? Why does media in Kuwait feel the need to sensor? Is it because to hide the shameful news. Is the media being bias and choosing a side or is it because they the want to not cause any conflicts? Falsely reporting may cause a larger conflict, instead.

I believe people in Kuwait should have the right have to follow up with media and journalism one should have the right to view what is exactly happening at any given event.

Citizens in nations become clueless and naïve due to the rules enforced by the government that control what to say or report. Because of my Islamic country, some issues, such as the “Charlie Hebdo” images, are extremely sensitive and delicate. Insulting and disrespectful, we believe that some journalists and columnists should take into consideration the respect of religion and drawing the line between news and disrespect.

Drawing the lines in journalism may be hard to do since each and every person may have a different opinion of what is right and what is inappropriate and wrong. Media should always take into consideration all the different opinions and beliefs of all the different kinds of people around it. Having to be filtered and clarified; is okay but, it does not mean to leave out what is vital and important.

Misleading headlines distort coverage

Posted on November 21, 2014 by Audrey Winkelsas

By AUDREY WINKELSAS

Many misleading headlines have arisen from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

CNN released a story with this headline following an attack on Tuesday titled “4 Israelis, 2 Palestinians killed in synagogue attack, Israeli police say.” Although this headline does not indicate it in any way, the “2 Palestinians” were the terrorists. An update to the headline was no better, referring to an attack on a Jerusalem “mosque” when in fact it was a synagogue.

This follows a report last month by the Associated Press given the headline “Israeli police shoot man in east Jerusalem.” From this headline only, one would infer that the Israeli police were the aggressors and the man the victim when in fact the roles were opposite. From the story you learn that Israeli police shot a man who slammed his car into a crowd of people waiting at a train stop in an act of suspected terrorism and tried to run.

Misleading headlines, such as these, are dangerous. Many people gather news simply by reading headlines, and while the habit is not ideal, it is a fact of which journalists need to be mindful.

For another thing, studies have shown that the initial perception formed in a reader’s mind by the headline will taint his/her interpretation of the entire story that follows.

I’m not suggesting every headline should be full of name-calling, but the perpetrator-victim relationship must not be distorted, whether misrepresented on purpose or not, as this has the potential to vilify innocent people.

Media sensationalism risks public health

Posted on November 14, 2014 by Audrey Winkelsas

By AUDREY WINKELSAS

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there have been 20 measles outbreaks in the U.S. between Jan. 1 and Oct. 31 of this year, spread mainly among non-vaccinated individuals. These numbers are among the highest recorded since 1997.

The practice of vaccinating children has been on decline since a 1998 study from the lab of Andrew Wakefield was published claiming that vaccinations cause developmental disorders in children. The article was later retracted when it was discovered to be a dishonest study that violated research ethics.

Many hypotheses have been proposed to explain a link between childhood vaccinations and autism, including the measles vaccine and a vaccine called thimersosal.

The only study showing any association between autism and the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine was the aforementioned 1998 study, which was not surprisingly funded by lawyers and parents wishing to sue vaccine manufacturers. That was not the only conflict of interest Wakefield did not disclose at the time of publication. The year before the study was published, Wakefield patented a measles vaccine with the potential to replace the combined vaccine that was customarily given.

Despite the small sample size and far-reaching conclusions in Wakefield’s publication, the media vastly publicized it. Vaccination rates dropped substantially as parents were frightened into believing that vaccinating their children put them at severe risk for Autism.

The media has a tendency toward sensationalism, in which it gives exaggerated coverage to insignificant content. “Media exploits vaccine scares firstly to promote fear and pity among their readers which moves media product,” said investigative journalist Brian Deer.

We are still paying the costs to public health of the media’s over-dramatic coverage of the single, fraudulent paper.

Reporting on UM special events

Posted on November 14, 2014 by Gabriella Shofer

By GABRIELLA SHOFER

This week marks the all-important and long-awaited rivalry football game where UM will take on FSU. It is no surprise that all the major campus news publications are focusing on this story. However, it’s interesting to see how news principles are impacted by the focus on this story.

In particular, from reading the news publications such as The Miami Hurricane, one would be led to believe that the only thing occurring this week on campus is the football game. In maintaining this focus, the paper fails to recognize that there are students and faculty members who are not wholeheartedly interested in the game. Therefore the lack of reporting on a wide range of news topics this week, has compromised the ability for these people to gain news information about other events on campus.

Additionally, while in general an important news principle is the removal of bias from reporting, this event poses an instance where bias is actively integrated into stories. It is an intrinsic part of creating excitement for the event through stories and building suspense for the campus population.

However by favoring one side, due to the publication’s affiliation with UM as the major campus news publication, the newspaper is ignoring its responsibility to remain objective throughout their news reporting practice. Yet, this may not be such a terrible thing and perhaps it is even something that is called for in this circumstance.

One thing is for sure, it is interesting to see how the reporters develop fresh and unique perspectives on this topic. Despite the repetitive topic, the articles vary in their focus in order to provide students with a wide range of information on the game. From safety precautions to team preparations and even the history of the rivalry, these articles don’t fail to provide intriguing insights into an event that can most definitely be called the highlight of the semester.

‘Unseen influences’ taint media

Posted on November 8, 2014 by Audrey Winkelsas

By AUDREY WINKELSAS

Sharyl Attkisson, a former CBS News reporter, alleged her computer was hacked by a government agency for reasons that include an attempt to conceal the causes of the 2012 Benghazi attack.

Attkisson recently discussed “the unseen influences on and manipulation of the images and information the public receives in the media.” She quite her job at CBS News because she did not like the way the network avoided stories it feared would illicit pushback from corporations or politicians. She warned that “unseen and undisclosed paid interests are behind the images.” In essence, “PR officials and propagandists may organize and fan out… to manipulate information and give the impression that there is great support for or opposition to an issue or person,” she explained.

What this means for the public is that content must be digested and contemplated thoroughly. People must become more active readers and think critically to decide whether a story is likely to be reliable.

This places undue burden on the public, since people can’t be experts in every field and since their full-time job is not as an investigative journalist.

The press is fundamental to a healthy democracy. For it to function properly, networks must not be agenda-driven, accept bribery, or be fearful of government or corporate retaliation. As one opinion columnist for The Guardian put it, the media need to stop being a “lapdog” and return to being a “watchdog.” Every appropriate measure must be taken to present accurate, unbiased information to the people it serves, the public.

The FBI impersonates news source

Posted on October 29, 2014 by Lindsay Thompson

By LINDSAY THOMPSON

It was recently discovered that, back in 2007, the FBI created a fake news story impersonating the Seattle Times. The bureau’s reasoning behind fabricating the story was that they used a link to the article to catch the suspect responsible for multiple bomb threats to a local high school.

The Seattle Times is now claiming that it is “outraged” by the FBI’s actions. The question on the table now is: Is this matter of dealing with someone’s First Amendment rights?

The FBI did not stop the Seattle Times from printing whatever they choose to, which is typically the issue I always thought the First Amendment was there to protect. However, the key word in that sentence is choose. The Seattle Times did not chose to publish or have their name associated with that story. Instead, the FBI put words into the mouth of the paper.

Should it now be included and made clear that the press has the right to post, or not to post?

It’s questionable whether or not the FBI’s actions infringed on anyone’s First Amendment rights. What is clear, however, is that this information of the FBI’s involvement could impact reader’s opinions of the Seattle Times, and has the potential to discredit the reputation of the news source.

Taking it a step further, if the FBI could so easily do this with one news source, why couldn’t they with other sources?

I don’t believe this incident will lead journalists to begin questioning all sources of news. Still, I think it will raise questions about how the general public knows what is legitimate or not when it comes to news sources and this might make some journalists’ jobs harder.

Breaking news and privacy issues

Posted on October 28, 2014 by Gabriella Shofer

By GABRIELLA SHOFER

The way that news reporters handle sensitive issues is a strong point of discussion in the news industry. Over the weekend, I became engrossed with following the updates of a national news story in Australia that hit home for me as it affected my community and dealt with a sensitive issue.

The story covered the disappearance and search for an 11-year-old girl that was declared missing after running away from home on Saturday evening. The search began for the girl when she hadn’t returned home since she left after an argument. Fortunately, she was found after a desperate two-day search conducted by more than 1,000 volunteers and the police.

The positive attributes of the news industry were highlighted through their assistance in the search for the girl as multiple news outlets broadcast the story on the television, print newspapers and online. This aided the search by increasing awareness and, ultimately, the cohesion of the news outlets with the family was what led to the girl being found safe so quickly.

However, following the girl being found and returned to her family, I found certain aspects of the news coverage of the story rather invasive and potentially detrimental to her recovery and her future. In particular, when the parents of the girl went to fetch her, they were bombarded by news reporters standing outside their house and following them with cameras and recording devices. This invaded their privacy during an incredibly difficult time. Additionally, the girl’s father then became the subject of some news articles as they delved into the family history to discover that he was due to attend court on a separate manner.

In covering this sensitive issue, reporters need to remember the potential future impact that their reports can have on the girl’s life. Not only will she need to recover from the ordeal, but she also has to deal with life in the spotlight until the news coverage dies down. This is incredibly difficult for a girl of her young age to have to deal with and the reports will forever follow her due to the everlasting nature of the Internet and the ability to find information with a simple Google search. This demonstrates how it is important for news reporters to remain mindful of both their obligation to report the news but also to respect the privacy of the people involved in their stories.

More information about the story can be found here.

Equal coverage needed for all missing

Posted on October 23, 2014 by Audrey Winkelsas

By AUDREY WINKELSAS

Hannah Graham’s disappearance has opened old wounds. Cassandra Morton disappeared in 2009 but her name didn’t make national headlines the same way Graham’s has.

Just six days after Morton went missing, Morgan Harrington disappeared. Harrington received more news coverage than Morton.

Morton’s stepfather says it’s because Harrington’s family was able to offer a reward for their daughter and because Morton didn’t fit the media’s preferred image.

According to The Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson:

“A damsel must be white. This requirement is nonnegotiable. It helps if her frame is of dimensions that breathless cable television reporters can credibly describe as ‘petite,’ and it also helps if she’s the kind of woman who wouldn’t really mind being called ‘petite,’ a woman with a good deal of princess in her personality. She must be attractive — also nonnegotiable. Her economic status should be middle class or higher…”

Morton came from Tinbridge Hill, a historically black neighborhood. She experimented with drugs and moved around a lot.

Harrington’s parents made television appearances and a website was made to find their daughter. Morton did not receive such attention. Without speaking with both Morton’s and Harrington’s parents, I cannot know the degree to which each family sought coverage and the degree to which the media approached each family to be able to pinpoint the cause of the difference in coverage between the two girls’ disappearances.

In any case, this should serve as a reminder for journalists that content should be dictated by neither aesthetics nor money. We need to strive for fair, unbiased coverage that represents the diversity of our population.

The latest Internet news hoax

Posted on October 21, 2014 by Gabriella Shofer

By GABRIELLA SHOFER

Over the weekend, news reports surfaced detailing the arrest of the renowned graffiti artist, Banksy. The online news reports were very detailed, referencing sources and being displayed on reputable news websites. In order to cement their credibility and the authenticity of articles, news reporters utilized multiple sources and a traditional news layout to provide information to readers. Thus, I was not prompted to question the authenticity of the article that was published on the U.S. website National Report.

The article gained heightened traction as it spread through social media over the weekend. The prank managed to convince thousands of social media users, with his name trending on both Twitter and Facebook. The reports claimed that the pseudonymous British street artist, whose graffiti artworks have appeared around the world and often have an underlying political motive, was charged by London’s Metropolitan Police for vandalism and his identity was revealed. However, these reports were falsified on Monday morning when the artist’s publicist, Jo Brooks, confirmed that the arrest was a hoax.

This story conjures a number of critical issues that currently plague the news industry, particularly in relation to the online nature through which many individuals now receive their news. It brings forward the question of the role of social media in spreading the news in a truthful manner. With many people relying on social media and the Internet as a source of news information, it is increasingly frightening for society the more that these types of fake articles emerge.

As more reports have developed that reinforce that the original article was a hoax, the increasing difficulty for readers in determining which sources they can trust is ever-present. Is it the readers’ responsibility to check the sources quoted in articles? It appears that this is the only way to ensure that the news we are reading is accurate, yet this is impossible for every reader to execute. Instead we will continue to trust the news outlets that provide us with the latest information on activities around the world.

Perhaps we just need to remain aware and look out for any possible fabrications before wholeheartedly believing what we read.

The age of 24-hour news filler

Posted on October 10, 2014 by Audrey Winkelsas

By AUDREY WINKELSAS

News used to be delivered in the form of daily newspapers. First with cable television and increasingly so with the Internet, coverage has become nonstop. 24-hour news channels are constantly on the air. Ironically, as Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, authors of “Warp Speed,” comment, news is delivered less completely as a result of 24-hour coverage because stories are now often presented in little pieces interspersed with speculation.

The concept of newsgathering is becoming distorted. What once valued significance and thoroughness becomes a waiting game with superficial filler. This is heightened by the desire to be broadcast live. Reporters may stand around waiting for breaking news to occur. As Richard Sambrook and Sean McGuire at theguardian.com noted, “when a presenter feels compelled to say, ‘Plenty more to come … none of it news … but that won’t stop us,’” while waiting for the royal birth in 2013, “then there really is a problem.”

This deterioration is further driven by the desire to be first. The Internet enables videos and other forms of communication to be transmitted instantly. It is a race between channels to be the first to air breaking news. This has ethical implications since speed often correlates with inaccuracy. The traditional function of journalism, which is to share true, reliable accounts, is sometimes replaced by journalism in which the information is published before being verified.

Not all inaccuracies can be easily erased. Such was a case with the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. The media repeatedly misreported information in the rush to share new discoveries. In addition to erroneously reporting 12 dead, The New York Post linked Salah Barhoun to the attack. The innocent 17-year-old was featured front page as one of two “bag men,” suggesting that he was a suspect in the bombing. You can imagine the toll this false accusation took on his reputation, which may follow him throughout his life.

We need to be fact checking photos, too

Posted on October 9, 2014 by Lindsay Thompson

By LINDSAY THOMPSON

Part of being a journalist is knowing how to check your facts before you publish an article stating that the facts are true. You make sure they came from a reliable source and, if possible, that other sources agree with this information.

But how do you check the credibility of a photo you want to publish? Do you even need to?

“A pictures worth a thousand words,” the expression goes. So, photos should be showing you what the facts are, because it’s right there on the screen for you to see. However, digital photography and Photoshop are making it nearly impossible to find a photo that has not been edited in some way.

Correcting color, brightness, contrast and other technical details is expected of photographers. These details, however, do not impact the content of the photo, just the quality.

Now, it is so easy for anyone with basic Photoshop skills to edit in something that was not originally there, or erase something that was. This makes it extremely difficult to tell what is real and what is exaggerated.

If you publish a photo that has been altered, you are supposed to specify that the content has been changed, but is it really possible to regulate that? If you find a free domain image you want to attach onto an article, how do you know if it has been altered?

The digital age is making it easier to share and show what’s going on all over the world, but it is also making it harder to believe our own eyes.

DIGITAL NEWS REPORTING

Journalism and Media Management Department, School of Communication, University of Miami

Tag Archives: Journalism ethics

Don’t miss your deadline!

There’s always another side to the story

NBC reveals much in Williams’ case

Is media coverage too free?

Kuwaiti journalists often restricted

Misleading headlines distort coverage

Media sensationalism risks public health

Reporting on UM special events

‘Unseen influences’ taint media

The FBI impersonates news source

Equal coverage needed for all missing

The latest Internet news hoax

We need to be fact checking photos, too