Tag Archives: Journalism ethics

Site exposes false facts online

Posted on by

By MEAGHAN McCLURE

The Internet is possibly the easiest place to spread rumors and false facts.

News stories that have incorrect information are easily transmitted online, social media sites like Twitter allow rumors to go viral extraordinarily fast, and above all, few Internet users actually check to confirm what they’re reading is, in fact, true.

A new website, however, may change all of this.

Emergent.info tracks the most popular stories swirling around the Internet, and deems them true or false.

The website is associated with Columbia University’s Tow Center for Digital Journalism. According to the website, it “aims to develop the best practices for debunking misinformation.”

On the site’s homepage there is the list of rumors, along with their status – true, false, or unverified. The site also displays how many times that story was shared, essentially its popularity, and a further breakdown of how the story was spread if you click on it.

In general, the concept seems like a great idea. It exposes sources for misinformation and falsehoods, therefore further inspiring the Internet to be more credible. The website is a good start for digital journalism, to put more responsibility on journalists to make sure their information is correct and to double-check their sources. Although the website mainly focuses on absurd rumors now, hopefully it will extend to all news sources and in more depth in the future. But for now, it’s a great addition in the credibility of digital journalism.

Visit the website here: http://www.emergent.info/

Leave climate change to the experts

Posted on by

By AUDREY WINKELSAS

Being fair and balanced is a dogma of journalism. But in an attempt to offer balanced reporting, journalists may in fact introduce inaccuracy and deception.

There is a consensus amongst scientists about climate change. According to climate.nasa.gov, 97 percent of scientists believe that global warming trends are the result of human activity.

If journalists feel they must have balance in their stories, who does that leave them to turn to for the opposition? Well, not scientists.

Quoting politicians on the scientific evidence surrounding climate change is committing the fallacy of inappropriate expertise. Rick Santorum remarked that scientific evidence cannot even withstand common sense, sarcastically saying, “man-made carbon dioxide — a gas that humans exhale and plants need to live, a gas that represents less than 0.1 percent of the atmosphere — is a dangerous pollutant threatening to overheat the world.”

The truth is that although in terms of percentages the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is small, it is very potent and even trace amounts can have disastrous effects.

So let’s leave it to the experts. We wouldn’t ask Albert Einstein for commentary on comparative politics, would we?

It is completely acceptable to consult and quote politicians on policy issues and economic issues surrounding global warming. But our discussions with them should stop there.

Ebola: America’s scariest word

Posted on by

By AUTUMN ROBERTSON

The Ebola scare has gotten worse than ever and the news media are only adding lumber to the fire.

Saying the word ‘Ebola” around a large group of people might as well be the same as someone saying “Bomb!” in a movie theater. That word evokes so much fear among American citizens more than ever due to the recent discovery of Americans who have recently contacted the disease.

And what’s the news media’s role in this? They find every story about someone who has contacted the disease, write a story highlighting the name of the person, the area that they are from, how many people that they may have become in contact with, and continue to scare people.

People argue that the reporters are just doing their job, but I beg to differ. The news media’s job isn’t to scare people, but to inform people on what the disease is and how they can actually contact it.

As the number of affected Americans continue to rise, more federal health organizations continue to release information on how the disease is spread because large media groups fail to include how getting Ebola can actually happen.

This goes back to a common tactic that journalists use to get readership: sensationalism. If journalists think that more people will be interested in reading about a certain issue, they will amplify the story to get more readership. People love to stay informed, but the easiest way to draw in an audience that wants information is to scare them a little, so they can keep coming back for more.

Today, reporters announced that an Ebola patient is being contained at a hospital on the campus of Howard University in Washington, D.C. I know many students that attend Howard, including my sister. Not only is she scared and worried about contacting the disease, her fellow classmates are feeling the same way.

The media failed to include information to these students on why the person is being contained and the safety precautions that the school will be taking to keep the students safe. The media dropped the news like a bomb and people are scattering around for information.

That is not very fair of the news media, which have a platform that they should use to inform rather than to scare. They should focus on creating more material used to help people than creating a scandalous story.

Biased journalism blames the victim

Posted on by

By LINDSAY THOMPSON

By now, most people have heard about the case of missing University of Virginia student Hannah Graham. Around 1 a.m. on Saturday, Sept. 13, she texted friends saying she was lost. That was the last anyone has heard from her since that day.

Police are still trying to figure out exactly what happened to Hannah and where she is. In just the past few days, they have found a person of interest who is currently in custody.

All of that information can be found by just Googling Hannah’s name. What you will also find when you search for her are articles with titles like, “Missing student Hannah Graham was so drunk she could barely walk, says owner of bar where she was last seen – as man accused of her kidnap appears in court” (http://dailym.ai/1sRprF8).

A journalist’s job is to report the news in an unbiased way and giving articles titles such as the one previously listed is anything but unbiased. That title almost shifts the blame onto Hannah. It makes it easier to think “Well, it’s her fault for not being more careful,” when that’s just not the case.

People can come to their own assumptions about her life, but that is not the job of the media. Hannah very well may have been extremely drunk, and there is nothing wrong with articles stating that she had been out that night (because that’s the truth and is part of the story).

However, making that the whole subject of the article detracts from the fact that she is still missing, and they may have found the man who kidnapped her – which is really what’s important.

It’s not the news media’s job to judge her life choices. It’s their job to clearly report what’s happening.

Groundhog Day incident haunts mayor

Posted on by

By SHAWNA KHALAFI

On Thursday night a story came out about the death of Charlotte, the groundhog at Staten Island Zoo. This particular groundhog is the same one that New York City mayor Bill de Blasio dropped in February of this year at a Groundhog Day event.

Even though this accident with the mayor happened seven months ago, many news source were blatantly suggesting that the groundhog’s death was a direct result of her injury following the mayor’s mistake. These stories also seemed to take the incident very seriously, which at times seemed ironic since it involves the death of a rodent, not a human.

Other stories worked to dismiss this claim by quoting a spokesman for the zoo as saying, “It appears unlikely that the animal’s death is related to the events on Groundhog Day.”

Although this story may seem like a very minor incident among major news events, it is a perfect example of the dangers of drawing unwarranted conclusions.

As journalists, it’s important to never assign blame to anyone involved in a story and to not insinuate any causes or connections that we do not know to be true. It is up to the journalist to present all relevant and accurate information to the audience in an unbiased manor.

BBC worked to avoid misrepresentation

Posted on by

By AUDREY WINKELSAS

With Scotland’s independence on the line, the historic referendum permeated newsrooms around the world this week.

News organizations reported as usual, interviewing voters who expressed their reasons for voting “Yes” or “No” for Scottish independence. Such reporting came to a halt at 6 a.m. on voting day for several news organizations.

On Sept. 18, BBC News was entirely devoid of opinion on the subject of Scottish independence. Following its code of practice, the BBC reported only uncontroversial factual accounts such as the number of polling stations, the percentage of the electorate registered to vote, and even the weather in a “commitment to impartiality and fairness.”

These sorts of practices are vital to avoid misrepresentation and to ensure that the outcome of an election truly reflects the population’s beliefs as a whole. If an election is predicted to be neck and neck, it is likely that more people will go to the polls. If, on the other hand, reported polling suggests a landslide victory, supporters of the minority party may feel that there is no hope so why bother voting? Or quite the opposite, if the popular candidate is “sure to win,” people may feel that it’s okay not to make it to the polls because so many other people will vote in favor of their cause. If enough people have that mentality, the minority opinion might win after all!

Having said that, as journalists, we must ensure that proper polling techniques were used, such as obtaining a representative sample, before reporting results. We certainly don’t want another case of the 1936 Literary Digest blunder. This applies even when sharing the results of a poll conducted by another organization. The information given to the public may bias their actions and we as journalists don’t want to be responsible for changing the course of history against true public opinion.

Just how much do we need to know?

Posted on by

By AUDREY WINKELSAS

For journalists, reporting involves deciding what is newsworthy as well as what is ethical.

Such considerations are currently up for debate surrounding the dissemination of the video of journalist James Foley’s beheading by ISIS last month. Some argue that the video should not be banned as such censorship infringes on First Amendment rights. Others see the video as too gruesome and say it only gives ISIS the publicity they so strongly desire.

The first question to be asked is, Is the story newsworthy? Since it involves human rights and terrorism it is indeed a story of public interest. Furthermore, the ISIS militant in the video gives a “message to America” explaining that Foley’s death is the result of U.S. military intervention so it is of public concern for American citizens and residents.

But is sharing the footage ethical and even necessary for telling the story?

Death is a personal experience. A devout Catholic, Foley spoke of prayer on multiple occasions. For Foley, the moments leading up to his death were likely very spiritual, which is often considered a private matter. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, people should be aided to “live their last moments in dignity and peace.”

The revisiting of his barbaric execution by viewers is not respecting the emphasis his faith places on having a peaceful death. And while it was most certainly an honorable death, I doubt it to be the moment by which Foley would like to be remembered.

While in the moments leading to his death Foley would not have had any expectation of privacy since he was aware of ISIS’ motivation in filming it, this cannot be used as grounds for arguing that he forfeited his right to privacy. Foley had no choice.

On Aug. 20, the day after Foley’s murder, the New York Post published a picture of Foley with the ISIS militant holding the knife blade to his throat moments before making the fatal cut. There is no question that this blatant display went much too far.

While the inclusion of such pictures on pages deep within a newspaper may be up for debate, featuring them on the front page is inexcusable. Cover pages do not give the option for viewer discretion. Just as there are laws protecting children from exposure to obscene material, should this graphic image be accessible to the eyes of young children walking to school?

Sure, a New York Post reporter didn’t film the event and therefore can’t be blamed for the act of invasion of privacy, but is a news organization’s decision to disseminate it equally at fault?

The decision of whether the material containing graphic visuals should be public comes down to deciding whether the gory footage of Foley’s death is a ‘need to know’ or a ‘want to know’ situation.

Does everyone have to play by the rules?

Posted on by

By SHIVANI ALURU

The Information age has given people access to nearly every corner of the globe, high quality cameras that fit into phones about the size of a wallet and the ability to disseminate information in seconds.

Now that everyone has the potential to create and distribute news, everyone can technically be a journalist. The “democratization of journalism” has been covered up and down by various types from bloggers tapping out endless opinions to academics scribbling research papers, but few outlets seem to discuss accountability.

Journalists are held to a high standard and are meant to follow a code of ethics as well as adhere to the minute writing and reporting rules presented in the Associated Press Stylebook, but for the most part it’s only the people who have bothered to learn about these things that follow the rules.

Typically those who have attended a j-school, or trained in a very traditional environment understand the weight and history of what being a reporter means. For example, the idea that news is written from independent perspective with no bias (or as little bias as one can manage).

In contrast, the sheer volume of content that is produced by the Web shows a number of people and outlets branding themselves as news when they deliver about as much actually news as Fox News.

Even larger outlets of non-traditional journalism have failed with respect to the public. Earlier this year after a plagiarism scandal, BuzzFeed pulled almost 4,000 different posts. No retraction was printed and BuzzFeed Founder Jonah Peretti argued that as a tech company, not a media company, BuzzFeed did not need to follow the rules of journalistic integrity.

This kind of action raised plenty of eyebrows and had scores of people arguing that despite any tech origins, BuzzFeed definitely needed to follow the rules of journalism simply because they were acting like journalists. This thought comes to the core of the argument if it looks like a journalist, acts like a journalist and reports like a journalist, it should probably try to work from the high-standards expected of a journalist.

Make room for obscenities in journalism

Posted on by

By JOHN RIOUX

A recent phone conversation was leaked involving United States Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland saying “F*** the EU”.

Nuland was referring to the European Union and her belief that in order for a solution to occur in Ukraine, they will need to be of assistance.

I am not concerned on Nuland’s views, but why it is still necessary to replace profane language in journalism?

The barriers of using offensive language have broadened in society, yet journalism lags behind with no intention of change.

Yes, there are some situations in which explicit language is unnecessary. However, it is often essential in understanding the context of the message.

The actual visibility of an obscene word allows us to understand the message better than filling the space with asterisks.

Euphemisms and other similar tactics do not provide justice to the reader in seeing the honest story.

Many blogs and more progressive outlets allow their writers to publish content with obscenities. If we want mainstream journalism to continue it must keep up with the changing of society.

When New York Congressman Michael Grimm threated to throw a reporter of a balcony, much of his language had to be bleeped out.

Although we were able to understand what was said, the videos and recordings do not do justice to the fearfulness the reporter must have felt.

So please mainstream publications, start writing what you actually mean and put an end to patronizing your audiences.

America’s not-so-Secret Service

Posted on by

By JENNA JOHNSON

Recent antics of the U.S. Secret Service are no longer so secret ….

Three agents from the Secret Service were sent home from Amsterdam after one was found passed out drunk in a hotel hallway. And their activities have become international news.

An investigation is underway and the agents are blamed with “not doing more to prevent another embarrassment” for the Secret Service, as two years ago they suffered a scandal in which agents brought prostitutes back to their hotel rooms in Cartagena.

Among protecting high profile figures such as the president, the secret service also investigates crimes like counterfeit and credit card fraud.

White House Spokesperson Jay Carney said, “Generally, the President believes … that everybody representing the United States of American overseas needs to hold himself or herself to the highest standards.”

Thus, the three Secret Service agents were sent home as a disciplinary measure. Rightfully so, since their actions were somewhat shameful to the country.

However, isn’t it also a tad shameful for the news media to blatantly broadcast the incident? If America is really concerned with protecting the reputation of the Secret Service, it seems to me that they would like to keep the disciplinary measures “on the down-low.”

The federal government and president could’ve likely dealt with the three agents privately in order to avoid drawing attention to the scandal (that is, if one could call it a scandal compared to the one in Cartagena).

Of course, journalists are all for exposing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so it doesn’t surprise me that this story came out. That being said, I do think that exposing the weakness in a prestigious government agency might be unwise in a climate of international political unrest. It is suspected that the recent disappearance of the Malaysia Airlines flight may have been an act of terrorism.

I’ve usually leaned towards abridging some rights when safety is involved, but I realize how fine that line is.

Perhaps exposing the scandal will force the Secret Service to clean up their act. Freedom of press can often have a “watch dog” effect on the government.

And now that I think of it, I don’t want a sloppy Secret Service.

MH 370 and insensitivity of news media

Posted on by

By KELLY BRODY

The news has been abuzz with updates on the mystery of the missing Malaysian Airlines plane, Flight MH 370, yet as the story of the crash starts to piece together, it seems as though the feelings of the families involved are being neglected.

As the families were notified of the death of everyone aboard via SMS message, (something that would have never been done in the past), photos were snapped of the grief those related to the people on the flight felt upon receiving the news.

Heart-wrenching details, such as a woman collapsing, screaming “My son! My son!” and another woman who had to be taken off on a stretcher from the immense feeling of grief are all featured in the news. Many people urged the press not to photograph or film them, with one man even threatening a cameraman by saying “Don’t film. I’ll beat you to death!”

During a time of extreme sadness and tragedy, privacy is of the utmost importance. Yet, the press always sees the need to document every moment, especially when a story such as this one is such a hot-ticket item.

So is the press over stepping its boundaries? In this case, I believe so. It does no justice to the story to document photos and videos of the family members of those on the flight in fits of hysteria due to grief. Would you want photos taken of you upon receiving news about a death in the family?

Also, for the family members to find out about the absolute death of everyone aboard via SMS message is a tad insensitive. It’s considered rude to break up with someone over text these days, so for the Malaysian prime minister to notify the families of the death of their loved ones is a testament to the disrespect the media has over the entire situation.

The coverage of this flight tragedy has been largely publicized and laden with extremities. Many conspiracy theories have swirled about, and jokes have even been made about the mysterious nature of it all. Now that the British satellites are starting to uncover the mystery of the crash, I believe focus should be placed on the crash itself and less on the families. They deserve respect in this time of tragedy.

The obsession with Flight 370

Posted on by

By JENNA JOHNSON

After Malaysia Air flight 370 went missing on March 8, the news media have been obsessed with finding it. Every TV station, network, and website offers viewers new developments, clues, and even theories at any opportunity.

The story even has celebrities captivated — Courtney Love chimed in tweeting a picture of the ocean with what appears to be oil on the surface that she thought might indicate where the plane landed. (Her theory was later rejected by crowdsourcing site, Tomnod.com).

Screen Shot 2014-03-18 at 4.57.17 PMAirline issues are often in the news, from excessive airport delays to mechanical difficulties and, unfortunately, sometimes a plane crashes. However, none of these stories make the top story of news websites for 11 consecutive days.

What makes this story so interesting is the mystery of it all. Audience attention has raised many questions: Why did the plane veer off course? Who was responsible? Was it an act of terrorism or simply a freak accident? And more importantly, why is this plane so hard to find it?

So far, many of these questions have been unanswered. The flight appeared to be on the correct course from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing until all contact was lost at 1:22 a.m. The Royal Thai Air Force radar and the Malaysian military radar were able to track the plane turning west over the Indian Ocean toward the Strait of Malacca.

Investigators theorize that the plane was intentionally steered off-course, but still have no working knowledge of the plane’s final fate.

I think it is rare and particularly interesting that a story is picked up while it has more questions than answers. It doesn’t even lend itself to news coverage well, as there is no footage of the actual plane. Newscasters can only offer the new developments and interview aviation experts, occasionally throwing in some b-roll of the Indian Ocean or the aircraft tracking system. The story has become slightly more conducive to television with the background checks on the pilots and interviews of family members. In this particular case, the lack of answers is actually what causes the story to not to be newsworthy, but to stay newsworthy for so long.

However, though Flight 370 still remains a mystery, what is not a mystery is how much the families of the missing must be suffering. The story is both a mystery and a tragedy, and as the story develops, I truly hope that the media gives due respect to those who are personally affected by it. At times it is easy to become enveloped in the conspiracy and suspense, but the media must also remember that the 227 passengers lost is more than just a number.

Uproar against ‘upskirting’

Posted on by

By JENNA JOHNSON

The highest court of Massachusetts ruled Wednesday that it was not illegal to take photos up the skirts of women without them knowing. And the decision is getting a lot of news media attention today.

Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice Margot Bostford of the said that these “upskirt” photographs were not technically against the law because technically the women were not nude or partially nude.

The ruling was based on the court case about Michael Robinson, 32, who was arrested in 2010 after being accused of taking cell phone photographs and videos up the skirts of women while riding Boston transportation. Police arranged a decoy operation that caught Robinson in the act. Wednesday’s ruling reversed one by a lower court that denied Robinson’s motion to dismiss the case, according to CNN.

After the decision was announced, social media exploded against “upskirting.” Citizens claimed the right to privacy beneath their own clothing.

Screen Shot 2014-03-06 at 11.06.27 AM

Screen Shot 2014-03-06 at 11.06.09 AM

Screen Shot 2014-03-06 at 11.03.44 AM

Screen Shot 2014-03-06 at 11.07.04 AM

A slew of prosecutors and lawmakers disagree with the decision and are trying to change the law, agreeing that the technicalities of the law violate the spirit of protecting privacy.

It seems like the Massachusetts court system has some explaining to do.

Right now, the state has various wiretapping laws in place. According to the Digital Media Law Project, it is illegal in Massachusetts to secretly record a conversation, whether in person or by another medium. All parties must be informed of the recording in a conversation or telephone call. If the parties do not wish to be recorded, they have a right to leave the conversation.

But, it is legal to secretly snap photos of their underwear.

Maybe it’s just me, but I’ll give my consent to be recorded on tape rather than have someone sneak a few photos up my skirt without me knowing. Of course the privacy of conversations is important, but how can the courts assume that undergarments aren’t private too?

“Upskirting” is not only a violation of privacy, but also demeaning to women. Upskirters (if that’s a word now) should be aware that if they get caught, they may not be charged with violating privacy, but will likely be slapped with a sexual harassment lawsuit.

What goes up, must come down, just like the law on “Upskirting.”

People continue to love Woody Allen

Posted on by

By NICOLE LOPEZ-ALVAR

Film director Woody Allen has held both the most reputable and most controversial reputation in Hollywood during the past 50 years.

However, the biggest controversy to date involves a 22-year-old child molestation allegation against Allen, who is nominated for an Oscar for best original screenplay for his latest film, “Blue Jasmine.”

The scandal, which involved ex-wife Mia Farrow many years ago, was revisited in a recent open letter to The New York Times, where Dylan Farrow spoke publicly about the accusations that her adoptive father, Woody Allen, had sexually abused her when she was seven years old. “He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set,” she said in the letter. “Then he sexually assaulted me.”

While Woody Allen was neither charged nor convicted of the crime, news coverage of the controversy has left a permanent mark on his image in the public eye.

Despite the on-going media coverage of accusations and rumors, as his fans and movie connoisseurs well know, audiences worldwide have continued to adore his work, which is exemplified with his recent Oscar nomination.

It is fascinating how a person’s talent, impressive career, or honor in a field can have the magnitude to surpass all controversy.

A prime example of this type of spectacle is the infamous “Charlie Sheen meltdown” of 2011, where his multiple rehabilitation attempts led him to absolute mayhem and embarrassment — for Warner Bros., that is.

Behind all of the accusations and rumors that were being spread daily, he continued to be one of the highest paid actors of all time, and his show, “Two And a Half Men,” continued to be at the top of the ratings. In retrospect, his “breakdown” was drawing in more of an audience than ever before.

While these individuals continue to gain the power that comes with fame and success, there will always be thousands of incredible artists in the field that will never get the amount of attention they deserve. While this is no news, it is something to reflect upon this upcoming Academy Award season.

Nasty e-mail causes controversy

Posted on by

By TAYLOR HOFF

The popular website LinkedIn is designed to help people in the professional world establish their profile and search for future employees they can trust and who obtain needed credentials. This is a website where reaching out to others is encouraged and either you get the job, or not, no harm in trying.

However, if you’re reaching out to Kelly Blazek, there is in fact harm in trying.

Last week, Kelly Blazek, a woman named Cleveland’s “Communicator of the Year” for her popular online job bank for marketing professionals, realized the importance of playing it safe on social media – the hard way.

Ever since e-mail, Facebook, Twitter, and social media became popular high schoolers, college kids, and young adults were warned of the consequences these websites could have on your future. Making sure no questionable activity surfaces to potential future employers. However, once you get the job, it doesn’t mean you can let down your guard and inappropriately use social media.

When 26-year-old Diana Mekota added Blazek, she received quite the backlash.

After e-mailing her a professional note stating only her experiences and positive job seeking attitude, Mekota was expecting an e-mail of subtle rejection, an e-mail of acceptance, or no e-mail at all. What she got was unexpected by all.

Only hours after Mekota sent her original e-mail, she received an e-mail detailing how her “invite to connect is inappropriate, beneficial only to you, and tacky.” She continued on, “wow, I cannot wait to let every 26-year-old job-seeker mine my top-tier marketing connections to help them land a job.”

Within days the e-mail went viral. Surfacing on websites such as Buzzfeed, known for their humor and poking fun at outrageous situations.

Also within days, other people began coming out of the works claiming to have received similar e-mails from Blazek. In one of the e-mails she signed off  “Done with this conversation, and you.”

Blazek’s responses have created quite the frenzy in the media and she has since publicly apologized to all that she offended and deleted several forms of social media.

Although unfortunate to all involved, and potentially Blazek’s career, she has definitely made an example of herself. She proven it’s not only important to have a clean and reputable online appearance when seeking a job, but unquestionably important to maintain that appearance even when you’ve received your dream job and hold titles such as “Communicator of the Year.”

Violent backlash against Google Glass

Posted on by

By JENNA JOHNSON

The latest innovation from Google, the Google Glass eyepiece has recently caused quite a stir regarding the recording function of the device. Sarah Slocum, a tech writer, was allegedly harassed at a San Francisco bar for recording people with her Google Glass.

According to Slocum, the “Google Glass haters” gave her an obscene gesture, after which she turned on the record function of the device. She told them she was doing so and one man “ripped the Google Glass off [her] face and ran out of the bar.” The others reportedly robbed her of her phone and purse.

It is probably important to remember that the incident took place during the last call at a punk rock bar where the beer was flowing and the common sense was probably not. Still, it is interesting to note that both parties involved in Slocum vs. the “Google Glass Haters” reacted violently over a video recording that lasted barely more than 10 seconds.

We live in an age where many breaking news story videos are footage shot from a cell phone camera. The ease of Google Glass — portable, hands free, no fumbling for buttons — opens a whole new realm of opportunity in the digital age. The GoPro camera that straps onto objects such as a helmet is also hands-free, but the Google Glass allows for complete control of what is being captured. Although it would not be desirable for quality video in news, in a pinch, it could become any news-gatherer’s dream.

So what is causing the backlash with the public? How is recording on a Google Glass any different than whipping out a cell phone to take a quick video?

Some argue that it is because people can’t tell if they are being recorded or not. Google Glass advocates refute this by saying the Glass has a red light that turns on to indicate that it is recording.

Perhaps it is the fact that the Google Glass seems invasive by nature. The device can go wherever its owner goes and people find that type of technology more threatening than a video camera or even a cell phone.

Or maybe it’s because the Google Glass right now looks something reminiscent of a sci-fi flick.

I personally think that what it boils down to is that people are uncomfortable that they can’t easily see what the Google Glass is doing (as if it isn’t hard enough to get someone’s permission to be recorded anyway). The red recording button does exist, but it is small and definitely inconspicuous compared to a video camera or even a cell phone.

Bottom line, I think it is important to be upfront about recording people with any recording device. Google Glass is an amazing piece of technology, but the people pioneering its integration into society need to recognize the privacy concerns that arise with it.

Because if you’re ignorant about that, you’re bound to get your (Google) Glass kicked.

Olympics: World news or gossip?

Posted on by
Reply

By NICOLE HOOD

The Olympics are at the forefront of today’s world news. However, there are moments when I question the priority of news reporters.

The other day, I went on CNN and the first thing I saw was U.S. ice skater Ashley Wagner’s face of disappointment at her score.

There are many things about the Olympics to report on that hold a lot of significance — the condition of Sochi as a city to host such a big event, human rights problems in Russia, countries’ relative numbers of medals — but, in my view, an athlete’s lack of composition in such an intense moment is not worthy of the front page of such a major world news website.

In my opinion, to place a picture of the face of disappointment as one of the ‘five favorite moments from the first weekend of the Olympics’ is a cruel joke. The article drew just as much attention to a few seconds of infuriated disappointment as it did to Russia winning its first gold medal in the games and total medals won after the first weekend.

To be fair, the article featured Jamie Anderson’s (American gold medalist) tweet about her gratitude to friends and family after her great performance. Although this is another example of social media appearing in the world news, at least it’s fitting under the category of “favorite moments.” Amy Wagner’s face was not on this list because it was endearing, it was because it was scandalous.

Do we really find scandals so important that they should be put in newspapers? Are we looking for ways to interest the public in the 2014 Olympics? Are we just fixated on having a list of five that the reporters felt inclined to place this example in with the rest?

The second question can be answered with a simple “no,” as the first sub-headline of the report, the first example, was “That face.” This was the first topic presented to the audience.

I urge reporters to at least think about the first two questions before they choose topics. When presented side-by-side, news transfer a sense of importance. An important event may elevate another’s importance, even if the latter doesn’t attract that much on its own. On the other hand, something like gossip in world news could end up downplaying an event that makes a difference.

Do newspaper’s DUI mug shots work?

Posted on by
Reply

By KERRIE HECKEL

If YouTube has taught me anything, it’s that people like being in the news. And, if pretending to see a leprechaun in my neighborhood means I will get into the news, then I will tell you all about that leprechaun.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAOQlvOeYPk)

However, in Anderson County, Ky., getting in the news seemed to lose its charm when The Anderson News printed the headline, “HAVE A HAPPY NEW YEAR. But please don’t drink and drive and risk having your picture published.”

 The small paper from Central Kentucky was introducing a new editorial piece to be picked up at the start of 1998. The editorial would publish photos of all persons convicted of drunk driving in Anderson County as an innovative way to deter driving while under the influence.

Mug shots were first published monthly, and then weekly, and then limited only those living in Anderson County or surrounding areas reached by the newspaper.

Although the newspaper’s goal to reduce drunk driving was a noble one, there was no concrete evidence the policy was helping to achieve this goal and some believed the newspaper was taking too much of a toll on residents’ personal lives.

The photos reportedly caused teasing directed towards the kids of parents with their pictures in the newspaper and even an attempted suicide of one teenager who feared having his picture published.

The Anderson News stopped publishing mug shots of drunk drivers in 2008 under a new editor and the rational that it “adds a level of punishment, or at least embarrassment, beyond what is imposed by a judge.”

What makes The Anderson News’ content interesting is that starting and stopping publishing mug shots of drunk drivers has to do with issue of morality not legality.

Legally speaking, the newspaper had every right to publish the mug shots. It is not uncommon to see stories on criminal cases in newspapers and by drinking and driving the residents of Anderson County gave up their right to privacy.

When The Anderson News began printing mug shots they were attempting to serve their public interest of keeping the streets safe. They were reporting the truth, it was relevant to the community, and using their power of voice to prevent drunk driving appeared to be a morally correct choice.

What the newspaper learned after publishing mug shots for some time was that they may be inflicting harm to their community that was not outweighed by the benefits of their drunk driving coverage. As the coverage led to teasing in schools, embarrassment among community members and, perhaps at its worst, a teenager’s attempted suicide. Analyzing these effects are what motivated the newspaper to pull the piece from their paper.

The Anderson News drunk driving coverage reminds us that being a journalist isn’t solely about circulating information. A good journalist needs to be able to understand the authority that comes with their position and how they can best serve their community.

Journalists must remember that just because something falls in the legal realm of possibility does not mean it is acceptable to publish it.

Lastly, an important point to note is that when The Anderson News pulled its drunk driving coverage, it was under a new editor. This makes me wonder if the newspaper’s employees had seen the moral issues with printing the names and images before the regular feature was pulled, but did not voice their opinions to their editor. If so, this brings up another point that journalists need to not only have a moral compass, but that they need to also be brave enough to stand up for what their gut is telling them.

Writing with a national perspective

Posted on by
Reply

By NICOLE HOOD

I recently read a CNN article on the preliminary session of the Syrian peace talks, in which a peculiar event took place — Iran was invited to the conference and then dis-invited by UN chief Ban Ki-moon.

The reporters went on to say that ‘Western leaders believe Iran has provided military and intelligence support to Syrian government forces,’ and that fighters from Iran-backed militia have fought on the side of the Syrian government. When I first read this, who actually dis-invited Iran was unclear to me, as was the reason that the event occurred. The succession of the reporters’ choices implies that the reason Iran did not attend/was dis-invited was for military reasons.

The reality of the situation was that the UN gave Iran an ultimatum: that Iran could attend the peace conferences on the side of the UN (against the Syrian government) or they could not attend. Iran chose not to stand against Syria, and did not attend. This was information available to my International Studies teacher but not to the reporters at the time, and they used Western leaders’ opinions as their next step in explaining the information.

Does this represent a nationalistic explanation of international events?

I think so. This nationalism, I believe, comes out naturally and is almost inescapable. The only way one could report this in an absolutely unbiased way would be to provide the audience with a transcript of the talks and let them come to their own conclusions. People generally want a summary — and all summaries are written from the view of the reporter. Most people with an interest in world news still do not want an intensive reading representing a complex and dizzying array of international relations.

That being said, the fact that our tendency towards nationalism is expressed with militaristic assumptions can be dangerous in the world of reporting—and in our own lives. To assume militaristic reasons behind anything because of a lack of information might be rationally considering all possibilities—or it might be demonization of other countries or other parts of the world that we don’t understand.

I believe that the fault lies not particularly in presenting this one personal conclusion (of many possible conclusions) but in leaving out that they could not find a definite reason to present to the audience or that it was only one conclusion of many. Had the reporters mentioned the lack of information, I (and other readers) would be less inclined to confidently believe that militaristic support was the key to figuring out what was happening.

After reading the article, that piece of information stood out most to me — and then, the next day I learned what I confidently took away from the article was wrong. Iran was not particularly hiding something military and that was not why they were dis-invited. The slightest difference in presentation of information makes a big difference.

For more information about this, go to:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/22/world/europe/syria-geneva-talks/index.html?hpt=wo_c1

Snowden nominated for Nobel prize

Posted on by
Reply

By JENNA JOHNSON

One man’s criminal is another man’s … Nobel Peace Prize nominee?

Edward Snowden, former National Security Agency contractor, is now taking refuge in Russia after leaking classified NSA surveillance information. Snowden faces felony charges including espionage and theft of government property in the United States.

While he faces severe punishments in his homeland, some foreign governments have a more positive outlook on the situation. Norwegian lawmakers Bard Vegar Solhjell and Snorre Valen announced Jan. 29 on their website that they nominated Snowden for the Nobel Peace Prize.

According to Solhjell and Valen, Snowden contributed to peace by “revealing the nature and technological prowess of modern surveillance.” They also said that they recognized the damage to security he may have caused, and noted that they “do not necessarily condone all disclosures.”

Snowden isn’t only up for awards in Norway.  His leakage of 1.7 million classified NSA records also won him the title of International Newsmaker of the Year by editors at Postmedia (fun fact: a close second was the royal baby.)

So, what is Edward Snowden? A whistle-blowing champion of free information or an unpatriotic traitor to the United States?

This is where the line between the freedom of the press and protecting national security becomes inherently fuzzy.

On one hand, Snowden did shed light on shocking information previously unknown by most Americans. According to his information, the government had monitored the phone calls of nearly every American and used surveillance for foreign leaders and terrorist organizations.

Most Americans will likely forgive terrorist surveillance, but recoil at the notion that their own phone calls were tapped. This information made public by Snowden allowed Americans to express their opinions regarding invasion of privacy by the government. Perhaps Snowden should not be punished so harshly for reporting questionable government actions.

Then again, maybe ignorance is bliss.

When it comes to the topic of national security, civil liberties have oft gone unprotected (Does the phrase “clear and present danger” ring a bell?). Many NSA officials now claim that the security of the United States has been threatened due to the leaked information from Snowden.

Thus, the age-old argument of how free freedom is continues. Does the freedom of the press protect revealing information that could potentially threaten a nation? Is it a journalist’s ethical duty to disclose the truth?

The answer is not, nor will it ever be, concrete. However, Snowden has created quite a stir with his NSA file leakage. No matter how noble the intentions, in my opinion, the commotion he caused should win nearly any award but the one for “peace.”