Tag Archives: Journalism ethics

Journalism’s bad reputation . . .

Posted on by
Reply

By REBECCA COHEN

The dreaded news reporter is disliked by politicians, public figures and celebrities. However, a reporter is not doing his or her job correctly if he or she does not expose wrongful doings or any newsworthy items.

Being disliked is simply the price to pay for being a good reporter.

Thankfully, reporters are here to expose wayward public officials such as Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and the drug incident.

However, there are instances where reporters cross the line.

The incidents that forced celebrities like Jennifer Garner and Halle Berry to petition for more privacy rights are the result of reporters crossing the line, for example.

Jennifer Garner said in an E! Interview that she did not move to Hollywood so her children could be yelled at by photographers.

Another example involves Duchess Kate Middleton, who was photographed topless in her own backyard and had the image broadcast. It is another moment when reporters have crossed the line.

The pressure to find newsworthy stories may lead reporters to cross the line in these instances, making their stories unethical.

All in all, as long as the reporters do not invade the privacy of public figures, by snooping and investigating public figures, they are just doing their job.

Sportswriters in conflict of interest?

Posted on by
Reply

By MATIAS WODNER

Sportwriter and NFL reporter for CBS Sports Jason La Canfora brought up a very interesting point with a tweet he sent out last night after the Thursday night’s game between Indianapolis and Tennessee.

I had never really even thought of the idea that reporters and players and coaches might share the same agents. In fact, I never even thought about the fact that reporters do have agents. It may not seem like a big deal to many, but it brings up a huge question in terms of conflict of interest.

Conflict of interest is one of the main points in any discussion of professional ethics in journalism. It’s essential for journalists to be out of the story (depending on the type of story, mostly that is the case). Journalists are taught to avoid conflicts, whether real or perceived. And when there is unavoidable conflict, they need to disclose it.

Reporters sharing agents with players and coaches nearly discredits any story that that reporter writes about the player or coach whom he shares that agent with. As unbiased as the story may be, it doesn’t matter.

This is a rather interesting topic of discussion to me because of my prior writing experience. I used to write for a community website about the Tennessee Titans. My job was to write articles about the team, whether objective or subjective, positive or negative, anything I could come up with. During the time that I worked, there was no real conflict because of the state of the website. It wasn’t exactly professional because we weren’t getting paid to do it. It was merely my thoughts written in type, with one editor making tweaks.

That “job” didn’t necessarily prepare for me for the conflicts that I may face if I pursue a career in journalism. I do now understand that there are situations where those conflicts are unavoidable. But when they are avoidable, it is important for me to eliminate myself from the equation in the fairest way possible.

One of the cardinal rules of journalism

Posted on by
Reply

By MELANIE MARTINEZ

When it comes to writing and journalism, there is an almost unspoken rule that reigns among the industry workers, one so obvious but also so grave, and desperately avoided at all costs.

Plagiarism, that scary word we learned in middle school when we started writing papers, still sends nervous little shots down my spine. My teachers always warned me about it, explaining the huge consequences of stealing someone else’s work. It always made me think twice before copying and pasting those paragraphs off of Wikipedia…

It wasn’t until I entered high school and had to write research papers that I learned how serious plagiarism really is. The realization came with maturity and a new-found common sense that wasn’t quite present in my braces-laden prepubescent years.

Later when I discovered my love and appreciation for writing, I realized how wrong it’d be to steal someone else’s words, or to have someone steal my own. Majoring in journalism in college has only cemented this strong belief of mine.

As silly as it seems to be harping on and on about why plagiarism is wrong, you’d be surprised at how many people copy others’ work. I know fellow students who see nothing wrong with copying a few sentences here, and paraphrasing a few there. And when I say paraphrasing, I mean switching around a few words to make it seem a bit different.

But it’s not just students who are plagiarizing their college papers. A freelance writer for the local newspaper The Press and Journal plagiarized her column from The Guardian, The Daily Mail, and The Spectator.

Carly Fallon’s story about the upcoming winter season has whole paragraphs that are completely taken word-for-word from other writers. And then paraphrasing was taken to a whole other level of definition-changing.

Sentences such as “When the first snowflake hits the ground, everything transforms. Trains seize up. Schools close,” were ‘paraphrased’ into “And then, when the first snowflake hits the ground, everything transforms. Schools close; trains seize up.” The lazy senior might look at this as simply paraphrasing, but really it is just straight out plagiarism.

Fallon was fired from the paper, and I’m sure utterly humiliated. Did she really think she could get away with copying a WHOLE story, from not one, not two, but THREE writers?

Moral of the story is: write your own stuff. If you can’t come up with anything from your own brain to spill out as words onto your laptop screen, you should probably pick another career.

Immediacy in reporting has a price

Posted on by
Reply

By REBECCA COHEN

The immediacy that consumes news reporting is beneficial to viewers and readers.

However, is it beneficial to the reputation of journalism?

Probably not. However, there is no other way to do it – except for the advance-prepared profiles such as death stories and obituaries.

Working in a rush maximizes mistakes — mistakes for which journalists are deeply criticized.

For example, three minor children filed a lawsuit in July against Fox News Channel.

Fox had accidentally broadcast their father’s suicide earlier that year. The children, ages 9, 13 and 15, claim the footage of their father’s suicide caused them to suffer emotional distress.

Their 32-year-old father had allegedly hijacked a car, so the high-speed chase was being streamed in real-time by Fox. However, when the man got out of the car to shoot himself, the cameras were still on him, broadcasting the tragedy.

According to the suit, there were rumors going around the children’s school that day that a man had committed suicide on TV and the video was circulating the Internet.

However, it was not until the children got home and watched the video that they realized they were watching their own father’s death.

Both Fox News and anchor Shepard Smith issued apologies for the broadcast, claiming its broadcast was the result of human error.

Perhaps these mistakes are something we can prevent by hiring more equipped journalists. However, it may just be a terminal flaw of journalism as a result of the pressure for immediacy.

Press regulation in UK could spread

Posted on by
Reply

By SHAI FOX SAVARIAU

There is an argument going on right now about whether or not press regulation in the United Kingdom is going to destroy journalism or actually prevent journalists from abusing their jobs.

Supporters of the charter say that the press in the UK has failed in self-regulation and that this new charter will be the answer in keeping journalists in check.  The charter includes a number of penalties for when journalists do something they’re not supposed to.

I have read that some people think this charter is a blessing in disguise because it is the best way to keep the government fully off the press’ back. It is a shield that is preventing a full regulation that could for sure affect how journalists do their job.

But many journalists in the UK are angry. There is a battle between the journalists who are for and against the charter. There are some who see it as a compromise with the government, but the others are very angry because they were the ones who were involved in implementing it, instead of stopping it.

I think this is in a way a violation to freedom of the press. Journalists have always had the right to regulate themselves. I understand, however, why they are implementing a charter to regulate and watch over the journalists. In 2012, the UK had incident in where multiple high profile cell phones were hacked by journalists and that is completely wrong.

After reading about this, I was also reminded of Princess Diana’s death and how the paparazzi were a big part of it. I’m sure the UK is just fed up with interference from journalists.

What needs to be watched is that the charter does not abuse their power and take things too far by implementing laws that really do violate journalists’ freedoms. So far it’s borderline, but it can easily be taken to another level.

I also have to wonder if other countries will take a similar route. What if it becomes a domino effect? The U.S. could be next. There could be a charter here as well regulating the press.  The UK has always been known to set a standard. Perhaps this is just the beginning. This could possibly be the future for ALL of journalism around the globe.

Steps to being a good journalist, part 2

Posted on by
Reply

By VALERIA VIERA

A good journalist also needs a few of other interesting characteristics.

According to the article: ”Journalism – Facts & Directory,” one specific characteristic a journalist must have is to be resourceful. “Resourcefulness gives a person the ability to be able to always find a solution to difficult situations that can sometimes be at a dead end. Being a committed journalist is also important. There are sacrifices that must be made in a journalists’ personal life at times in order to get work done.” This is not only describing resourcefulness but also the virtue of sacrifice.

Sometimes journalists have to put things aside so a good story can be accomplished. Finding stories, news, or anything interesting to the public is something that can take time, even more if the journalist is making the correct steps and gathering the necessary evidence to support the story.

Apart from these characteristics, I believe a good journalist should be considerate. He should know how to talk to people about certain things and how to correctly approach the situation. There are going to be lots of times where a difficult situation will come up, and a good journalist must know what to do and how to handle it without affecting those around him.

“Speed and accuracy is also crucial. It is not enough to write well you have to also be a fast writer. This is where many aspiring journalists have problems. They might do well in writing classes and show a good grasp of the news, but when it comes to deadlines they suffer.”  This is also a very important point. Journalists need to be fast and aware at all times, because in one minute your story might be taken, or worst, stolen.

If you as a journalist are not capable of being quick, even if you have the best story, it can lose impact if it is not shared rapidly and through the correct sources. 

Journalists need to know how to work fast, under pressure, but maintaining the accuracy present at all times. “There will be times where editors may yell and you will find yourself in a high-pressure environment, you may have problems with co-workers under similar stress.”

The article also mentions how good journalists turn in a clean copy and do not depend on the editor, which means “they must posses decent spelling and grammar skills.” Also, confidence is one of the most important things to keep in mind. Confidence will get a journalist the answers wanted and it will give he or she the sufficient strength to “take that extra step in order to get his or her story written.”

It’s our business, baby

Posted on by
Reply

By MELANIE MARTINEZ

To write or not to write … for journalists, this is something that is never pondered. It’s not even a question: journalists write, and write, and write and — you guessed it — write. They write about everything and anything and a true and noble journalist always writes the truth.

Knowing this, I was a bit shocked to learn that a reporter in Massachusetts was fired for writing a quote in his story about a young soccer star who transferred schools.

The athlete explained that she left her old school, Mount Greylock, because socially, it was like “the movie ‘Mean Girls’.” Because of that school’s cliques and drama, she transferred to McCann Technical School despite its “somewhat inferior academics and athletics”, she added.

The reporter, Isaac Avilucea, posted on his blog that the sports editor at the North Adams Transcript not only approved the story but even praised it on Twitter.

It was after Editor-in-Chief Mike Foster received calls from angry school principals and parents that he decided to fire Avilucea.

The editors then addressed the story in an editorial in which they deeply apologized for it. They explained that it was “unjust” of them to publish a story with statements that were “simply wrong”.

What I find appalling is that what is truly “unjust” here is the fact that these editors are calling a quote from a source erroneous, and even went as far as firing the reporter who wrote it.

What’s a journalist if he or she does not write the facts, supported by evidence? A well-rounded story is one that includes quotes from sources. In this case, a story about a young athlete who transferred schools obviously needs a quote from that young athlete about why she transferred.

But then I tried to reflect on the other side of this. Journalism can be seen as a career with beauty and romance, dating back to World War I times when reporters would venture to the dangerous fighting fields in various exotic locales and come back with dramatic stories.

Though this is true, journalism has also always been a business, and still is. Newspapers make money through advertisements and from the people who buy and read them. In smaller towns, it is especially important to have strong public support and continuing circulation.

Because of this, I can see why the editors the North Adams Transcript did what they did. Firing Avilucea and publishing an apology most probably mended things with those who were offended by the story, I just wish they hadn’t called the statements wrong, because they were opinions.

What could’ve nobly solved the problem and saved the angst (as well as Avilucea’s job) is if Avilucea had included comments from the schools themselves. His editors should have urged him to so that both sides could be shown and they’d have the chance to defend themselves.

This story just reminds journalists that we must always write the truth, but remember we are running the risk of losing our jobs in a career that though filled with beauty and nobleness, is also a business.

Is Twitter fair game for reporters?

Posted on by
Reply

By REBECCA COHEN

In a world where it is normal to know what a complete stranger is doing at any given time, thanks to social media, where do we draw the line with reporters?

If Hilary Clinton tweets about her latest trip to Hawaii, it is only fair that news sites have access to it — as the whole world is watching what she does. But, for the average Joe, is it ethical for reporters to share our posts in stories on, for example, underage drinking?

Say high school senior John Smith tweets, “So Drunk!” Is it okay for a reporter to quote Smith in his or her story?
After all, Smith did decide to share his business with the whole world by broadcasting it on social media.
Social media are, by definition, web sites that are used by a large group of people to share information. Therefore, the very purpose of Smith’s post is to share with a large group of people that he is “So Drunk!” However, having his underage intoxication shared with the entire world was probably not Smith’s original intention upon writing this post.
So, by putting it in a news story about underage drinking, it is taking it out of its original context, and could be judged as unethical.
On the other hand, let’s say a student at the University of Miami shares his or her views on ObamaCare.
It is fair to think that, because these tweets are being put on social media, the user who posted them wants them to be shared.
If a reporter is writing a story about students for Obama, this tweet would fit perfectly into his or her story. Likely the purpose of this post was to have it referenced to and shared further.
In this situation, it could be viewed as ethical to feature it in a story, whereas in a situation where it would humiliate or harm a user like John Smith, it is unethical and should not be done by reporters.

Technology fuels public domain debate

Posted on by
Reply

By REBECCA FERNANDEZ

Anyone who reads the 10 Commandments understands them quite clear: Thou shall not steal. And nowadays that can also mean: Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s computer files and text messages.

But one recent news story suggests it’s not quite that simple. New technology has hyped the debate over what should be in the public domain, but done nothing to clarify the answers.

One of the principal reasons is that the audience is participating and opposing, in real time, as journalists decide what subjects are fair game.

Many websites obtain information, verify its authenticity, and ask the right questions about what is of valid public interest.

One example is a website called TechCrunch, that did this through Twitter.

The site posted, instead, information that cut more to the nature of Twitter’s business: financial projections, product plans and notes from executive strategy meetings and “talked about the Facebook threat and when and how they might sell the company,” adding “that is immensely interesting from a news perspective.”

The TechCrunch crew correctly noted that the public seemed much less exercised about previous instances in which media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, published internal company documents from Yahoo and other firms.

In many other instances over the decades, as important as the Pentagon Papers, journalists have depended on internal documents to tell the real story.

In many of those cases, the documents were effectively “stolen,” pushed by employees who ignored confidentiality rules to put information into the public domain.

Protecting juveniles in the news media

Posted on by
Reply

By DANIELLE COHEN

In a small town in northeast Washington, an 11-year-old boy was convicted of attempting to murder his fellow fifth-grade classmate.

Stevens County Superior Court Judge Allen Nielson supported the statement that this elementary school student devised his murder plot earlier this year with another classmate.

On Feb. 7, the boys brought a knife and handgun to school. Another student spoke up after seeing the students weapons in one of the boys backpacks. Before the boys could carry out their plot the school staff seized both the weapons.

A school counselor named Debbie Rodgers interviewed the older of the two boys. He admitted that his plan was to stab the girl to death because she was “really annoying” and the second boy was going to point the gun at anyone who tried to intervene.

One of the boys also tried to justify their actions by stating, “she’s rude and always made fun of me and my friends.”

The two boys also told authorities they were going to “get,” or murder, six more students at their school, Fort Colville Elementary School.

The convicted juvenile criminal is due back in court on Nov. 8 for a sentence hearing. He was sentenced to three to five years in a juvenile detention facility.

Both of these Juveniles names were not mentioned on news reports and neither were their pictures or anything to give away their identity.

Juveniles have confidentiality protection that adults do not have. Many believe this is the case because the states have a strong desire to rehabilitate the lives of juvenile delinquents and protect their reputation by not reporting their names to the press.

This issue does not prevent newspapers from reporting the stories and certain distinctions are made to decide if releasing the name of a child criminal will defame his/her reputation.

I personally believe that a child who is positively guilty of murder shouldn’t have their identity protected or hidden from the media just because of their age. Anyone who is capable of such a crime should be recognized as a criminal and the public should be aware of his or her identity.

I understand that if your name is in the news mentioning that you are a murderer, your life weather in jail or out of jail is permanently damaged due to your reputation and records.

If you are under the age of 18 and committed a crime you will most likely have a longer life to live with this reputation. I understand the theory behind protecting these children from the media, but I do not agree with it.

For more information on the elementary school case visit: http://panewsmedia.org/legal/publications/newspaperhandbook/juvenile-news-reporting

Censoring freedom of expression

Posted on by
Reply

By DANIELA LONGO

When we try to think in a country without freedom of expression, we normally think of dictatorial countries, such as Cuba and North Korea. However, these countries have been like this for many years.

Nowadays it is almost unimaginable to think that a democratic country will censor freedom of expression, and therefore freedom of the press just because some of the news organizations and journalists don’t share the same ideas as the government.

Unfortunately, Venezuela has been dealing with the censorship of freedom of the expression because of the political problems existing at the present time in the country.

When Hugo Chavez to office, he claimed to be a democratic president. But, during the time he has been in office, he created his own movement called the socialism of the 21st century. At this moment, people who were in favor of a democratic country became to realized that Chavez was leading the country to a dictatorship.

Suddenly the country separated in two sides. “Chavistas” who were in favor of Chavez, and the opposition who are against the government.

Chavez saw the opposition as a threat and he started closing private entities as well as the media that put in evidence the government acts.

Journalists have the important job of reporting information as it really happen, without being subjective or leaning to a preferential side. However, it is okay for a news organization especially in politics to be sympathizer with one political side, as long as they report accurate and truthful information.

In paper, Venezuela claims to be a democratic country, but in practice they are as close as possible to be a dictatorship like Cuba.

In 2007, the Chavez government closed RCTV. For the first time, one of the major national channel was closed for exposing horrible but truthful acts of his government.

After that, he used the channel for governmental matters where he will put programs that will taught the country about his socialism and will brutally attack the opposition.

More channels, radios and newspaper closed for not sharing the same ideas that the government has, and with this more protest in favor of the freedom of expression started to happen, however; it was useless.

Just two months ago, during Maduro’s term, Globovision, which was the last opposition channel standing, was forced to be sold to the government.

The only channel that was still fighting to speak the truth and freely express opinions was taken by the government.

This occasioned the resignation of the entire crew of journalists that were against the selling and the new morals of the channel.

The channel was practically empty, as empty as the country was of journalist that weren’t afraid to speak about the government in broadcast and print.

Thankfully, social media and Internet access isn’t prohibited yet. Now prominent Venezuelan journalist inform through Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and blogs. Also there has been a rise of web programs that can be seen through any device with Internet access.

Nowadays, it is really hard to censor an entire country just by taking away channels, newspaper and radios. Social media has become the voice of a country and its almost unstoppable, even in countries like Venezuela where speaking the truth is a matter of life and death.

False news reporting has to stop

Posted on by
Reply

By MATIAS WODNER

I’m having trouble understanding how reporters and journalists can keep putting out false information without any repercussions.

The most recent example of this was in a story about NFL All-Pro Running Back Adrian Peterson. Apparently, his two-year-old son was the victim of a disgusting, inhumane beating at the hands of a 27-year-old man. As reports surfaced, the infant was in critical condition.

The story was initially reported by TMZ on Oct. 11, where it said that Adrian Peterson Jr., the child that Peterson Sr. is always seen with, was hospitalized in critical condition.

With a bit of patience and fact-checking, several other news outlets soon disputed the TMZ report in that the child was, in fact, Peterson’s son, but not the one that he holds so dearly. Apparently, he has no contact with this child or with his mother. The boy might not even be Peterson’s son, as no paternity test was ever conducted.

Despite the weirdness and the murky details, I find it very distasteful that news outlets just throw out information to be first in line. This kind of false information hurts people, both emotionally and mentally.

It happened during the Boston Marathon bombing, where an innocent person was wrongly identified in the news as the bomber. And now it’s happening again.

At some point it will have to stop, though I’m not sure it will soon given the fast-paced, technologically advanced society we live in.

Peace journalism is great idea, in theory

Posted on by
Reply

By MARISSA YOUNG

In my Freedom of Expression class at the University of Miami, we have been discussing peace journalism.  Advocates for peace journalism recognize that today’s media are too eager to focus on violence and tend to favor what they consider to be the victimized parties and assign blame to the “others.”

Peace journalism attempts to give everyone a voice and expose untruths on all sides, while promoting peace and reconciliation instead of war and violence.

In this style of writing, journalists are not supposed to use words like “terrorists,” as these words are considered demonizing language. Instead, they are supposed to call groups by what they call themselves, like al-Qaeda.

Our assignment was to find articles and rank them according to a peace journalism rubric.  As I read through articles, I realized how difficult it would be to adhere to the peace journalism standards. For example, “murdered” has negative and obviously violent connotations, but what else are you supposed to say if that’s what happened? Saying that a man “killed” somebody may have a little less of a negative connotation, but the connotation is there nonetheless.

I agree that an author should make every effort to quote or at least talk to and write about all parties involved and I do think that in many cases this can be done better than it is done now. Sometimes, though, it may be too dangerous.

Should journalists have to reach out to a group that just bombed a civilian’s house? And how are they supposed to talk about this incident without victimizing the civilian? I’m not sure how peace journalism advocates would answer these questions, although it seems to me that the rubric is arbitrary; the person rating an article can interpret the categories and define them however he or she chooses.

One part of the peace journalism rubric is “writer advocates for one side/position.”  (A score of three indicates deviance from the peace journalism philosophy.) This is where peace journalism contradicts itself: it says that authors should be objective, but one of its main goals is to promote peace and reconciliation rather than violence.  Even peace journalism has its own agenda and is inherently biased.

I believe that peace journalism is a noble concept, but it is impractical. It is an unattainable ideal, but we can at least shift toward it, combining some ideas, like less thirst for blood and more open-mindedness, with traditional reporting styles.

News leaks could be threat to security

Posted on by
Reply

By DANIELLE COHEN

Reporters are responsible for making information and news accessible. Sometimes, the information that may be newsworthy might not be safe to share as public knowledge.

A prime example of reporters leaking information that is not safe to share has happened recently and has put our country’s security as risk.

There was a report made by the McClatchy DC news service Washington bureau chief about how “odd” a story was on the front-page of The New York Times.

James Asher, the Washington bureau chief for McClatchy, made this statement in regards to a leak that took place in the beginning of August regarding the closing of 19 embassies that stirred media chaos.

McClatchy at the time supported publishing the details, which included intercepted communication between the Al Qaeda Leader Ayman al Zawahiri and Yemen AQAP head Nasir al Wuhayshi.

Other sources, such as The New York Times, decided it would be beneficial to hold back publishing this information and honor the government’s request. The Times did report communication involving “senior operatives of Al Qaeda,” but did not release any identities.

The evening of the release of The Times story , a Yemen expert explained “that an August leak regarding an Al Qaeda plot undermined U.S. intelligence gathering as — laughable.”

Now that it is about two months later, U.S officials who request anonymity told The Times that the leak promoted terrorists to change their methods of communication.

There are reports that this news leak damaged national security.

The Huffington Post stated that the U.S. government never raised concerns following the story released on Aug. 4 and that “multiple sources inside and outside of the Yemeni government confirmed our reporting and not one of them told us not to publish the facts.”

Gregory Johnsen, a Yemen expert and author of a book on al Qaida in Yemen, made the point that the U.S. publicly closed 19 embassies and that the facts about Wuhayshi and Zawhiri were known in Yemen.  The point she made was once the government leaks something, the information is hard to control.

We are unsure if our government is investigating the source of these leaks. We do know that the FBI and the office of the director of National Intelligence refused to speak about the subject. The Times also did not contribute and did not contact McClatchy for information.

For more information visit http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-calderone/mcclatchy-new-york-times-al-qaeda-leak_b_4022429.html?utm_hp_ref=media

Murder cases a challenge for media

Posted on by
Reply

By AXEL TURCIOS

As some of you may know, last Saturday morning the body of 18-year-old Tiffany Cabreja, was found at a construction site in the 28200 block of SW 144th Avenue in Homestead.

This is a typical local story, a homicide, that the news media would want to cover. Of course, the first clue that popped up was a surveillance video that showed a work truck passing by the scene where the body was dumped.

There were many questions that needed to be answered. However, how would a news reporter approach a victim’s family member in a case like this?

This scenario sounds a little bit disturbing for anyone and especially for reporters. Journalists need to find sensibility, humanity, respect and understanding deep inside, to seek the right way to interview someone who has very recently lost a loved one.

But why is it so hard to ask questions if you are a reporter, a professional who asks people questions every day?

As journalists, we must show compassion for those that might be affected adversely by any type of news coverage. In other words, step on that person’s shoes and think for one second about their sorrow.

Wednesday morning, Miguel Infante and Raquel Delgado, made headlines around South Florida. According to police, they were the main suspects in the murder of the teenage girl.

Investigators questioned the couple for hours, but ended up releasing both due to lack of evidence against them.

This is where the sense of sensibility comes back again; reporters must have to get a hold on any family member of the victim. In this case, the father who had already been interviewed by all local TV stations in Miami.

Would you really ask a father how he feels when what it seemed to be a final clue wasn’t it?

I don’t think we all have the nerve to step up and do it; it takes a lot more than courage. It takes caring and passion for what you love to report these types of stories.

What if the killer is located and this time it is the right person?

Friday was the day everyone was waiting for. 20-year-old Fernando Granados was arrested and charged with second-degree murder in the Homestead girl’s death.

In his confession, Granados stated that he and an unidentified man went with the teen to a park where they smoked crack. Later, they ended up in a construction site where the two men strangled Cabreja.

Despite the fact that the pieces of this puzzle might be difficult to put together, a long investigation is still underway.

The media in this case should follow the story until it’s finished, sending sensitive human beings to obtain needed information gathered in a sensible manner.

When does it go too far?

Posted on by
Reply

By MATIAS WODNER

We are in a point in time where the distinction between too far and not far enough is dangerous.

As a news reporter, it’s tough to walk the line of right and wrong. One too many details and your morals and ethics will be questioned. Leave out too much and suddenly your journalistic integrity is being questioned. I’ve struggled at times with this when cutting details out of stories, not only to make the story shorter, but also to not cross the invisible, ethical line.

This type of dilemma applies to all types of media.

For instance, the most recent noticeable issue with going too far comes by way of television host Jimmy Kimmel. The late-night talk show host parodied a recent interview that hip-hop artist Kanye West gave the BBC, using a little kid to portray West drinking a milkshake and giving ludicrous answers.

Mr. West didn’t take the parody so lightly, responding to Kimmel on Twitter. He angrily tweeted that the interview he did was “the first piece of honest media in years.”

“You don’t have scumbags hopping over fences trying to take pictures of your daughter,” also directed at Kimmel. “You can’t put yourself in my shoes.”

Kanye hasn’t exactly given himself the benefit of the doubt as he’s been the epitome of controversy over the last few years. Even a couple of months ago, West was at the center of it all when he assaulted a paparazzi.

As biased as I may be as a Kanye West fan, sometimes the media just go over the border. It’s happened numerous times with West and it’s probably happening at the moment. He’s constantly swarmed by media members taking his picture or shooting video from point-blank range, asking questions about his personal life. Do those people think about what it would be like if they were in his position?

They probably don’t and Kimmel probably didn’t either when he flat out made fun of him. Kimmel doesn’t care because that’s who he is as a person. I wonder if journalists care about the lines they cross.

I know it goes into consideration for me. Whether it does for others is of interest to me.

The line between right and wrong

Posted on by
Reply

By DANIELA LONGO

A few weeks ago, United States commemorated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Every year, the minds of the world remember that day as one of the most horrible tragedies that happened to this country.

The job of a journalist is to communicate accurately the major events that impact society on one way or another. No matter what is the story, a journalist must find the most effective and objective way to report it.

In an utopian world, people won’t have to deal with the sour moments of life. However, this is impossible and mankind must be prepared to face difficult moments.

Usually, in the moments of a collective tragedy two things can happen. A country breaks apart and doesn’t recover from it or people form an union to overcome the situation.

In the case of the 9/11, the whole country briefly shut down and the people formed a union to overcome the tragedy.

Because of this, journalists must be prepared to deal with tragedies and know how to transmit the real facts, without causing more tension in moments of panic. We saw the need for this again in Washington, D.C., and in Nairobi, Kenya, in recent days.

Media have such power that it can harm an individual or an entire society just by publishing the wrong picture.

In addition, information travels so fast that it seems a phenomenon of ubiquity.  Now information is everywhere.

This is a demonstration of the enormous responsibility that the news media carry on their shoulders.

In a world of diversity, the ethics have created a path that journalists can use to guide themselves in the decision of publishing graphic pictures or even strong language.

Each news organization has its own journalistic values and it will have different reasons to decide whether to publish a graphic picture or not. And the profession itself has set its standards through codes of professional standards and ethics.

The Miami Herald will have a different perspective on a graphic picture than the Sun Sentinel.

It is also important to evaluate the news value of a picture, because people depend on what journalist report and how they document reality.

Journalists are also human beings and they act differently under varying influences. However, when it comes the time to decide whether to publish a picture of a person, for example, falling from the World Trade Center, the decision must be based on the person’s own guidelines as well as our professional values and the decision should be free from outside influences.

In contrast, it could be argued that a strong graphic picture might attract a great quantity of viewers. However, ethically speaking, journalists should minimize harm at all cost.

Some of the things that get published can have a negative effect on some individuals. People can be harmed by what they see, even more when they deal with death, pain and traumas.

This is an endless topic. Communication is a human act, and therefore it cannot admit perfection. This means that the most thoughtful story will be submitted under the judgment of the masses. For obvious reasons, the judgment can’t be unanimous.

Some people will acclaim a publication, and there will be others who will critically disapprove the same exact publication.

Only one thing is for sure, you can’t please everyone. Act responsibly and thoughtfully.

Does unbiased journalism exist?

Posted on by
Reply

By REBECCA COHEN

Americans have argued for decades that the news has liberal bias, and for decades, news organizations have denied such allegations. Journalism is, by nature and definition, free of bias. It strives for objectivity. But among all of these allegations must lay a grain of truth. Could the reporting of facts be a lost art?

Groups like the Media Research Center in Reston, Va., exists to “neutralize” the alleged bias in national news media.

Its mission statement says “The Media Research Center’s unwavering commitment to neutralizing left-wing bias in the news media and popular culture has influenced how millions of Americans perceive so-called objective reporting.”

In recent news, unsupportive reports followed Republican Sen. Ted Cruz’s faux-filibuster against ObamaCare Wednesday. While journalists did not generally praise the actions of Cruz, the filibuster by Democratic Sen. Wendy Davis on abortion in June, was nearly applauded. Why?

The Washington Examiner’s Timothy P. Carney offered an explanation. “The media generally supports legalized abortion, while the media generally likes ObamaCare.”

Although this honest explanation generally makes sense, it serves as no excuse to insert opinions into reporting, because biased reporting cannot be classified as news.

However, it seems Americans are disenchanted with the honest reporting of facts, because poor explanations like the Washington Examiner’s lead the public to believe that the news should tell them what they want to hear – and if it doesn’t, they’ll turn to a source that will, the Internet.

Perhaps this alleged left-leaning media is in response to the increase of Americans getting their news information online. In a study reported by Right Side News, it is said that an estimated 84 percent of Americans get their news information online. This number has reportedly nearly doubled in the past five years.

How can a traditional, rule-following news channel keep up with the cunning and expeditious Internet?

Perhaps with bias, it can.

Be a reporter, be a friend, or be both?

Posted on by
Reply

Posted September 24, 2013

By REBECCA FERNANDEZ

Last Saturday, Sept. 21, reporter Jason Straziuso had to choose what was more important to him … being a friend or being a reporter.

Jason Straziuso was in Nairobi, Kenya, when he got a frantic phone call from a close friend that was staying the weekend with his family. She was inside Nairobi’s most upscale mall and could hear gunshots. Her husband and 2-year-old daughter were inside, too, but she didn’t know where. Where should she go?

“Over the next several hours, my role as a reporter collided with my concern for close friends in mortal danger,” said Straziuso.

Reporters must separate their emotions from scenes of horror, but that’s a near-impossible task when your friends are facing attackers lobbing grenades and firing bullets.

At first, his friend, Lyndsay, had no idea what was going on, but as soon as he rushed over to the mall, he realized that everyone there was under attack by al-Shabab terrorists.

Lyndsay’s husband, Nick, was with their daughter, Julia, in the downstairs cafe that appeared to be the initial attack point. He scooped up his toddler and ran. They ended up being pushed into a department store storage area and would stay there the next three hours.

“Lyndsay was in a third-floor movie theater when she called me again. If gunmen found her and others, there was no escape, she told me,” said Straziuso.

After Straziuso told the police everything he knew about what was going on inside the mall, he returned to his own work as a reporter. Suppressing his fears that his friends could be killed. He snapped photos, took video, and interviewed a Dutch couple who had been close to the grenade blast.

About an hour later, Straziuso got a call from Lyndsay that she was on the roof and he got some police officers to help her and the roof hostages escape, but husband Nick and daughter Julia were still inside. Eventually, police offers were able to help more hostages escape, Nick and Julia being two of them.

“We were so scared,” Nick said later,”I was just finding any way I could to get out.”

Fortunately, Straziuso was able to help out his friends and, at the same time, get his job done as a reporter. He was so thankful that he was able to accomplish both.
As a reporter, he knew that not everyone’s day ended so well.