Tag Archives: Journalism ethics

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.”

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.

Conspiracy theories and the media

Posted on by
Reply

By MELISSA MALLIN

Recently, conspiracy theories have become very popular.

A conspiracy theory can be thought of as the belief that authorities and government officials are responsible for some type of (destructive) unexplained event and that the official explanation or story cannot be trusted. Often, those who believe in one conspiracy tend to believe in others.

Those who believe in conspiracy theories are often characterized as irrational, unbelievable, and/or all around nuts. An intelligent, very well-liked person with credibility can quickly and easily become irrational, disliked, and lose their credibility just by being labeled a conspirator in mainstream media.

The easiest way for officials and the media to brush something off is by labeling it a conspiracy theory. When conspiracy theories do arise, officials and media outlets are extremely quick to dismiss certain types of views, point fingers, and label anyone who believes in this “outrageous idea” a conspiracy theorist.

Back in the day, the mainstream media served as a watchdog for government, exposing and uncovering hidden secrets (Think Nixon and the Watergate scandal). To many people today, it appears though, that the mainstream media only tell us what the government and big corporations want us to hear. Most people consider the media to be the biggest conspiracy of all, lying to society about what’s really going on overseas and/or in our own backyard.

So if we can’t trust our very own news media for answers or to further investigate questionable scandals then who can we trust? Many people turn to conspiracy theories for answers because it appears that those conspiracies provide answers to many of the questions the mainstream media often avoids.

Many conspiracy theories hold some value of truth but more often then not they hold an extremist viewpoint and can be considered false. But what happens when these conspiracy theories turn out to be true? As we know, the media tends to get a lot of things wrong and blur questionable facts. When the mainstream media labels something a conspiracy theory and then later, it turns out to be true, does this further discredit our very own media and give more credibility to conspiracy theories? Let’s take a look.

Remember Fukushima, the nuclear power plant that erupted in Japan? Back when it happened, the mainstream media coverage insisted that the nuclear radiation was nothing like Chernobyl and that many residents could soon return to their homes. Overall, the media declared Fukushima ‘no big deal.’ Many “conspiracy theorists” called this one — declaring Fukushima uninhabitable due to nuclear radiation. As it turns out, a few months later The New York Times released an article in which “broad areas around the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant could soon be declared uninhabitable, perhaps for decades ….”

How about the U.S military attacks on Libya? At the beginning, those who saw this coming and spoke up about it were called kooks and whack-jobs. (The majority of Americans never saw this coming) Even recently, the mainstream media still denies that NATO is currently arming and training Libyan rebels. In order to be less responsible for the bloodshed and still achieve their goals, the U.S and EU have developed, trained, and equipped “rebel groups” within the country and have used them as the ground forces for this campaign. The New York Times admits ” the learning curve for the rebels, with training and equipping, was increasing. What we’ve seen in the last few weeks is these two curves have crossed.” Now, many prominent officials are already calling for the U.S and EU to provide occupational forces.

How about the popular conspiracy that the increasing amounts of fluoride in our water is actually bad for us? For the first time in 50 years, the feds have just now reduced the “recommended amount” of fluoride in our drinking water. A CNN article reported that the federal government is now saying that high levels of fluoride in the water have now officially been linked with fluorosis-a condition that causes spotting and streaking on teeth.

How about the idea that cell phone use can cause cancer? Startling scientific research has now found a connection between the two. A recent CNN article states, “At the highest exposure level — using a mobile phone half an hour a day over a 10-year period — the study found a 40 percent increased risk of glioma brain tumors.”

This last example involves the conspiracy that the U.S government provides weapons for Mexican drug cartels. This idea has been around for a long time, yet nobody has taken the time to listen to or investigate the theory. Now, it is a matter of public record. The government has, indeed, facilitated the transfer of thousands of guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

A CBS News report discusses the opposition that many ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) agents admitted to allowing thousands of guns to be given into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. “One Project Gunrunner source told us just how many guns flooded the black market under ATF’s watchful eye …. For months, ATF agents followed 50-caliber Barrett rifles and other guns believed headed for the Mexican border, but were ordered to let them go.”

It’s hard to determine whether these are just common mainstream media mistakes or if the media actually hides the truth for as long as they can until the government (or unavoidable research and explanation) allows them to admit such truths.

The mainstream news media never hesitates to label an absurd theory as a conspiracy-and those who believe in it-as conspirators. The label alone is enough to discredit anyone-no matter how smart, intelligent and credible they really are. But these examples have shown that conspiracy theorists have often times been correct, even if the media has not admitted or accepted these theories right away.

So does this mean we should discredit the mainstream media and credit conspiracy theories instead?

Not necessarily.

All I’m suggesting is that the mainstream news media seem to be quick in labeling theories that discredit the government as conspiracies. By doing this, the majority of people discredit these theories and sometimes these theories turn out to be true. Of course, not all conspiracy theories are true and, quite often, most of them are absurd. But the fact remains, that there seems to be some layer of truth in conspiracies that arise and instead of discrediting them because the mainstream media has told us too, we should further investigate and come up with our own conclusions.

As these examples have shown, when the media is quick to disbelieve and discredit someone as a conspiracy/conspirator, it is in our best interest that we do our own investigating for the truth.

For more on conspiracy theories and the media please visit http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/14-conspiracy-theories-that-the-media-now-admits-are-conspiracy-facts

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.

We’re a nation wired for negative news

Posted on by
Reply

By MELISSA MALLIN

Why does the media tend to focus only on negative news?

Why do we hear more about murders, war and corruption more than we do about friendly neighborhood festivities, peaceful revolutions, and acts of kindness?

In fact, continual bad news can stimulate depression, work people up emotionally, and even make people more likely to make bad decisions.

So why are we drawn to it?

One theory suggests that humans seek out dramatic and negative events. Since we evolved from a hunter-gatherer mind set, anything dramatic must be attended to immediately. Therefore, we are drawn to any negative, dramatic event because it requires our immediate attention.

Another theory suggests that we tend to care more about the threat of bad things than we do about the prospect of good things. Since we tend to be more fearful than happy, our negative brain tripwires are much more sensitive than our positive ones.

The last theory relates to probability. The probability of something bad happening in a small town is much smaller than something bad happening in a large town. This is why local news tends to have less bad news. But most people watch nationwide and worldwide news where the coverage is widespread thus making the news more negative.

All theories point to the same conclusion. We are internally wired to seek out negative and dramatic events, and when we find them, we share them.

So how do we fix this?

It seems the only way to fix the negativity of news is to change the negativity in our views. When we change our habits, and see through a “glass half full” lens, our brains develop a positive perspective that can spread to other people like a virus.

By applying a positive perspective to our attitudes and behaviors we can encourage our news media to present a balanced and multidimensional point of view rather than just reinforcing a negative one.

For more information visit http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201012/why-we-love-bad-news.

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.