Tag Archives: Journalism ethics

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.