News Efficiency Too High for Me

The tragic event that occurred on the campus of Virginia Tech on the morning of Apr. 16, 2007 has opened my eyes to several things. First, I am again reminded of the importance of living each day to the fullest, as we never know what tomorrow will bring. Second, I understood that one person can effect the mindset of an entire nation, Finally, I realized first-hand that current technology has made news from many miles away available within hours.

Though I will take the first two eye-openers very seriously and apply them to my daily life, I will further address the third one as it relates to the purpose of this blog.

In realizing the vast ability of current technology to not only get breaking news out across the world, but also be updated constantly, I am somewhat discouraged. Even though I believe that yesterday's tragedy deserves to be adequately reported, I would rather have heard the story in its entirety this morning rather than in bits and pieces yesterday afternoon. Why? I found myself alternating between one online news source and another every twenty minutes (while at work, mind you) in order to find out the latest break on the story or a different approach to reporting it.

If countless sources report the same story at different times and in different ways, how does the media serve its purpose in keeping the public as a whole informed. When a group of nine women meet for a religious small group and each has a different understanding of the same tragic event, I don't think we have been adequately done justice by the media.

For the family and friends of all those affected by this tragedy, you are in my thoughts and prayers. May God be with you in your time of need.




Disclaimer: Specific links other than that provided for Virgina Tech are inadequate for this blog, but the details of the event can be found at nearly every online news source.

Minor Relief (from my disgust)

As I sit here typing my required blog for the week, I am still in a sour mood from today's class session. Fifteen minutes of watching a classmate play Grand Theft Auto followed by yet another episode of South Park did not constitute an ideal setting for me to discuss libertarian philosophy. Although I will not go as far as saying the experience was intolerable, I will admit it was not enjoyable.

For this reason, I did some online research about news with respect to libertarianism. Much to my liking, I found numerous sources of individual and group blogs or websites written by people who take a libertarian perspective on issues in the news. My favorite is a blog written by Jerry Brito, a Washington, D.C. lawyer.

In reading Brito's personal blog, I was able to get a libertarian perspective on many important issues in the news without a trace of vulgar language or satirization of individuals or entire races. Brito's approach to addressing important issues achieved the same end goal as what South Park claims, and it accomplished that goal in a much more pleasing ethical manner than South Park. I applaud Jerry Brito.




Story of interest from Brito's blog: http://www.techliberation.com/archives/042233.php#comments

Photoshopping

As the ethics of editing photographs came up in a discussion of the recent lottery winner from Maine, I want to put my two cents in on this ethical matter.

Peer blogger, Connor Moore, has it right in saying that it is the duty of photographers to understand what messages are taken from their photographs. Rightfully so, some circumstances would permit slight editing to ensure that the best possible message is portrayed.

In the situation discussed in a recent National Press Photographers Association article, much controversy has been raised over editing out a pair of legs from a photograph before running it in the newspaper. This detail was uncovered merely because several local papers ran the same photograph, and I think the situation has been blown extremely out of proportion.

Something as minute as editing out a pair of legs in the background of a shot cannot possibly constitute as an ethical sin of journalism. Sure, photographers tread in rough water when it comes to drawing the line in when and when not to edit photographs; however, it is acceptable to make minor alterations to improve the aesthetic quality of a photograph as long as the main subject is portrayed in a truthful light. The photographers duty is to publish the best photographs possible for the story. With or without that pair of legs, the shot of the baseball team still communicates the same message, and I would call that fine and well in my ethical standard manual.

Quality Over Quantity

In a recent article from the Chicago Tribune, journalist Timothy J. McNulty draws attention to the coverage of presidential candidate Barack Obama over the past several years. Although coverage of political candidates is key when elections are approaching, Obama's coverage is said to have escalated even before he announced his intent of running for president.

In the last three years, he was at the center of 54 front-page articles in the Tribune. Obama was the main topic in an almost equal number of opinion pieces, editorials, op-eds and articles in the Sunday Perspective section. The number of mentions runs into the thousands, and Obama was at the center of nearly a dozen articles in Tribune features sections as well, from tips on giving up smoking to discussions of his spirituality and what books he reads.

Contrarily, Illinois very own U. S. Senator, Dick Durbin, has not been the main-subject of any front-page stories nor have his thoughts on smoking or spirituality been reported. Is this such a bad thing? Not necessarily, however, the quality of news reporting is very important. Many people support Obama and will likely continue to do so through the election of 2008, and it is the duty of the press to not only report stories about him, but report stories critically.

Continuation of the Slippery Slope

I am compelled to write a few quick thoughts with regard to an article found on Romenesko today. The overview states that Gail Shister, longtime television columnist of Inqwaster, has been asked to discontinue writing her popular column. She has been asked to "do more pop-culture television features" instead.

This article is a prime example of news media continuing down the road of reporting "soft news." Although this style may be utilitarian in nature, as it will make many readers feel good, it does not jive well with the role of media as a watchdog for the public. Outwardly happy, yet uninformed members of society unfortunately cannot have a significant impact on what tomorrow will bring. In turn, people of today's media must strive to hold on to what is left of the "hard news" reported in current media outlets.

Story of the Week

As I spent my spring break in Las Vegas, NM working for Habitat for Humanity, I was completely cut off from media consumption for approximately nine days. So truthfully, I had no idea what Dave Marcus was referring to when he talked about the Walter Reed stories that have been all over the news lately. In turn, I sought out an article that could sum up everything nicely, and this was the best I could find.

After reading about the coverage, I can't help but think how many other stories the public is displeased with how they are reported. The article states, "nearly one-quarter (24%) say this story received too little coverage from the news media, [and] only 4% say it has received too much coverage." This concept just seems absurd to me!

When the news media's first obligation is to report the truth about current happenings, people in the media should be doing a much better job at fully covering the "story of the week." It is their ethical duty to fulfill the wants/needs of their readers.

Presidential Coverage

In a society that greatly depends on governmental institutions, coverage of presidential elections is quite important to keep citizens informed. However, in recent years, coverage of these elections has begun earlier and earlier.

Although a recent article from the Denver Post outwardly states that coverage of Newt Gingrich is in no way related to the 2008 election and should not be seen as an endorsement, I question the motives. And when James Dobson's ethical standards are question, what is the world coming to?

Ethical values of individuals, and especially news radio hosts must remain in tact during such important political races. People must not allow the sway of current political culture effect their personal value system, otherwise we will be headed down a road of destruction.

BostonNOW...hopefully never

As I was engaging in my daily media consumption, I ran across a blog discussing an alternative newspaper for the Boston area entitled BostonNOW. This paper's aim is to capture the uniqueness and true personality of the people who make Boston so appealing. In an attempt to do so, the paper will feature BostonNOW staffers work alongside of ordinary citizens work.

Although this idea has good intentions of delivering news that people want, I fear that publications of this nature will only continue the downward spiral of credibility in current media. In efforts to better the news, the news only gets worse.

If other individuals located in major urban areas of the nation decide to follow in these footsteps, what will be left of the "news" world? Sure, people will be entertained by non-traditional news outlets, but will they really gain anything significant? I believe it is the duty of all individuals to partake in consumption of traditional news media and limit consumption of non-traditional outlets such as the upcoming BostonNOW.


Disclaimer: BostonNOW is not to be confused with Boston Standard's website http://www.bostonnow.co.uk/ or Boston's chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) (http://www.bostonnow.org/)

It's okay to laugh!

In a media world full of death and crime coverage, a satirical story once in a while is refreshing. As was well-established by the CCSU student reporter who wrote about "benefits" of rape, humor in the news must be well-labeled. When using this standard for satire, I am unable to understand all of the hype about the Daily Princetonian and its annual joke issue.

A long-winded article from the Philadelphia Inquirer repeatedly bashed the publication of college newspaper joke issues.

Fewer colleges are publishing joke issues as legal liabilities rise and national journalism groups advise against them. Because of their appearance and long life on the Internet, on which they appear less like satire, concerns increase even more.

Joke issues "often backfire," said Bob Steele, senior ethics faculty at the nonprofit Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank in St. Petersburg, Fla. "While the intent may be to offer humor about serious issues, the quality of the humor often falls short and the other weaknesses of satire become apparent."

I feel as if the Daily Princetonian is taking too much heat for something published simply in good humor. When addressing something like a joke issue, or even something as trivial as a practical joke, in-depth legal and ethical standards should not be considered. As long as the readers of such satire are made aware of the nature of the publication, it's okay to laugh!

More on Blog Limitations

Although I stand by my Feb. 10 blog thoughts that all bloggers have a duty to portray information in a manner that does not blatantly offend anyone, I do not agree with the legal precedent set in an article from Reuters.

"An Alexandria court convicted an Egyptian blogger on Thursday for insulting both Islam and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and sentenced him to four years in jail over his writings on the Internet."

Other opposition bloggers have been periodically arrested and held in custody for weeks or months, but Abdel Karim Suleiman, a 22-year-old former law student, is the first to be convicted and sentenced to long-term jail time.

A fellow blogger who attended Suleiman's trial said, "It's a dangerous precedent because it will impact the only free space available now, which is the Internet. The charges were undefined and vague."

Even though certain limits must be placed on the blogosphere, the public has the right to have the ability to as much knowledge and information that people in media have to offer. In this case, convicting a blogger for merely expressing criticism of touchy subjects is unethical as it is unjust.

More on Student Newspaper Censorship

In my blog from Jan. 20, I took a legal approach in defending the rights of students to publish their newspapers without undergoing censorship by administration. Although I still believe that the students of St. Francis High School had every right to run the controversial photograph, I have recently come across an article that leads me to determine that some censorship--whether it be legal or illegal--is necessary.

The article from the Hartford Courant discusses a controversial article from the CCSU campus newspaper that addressed supposed "benefits" of rape. John Petroski's article (of which is unavailable for linking) entitled "Rape Only Hurts If You Fight It" caused an uproar on the campus where a number of students even held a protest calling for Petroski's resignation from the paper.

"I couldn't believe the things I was reading," [a freshman named Sarah] said Thursday, a day after the article appeared. "I couldn't believe anyone in this day and age would write something like that, and that other people would let it be published."

Though many students like Sarah had similar thoughts and were offended by the story content, it is also important to note the other side. The Hartford Courant article goes on to say...

Student editors at the paper said the article was meant to be a satirical jab at the sensationalistic nature of the modern news media. But dozens of students said the article fell well short of being funny. Instead, they said, it caused deep pain for those who have already been raped, and that it reinforced age-old, misogynistic stereotypes.

In falling short of its purpose, Petroski's article not only failed to meet the standard principle of utility, but it also led many students and faculty to question his character and the character of those who allowed running the story. When writing about such personal issues like rape, journalists must maintain a certain level of virtue and censor accordingly.

Setting the Limits

In the ever-changing world of new media, the limits of using tools like blogs have yet to be set. An article from the Baltimore Sun discusses the limits of blogging in support of presidential candidate John Edwards. According to the article,

"The Internet has been an important campaign tool for Edwards. He, his wife, Elizabeth, and daughter Cate write and post blogs."

Recently, two female campaign bloggers were accused of angering Catholics and conservatives with "intolerant language." Edwards chastised the bloggers, but did not fire them from his campaign. They assured him that it was not their intent to offend anyone.

The article addresses the limits of campaign blogging in this manner:

Phil Noble, founder of the nonpartisan, Charleston, N.C.-based PoliticsOnline, said campaigns are still learning the ropes of Internet politics.

"We have a new technology that's disrupting the whole political process," he said, "and we haven't figured out what the rules are. We had the same thing with television and with radio."

Though these campaign bloggers' motives were to portray as much information to the public as possible, they have a duty to do so in a manner that does not offend anyone. While establishing the limits, it's likely that incidents such as this one are the only way to determine where to draw the line.

Foul Language in Print

Many of my friends could attest to the fact that I am not a fan of cursing. I often say, "Watch your mouth!" Although this may get annoying for some, most of my friends respect my request.

In an article written by Aly Colon from Poynter Online regarding the hype around Isaiah Washington (who plays Dr. Preston Burke on Grey's Anatomy) using the word "faggot" off-camera, the ethics of when and when not to print foul language are discussed. Colon writes,

The decision about whether to use an offensive word depends on three elements: your journalistic purpose, your audience and the clarity (or lack of it) that comes from using the word (or not using it).

In her descriptions of these elements, Colon's standards focus on the ethical system of utility. The decision of whether or not to print foul language comes down to the greatest benefit of the media audience. I agree with using this standard, as mass media is intended to keep the public informed. Although the ethics of reporting celebrity "news" will likely be questioned for eternity, stories dealing with rights of minority group individuals deserve to published to comply with the system of utility.

Religion & Politics

In a recent opinion article from USA Today, Mitt Romney's religious affiliation is critiqued. As a prospective presidential candidate, political pundits have begun to argue that Americans will fear a Mormon candidate. Authors David E. Campbell and J. Quin Monson state,

"Should Romney fear how some Americans will react to his religion? Unfortunately, recent polls say yes. But just like another Massachusetts politician who faced questions about his religion, namely John F. Kennedy, Romney can, and should, tackle uneasiness about his religion head-on — sooner rather than later."

Because I was raised in a Catholic family, I am hesitant to directly compare Romney to Kennedy. Would I vote for a Mormon presidential candidate? Most likely not. However, this has nothing to do with the ethical nature of this subject.

So, personal opinions aside, allowing a candidate's religion to define him (or her) is an unethical practice. Though one's religion is likely to affect personal beliefs and behavior, it is the civil duty of every citizen to hear Romney profess his identity. I think the pundits need to take a chill pill and allow Romney to reveal his own identity as a presidential candidate. He just officially announced his plans to run in the 2008 election earlier this month, so give the guy a break!

School Newspaper Censorship

First Amendment freedom is a topic of great interest to me, so the article relating to banning a photo portraying "flag burning" caught my eye. Although the ethics in "flag burning" is an interesting topic to take up, let's focus on the censorship of the school newspaper.

At St. Francis High School, administration review of the student newspaper is uncommon. However, with regard to a photograph from the fall play that gave the impression that the lead character was burning a flag, censorship came into play.

"Principal Paul Neubauer threatened the paper with legal action and froze its funds after the paper gave him a heads-up that they were planning to run it."

In order to avoid risking the future of the publication, editors of the school paper ran a blue box where the photo would have been with a caption stating it had been censored by administration. Although this action pleased those in charge, it sends the message that media censorship is an acceptable practice. By no means is the truth!

Ok, maybe a few exceptions to this rule exist, especially with student publications (best described in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier), but the touchy nature of the photograph subject is surely not one of them. Although the ethical nature of flag burning is highly questionable for various reasons of patriotism, it is a legal action (Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman). In any case, the ethics of flag burning should not affect the ethics of administration censoring a school publication. Just because a photograph of someone burning a flag may offend someone, that doesn't mean it should be kept from being published.

Just as citizens have the freedom of political expression to burn a flag, journalists have the freedom to publish without censorship. Whether a student journalist or a highly-published journalist, censorship by administration, especially for personal reasons, is illegal and unethical.

A Blog on Blogs

I couldn't think of a more fitting topic for my first official blog than blogging itself, so here we go!

In the media and politics course I took last fall at Simpson, we devoted a week to discussing the current practice of blogging and its effects on traditional news media. At the time, I viewed the practice as one that was quite harmful to traditional news media. This opinion was strongly based on our attention to The Drudge Report, with specific regard to the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal.

Personally, I have issues with the manner in which Matt Drudge leaked pieces of information- which may or may not have been newsworthy at the time of publication-rather than giving the whole story. Because he was so anxious to share"breaking news," Drudge sacrificed the time necessary to do appropriate research and fact-checking before telling the world the president's dirty secrets.

Although I understand that Matt Drudge is just one man, which by no means constitutes him as a qualified representation of the blogosphere, I feel as though his tactics (especially with respect to the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal) are unethical as they undermine the very nature of quality news reporting. Bypassing such a fundamental element of news writing (fact-checking) completely discredits any information he publishes as so-called "news."

All opinions of Drudge aside, with time I have slowly (but surely) begun to accept the fact that blogging is here to stay. In an article I recently read from the December 2006 PRSA news publication, Jim Nail put it best by saying, "It's clear that blogs are having an effect not just on the content and sources of stories, but also on the style of journalism as well." So rather than fight the blog industry, those in mainstream media must work with bloggers in order to ensure that the American public receives the quality news reporting it deserves.