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!
1.26.2007
1.20.2007
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.
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.
1.11.2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)