Journalethix

Was it un-American for Woodward and Bernstein to investigate President Nixon’s involvement in Watergate?  Or was it un-American that the President of the United States was breaking American laws?  Was it un-American for Matt Drudge to use the Internet to break the President Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal?  Or was it un-American of President Clinton to abuse his power in office?

Journalists, in their role as the “Fourth” and now increasingly “Fifth” Estate with the rise of blogs, have had little trouble questioning authority, particularly that of Presidents, exercising the American right of free speech in the the pursuit of—what else?—the TRUTH.  Which is why an article by Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald is so disturbing.  Greenwald’s June 30 article “New Study Documents Media’s Servitude to Government” examines not a negligible shift in the way mainstream media uses the term “waterboarding” with regard to torture.  

I’ll spare you the details here; Mr. Greenwald does a fine job of laying out his case himself.  But it suffices to say that the shift is more than conspicuous.  The term “waterboarding” has been around since at least the 1930s.  Major newspapers overwhelmingly referred to it as “torture”—roughly 80% of the time the term was used across the board in their publications regardless of what country was performing it.  Then, in 2004, it was still referred to as “torture” roughly 80% of the time-but only if other countries were employing the “harsh interrogation” technique.  When American’s used it, newspapers after 2004 referred to it as torture no more than 5% of the time, and in the case of The New York Times, less than 2%.

Is the press un-American for calling waterboarding “torture”?  Of course not, but I’m sure that’s what it’s afraid of.  I don’t know which is worse: mitigating the truth through semantics because it is afraid of politicians or mitigating the truth because it is afraid a myopic public won’t buy its content.  Either way, the primary purpose of journalism-to seek truth and report it- is lost, and the practice of journalism is useless.

Now, I am not saying that I agree that waterboarding is torture.  Maybe it’s not.  Societal norms evolve all the time.  Interracial marriage used to be illegal; then our standards evolved.  Waterboarding may have been thought to be barbaric, but then we realized it was necessary for national security and not that bad.  I really couldn’t care less.  What I do care about is that the media is consistent.  Either waterboarding is torture in Greenland and the United States or it’s torture nowhere. To play it off as one way for one country and another for our own is not only to blur the lines of what is true and what is not, but it makes the media look foolish and incredible. 

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, let’s make sure it’s a duck wherever our story takes place, and not only when it’s the convenient thing for our audience to hear.

Copyright 2010 David R. Norton

There was no use stopping it.  There was no use writing a post during it.  It was like watching a friend make a fool of themselves at a bar after their tenth shot of tequila—let the insanity take its course; reason and logic won’t apply until the morning after.

But now it is the morning after the orgy that was the Michael Jackson farewell coverage, and it’s time the media, now sobering up after having drunk the Michael Kool Aid, be held accountable for all the hype.  Afterall, the second biggest story that no one in the media has been addressing has been the media itself, and its behavior has brought up a slew of questions about what it (and not necessarily what we as viewers) values as news and who we value as important.

On the morning of Michael Jackon’s death, the biggest story was the death of another entertainment icon, Farah Fawcett. In her case, the 70’s pin up star had waged a very public battle with cancer, raised awareness about an under researched disease with a documentary not only about her illness but also alternative treatments, and had brought to the surface a serious problem in patient confidentiality.  (Her medical records were repeatedly accessed unlawfully and leaked to the tabloids).  All noble life indeed.  MSNBC had even devoted large chunks of air time to repeated airings of Farrah’s Story, a documentary chronicaling her life and struggle. Then Jackson died, and Farah and a majority of her programming was dropped like a cheap date.  Even the magazines, which probably had prepared to run full pages images of her, ran instead small passport sized shots of her in the corners of some magazines and some dropped her photo entirely.  And while Jackson was a bigger start (that’s a given), the media communicated to the world that this person fundamentally was worth more.  But why?  Fawcett as of late had been a champion for cancer research and survivorship.  Jackson grabbed his crotch and hung babies out the window.  What kind of value system does this communicate?  Fight hard against a disease of which you are a victim and raise awareness for a cause or have body issues, act erratically, and have a slew of legal problems?*  In the end, the media rewarded the latter.  And that says something not about the two subjects, but about the media itself.

The coverage of Michael Jackson’s death was even bigger than the Pope’s, maybe even Princess Diana’s.  He may have been the “King of Pop” but that was according to him…not any outside source and especially not the media who oft referred to him as “Wako Jacko” in lieu of anything else.  Why the sudden change?  The royal treatment has been disingenuous.  It’s straight up bandwagoning.  Instead of being a leader in the news, the news is following right along with the rest of the flock.  Independent it is not.

Meanwhile, Iran, perhaps the biggest threat to the United States currently other than North Korea, is going through the most important election in Middle East let alone Iranian history,  and the United States is officially leaving Iraq!  While this perhaps is a political godsend for both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Barak Obama who are able to skate through such controversial and major events without scrutiny, the media has kept us in the dark about these much more important developments and instructed us that debating the significance of the glove is much more important than our own national security.  If the media is supposed to be a cornerstone of democracy and one of their core values is to minimize harm and tell the truth, they aren’t living up to their function.  They’re harming our society by informing us that mere fame is more important than struggle, and that glitz is more central to our understanding of ourselves and our society than our international struggles and revolutions.

When a famous person the likes of Michael Jackson dies, the media has no choice but to cover his death and to cover it with some depth.  But the media does have a choice in how they cover it and against what other stories will they give it preferential treatment.  And when they do give it such preferential treatment, they better have a strong case other than a case for ratings that is in line with their mission.  Sadly, with Michael Jackson, I don’t think they have one.

There’s no use arguing with a friend on a high.  But now that the dust has settled and Michael is in the ground, let’s hope the media comes down to earth and while on it’s walk of shame home from the party, take stock of what it should value rather than what it currently does.

Copyright David R. Norton 2009

Here’s a reprint of a comment I left on Dan Romensko’s Blog For the Poynter Institute: Posting Mug Shots is “A Bit Smarmy, Unseemly” for Legitimate News Orgs:

“I completely agree with Dan’s distinction. Mug shots published on police blotters are pictures of the “accused”, not the “convicted.” They don’t tell, as the blog suggests, “who broke the law,” only who is accused.

It’s an interesting dichotomy and a difficult conundrum. In the criminal justice system, one is innocent until proven guilty. As mug shots are the most unflattering depiction of a person in a humiliating predicament (sometimes- though usually not- undeserved), in the news media the accused are guilty until proven otherwise.

Still, when crimes are committed and suspects are arrested, the community absolutely has a right and need to know. However, are their alternatives to running mug shots that would be more ethical? And if a suspect is cleared of wrong doing, should the state make private those photographs and preclude them from being released to the public once a case is closed?

As far as I know, once a mug shot it taken, it is part of the public record, something that seems unfair if the person is acquitted. And even if past mug shots of acquitted persons are still publicly available, reputable news organizations should take the high road and refrain from printing them, despite a public WANT to know/see, which is quite different from a NEED. Mug shots sell, but if there are other available photos, perhaps newspapers could operate under the “innocent until proven guilty” doctrine and treat the accused with more dignity when able.”

Do you agree?

Copyright David R. Norton 2009

Matt Pressman hits on a many legitimate reasons as to why the public hate the media including acknowledging liberal bias and errors in reporting.  But he also is right in noting that if left to “hacks” or untrained media agents, the news wold be a whole lot worse.  FULL ARTICLE.