Today, anyone can break a story and publish it to the world instantly. That doesn't mean they should nor does it mean their methods or their content mean anything. For those that still try to "practice" journalism and do so responsibly and ethically, this blog if for them.
Follow me on Twitter: DavidRNorton
Journalethix
Courtesy of CNPIntegrations.com
The Blogosphere is increasingly bound its own ethics and laws, which is a good thing, if readers are expecting reliable and fair content.
The Poynter Institute’s Al Tompkins presents a tricky ethical conundrum: In standard criminal cases involving allegations of sexual assault, a victim’s identity is almost always withheld to protect the victim. But what about alleged victims in civil lawsuits? According to Tompkins in his analysis of the pending civil case against Pittsburgh Steeler’s quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, while the standards for criminal sexaul assault cases are quite clear, civil accusations are another matter entirely, and the water is very murky. That said, reporters have to weigh a plethora of factors in making a very hard decision. According to Tompkins, a majority of Pittsburgh newspapers and even ESPN have withheld the alleged victim’s name, but Tompkins asserts that he would do otherwise.
Tompkins said in his analysis, “I lean toward naming the accuser in this case. Seeking compensation in a civil suit affords one less protection than pressing to jail an attacker in order to protect society. Not naming her, as I noted above, could potentially cause harm to others not involved in the incident.”
Indeed, whatever the outcome, Roethlisberger will be a free man, but it may cost him his fortune and his job if he is found liable. (Is guilty the wrong word here?) And while his accuser (whom Roethlisberger has named publically in his own statement and which news organizations still refuse to repeat, adding another dimension entirely to the debate) might certainly find herself to be the subject of retribution either by fans or by Roethlisberger himself (and there is no evidence currently to suggest that she would be), she doesn’t seem to warrent the level of protection required if this were a matter of sending Roethlisberger to prison.
Still, as Tompkins points out, what is even more troubling than perhaps a reluctance by Pittsburgh publications to release the accusers name is the reluctance for ESPN to acknowledge the case at all until after Roethlisberger made a statement. They cited precedent in not naming accusers of sports figures in civil cases; however, Tompkins points out that that policy is inconsistent and they have named accusers in sex related civil cases before.
Regardless, the Tompkins piece is worth a read. And regardless of how news organizations proceed this time, Tompkins’s organizatiaon suggests that it would be prudent for all news organizations to “revisit [policies on sexual assault victims] on a regular basis.”
Copyright David R. Norton 2009
July 20, 2009- The Daily Show doesn’t pretend to be high brow when it comes to comedy; in fact, host Jon Stewart opened the show by making a quip about his male anatomy. But while The Daily Show’s delivery might be the ilk of the court jester, the subject matter is no laughing matter. Stewart is on a crusade to keep journalism accountable—even when it means haraunging the most beloved of TV newsanchors as he did July 20th when he took NBC Nightly News Anchor Brian Willams to task over the issue of “seducing” high profile subjects like disgraced S.C. Governor Mark Sanford with promises of essentially going easy on them in exclusive interviews.
Email after email after email, including one from Williams’s own NBC colleague David Gregory of Meet the Press showed that mainstream newsmen and women affiliated with the most reputable programs were shameless in their pursuit of the Sanford “get” to the point where it was obvious that they were sacrificing their independence for an exclusive.
While Williams clearly came on the show in a light hearted spirit and was ready to play the jokester—he’s hilariously funny and even under pressure went jab for jab with Stewart in the joke department—, when Stewart wouldn’t drop the issue, Williams, clearly irked, quipped, “What way do you want to go tonight, Jon?”, and the meeting, while civil, turned immediately adversarial. Stewart was so relentless, in fact, that it prompted a seasoned veteran like Williams known for his coolness to abruptly and awkwardly change the subject to Walter Cronkite, the “most trusted [news]man in America” who died last week at the age of 92. When Williams remarked, somberly, that Cronkite was who he aspired to be when he was young, Stewart chided, “So how does it feel to fall so short?” immediately bringing the conversation back to the shortfalls of modern journalism.
Williams eventually admitted that Cronkite was disapointed in the [sensationalist] trend toward which the current media was going, but defended major media policies to the end. But it begs the question: Williams and his colleagues at CBS, ABC, FOX, CNN and other serious news venues might be in the serious news business, but why is Stewart, in a number of publications and even some cartoons, the one continually inheriting Cronkite’s hallowed title as “The Most Trusted Man In America”?
Copyright David R. Norton 2009
This photo appeared on The Drudge Report under the headline “Presidential Stimulus Package” insinuating (rather vulgarly) that Obama was leering at a 17 year old girl. The picture allegedly originally surfaced on conservative websites and prompted a slew of harsh responses.
ABC News , however, decided to actually do their job and investigate the photo by finding a video of the same moment in time, which reveals that Obama’s glance was innocuous and not directed at the girl at all.
It’s a journalistic gaffe to jump on a rumor without verifying its authenticity or context. It’s another thing entirely to continue to post the photo out of context once the accuracy or lack thereof has been widely verified. As of the time of this post, The Drudge Report still had the picture as their lead story under the same headline. The photo broke Thursday afternoon.
Copyright David R. Norton 2009
Governor Mark Sanford (SC-R) is a public figure. He violated a public trust. He broke his marriage vows. His story needs to be reported. South Carolina constituents and the members of the socially conservative Republican party need to know about this hypocrisy. That is not up for debate. However, the release of personal emails between Sandford and his Argentinean lover is beyond abhorrent. Here’s why the letters should not be published.
- The content of the emails doesn’t make the affair and better or any worse. All the public needs to know is that an affair took place. Releasing those letters doesn’t change any of the facts. An affair is an affair. He admitted it. What kind of acts they engaged in or how he felt about her body is beside the point. (Did we really need to know that Clinton engaged specifically in oral sex? Either way he broke his vows and exploited his position with an intern.) The act of the affair is public, and the public has a need to know that their governor breaks promises. They don’t need to know the level of feeling he had toward this woman. That is between Sanford, his lover and his wife (who does need to know all details as she decides the fate of their marriage, which is not up to the public). Need to know: the affair occurred. The rest follows under prurient voyeurism. Want to know strictly.
- The Emails were stolen. Someone hacked into these accounts. Documents and evidence not given due process will not hold up in a court of law-they shouldn’t be admissible to the court of public opinion unless due process is followed. Sanford’s emails will come under scrutiny as this case unfolds and state officials look into whether Sanford used state funds or resources to facilitate his affair, something he has denied. When the emails are appropriately obtained, then they can be released, but with discretion. The sundry details of his affections for his lover is harmful to his wife and family and not of any value to the public other than to satisfy their voyeuristic needs.
Journalism gets a bad wrap for being smarmy and slimy for reasons such as this. I hope eventually we will get to a place where we don’t just print anything that comes to us unless there is a compelling news reason to do so and the ethics surrounding their receipt were noble. And I’m not thinking of Sanford here. I don’t think we owe him anything. I’m thinking of his family, and any precedents stemming from just printing emails just because we can.
Copyright David R. Norton 2009
Anyone who has watched CNN’s coverage of the Iran crisis couldn’t help but notice the network’s heavy reliance on Twitter. In response, John Stewart criticized CNN for relying on unsubstantiated reports-but then again, with journalists expelled from the region, what alternative was there?
Apparently news organizations are not on the same page when it comes to the ethics of using Twitter. PBS.org examines the ethics of using Twitter and other social networking sites in reporting.
Copyright David R. Norton 2009
Howard Kurtz writes in his Washington Post column on the media that Gawker is proud of its position in the “blogosphere” as a rumor monger, scoffing at traditional journalism.
What good are institutions like this and how can we dissuade the population from supporting them?
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
Her name has been on the tounges and message boards of billions around the world. In less than 24 hours, the woman known only as Neda has become the face of a revolution, her death the singular image plucked from millions who have made their support for the opposition in Iran known through the social media soup of blogs, tweets and Facebook posts. The death of Neda will become a “flashbulb” moment for this period in history through its broadcast through social media—a medium that ironically has been credited with destroying the phenomenon of the global shared experience. Neda’s name will be remembered long beyond social media’s fifteen minutes of fame. Indeed, the media has treated the death and life (in that order) of Neda with respect, admiration, and utmost sympathy, as they should. There is no other angle here. She is a victim, plain and simple, who was killed for attempting to voice an opinion. However, what is interesting and perhaps ethically ambiguous, is the decision of the media to show Neda’s face at the moment of death. And indeed, news giant CNN did wrestle with whether or not to show her face. At 10:30 am ET on June 22, the network blurred Neda’s face. At 11:40 am ET, they showed her face in full detail down to the haunting image of her lifeless eyes as they stared vacantly at her father as he pleaded for her to hang on. (I will not show the video here because of ethical concerns).
The moment of death is an intensely private moment. Often networks and newspapers will run photos and videos of the moments just before death: we see the victim’s face, the circumstances just before the event (an explosion, a gunshot), but the feed usually cuts there. The media shows closed caskets, but rarely is the face of the dead broadcast. Even iconic war photographs such as Eddie Adams’s photo of the excecution of a Vietcong or Robert Capa’s image of a slain Spanish Civil War soldier dying just before he hits the ground race to the line but don’t seem to cross it. Death is personal; and if one is going to show such images, there better be a compelling reason to do so, especially if permission of the family or will of the deceased have not been consulted, as is the case with Neda, whose moment was captured by a stranger with a camera phone and disseminated by organizations she might never have heard of.
Objectivity in journalism is myth, but the practice of striving for fairness is a very real and serious pursuit. As more and more details emerge about the likely fraud that took place in Iran during its most recent presidential election, a call to action (similar to the action taken by American newspapers when they endorse a candidate) is sometimes necessary. Neda most certainly was a private citizen who endured and intensely private moment which by fate was made public. Her story most certainly needs to be told, but given the seriousness of this most recent conflict, perhaps her face also needs to be seen. Let’s hope her life, death, and image were not used in vain.
Copyright David R. Norton 2009
