Journalethix

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

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.

1. 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.
2. 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

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

The reigning government in Iran recently just upped the anti as Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran’s highest ruler, condemned the election protests, declared Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner, and accused the U.S. and other western states of “meddling” in Iran’s affairs.  However, the U.S., in an official sense, has done no such thing.  The U.S. media, on the otherhand, has definitely taken a stand in the developments in Iran, and it appears, a side.  While the media has entertained the possibility that the election might be legitimate, the overwhelming majority of coverage has been toward the protests and the assumption that the results were rigged.  Even social networking sites, such as Twitter , which have been the focus of media coverage, have by proxy of user generated apps allowed users to voice support for the protests by a myriad of means, even turning icons and avatars green.  The Obama Administration, on the other hand, has only expressed “concerns” that violence is not demonstrated toward “peaceful protesters”, which says nothing about support one way or the other for either presidential candidate.

One of the hallmarks of journalism is its commitment to strive to eliminate bias wherever possible.  However, as CNN Chief International Correspondant Christiane Amanpour said of objectivity in response to her coverage of the Bosnian crisis in the 1990s: “objectivity doesn’t mean treating all sides equally.  It means giving each side a hearing.”  In some cases, where voter disenfranchisement has been all but confirmed (and judging by the outcry in Iran and the evidence on social networking sites, it is obvious that something has gone awry), it is the job of the journalist to pursue truth and cry foul when the available evidence points to the obvious.  And often that means “meddling” or simply telling the story and getting the facts.  Journalists have given both sides a hearing here-covering Ayatollah Kohmeini’s stance on the issue as well as broadcasting Hossein Mousavi’s statements in addition to the statements and views of the protetors.  And I would argue the ratio of incumbant coverage to protest coverage is directly proportional to the willingness of each side of the issue to talk; and the public, through Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, have clearly voiced which side they are on.

Far from meddling, U.S. journalists are merely doing their job, reporting what they know from the people willing to talk to them.  And even if they were being proactive in espousing one side over the other (and U.S. newspapers do it all the time by endorsing candidates in our own elections), sometimes the ethical thing is to take a side when the subject is of unusual and often global importance.  And espousing democracy over a dictatorship is the ethical thing to do.

Copyright David R. Norton 2009

I actually loved this article that is hostile toward journalists.  Why?  Because the author is right.  Just last night I had to cover a photography gallery event.  I know nothing about photography.  I know nothing about art.  All I knew was that this gallery event was to be a fundraiser to help the DC Arts Collaborative raise money for arts education in DC public schools.  One thing every journalist knows is the importance of gathering background information or ‘B-matter’ before heading out on a story.  You don’t just show up with a pen and pad and dive in (unless, of course, it’s breaking news).  Whoever this journalist was who failed to read the press release for this media event clearly was, to quote the blogger, a “moron”._David R. Norton

theeditorhatesstyle:

So I am going to write this and I know I’m going to get lambasted by several journalists who spend (for god knows why) time reading my words.

Journalists are just terrible people.

Often times, I hear from my journalists friend all the time that public relations folk are sleazy and slimy, and yes, that can be true. If we are sleazy and slimy, journalists are complete morons.

Last night I was at an event handling media relations for a non-profit in New York City. The event was at the swanky New York Plaza Hotel. Right there on Central Park South. President Clinton was scheduled to make an appearance and John Corzine showed up.

So I arrived, was briefed by my contact, and was asked to handle logistics. Meaning, I stood by a table and made sure the press people got their table assignments and answered any questions they may have.

Oh, and did they have some. One can’t express the inanity of the questions, but here’s one that I found absurd: What is this even all about?

Seriously, why would you, as someone schooled in the arts of investigation, ask that question of me? We PR people, who often journalists look down upon, make your job easy. It’s called a press release, read the damn thing. And if that’s not enough, there is something called the Internet. And if you don’t like talking to journalists or using the internet, do it the old fashioned way: pick up the damn phone.

I’m happy to answer that question, because you know, it’s no skin off my back. But as a former print-journalism major myself, I don’t understand why you wouldn’t brief yourself on an event before you attend.

I think the fix for all the woe in the print journalism world is easy: require journalists to take a license exam every five year. This will surely rattle those people that say, journalism shouldn’t be governed and shouldn’t require a license.

The problem, as I see it though, is that there are way too many untrained, incompetent journalists taking a paycheck.

So why not introduce a governing body (it doesn’t have to be government owned) that monitors journalism? The greatest minds of journalism could create the test and act as judges.

If a journalist passes, at first graduation and then every few years, the test they remain a highly-skilled employee. The test would take into account the ever-changing and updating world of today.

The institute that employed them would be sure of their knowledge and confident in their expertise. It would also weed out the idiots and job market would open up.

Just a thought.

http://philanthropy.com/giveandtake/article/1051/does-america-need-a-news-corps

Does American Need a News Corps?  

I’ll be the first to admit it.  I occasionally read trash.  Gossipy, base, plain old mean trash.  I’ll read it in the line at the grocery store, when I log into MSN, or when I see a feed on Twitter.  I’m human; I’m curious; and I’m confirming the fact that gossip sells.  I won’t deny that.

However, as a journalist and someone who values serious news and journalistic ethics, I have problems with tabloidesque news.  I wouldn’t want to cover it.  I don’t think it’s relevant, and I don’t think it falls under four key pillars of journalism’s purpose:

1. Pursue and tell truth
2. Minimize harm
3. Act independently
4. Be accountable.

A recent blog post from blog “Mixmysalad” (a blog I don’t follow but found on Twitter) alleges that Internet singing sensation Susan Boyle went on a jealous rampage when a judge responded favorably to another contestant on the British talent show Britain’s Got Talent. Perhaps this does satisfy the idea or “pursuing and telling truth”, but does it minimize harm?  Is the blogger who is anonymous being accountable for his words (are any posters with screen names being accountable)?

Why is this newsworthy?  Why is this added to the sea of information we have to sift through?  If newspapers were still alive and cyberspace didn’t exist (and I’m hoping newspapers come back and I’m endlessly thankful for the Internet), would this be worth paying for space?  Probably not.

Unlike Michael Phelp’s drug bust, which has serious implications for athletes and the integrity of the Olympic games and swimming in particular, why are we wasting space talking about a tantrum?  Does the public need to know this?  I would say not.  That’s not to say I still won’t peek now and again, but I hope that real publications will shy away from gossip and stick to issues that have real implications.

Copyright David R. Norton 2009

Is an unlikely singing sensation worth of making the “Nightly News”?  Yes, if she changes the nature of the national conversation, which Susan Boyle did when she proved to be a more meteoric Internet phenomenon than Britney Spears herself.  Throw in the human tendency to judge a book by its cover and the ugly duckling cliche, and you have an interesting piece about the nature of the INTERNET with a few extra perks.

But that has all passed, and yet Susan Boyle continues to take up air time on the major networks and some major news shows.  (Note: major news is to be distinguished from entertainment news).

Is Susan Boyle still relevant?  Are we not done with the intellectual nature of her story, or has she just become a safe fluff piece?  Interested in your comments.

Copyright David R. Norton 2009