Ethical Theories and Principles

Throughout this class we have gone over many different theories and principles related to media ethics. The 10 principles/theories/models of behavior I chose are not exclusively ones I did not know, but they are the ones I consider most important when looking for a job in media production and research.

1.       Before I took this class I knew that there were rules and repercussions for dealing with false advertising, but I had never heard of the TARES test. In the text, Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins cite several different authors in explaining what this test does, but from my research Sherry Baker and David L. Martinson have the most information in this particular subject. The TARES test has guidelines that advertisers should follow when creating advertising a product to possible consumers. TARES is an acronym that stands for the following:

T: stands for truthfulness which means that advertisers should be able to back up the claims they make in their advertisements and that their message should not be obscured.

A: stands for the authenticity which advertisers should be doing this for the right reason, with the right attitude. In this part of the test authenticity and sincerity are closely linked together.

R: stands for the respect that advertisers should treat possible consumers with. Patterson says that while they are creating ad campaigns advertisers should ask, "Am I willing to take full, open and personal responsibility for the content of this ad?"

E: stands for equity. This part of the test requires the advertisers to create content in a way that people can understand what the ad is about. In other words, viewers of the advertising are not required to have Ivy League educations, or specialize in the area the product is being advertised for.

S: asks if the ad is socially responsible. With so many people having so many thoughts and opinion, this is the most difficult part of the TARES test (p. 56-59).

2.       The next two principles I have selected are areas that I did not necessarily realize had a place in journalism. The idea of loyalty is a very important one to me, and one that may get overlooked when it comes to sports journalism. In 1908 Josiah Royce wrote The Philosophy of Loyalty, and said that loyalty is a choice, and that loyalty can be learned as somebody is going through their moral development. Loyalty can not necessarily be used as a single ethical guideline, but it should line up with community and reader loyalty. While Royce's concept of loyalty is considered simplistic it's a good starting point to discuss the idea of loyalty in media ethics (p. 82-83).

3.       To better build on the idea of loyalty and how to navigate all of its intricacies and shared loyalties, we are introduced to Ralph Potter and the Potter Box. The Potter Box gives us four steps to follow when we are reporting and need to make an ethical judgment. The first step is to understand the facts that we have, then to consider the values, followed by the philosophical principles, which will bring us to where we made some conflicting ethical loyalties which we must evaluate before publishing our work. The most difficult steps, when we consider the values as well as the philosophical principles. My values, or morals, may be very different from the people that I'm working for, or reporting to. It is very important to pay attention to your audience and to strike a balance between these subjects in order to stay loyal to the subject and story you must tell.

4.       Objectivity is an area that seems to be more and more of a lost art in journalism. In the text, objectivity is brought to our attention in the chapter that Patterson and Wilkins are discussing truth. Reporting with objectivity means that you’re reporting without any perceived bias and without any agenda other than reporting on the facts and subjects in the story (p. 23).

5.       I think it's safe to say that most people get into journalism because they want to report on subjects that are important for the public to know. This could be a problem for a reporter who is very passionate about the subject if they are letting their emotions dictate their writing. In these times it's important to maintain rationality when reporting on the subject. Rationality requires the reporter to maintain consistency with the facts, be aware of the beliefs and values of the subject they're reporting on, and to be aware of their surroundings. Without rationality the story could be one-sided, or read more like an editorial than a fact-based story (p. 4-6).

6.    Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative is a theory that resonated strongly with me because of its focus on the action that would be the reporting in the media. The categorical imperative is similar to the Bible's golden rule that you should "do unto others as they would do unto you." Patterson and Wilkins summarize the categorical imperative when they said, "Kant’s ethical theory is based on the notion that it is in the act itself, rather than the person who acts, where moral force resides." I understand this to mean that I should cover the story and report it the way I would expect reporters to cover me and my story. I would add that it should mean that the reporter should never be bigger than their story (p. 9-10).

7.       The argument of privacy vs. secrecy is a hotly contested one in today's day and age. Secrecy implies that we are hiding something when in actuality we would prefer to not have people digging through our personal information. One of the more interesting concepts in privacy I read about was Louis W. Hodges circles of intimacy.

 Patterson and Wilkins

In this concept the idea is that you share vital information with the people closest to the center circle if they share vital information with you. The closer to the center your relationship falls under the higher the trust you have with this person, or these people (p. 114-116).

8.       Communitarianism is an idea that takes what we know from classical theories, but focuses more on the reactions in the public when the original theories are put to use. As it is true with many of the theories we've gone over, communitarianism requires that the person doing the reporting identifies the ideas and values that are prevalent within the community and reports truthfully and accurately with those considerations. It also must be said that in order for communitarianism to work the reporter must keep current on the political and economic climate of its community. Without the knowledge of modern politics it is possible for shoddy reporting to lead to history repeating itself on small and large scales. When reporting on issues that have arisen in the past, successful communitarianism will have taken the events in the past and allow for positive transformation within the community (p. 12-15).

9.       In the 1940s the Hutchins Commission came up with five functions that the media should abide by in order to function in society. The five functions are as follows:

1. To provide a truthful, comprehensive and intelligent account of the day’s events in a context that gives them meaning.

2. To serve as a forum for exchange of comment and criticism.

3. To provide a representative picture of constituent groups in society.

                        4. To present and clarify the goals and values of society.

5. To provide citizens with full access to the day’s intelligence.

On its face, the social responsibility theory of the press is what we dream about when we discuss what we expect from the news media. However, taking a look at what we are told changes based on which news outlet we decide to watch. The ideas the Hutchins Commission came up with are flawed because of the money used to fund these news outfits. These ideas are reliant on the news outlets not bending under the power of the corporations that own them and sign the checks. The social responsibility theory of the press needs the press to be its own entity to work properly. Unfortunately, we live in a time where the corporation with the deepest pockets controls is considered news to those without money.

10.   When we are faced with ethical decisions Sissela Bok created a framework that requires the person who is making the decision to recognize two premises before further analyzing the issue using three steps. The first premise is that we must empathize with the people that are involved in the decision and the ability to maintain social trust is a fundamental goal. Keeping these in mind the first step in analyzing an ethical decision is to ask yourself how you feel about the action. Bok says to consult your conscience "about the ‘rightness’ of an action." After this consultation we should seek expert advice to see if there are any alternatives to the issue that is creating the ethical problem. The final step is to have a conversation with the parties that is creating the issue. The final step, however, is not always an option in resolving the dilemma. Bok’s framework is useful in many aspects of life, not just when it comes to deciding what's going to make the front page, or the 11 o'clock news (p. 4-5).

Breaking News over Twitter

·         Revisiting the ethics in digital media

In addition to the reading that we were assigned from Patterson, I will be going over some key items from the NPR Ethics Handbook on social media, as well as key points from the University of Wisconsin Center for Journalism Ethics.

·         Citing written work, Photoshopped pictures, or otherwise

This is an area that we all have experience in when we put entries in our blogs. We are encouraged to use different multimedia aspects to support our arguments, but also to engage our readers. How diligent are you when you post pictures on social media that are not yours? How would you feel if your work went "viral" at the hands of somebody else?

·         Verified sources and Twitter’s verification process.

In 2009 Twitter unveiled a verification process in which celebrities could provide Twitter with information that would prove that they are who they claim to be. This is especially important when it comes to the journalists you follow because even professionals can be duped by fake Twitter accounts. I would like to take a look at how important it is for reporters to be verified by Twitter in order for people to believe what they are tweeting.

I have three different subjects that I will be going over as they pertain to chapter nine’s coverage of new media. I will be focusing mainly on the usage of Twitter's role of breaking news as well as how it is being used by respected journalists at major news outlets, local journalists in small-town news outlets, and citizen journalists with no ties to any news outlets. The three subjects I will be covering are as follows:

Trade Deadlines & Transfer Windows

                Sports fans do not only get excited by the actions that their teams give them when they are on the field competing against their rivals. Baseball, basketball, and hockey have trade deadlines which allow teams to get better or worse in the middle of the season, or in some cases they will do nothing at all. The 24-hour news cycle allows for national journalists and team beat writers to tell their followers what they are "hearing" in the days and hours leading up to the deadline. These journalists tend to use coded language, and name the positions within the organization where the information is coming from, rather than putting a name to the person feeding them information. This will transition into the second subject where I will ask:

Who Are Your Sources?

                "A source within the White House…"

                "A high level front office source…"

                "A source familiar with the situation…"

                All of these are sayings that we hear on news, or see in print, on a daily basis. With the recent trouble Brian Williams got himself into, it's important to question the credibility of the person reporting the news as well as the "source" that is giving the reporter the information.

On The Scene at Sandy Hook, Ferguson, and across the globe

                In the past three years we have witnessed several tragedies that have unfolded across all media, but especially on Twitter. I will be showing the coverage from two national news making events covered by a national reporter, a local reporter, and a citizen journalist. Each of these reporters has the same job to do, but I would like to know which reporter covered the event the best. I'd also like to ask if there were any mistakes that the journalists made.

Questions:

                While I have questions to ask throughout the presentation, these are four questions that can be answered as part of our blog entries for the next week.

1.       What, if any, is your “go-to” digital news website? Have they ever been wrong in their online reporting?

2.       Is it ethical to publish a story based strictly on confidential sources?

3.       With regards to Skip Bayless, could you out somebody as an alcoholic? Why, or why not?

4.       When news is breaking as it did in Egypt, Ferguson, and Sandy Hook, who would you choose to follow? Pick one of the three "reporters" on the scene, and explain why you chose them.

Paparazzi, Ballghazi, and the Need for “The Wall”

Part 1

CASE 7-F

Micro

2.    The actual loss of credibility is unequivocally as disastrous as the reporters felt. Just because the public does not have degrees journalism, doesn't mean they can't have any rudimentary sensibilities about how the journalism field should work. I don't hold a degree in nursing or athletic training, but I know that if somebody should suffer some sort of muscle strain that they should apply ice to it, rest, and take ibuprofen if they are not allergic to it. For the most part, people can tell the difference between right and wrong in other people's professions. Yes, sports events are considered entertainment, but the idea that good journalism can’t come from sports journalists is insulting. Newspapers and magazines were once independent companies that didn't fall under the umbrella of a massive conglomeration, during these times reporters were more respected and thought to write with less perceived bias than they are now. It is worse for reporters who now report for the team that shares ownership with the television, newspaper, magazine company they are owned by. If I were to work at SNY, and report on the New York Mets I would immediately have my credibility questioned because the same people that own SNY, are the owners of the New York Mets. This is similar to how reporters from the Times felt when they were told of the business details between the Times and the Staples Center.

3.    The difference between receiving cash incentives for writing versus receiving free tickets from the sports department to report on the game is less of a slippery slope than you would think. The sports department distributes press tickets to people other than journalists required to cover the teams in their local papers. Staying with the Mets, as an example, they will give tickets to the reporters that work at the New York papers, but they will also give tickets to the journalists who have to cover the teams the Mets are playing. They will even give tickets to journalists the Mets are rivals with even if they are not playing on that day or night. The idea is to allow for many different people to gather facts and report on it far and wide. If the public thinks that these journalists who receive free tickets get to sit in comfortable seating really close to the field, they are mistaken. Sports journalists show up hours before the game, and often stay hours after the game to ensure they meet their deadlines. It's very different than receiving cash payments using business legalese that many people will not understand.

Midrange

1.       The idea of "the wall" somehow affecting advocacy journalism in a negative way isn't as complicated as the text makes it seem. There are very intelligent people out there who thrive as journalists and the shrewd business decisions, and vice versa. If a multinational corporation owns a publishing company as well as a sports franchise, they more than likely have enough money to hire consultants. These consultants should be retired businessman and retired journalists that are hired on the recommendations by the parties on each side of “the wall.” These consultants only job is to make sure that each side is doing their job properly and only receiving information pertinent to their side of the wall, there will not be any lies of omission like there were in the Times case.

Macro

1.       As long as unbiased journalists want to be paid for their work, and businesses are allowed to own publication companies as a part of an oligopoly, there will always be a need for "the wall." The main job of "the wall" is to keep journalists from chasing stories and reporting things that are only good for the bottom line on the business side. If a journalist is hired by SNY, and is okay with shilling for them by only publishing positive stories on the Mets, then there is no need for "the wall." It is my hope that there will always be ethical journalists who report on all sides of the story, and will insist on keeping a study “wall” upright.

Part 2

                Last week we discussed a couple of topics that have garnered a lot of media attention in the past few weeks, and one topic that has bothered me for quite some time. The topic of the paparazzi and their behavior around the children of famous people is a "job" that is reprehensible to me. And while the focus of this discussion was on the famous people's children, I think that a job that requires you to follow people in order to take candid shots of them can be highly unethical. In chapter 5 Patterson goes over ethics in photojournalism as they relate to what to photographers take pictures of in the wake of tragedies. One of the passages that Patterson uses in chapter 5 struck a chord with me. "Goffman (1959) claims people possess several ‘territories’ they have a right to control. Included in Goffman's list are the  right to a personal space free from intrusion (i.e., by a camera lens) and the right to preserve one's ‘information,’ such as a state of joy, or grief, from public view (p. 190)." This can easily be applied to the times when stars have their children with them while running some errands. Garry Bryant's checklist is even more appropriate because most of these moments that the paparazzi are capturing:

1. Should not be made public.

2. Could send the child and mother into further trauma.

3. Are most definitely not photographed from the least obtrusive distance possible, and

4. Are not acting with compassion and sensitivity when chasing these stars around. (p. 190).

The people that employ photographers to follow celebrities around and harass them need to stop. There is nothing I want less than some innocent bystander to die because a member of the paparazzi decided to engage in a high-speed pursuit to find out what B-list celebrity got at Starbucks, nor is there any reason for them to place their cameras on the ground and shoot up, into car doors to make sure female stars are wearing proper undergarments. There are times and places to photograph celebrities and their children. Sadly, the people that pay them to do this don't understand that.

I was repeatedly told at a young age that "the only things that are certain are death, and taxes." I would like to amend that to "the only things that are certain are death, taxes, and that nobody likes a cheater." I'm fully aware that sports are considered entertainment. I would, however, like to point out that people work their entire lives to become successful athletes, and win as many accolades as they can without being accused of being cheaters, or being on a team that is accused of cheating. Do I believe Belichick has no idea whether these balls were tampered with? No. He was already caught trying to gain an advantage once. Everybody from Robert Kraft on down in the Patriots organization lost the opportunity to be given the benefit of the doubt because of Spygate. The organization is no better than Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, or Marion Jones who all tried to gain an illegal and unethical edge to best their opponents by breaking the rules. The only way they will get any type of defense from me is if the ways to uncover their cheating was done by an illegal and unethical search.  The only problem is that it probably wasn't the first time you cheated.

Via @WyattWestfall1

Charlie Hebdo and The Ethics of Photo Journalism

The events that took place at Charlie Hebdo in early January were both tragic and reprehensible. With that being said, the editors of Charlie Hebdo knew what they were getting into, and they knew the possible dangers that it could present by putting this cartoon on the cover. After reading the chapter about loyalty and the use of the Potter Box in journalism, it seemed as if the editors’ values leaned toward what would net them cheap laughs, and the controversy the cover would provide to get people talking about the magazine while they sold more copy. Even after this tragic attack they went right back to the well to publish another picture not necessarily as an act of defiance, but more likely to show that they will not back down, and that the image can be tastefully shown. With that being said, murder is never the answer. I can understand having very strong feelings toward something you feel very passionate about, but not necessarily in religion or politics. And it’s definitely not a subject worth taking lives over. This is a satirical magazine. The artists get paid to create visual humor, and nobody is off limits. Nobody discussed the option of ignoring the magazine and not giving it any type of attention, and that’s disappointing because it’s one of the first things we are taught when we are young.

The photo in question did not violate any standards and practices with nudity, violence, or any other objectionable themes. Could (should) Charlie Hebdo do something about their covers in cases like this? Absolutely. If we were to use the Potter Box in deciding to run this cover, the editors know the facts, and the facts are the first stop in the Box. The fact is that those who practice Islam do not ever want Mohammed pictured in anyway. If they’re going to continue to put him on the cover they should treat editions like that the way Americans treat pornography magazines. They should put the magazine in a plastic sleeve that nobody can see through, out of the view of customers. More than likely it would not be enough, but it’s a start. If you start to regulate free speech anymore than that, speech is no longer truly free.

CASE 8-G

Midrange

1.     Moving controversial photos to the inside pages of the newspaper does allow editors more leeway in what they show in the newspapers. The decision to make that particular move is an even easier decision to make if the option is to put it inside the newspaper or to not put the picture in at all. After going through this particular case it’s easier to justify printing a photo like this as opposed to printing a crime scene that is particularly gory even if there is no body to be shown. I can understand the argument being made for this photograph with regards to the "breakfast test" because this may disturb people to see, and especially if young children see it. Moving this photograph to the inside pages of the newspaper would also give the newspaper a chance to print a disclaimer in the story on the front page warning people about the graphic nature of what they will see inside if they choose to view it.

2.     Just like the question before, newscasts warning viewers that they're about to show something graphic allows the viewer to decide whether they want to watch something graphic, or not. At the same time it allows the viewers that do want to see what's making news to satisfy their curiosity. As we have learned throughout this program pictures and video are the most useful tools to tell a story. This is especially true when these images are not staged as was the case with this Nielsen photograph.

Macro

2.   I fully support the decision to run the Nielsen photograph in the newspapers across the country. In the end it is the job of the editor to decide whether the photographer followed the rules that were discussed in this chapter. Garry Bryant has a checklist he uses when taking photos at the scene of the tragedy. This is a checklist of questions he asks in the seconds before taking the pictures (p. 190).

·         Should this moment be made public?

·         Will being photographed send the subjects into further trauma?

·         Am I the least obtrusive distance possible?

·         Am I acting with compassion and sensitivity?

If I was the editor and I thought my photographer was using this checklist to decide whether or not to run this picture, I would say that the only question that I would have struggled with was whether or not this picture would send the subjects into further trauma. My justification to this question would be that the subject in the water doesn't have any distinguishable features that would allow him to be easily identified. In discussing the "good" versus "bad" argument, Paterson considers the "bad" as "shocking the readership" in this question. I believe that in order to educate the reader, and in order to show how truly devastating Hurricane Katrina was to this area and its residents, there needs to be certain element of shock to convey the damage done by this disaster.

CASE 10-B

Micro

1.     A sports reporter most definitely should have done this interview. I take issue with how Lee Wilkins describes sports journalists in the second paragraph of this case study. He says, "Sports journalists are boosters-- of their local high school teams to professional franchises. Objectivity, or even fairness, sometimes takes a backseat to rooting for the locals” (p. 271). This is an extremely unfair portrayal of a group of people that have to go through the same journalist classes as those that cover politics, or do investigative journalism. That's not to say that there are not sports journalists who carry their team's water, but there are journalists in every field that are not completely objective or fair to the subject they're covering.

Macro

1.     I come from a small community, so the sports journalists that I'm familiar with mostly cover several different high schools as well as sporting events going on at the local Division III university. When they’re not covering games they are doing exposés on local athletes or coaches that may be going through hardships, or have a different background that the community does not know about. Often times these journalists also double up as reporters covering stories that have nothing to do with sports. This is fairly typical for somebody who is just getting started in sports journalism field. I think it is a good barometer as to how they will do for larger franchises or outlets due to the objectivity they are required to report with when covering more than one high school in the area. Since these journalists work for small local newspapers, having to cover subjects that are not related to sports can help them by doing "real" journalism. In other words, being spread out in the community works to prevent them from becoming "boosters" or fan boys.

2.     After reading this case in going through the questions I think Wilkins is confusing sports journalism with being a host on a sports highlight show like ESPN's SportsCenter. Try as they may, sports journalists do their best to practice the same ethical standards as investigative journalists, or any other non-entertainment journalist. Sports fans can spot objectivity, or a lack thereof, in reporting as well as anybody else. In fact, sports fans may be more critical of the journalists they follow if they perceive the journalist to show the slightest bit of favoritism in the subject that they are covering. The bottom line is that many sports journalists do their best to hold themselves to the same ethical standards as any other journalist, so the standard should not change.

Twitter Ethics for Journalists: Can You Scoop Yourself?

CASE 4-C

Micro

1.     The details within this case took place in 2009, when Twitter was still fairly new to everybody, but especially new to journalists. In 2009 many people who used Twitter in their professional careers had a Twitter handle for that job. If they wanted a private one for when they weren't working there would normally be something in there bio saying that their thoughts and views expressed in their private account are not shared with their employer’s thoughts and views. So, I don't think it's that important for reporters to distinguish their professional roles on social networking sites. Reuters is not a small news outlet, so I'm sure the people that followed David Schlesinger at the time knew what he did for a living. Furthermore, the text referred to his reporting from Davos as a "twitter experiment" with other journalists and that anybody that would be reporting would be using #davos accompanying the tweet (p. 96). If journalists truly wanted to distinguish their professional roles from their personal roles, they would have separate social media accounts with a disclaimer for their personal account in their bio.

2.     If Schlesinger was on the job reporting from this Forum, I would have used his tweets in any of the accompanying stories that were being run at Reuters. Schlesinger was an Editor-in-Chief at the time this case took place, so I would have had faith in him that he knew what he was doing ethically in his reporting. Using Twitter to do this reporting is similar to the ticker that runs at the bottom of newscasts. It gives you the headlines, and the important facts as they happen and the facts are a big part of loyalty in journalism.

3.     Many people who are trying to land full-time jobs with larger media outlets may use freelancing as a way to get their work out there. It's not unheard of that they will attend conferences on their own, and report their findings on their personal blog or website. If Schlesinger was a freelancer with no financial ties Reuters, they would still have to cite where this information is coming from, or risk losing their credibility by lifting this information without permission. This answer is also being answered on the assumption that Schlesinger as a freelancer has as much experience and gravitas as the Schlesinger, the Editor-in-Chief at Reuters.

Midrange

1.     Twitter has changed the nature of the "scoop" by allowing journalists to report and respond to stories as they happen. Twitter and the Internet have allowed people to get the news when they want it instead of having to wait for the news on TV, or the newspaper to arrive on their doorstep. The problem with breaking news stories is the outlets that they are coming from. In today's sports media it's fairly easy to tell which reporters actually break news versus those who report it while crediting “sources” minutes after the initial story breaks. There are instances when the parties making the news handpick the reporter they want to get the scoop, and then there is the one-in-a-million scoop that somebody with no journalistic background gets no credit for despite getting every single detail about the story correct. While Twitter and the Internet allows for up-to-the-minute news it's important to always be wary of where the news came from.

2.     News organizations should have very loose policies regarding their journalists responding to criticism from readers, media critics, and other organizations, very loose policies. Journalists have been receiving hate mail for years, but because of Twitter, Facebook, and blogs everybody has a public voice on the Internet. As a result of this public voice journalists have gotten themselves suspended by responding poorly to the criticism. If reporters are using Ralph Potter’s Potter Box to write the stories, they should probably use the Potter Box focusing more on the values and principles that their employers would expect them to respond to critics with. Now that it's 2015 most news organizations have social media policies in place to make their employers aware of the repercussions they will face if they respond to people online poorly.

3.     Promoting a story is absolutely an appropriate use of Twitter. In fact, journalists and not only promote their own stories, but they will also show their followers other journalists who did a great job on stories regardless of whether they work for the same outlet or not. However, reporters may get themselves in trouble with their company if they are constantly promoting other people's work simply because it takes away from the attention and revenue by sending readers away from the company, and that may indicate that you are not as loyal to the company that is signing your paychecks. If I feel that I did a good job on a story, I will draw attention to it in whatever way I feel appropriate. However, many journalists do not need to self promote their articles. Every media company has their own Twitter account, Facebook page, and probably even an Instagram account that they will use to promote your work. In TV and radio every channel and station has their own social media account as well as an account for the shows they put on. Each of these accounts tend to promote highlights or segments of the work they have done to keep their consumers up to date with what was done that day.

Macro

1.     I think part of the appeal of social networking sites is that they are an extension of the user. If we take a look at social networking sites we will see people posting pictures of themselves, updating statuses that tell other people what is going on in their life, and commenting on these statuses and pictures. These users are, in essence, promoting themselves even if they are not a journalist posting a link to their most recent article. People will post about their jobs and what's going in their jobs, so why can't journalists do the same and post their work? Their work should incorporate their values and principles, so there should be no shame in promoting it on social media networks. The duties that were discussed in Chapter 1 will vary from person to person because these duties are based on people's morals, and not everybody shares the same morals. However, if we are to look at the additional duties brought forth by Patterson we see “the duty to tell the truth, veracity (which may be implied by fidelity); and the duty to nurture, to help others achieve some measure of self-worth and achievement” (p. 13). Both of these duties are what we should strive to do in our personal and professional lives, so why should it be a problem to post something that that includes these duties on social networking sites?

2.     The ability to find out something first is a pretty important thing among my family and friends. Oftentimes I will receive a text that simply says, "Did you see Twitter?" That's where we are in 2015. Of course, I will get a follow-up text that says something like, "Do you think it's true?" or, "This can't be real." Sadly enough, I am thankful for those follow-up texts because it tells me that they are not gullible enough to fall for things just because they are “trending” on Twitter. As I mentioned before, we now live in a 24 hour news cycle where journalists have to be first to report a story, rather than making sure their facts are correct, or citing where they got the report if they were not first report it. I hope that I'm wrong when I say that the future of journalism looks grim because of the constant need to be first to report, but I don't think that I am. Being first to report a story is the ticket to a major payday in the national news outlets. The key to finding ethical journalists whose loyalties are to the facts and reporting things the right way will require a lot of sifting through searches as we move forward.

My Interest in Media Ethics

            In a perfect world I would have a job doing research, writing, and producing original content in sports media for a radio and TV simulcast similar to SVP and Russillo, Boomer and Carton, or the Dan Patrick Show. One ethical scenario that I know I would run into would be booking guests on the show that breaks news relying on unnamed sources. Another ethical scenario would be one that happens pretty frequently in sports media. I might want to speak out against a Commissioner, or an owner of a franchise that broadcasts on my station, and I may be told not to do so. Or if I do speak out, I may be suspended or fired. The perfect example of this is when ESPN and PBS did a documentary on the effects of head trauma in the NFL, only for ESPN to pull the plug at the last minute because of their relationship with the NFL.

            The Frontline documentary, League of Denial, had two excellent investigative journalists from ESPN working with PBS to uncover the long-term effects repeated head trauma had on former NFL players. This was very damaging evidence to the NFL as more and more lawsuits came on from former players. A few months before ESPN was set to air this documentary; they decided not to show it in what was a clear conflict of interest. ESPN has a multibillion-dollar contract with the NFL to air their games and it seemed as if they did not want to anger the league that is paying them their billions. My second example of an ethical dilemma happened a few years ago at Notre Dame. An unnamed Notre Dame football player was accused of sexually assaulting a girl who would later go on to kill herself. There seemed to be no true investigation to this girl's claims, there were accusations that this player’s teammates threatened this girl to stop making problems, and yet this unnamed player was never charged with any crime, nor did he miss any playing time on the field. There was barely any mention of it in local news, and less in the national news. People knew about this, and nobody wanted to say anything, but why? It probably has something to do with Notre Dame wanting to keep its pristine reputation, or not wanting to lose its lucrative TV deal with NBC. I'm just glad that somebody decided to do some investigating, but I'm still disappointed that nobody on a national level decided to do some digging.

          As it pertains to my dream job, a key tool I would use would be diligent research for fact gathering on a subject to discuss for the program. I understand that time is of the essence, but there is a saying from one of the broadcasts that I watch that states, "Fast and wrong is still fast." Unfortunately, I find that to be true of too many respected sports media outlets. I comprehend that it's important to be the first to report a breaking news story, but I'm more interested that they are getting all the facts correctly, rather than constantly having to go back and check if the person that broke the story has corrected their initial reports.

            After going over Chapter 1, two of the ideologies that stuck out to me were Sissela Bok’s steps to making ethical decisions, and Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative. This may be a stretch, but I think that within these two ideologies there are similarities that can be used in journalism for the greater good. Bok tells us to use three steps when analyzing an ethical question. First, we ask ourselves how we feel about the action, then we consult an expert, and finally we attempt to seek public dialogue with the people that are involved in the dispute (p. 5). Bok’s final step may present a problem if a journalist is up against a deadline, but if it is something that needs to get done there are always ways to properly see things through. I especially liked the categorical imperative because this is how I try to do anything in my day-to-day life. The two ways you can carry out the categorical imperative are to “act as if the choices one makes for oneself could become a universal law (p. 9).” Or, “you should act so that you treat each individual as an end and never as merely a means (p. 9).” I'm fairly certain that the categorical imperative resonates with me because of my nine years in Catholic school being taught to “do unto others as you would have done unto you.” Truthfully, I was more drawn to the explanation that Patterson gives to the reader regarding this theory. “Kant's ethical theory is based on the notion that it is the act itself, rather than the person who acts, where moral force resides (p. 10).” Personally, I don't like attention. I don't like the spotlight. But I want to do what's best for the people I am trying to help. I interpreted Patterson's explanation to mean that you are never bigger than whatever act you are doing. You should always ask yourself, if you are doing this because you want to better the lives of the people you are serving? Or are you doing this to serve yourself?

            As I mentioned in my opening paragraph, the ethical dilemmas that come up in sports media work, happen in every field of journalism. I believe that when journalists come out of school they truly want to make a difference by reporting the facts supported by quotes from people in high places that are not afraid to put their name to said quotes. A journalist could come in from uncovering a massive story that would change the lives of the people they're reporting to, only to be shot down by editors or owners of the media outlet because it would affect their wallets. These same journalists could also be stonewalled by these people in high places giving them quotes, but telling them that they must refer to the people they're quoting as “a source familiar with the situation” instead of their actual name. While this may not necessarily harm a journalist’s credibility, media cynics like me continually lose faith in the human race because of the use of “sources.”

          

The NFL's Horrible Handling of Ray Rice

Both the Ravens, and the NFL could not have put on a better clinic and how to go about handling a crisis the wrong way. The NFL, and most importantly Roger Goodell, handled this disgusting situation terribly. In fact, it is amazing how badly the situation was handled when one considers the strength and reach of the parties involved, and how it could have been different if either side could be bothered to do some digging. Arguably, this crisis could have been labeled as "smoldering" according to the Institute for Crisis Management as covered in Digital Strategies for Powerful Corporate Communications. There was video of the aftermath that spread throughout social media of Rice dragging his unconscious fiancé out of an elevator a few days after the arrest. With some persistence as well as some actual detective work, this crisis may not have elevated to the levels that it did months later. Personally, I didn't think it could get any worse, but it did. As the cliché goes, the cover-up is always worse than the crime.

Even though this travesty took place months ago, it's very difficult for me to decide just which part of this entire saga is worse. I still can't figure out who the genius was that it would be a good idea to have a press conference with Ray and Janay at arm’s length from each other in front of reporters. It got worse from there when he was grinning and offering an apology to his owners and fans, and not his wife. "Everyone was affected by the situation that me and my wife was in." No, Ray. No. You put your wife in that situation, you are the one to blame. And any analogies using getting knocked down before you get back up is just terrible. I know I watch too much TV, but what it had been a terrible idea to have an interview at his house with her using whoever the NFL Network chose to ask both of them questions?

The most baffling part of the press conference was having Janay Rice their twisting in the wind. It was awful. She was the victim and yet she had very little say in the press conference. And while I don't understand why she had to say "the role I played," she came off better than he did after 5 min. of stumbling through a whimsical soliloquy. She looked like she was on the verge of tears the entire time, and if I didn't feel bad enough for her after seeing the video, I felt worse for her after this press conference. It all felt so contrived, so fake, just horribly put together by their PR higher ups.

I didn't want to see the video that was released months later from inside the elevator. I didn't want anybody else to see it either. In the age of Vine and .gifs, it wouldn’t be something that went away anytime soon. Yet the worst part about it is, that Ray Rice told the owners as well as Roger Goodell won't happen in the elevator months before the video was released. Even with a confession, Rice only got a two-game suspension. It was a terrible situation handled awfully by everybody involved. Sure, the ravens did their fans a solid by having a Ray Rice jersey exchange, but after all that happened, it wasn't enough. Unfortunately, this is a league where talent trumps the law. Those Rice jerseys will be printed for another team as soon as he's reinstated. And as soon as he's reinstated, Rice jerseys will be sold once again.

Roger Goodell should not have resigned after this travesty. The owners of the NFL teams should have had him removed by voting him out. But since these owners make hundreds of millions of dollars of this game thanks to him, that was not going to happen. Once these owners made it known his job was safe, there was no chance he was going to step down despite it being the right thing to do. He is a hypocrite. He runs the league like dictator, and the only people he answers to are the owners and the sponsors that line his coffers. He is the law. He is the judge and jury. And his ideology is extremely flawed. Everything from his handling of the lawsuits from formerplayers, pulling the plug on the findings of the concussion study, the paltry donation from profits of breast cancer awareness apparel, to the lack of uniformity forpunishments with his players, he is a terrible leader who needs to be removed.

The Sports Gag