Retouch, Edit or Should The Image Be Posted At All?

Kaylah Oliver
ko004316@ohio.edu


To get readers or listeners attention, a journalist usually uses an image or video that would make people turn their heads twice. If the image or video is not for an attention grabber then it is usually placed there because of the correlation to the piece the journalist is working on. The problem with this is that not every image or video we see is wanted, needed or honestly sometimes even true. Journalists, media and the audience of these outlets all have different perceptions of this issue. When it comes down to the choice of posting a retouched, edited or touchy photo decisions that have to be mad can be difficult, very difficult.

Retouching 

A problem that I feel people do not think much about is the use of retouching, photoshopping, editing and altering. But in reality this overlooked problem to some people is very extreme to others. The use of photo editing is at an all time high and the number of people against photo editing is too. A main problem people have explained about photo editing for them is the look or message it sends to the people who view it. An example of this is how much the youth and younger generation use media and the news to keep updated on what's in, what's trending and who's hot. Now when it's said like that it is hard to find the issue. Going more into detail, when people seek out that type of media or news they tend to put what they see in their mind, their daily routine, their goals and their norms. For instance, a lot of women read feminine magazines to uplift themselves and relate to the women who they see on paper, which is usually a celebrity. If that celebrity's color, body shape or skin gets altered from what it is normally then the women reading that article now have a misinterpretation of that celebrity, and a new view of them is given. That then misinterpretation could effect their self-esteem, goals, routines and so on. If the image was never manipulated wouldn't the women have a different take away? You may be reading this saying "wow, what a stretch" but think again about the media you relate to and tell me doesn't it impact your life and wants in some way.

A huge controversial retouch by Elle of actress, Gabrielle Sidibe, left a lot of women lost and confused of the Gabrielle they looked up or related to compared to the one who they seen on the cover of Elle.
https://abcnews.go.com

Too Much For The Eyes Of The Public

Just like the manipulation of an image becoming controversial, so can the truth of an image be controversial too. The statement is contradicting but it is also very much true. An image can be too much for the eyes of the public or certain people in the public even though it could be original, real and informative. So the real question is what are the limits and when do you know an image or video is too much, that you have went too far. The answer is that there is honestly not one. When coming out with a public story or post that any person can see it is hard to know who is actually watching and viewing it. Since you do not know who is seeing it, you do not know who you are appealing to know what you should and should not post. So how can you be safe? How can you make sure you aren't offending or distressing readers. Again, there are no right answers to these questions. But the best thing as a journalist including touchy images or videos is to make sure you are directing and pleasing your target audience. Remember that you cannot please everyone but you have the power to show the public what you want, and what you want to be included in your post or story. So the underlying question is what is too much for you and what is not enough?

What To Do

The choice and direction of what to post and what not to post ends in the hands of a journalist to make. The process of wondering what needs to be seen and what doesn't can be difficult but you have to go with what you feel is right from you to the public. Something I always take into account is a statement I seen last year. "Whether or not a news organization is right to use graphs material is a matter of opinion." At the end of the day as long as you as a journalist had the intentions of sharing news you think should be seen, then you made the right decision.

Media Decision Making

Max Meyerson
mm603815@ohio.edu

Sometimes the biggest stories never hit the news print. Sometimes reporters sit on huge stories that would generate tons of revenue and attract plenty of eyeballs. In the new analytics driven media, clicks have become more important than ethics when it comes to decision making. Teaching young content creators how to make ethical decisions when releasing content is a bit of a lost art. Instead what we are left with are content creators trying to use every statistic they can find to help grow their channel or platform. This video by PwC US on YouTube goes into detail about the analytics behind media and entertainment decisions.

With this kind of philosophy behind the content creation machine that is the internet, we have lost a sense of integrity when it comes to the media. The result is truly ethical media corporations stooping to the level of these content creators in order to stay relevant. In many cases this has led to even more unethical behavior from big media outlets. This article by Sydney Smith details the 10 biggest challenges the media has faced in the last four years. There is no doubt with the way the modern media landscape is there have been many challenges presented in the last few years that were not issues in years past. The main problem with a lot of the issues she points out is that companies were either too quick or too slow to react to certain issues. The 4th biggest issue on her list was reporting on ongoing or recent attacks. When is it ok to report on something? If you report too early without proper information on the issue you can make mistakes in assuming things. On the other hand the public deserves instant feedback on ongoing attacks or serious criminal activity. These are the kinds of decisions that big media companies deal with on a daily basis. The Ethics Journalism Network came out with their five biggest principles of ethical journalism. Really it could have been four because truth and accuracy and fairness and impartiality are more or less the same thing. However, their principles still hold true. Media members need to be held accountable for the content that they produce, they should be held to the same moral standard as everyone else. 

Overall I thought we did an excellent job in class of going over specific case studies and understanding how to make ethical decisions. We as groups were asked to breakdown specific cases that related to media ethics. We were asked if we would have done things differently and what ethical codes we applied in order to come to that decision. This was the type of fun, informative exercise we should be doing on a regular basis. Why not learn from real life media events and place ourselves there and form our own ethical decisions. Overall this may be the most important stuff we learn this semester. I only hope that all media ethics classes around the country teach these same principles and codes to their students. If they did perhaps we would not have the media be as divisive as it is now. 

To Release or Not Release

Meghan Machenheimer | mm745416@ohio.edu

http://mindthechasm.com/tbontb/

There is a constant ethical battle on whether or not distressing and disturbing photos should be captured by photographers and/or released out into the public by reporters or news stations. This battle dances along the lines of whether or not the photo will be harmful or beneficial for the public to  see. If the picture is beneficial to see, will it make an impact on society and bring awareness of what is happening in today's world. There are a lot of factors and legal issues that will come up when it comes to capturing and releasing these distressing photos out to the public. But if journalists feel the picture is ethically acceptable to be released, then it may be beneficial to release it and follow the correct legal measures to make sure to handle the situation.

When researching more about this topic, an article brought a big discussion into perspective. The article discussed how capturing a photo and releasing a photo are two different decisions journalist need to make when it comes to reporting. The article also talked about how, as a journalist, it is their job to record things that they witnessed and experienced, but some of the things they saw don't need to be published out into the public. Although this is a strong point, the follow-up question would be: are journalists not publishing distressing photos because they are attempting to protect the public from the reality of what is happening in the world?

One of our societies most significant flaws is that they continuously turn a blind eye to issues that they either don't agree with or don't believe are happening in the world. They act oblivious to prominent problems that should be talked about and fixed. If more distressing photos were captured and released out into the public, it would bring more awareness and attention to these issues and could potentially help the situation. Sometimes a picture can have a more significant impact than any written story can because of the emotion and realness the image captures. If some of these photos were to be released to the public, it might bring the realness of the situation into the light and action could potentially be put in place.

A perfect example of photos that had an impact on society once they were released were photos from the Syrian Refugee Crisis in 2015. These photos drew awareness and attention to the situation and allowed the public to gain a better knowledge of what truly was going on. The images that were released capture real and raw emotion that society wouldn't have been able to understand if they hadn't seen the pictures. These pictures capture the story entirely, and without them, the story wouldn't have as much of an impact.

Overall, although distressing and disturbing pictures can be difficult to stomach, journalists should be more open to the idea of releasing the ones that will make a substantial impact on the stories. Journalists are supposed to be transparent and honest with the public and better educate them on what is going on in today's world. By not releasing some of the photos with their stories, they are not educating the public properly.

To Post Or Not To Post

Maddie Ogden | mo129016@ohio.edu

Graphic images have long been a source of debate when it comes to reporting. Many argue that publishing them is necessary and it adds context and gravity to a story, while others say that they are exploitative and unnecessarily violent. Both arguments have their pros and cons and there is no real right answer when it comes to this debate. It can really only be decided on a case by case basis and depends on the news organization and what they believe to be right.

https://www.vpr.org/post/listen-talking-kids-about-violence-news#stream/0

There are a lot of nuances when it comes to the discussion of whether or not newsrooms and the media should publish violent and graphic images. It is not just black and white, right or wrong. Some argue that these images should be published. Even though this seems like a clear side of the argument, there are lots of small details that still influence this decision. There are lots of questions that need to be asked before making the final choice, such as can the story be told without the picture? Does the picture exploit or dehumanize its subject in any way? Or does the positive impact the picture may inspire outweigh any negativity? There is also the question of whether or not the news organization in possession of the pictures is obligated to publish them. 

An article published by Time says that photographers feel that it is necessary to represent the deaths and injuries they witness and that their subjects, the victims of these crimes, often ask them to do so. The reporter who wrote this article argued that these photographs are necessary because they provide a point of reference for history, so future generations can understand what happened and the consequences. 

Of course, there is the other side of the argument, those that say that graphic and violent images should not be published. Many believe that it is exploitative and unnecessary. They are harmful not only to the audience but to the journalists and photographers themselves. In fact, journalists are actually more vulnerable to the damaging psychological effects of these images than the general public is. The main problem is that there are no widespread rules or regulations when it comes to publishing graphic images. It is hard to measure the benefits or damages caused by making these pictures public when each news outlet does it differently. There is also the risk of overexposure. People today, especially with social media, are exposed to more tragedy than ever before, so much so that it can sometimes all blend together which makes it harder to care on an individual level.

When it comes to publishing graphic images the line between right and wrong often gets blurred. While there can be positive outcomes, such as inspiring action from those not being affected or simply bringing awareness to human rights violations, it is also important to always consider the negative impact that making violent pictures public can have. This is why it is important to approach the issue on a case by case basis and make sure to evaluate every possible side.

Transparency vs. Limiting Public Harm

Courtney Perrett
cp160517@ohio.edu

Is it ethical to publish violent content? Oftentimes, after a tragic event is widely broadcast, the media is criticized for publishing images that are considered to be violent and distasteful. Unfortunately, the viewers who make this critique don't always appreciate that the media has an obligation to the public to be transparent, and to seek the truth and report it.The public has a right to see the photos that provide context to news stories, even if the content is disturbing.

On the other hand, the SPJ code of ethics also requires that journalists minimize harm when reporting about situations that are sensitive. This means that when news outlets are going through the steps of ethical decision-making, they are required to balance the public's need for information against the potential damage it could cause. There aren't really circumstances today where minimizing harm should come before media transparency. Especially in an era where fake news is so prevalent; anyone can post a disturbing image on the internet or on social media. It is the responsibility of journalists to set the record straight and provide context for the graphic images they put in news stories.

The refugee crisis in Syria is a good example of media transparency during a tragic event that has international reach. Although the pictures are tragic and difficult to look at, they are powerful and help to fill in the blanks when it comes to emotional content journalists can't really report in hard news. The media is responsible for not sensationalizing the news, but they are still required to report it as best they can, while minimizing the harm showing these images in the media will cause to those affected by it.

The ethical decision-making process is so important in this day and age because it ensures that journalists and newsrooms discuss the impact of publishing content in accordance with being transparent and independent, while simultaneously making sure to minimize the harm this content could cause to certain viewers personally affected by the trauma. In terms of the Syrian refugee crisis, I think that it is so important to show traumatic images because it allows the victims of terrible crimes and traumatic events to be recognized and have their stories told, even if these stories are painful to digest.

Ethical decision making is also important when it comes to magazine editing and retouching with Photoshop. According to an article by The New York Times, designers in the magazine industry are retouching images to the point where they look flawless. This is happening with such prevalence that magazine industry executives have considered introducing a set of guidelines that will determine the extent to which Photoshop can be used to enhance the images being used in magazines.

A stack of The New York Times newspapers.

Margaret Russell, editor in chief of Architectural Digest, says that she sometimes uses Photoshop to make the skies outside windows more blue or the color of flowers seem more pronounced, but she refuses to alter the furniture or paintings and other personal details in a person's home. I think that this is a good, balanced philosophy to have when using a design tool such as Photoshop that could potentially change the way a photo looks entirely.

The ethical decision-making process in newsrooms is essential because it helps journalists figure out how to make good, ethical, balanced decisions that can be explained to the public, transparently. However, I also think newsrooms have a bigger commitment to minimizing harm now simply because there is so much graphic violence in the world today.

A Picture Tells a Thousand Words

Everyone has heard the saying "a picture tell a thousand words." It is an old adage, but holds a lot of truth. Visuals add something to a story that no amount of words can. Words can paint a picture, but pictures allow people to actually see it. This isn't just a belief or an opinion, it is actually fact. Your brain process information through two systems: the conscious system which usually processes verbal messages and the unconscious system that processes images and objects. It is through the unconscious system in which people can be seen valuing images more than words.

That being said when are images too gory, or inappropriate to show people? What happens if a child accidentally sees a photo on the news or on the cover of a magazine or newspaper? Will it force parents to have discussions with their kids that they simply were not ready to have?

http://myenglishguide.com/idiom-picture-paints-thousand-words/

Some argue photos will make the story more of a phenomenon that what it already is. National affairs editor Mark Follman explains that media organizations, "need to make sure that photographs they publish of such killers and their crimes do not contribute to their self-mythologization."

According to news photographer Giulio Saggin, visual stories like an image are structured similarly to written stories. He further explains, "News stories have quotes. News photos have people." A simple quote, that can really explain the importance of a photo.

Photos from a war can help people actually understand the gravity of what is truly going on. For example, the Syrian Refugee crisis in 2015 was heard about in the states, but it was truly hard for people to understand when it seemed like American day-to-day life was not affected. Photographers took photos of the crisis and for the first time the world could see what a crisis it was. Families sleeping on roads with just a blanket, a soldier carrying a lifeless child's body from sea, people swimming from a dinghy to a beach looking exhausted, just to name a few.

Liz Sly, Beirut chief for The Washington Post argues that not releasing photos could possibly violate the victim's dignity. A photo can show what the victim experienced and suffered through that words cannot.

However, media organization have to find a balance between what photos to release and what shouldn't. Photos can add to the phenomenon of a story and possibly encourage a copy cat of the crime. Journalists have a job to minimize harm and keep the victims and their family in mind. What is considered too violent to be released versus what helps reader better understand the extent of the story, that's a call that editors and news organization have to make.

Journalist can tell a story, but photos can show a story. They add an element that words simply cannot. Visuals of people dying or fighting for their life have a different effect than someone putting words on a paper and telling readers that.

Journalists have the simple duties of being truthful and transparent. Photos can help. They help protect you as the journalist in backing up what you are saying, and the readers actually see the scene or event the journalist is describing.  Photos can also protect journalists from being accused of falsifying a story. If a journalist says something, and has the photo to back it up people cannot argue that is false.

Violent Images: Content We Have To See

Kailee Missler | km199116@ohio.edu

In the light of a mass tragedy, the discussion comes about in regard to whether or not to publish images containing graphic scenes of death and violence. Dead bodies might not be the first thing someone wants to see when they are reading their morning newspaper with their coffee, but in a time where information is at one's fingertips, it's the media's responsibility to be transparent - even if it means showing their audience content they do not want to see. The public has a right to see these images, no matter how unsettling.

Granted, there should be procedures put in place to minimize harm, such as the procedures with hard news stories. But omitting pictures completely on the basis that they are too graphic is no longer a valid excuse. The Internet enables anyone to post pictures with little regulation. An individual with harmful intentions could post these images with their own information on what is being portrayed - whether that information is factual or not. If the media claims the images and presents the correct correlating information, the public is more likely to recognize these false Internet narratives.

The media's responsibility is to inform the public about what is happening locally, nationally and internationally. Not showing the true violence around the world could potentially minimize the seriousness of different events, thus deferring from the media's core value of transparency.

Not only are there issues with news outlets not publishing graphic images, but with prioritizing the coverage of certain groups compared to others. Michael Shaw, a clinical psychologist, suggests that the media may unconsciously split [disasters] into those that matter more and those that matter less." There is always a potential of this type of bias in the media and it is something journalists must work against in order to remain ethical. However, it's easy for Americans to want to view the news with a "Western gaze," but graphic images are a way for the public to grasp various international conflicts.


Children in Yemen are starving to death. There is a massive genocide occurring at this moment, and it receives very little coverage from mainstream media. And if it is mentioned, it is overlooked by a more Western news story. However, if the public saw the images of children starving on platforms that typically shy away from graphic content, it may draw more people's attention that would not have normally read the story.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/04/25/opinion/25chappatte-LN/25chappatte-tmagArticle.jpg
The New York Times

This discussion of censoring graphic images is coming to the forefront with the outbreak of tragedy around the world. In 2015, the world was flooded with information about the Syrian refugee crisis. There was debate about pictures of deceased refugees being published for the world to see. But without those images, other unaffected parts of the world would not be able to grasp the severity of the situation.

The ethical decision-making process in which images to show and on what platform is a conversation to be had. While journalists must show this content, they must do so carefully and delicately, in order to minimize harm for those affected. 


It is hard for anyone to stomach the idea of genocide and violence on innocent people - so often they tune out because they do not have to think about it. But those groups deserve to have their story recognized and told, too.

You CAN Handle the Truth

Abby Kongos | ak136116@ohio.edu

A few good indicators of opinion statements versus factual-based ones are the type of political appeal, lack of objective evidence, and context. Attacks are being made on news organizations for taking a partisan standpoint and construing information in such light. Journalists need to aim now more than ever to reveal and defend the truth.

The New York Times

The age we all live in as news consumers has become drastically saturated in articles that lean to one side or the other. So when can we take the information that is presented to us as factual? A major part of being able to identify correctly is based on whether you as a consumer are digitally savvy and trust in the media that is presenting the information. According to an article by Pew Research Center, “Almost four-in-ten Americans who have a lot of trust in the information from national news organizations (39%) correctly identified all five factual statements, compared with 18% of those who have not much or no trust.” Interestingly enough, the level of interest in the news from both groups made no difference in these results. 

Sifting through the articles that are pushed out into our feed every day and not taking the one that is most popular or shown up first as face-value information is extremely important. The trouble is that when a statement appeals to your side- democrat or republican- you are more likely to assume they are factual. The distinctions that we need to be aware of are the sources that are quoted and who are being represented in each of the statements.

When a source or statement isn’t properly vetted, the media will be called out and credibility breached. For instance, The Hill recalls an instance where Trump attacked MSNBC host, infamous for his opinion pieces, for reporting on information that wasn’t completely fact-checked. The result was that the story continued to pick up momentum even after it was redacted because readers were rightfully frustrated, especially in this age where fake news is a prominent issue. 

The pool of information on my daily news feed makes me feel like we are in a race for quantity of information, rather than quality. In-depth reviews of sources would ease the mind of the public in more ways than one. An obvious factor for identifying if a news source is dedicated to pursuing the truth is how they rely on ethical standards. This coincides with being accurate to the fullest extent and not covering up mistakes, but rather accepting the mistake and making a tactful correction.” Internally and externally, reliable news seeks ways to communicate its reliability. It is important that reporters develop a reputation, based on a track record, supported by the respect of their fellow journalists, by recognition with prizes, by promotion within news organizations that themselves have a track record of reliability,” says Michael Schudson from the Columbia Journalism Review. 

Journalists need to communicate their reliability effectively, even if that means that the truth you are reporting on makes people feel uncomfortable in what they have been taught and internalized. 

How To Create News

Sierra Heilman
sierraheilman19@gmail.com


Great news demands a creative flair. As journalists and public relations professionals, we don't just sit around and wait for news to find us–we make it happen. It's our duty to get all the facts and information needed to write a well-rounded story, but without direction, it can be a jumbled mess. When you start working for a public relations firm or a news organization, pitching ideas for a client or an article will be a big part of your job. Learning how to create good news to share with your audience will be a good skill to have no matter what sector of journalism you're in. So the question is, how do you create news? Here are a few ways:

Photo from shopFIU

Participate in A Cause or Charity
A very common way to create news is to tie in with a charity or cause. Not only is this good publicity for your organization, but this pulls on the heartstrings of people. Whether you're large or small, helping with a charity or cause will create positive talk about your company. Writing a press release, getting the word out, pitching it to people who you believe will want to cover it will turn the plain old act of charity become a grand gesture of a selfless organization helping a community in need.

Hold an Election
If you work for a public relations firm, holding an election for your clients is a great way to create news. For example, if your client is Coca Cola and Autumn is coming up, then you could come up with three fall-inspired flavors and hold a social media vote on which one will be in stores. This gets Coca Cola's name in the minds of consumers and would easily be covered by media outlets considering how well-known the brand is. The aspect of letting the consumers have a say in what the next flavor is not very common, therefore; you're creating news. Remember, your idea must be newsworthy to create news.

Make an Award
Something that can benefit both large and small companies is creating an award. A popular form of award is a scholarship. Impacting the lives of people by giving money to help further their goals and dreams is as close to newsworthy as you can get. As you go through the process of promoting the scholarship and choosing a recipient, you can further create news by talking to the recipient about what they plan to do with the scholarship and how it'll impact their life. Even five years later, circling back around to that person and creating a testimonial on what they've done with their life and the impact the money made is amazing, newsworthy content that could be created.

Become Part of a Trend 
News doesn't always have to be serious and create such a rippling effect like a scholarship being a person's only chance to attend college. It can be a fun, lighthearted way to get people interested in your company or client. Staying up to date on the latest trends can give you an advantage to interact with a younger audience that you may not have reached otherwise. Participating in trends, such as the popular app TikTok, could potentially be an effective and inexpensive way to engage with your audience. If you're lucky enough, you could even go viral.

The moral of the story is that creating news doesn't have to be fake, like we're constantly hearing today. News can come in many different forms and one idea can turn into an amazing story. Without these ideas and ways of turning something that happened into a story people are excited to read, then we'd never learn about the amazing things going on in the world. Next time you read a news story, stop and think about why this story is being told. In almost every case, someone made it happen.

Are Old Newsrooms More Ethical?

By: Alyssa Lanier
al634616@ohio.edu

With all of the new types of media, people are beginning to argue if old newsrooms are more ethical than the new ones.

Photo by: iStockphoto and Shannon Henderson

Both the old and the new forms of journalism want to provide the public with information that keeps everyone up to date. Is one era more truthful and transparent than the other?

The new era of journalism makes it much easier and faster for news to reach the people. The internet is the tool many journalists use to publish articles, blogs, videos and more now. Some people question if faster news means less accurate news, while others may believe that faster news is “better” news. Also, anyone can write an article on social media or the internet. This makes it more difficult for people to draw conclusions about the news. Since anyone can write an article, the writer may not follow ethics and may let their biased opinions show in their writing. This could lead a reader away from supporting a topic or vise versa.

The old era of journalism takes more time to reach the public. This is causing a lot of people to stop reading the newspaper and begin to rely on their mobile devices or laptops to read the news. Print articles can be longer than online articles. Therefore, print articles may supply more information. If someone is scrolling through social media, they are likely to click from one article to the next. This means many online articles get straight to the point if they were created to be published on social media. People may turn to print journalism to read more about a topic.

I do not think one era of journalism is more ethical than the other. A true, objective journalist will stick to his or her values and publish the facts of a story. The public needs to navigate through all the news and decide who is trustworthy. I think that people should learn how to dig deeper and find out if the journalist is accurate, providing evidence, and is not afraid to admit when they have come to the wrong conclusion previously. It is hard for a journalist to develop a reputation in the current time since the public is so wary of the news.

New media has more approaches to a story, whereas print journalism developed a pretty steady way to report the news. Both have their positives and negatives. A positive of the new era of newsrooms is the speed of posting. If there is breaking news, a journalist can report it as soon as he or she gets the facts. This can also be a negative thing about the new media, though. Someone may be very eager to post the breaking news first, and he or she might forget about their ethics in the process. The public has direct access to communicate to the author of an article that was posted online. Print journalists do not have that direct line of communication, which can be a positive thing for them. They would not read the critiques of the article instantly.

Journalism evolves often, and as long as the public can navigate their way through the news articles and the fiction articles, the true message will get out there in the world.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7esKJDZqzQ)

Journalists Need To Be Truthful!

Bryan Kurp
bk849717@ohio.edu

Journalism has been a part of our society for several hundred years. In recent history, there has been accusations of journalists that do not do their job correctly and report the wrong facts in a wrong way.  This is known as "Fake News".  The term "Fake News" has come up a lot throughout President Trump's tenure. As journalists, we have to tell the truth!

In an article "Here's what non-fake news looks like", the writer said that journalists make news, not find it. This means that journalists are the ones that actually write or broadcast the stories they find.  The article also stated that when citizens want to find out what is going on the world, they look to professional news gatherers for information.

Additionally, the article included a list of journalistic qualities that citizens should consider when choosing trustworthy and truthful news providers. One of the biggest takeaways I got from this list was that journalists should have a reliance on professional ethics, including accuracy, an interest in contrary evidence and to follow the story regardless of its political implication.

When it comes to accuracy, we need to spell the names right and tell the story the way it is, not what we think about what happened. We also need to "report against our own assumptions," as the article states. Lastly, we need to tell the story without showing bias towards a political candidate or party we or our news outlet tends to show favoritism towards. In my opinion, if journalists are able to follow these three ethical values, they have a good chance of being truthful.

Newsrooms can also take extra steps to ensure that writers and broadcaster are telling the truth. In an article written for the Columbia Journalism Review titled "Who cares if it's true?", The New Yorker hires full-time staff checkers to make sure every assertion in every article is correct. The article stated that this iconic fact-checking system is nearly impossible to match. I feel that if a publication has enough of a budget, it should consider hiring a few employees that solely check for factual errors.  This can benefit not only the journalist, but the publication. At the end, if a publication is well-known for its truthful content written by truthful journalists, it will gain more of a profit than a publication that is not truthful.

In my opinion, we need to always tell the truth as journalists, no matter what our opinions or viewpoints are. I think journalism schools around the world need to strive to teach student journalists to always tell the truth. If these schools are successful in teaching students to be truthful, the students will be better off in the professional field. If journalists are found to not be telling the truth in their work, news publications need to reprimand the journalist!

Telling the truth is very important because citizens rely on journalists for news every day.  Without truthful journalists, how will the public get reliable information on what is going on around the world?

                                              Picture from newswise's Twitter account

Journalists aren't the only ones who need to be honest

Reed Hillen
Rh972116@ohio.edu

As someone who is going into a Public Relations, it was so nice reading about the damage of dishonesty in advertising. I found myself nodding along with Bob Garfield from adage.com. KFC is nothing but unhealthy food, there is nothing wrong with that but that is what it is. The company trying to promote their unhealthy food as healthy made for some pretty bad consequences. For one, legal actions were taken against the company. The FTC fined the company for the misleading advertising.

Not only is KFC facing legal consequences, but that comes off as dishonest towards consumers. KFC is not a new company, most people know their food and know that it is unhealthy. A smarter approach to their advertising would be to be honest about their food, KFC is comfort food so that would probably be their best option. KFC also faced legal action after they allegedly were shorting people on their amount of chicken on the chains $20 bucket.

Advertisers aren't the only ones who need to be honest with the public. It is important for public relations professionals to be honest with the public as well, especially in crises situations. If a company is already in the wrong, and the company tries to deny the situation and it comes out that they are lying the company will face a lot worse scrutiny.

If I was in a situation of public relations where my company messed up, such as an oil company with an oil spill, there would be steps I would take to appropriately deal with that honestly. The first step would be completely honest with the public, take ownership that this spill was our companies fault and apologize.  The second step would be to take accountability and help spend money and clean up the spill. Spending the money yourself is going to be the best option as your company is probably going to be fined anyway. The third step to this would be to announce prevention efforts, what is our company going to do to make sure this never happens again. This method isn't going to be perfect, people are still going to be mad, but this is much better than lying about the event and having people never forgive your company.

If I was in advertising I would treat the situation with the same respect for my audience. If I am a fast food chain and claim I am coming out with a new vegan patty but then it actually comes out that it contains beef, public trust will be terrible after. Not to mention the potential legal action that could be placed against the company. When the public doesn't trust you, advertising just doesn't work. Even if I was telling the truth, if I have lied to the public in the past, they just won't believe it.

Journalists obviously need to be honest as well, but PR and advertisers need to be just as honest. If one of those three groups is dishonest it brings all of them down in the public eye. With the recent turn in public trust towards the media with President Trump often calling out the media for "fake news"it would be interesting to see how the public perceives works of public relations. If this direction keeps moving forward it will be very difficult for these professions moving forward. It is difficult to gain trust if no one listens to you and I think people stop listening to you when they catch you in a lie. It's becoming a snowball effect, this is why it's so important for the journalism and PR community to hold each other accountable. When KFC is lying to the public it is journalists job to call them out for that. The same goes if a journalist is being dishonest about a company.

photo from bradsdeals.com

We Are Journalists and Citizens, not Citizen Journalists

Madi Kregel
mk790316@ohio.edu

We all heard it in the 2016 presidential campaign.
Fake News.
A term the man, who eventually became our president, threw around press conferences often. At the time we journalism students were just high school students. And here we are, journalism students learning how to bring people the news they need properly and ethically while living in a world where you can update your newsfeed every millisecond.

I can't help but think what President Trump saw was actually citizen journalism, which in ways can be fake news. Citizen Journalism is the act of a normal citizen without any journalism education reporting an event or incident without knowledge or resources to back up what actually is going on. It is so easy for people today to snap a picture of something that looks newsworthy and report on twitter what looks like is going on in the photo.

For instance, a woman is sleeping on a bench in a park with her mouth agape, so you take a picture of her. You don't know her, you've never seen her before in your life. But it is broad daylight, she's clearly not awake or aware that you're staring at her, and it looks like she could be on drugs to you. So you snap a picture of her and tag the local police department on Twitter, and post, "This woman is in the park I think she is on heroin." The police rush to the scene and reporters show up because they saw your tweet after it's been retweeted by many people in the area. The police go to the woman, and before they can touch her she wakes up startled and confused. She wasn't on any drugs at all, she was just resting during her lunch hour.

Now I made this story up, and I would guess that the police would be smart enough to contact the woman who tweeted the photo and ask her to check on the woman on the bench to see if she were breathing and had a strong pulse. But my point is, it is as simple as seeing something and misunderstanding the situation.

The issue with citizen journalism is the lack of resources and credibility that is put into what is reported or better put, "posted."However, as journalists, we should take citizen journalism as an advantage to our work.

IMAGE SOURCE: maichimai2611.wordpress.com
Link to interesting article that includes the image.

Reporting factual news that will be beneficial to the public is just one aspect of journalism ethics that has been understood for decades. But now more than ever journalists have to hold themselves accountable for the work they put into reporting a news story and providing factual evidence they are given. Citizen journalism can be used by journalists as a way to strengthen their reporting by giving them an opportunity to show the resources they used to find the information reported, as well as give resources for readers to use in the case of a disaster or event. Not only that, citizen journalism allows for journalists to show how much they follow their code of ethics in their work.

So yes, citizen journalism can cause a lot of controversy and confusion, but we as journalists can act upon the confusion and report factual information properly.

*The link attached included more information regarding citizen journalism and film that I found very interesting and ties into the same topic of "what is fake and what is factual?"*

The Fake News Phenomenon

By: Julia Leonard
jl123515@ohio.edu

Photo: The Belfast Telegraph.

The "Fake News" phenomenon is taking news rooms by storm. In the past years, this term is thrown around like M&M's in a candy store. Everyone has heard it, everyone has seen it, but who has owned up to it? Many people believe journalists make news. They find a story and write it all down. But what if there is nothing going on around us. The week was dry and nothing "news worthy" was happening? At what point does a journalist turn to anyone on the street and believe what they are saying. If a source tells a journalist a story that isn't fully factual, but the journalist publishes the story, who is to blame for providing false information? Here are some points to think about when you come across fake news

Fact Checking
There have been countless stories that come out that are later revealed as fake or provided false information to readers. When is far too far? Okay you spelled a name wrong because you added an extra S. That's a hard slap on the wrist but I myself wouldn't discredit the paper as a whole but rather just the article. But if you say 15 people died and it was really 28, you obviously didn't fact check as well as you should have. So when is it crossing the line?

The Spread of Fake News
Think about the last news article you read. Did it seem like it was correct? Did you fully believe everything that writer was saying? Case studies have been conducted to show how fake news can go viral. In a New York Times article, Sapna Maheshwari discussed how a man with 40 Twitter followers sent out a tweet that caused a nationwide conspiracy theory that then President-elect Donald J. Trump himself chimed in on. One tweet, one post, or one photo can lead to journalists grabbing an idea and running with it.

Fake news spreads like wildfire. Noah Tavlin of Ted-Ed, created a lesson on the spread of false news. This lesson shows how one statement can be spread across the globe in a matter of moments. Circular reporting is also one of the biggest causes of fake news. If one journalist said they fact checked with the source and the story keeps getting repeated time and time again, the next journalist will say they have checked it with multiple sources.

Why Your Code of Ethics Matter
This is where each journalists code of ethics comes in. At what point can you trust a source? How do you know they are saying the whole truth? The hard answer is that you can fact check every detail twice, but when it comes down to ones story over another, you have to trust that that individual is telling the truth. I believe this is also where the people come into play. As a person telling a journalist any information, I uphold the responsibility to telling the story to them as truthfully as possible. If I lie to a reporter and they write about it, does it come down to me or the reporter? In today's world, the reporter takes the blame, but they technically only reported on 'facts' that the source gave them. This circles back to my question – who do we blame?

A Much Needed Middle Point

Alyssa Gormley
ag461517@ohio.edu

Hannah Montana once said, “everybody makes mistakes”, and I felt that. I make mistakes, and so does everybody else. What’s most important to remember about mistakes — even minor mistakes —  is their power to define. 

By: KFC

Beloved KFC, a Kentucky Fried Chicken company, had been marketing quite poorly to their consumers. However, it didn’t become a larger scale issue until about 10 years ago. KFC began to advertise their chicken as “slow cooked” instead of “deep fried” in an attempt to conform to society’s obesity needs. Furthermore, KFC claimed their chicken as “health food” instead of what it really is — comfort, fast food. Years later, KFC continued their ‘health’ trend and partnered with the Susan G. Komen to raise money for the non-profit, breast cancer based organization. Sure enough, the public spoke out and the partnership lead to a negative relationship with each company, as well as their audiences. Ultimately, misleading acts of advertising and marketing left KFC with not only less business, but an overall bad reputation with the public (especially those concerned with dietary and health issues). 

Similar situations happened with McDonalds, where The New York Times stated in an article that Mcdonalds advertised their oatmeal as a “bowl full of wholesome.” McDonalds is one of the largest fast food chains in the nation, as well as internationally. Following the trend of KFC, McDonalds made an effort in providing “smarter choices” to reach consumers with dietary needs, or moreso, the audience that doesn’t support their chain. Once again, McDonalds faced outlash, criticism, and a severe reputation. 

Dove in 2017, however, dealt with a different issue — diversity. Dove had created a social media ad in an attempt to convey their campaign surrounding “the beauty of diversity”. In the advertisement, a black woman is wearing a brown tee shirt and, when removed a white woman in a white shirt is revealed. The New York Times explained that one social media user “evoked a long-running racist trope in soap advertising: a “dirty” black person cleansed into whiteness.” Dove had pure intentions of shining positive light on a societal issue, only in the end to remind themselves to be more charismatic with advertising diversity. Once again, poor marketing and advertising led Dove to the road of fixing their corrupt reputation. 

So, what’s the solution? How does a company rebuild and recover their reputation? The Columbia Journalism Review described the tensions of the “culture war” between print and digital journalists, which had previously been considered “a generational divide.” Print journalists stand behind detail, where major and minor critiques were made in order to avoid any falsies or mistakes that would cause outcries from the public. Digital journalists, however, stand behind the idea of the internet correcting mistakes and/or the truth in their published stories. Companies tend to choose one or the other, print or digital journalists. Buzzfeed, a company well-known on the internet for phony quizzes and less reliable articles, is doing something different. Instead of staying in their same reputation, Buzzfeed is building its brand, message, and mistake-making more than ever. Buzzfeed believes that whatever is published in their name matters, especially their articles. Furthermore, Buzzfeed is acting on this belief by hiring copy editors to finely tune and edit their articles before being posted on the internet. This positive balance between print and digital journalists is slowly but surely shifting Buzzfeed into a better reputation. Ultimately, Buzzfeed has found a good middle point in such a divided era. So, what’s the solution? I believe that any company who has failed in the eyes of the public should accept what has been done, and apologize for their actions. By doing this, a common ground of empathy and trust is established with the audience. Once voicing the apology, I would then follow in the footsteps of Buzzfeed: find a good middle point. Whether that’s in the realm of journalism, or elsewhere, every company needs to understand where they… stand. 

Different Values

Kaitlin Heneghan

kh416415@ohio.edu

By Patrick Hardin
Cartoonstock.com — Search ID: Phan8

Everyone has certain values they follow in their lives. Mine? I value honesty, loyalty, open-mindness and respect just to name a few. Some may live by the same values, others may live by different values. Regardless of what they are, everyone values something. Not only can people live by certain values, but so can companies and large corporations.

Almost all businesses, no matter how big or small, have a mission statement. Mission statements of a business usually state the values or beliefs of the business. Whatever their mission statement says is what the company lives by. This can be a huge factor in the success of a business. Businesses want to be relatable and liked by consumers. Having values that are relatable to people can help with that. That way they portray their values different from company to company, especially with competitors. For example, national newsrooms can cover some of the same stories, but telling the stories differently can be based off of the values that are followed by the journalist.

Newsrooms have certain values that are followed by everyone working in the newsroom based on its mission statement. Journalists can follow these values, but also follow the values that they personally hold when it comes to storytelling. Referring to the article, “Who Cares if it’s True?”, mentions BuzzFeed and how their symbol or brand as a nontraditional newsroom that does not take time to fix errors after something is published is not to be ashamed of when it comes to digital news telling. I think this is something that sets BuzzFeed apart from other newsrooms. While other newsrooms would be quick to correct what was mistaken, Buzzfeed’s brand is different and they own up to it. Buzzfeed seems to know that digital is meant to be quick, so if they quickly release a story, that ends up having incorrect facts, the internet is so quick that it will be fixed even if it’s not by them. I don’t think that thinking this way is ethically wrong.

I believe, in any business whether a large corporate office or newsrooms, it’s all dependent on your audience and your values as a company. In the article, “How Great Companies Think Differently", companies that think about human values and use that to help decision making tend to be more successful. This leads back to a company’s values. A company that attracts a younger audience, like Buzzfeed, can have a looseness to them versus a newsroom like the New York Times that has a more professional brand. Their values are different, but one is not more ethical than another based on how they choose to portray their values.

Storytelling is meant to be different from person to person, place to place. Core values in journalism help the public trust what is being said, but journalists are going to show their values differently and express them differently. I think that every newsroom and journalist has the intention of being as honest and transparent as possible, but because of the companies and individual values it can come across differently.

Let's Get to the Bottom of it

Taylor Highbloom
th764916@ohio.edu

This photo is from https://www.marveena.com/truth-discernment/

We live in a world that is advancing every day and moving at the speed of light. People are obsessed with obtaining everything so quickly. That means obtaining the latest and greatest thing, the moment it comes out. With that being said, people want their news right away. When something happens, people want to know what happened instantaneously. However, this sometimes means that you are obtaining or viewing something that is not as great as it seems. Journalists have to be aware of this on-going issue because this kind of mentality also affects the journalistic world that we live in. When a crazy story comes out, it is better to collect all the facts than to post something that is still crazy but inaccurate. We must not use this kind of mentality as an advantage, we should be using it as an opportunity to show the world what truthfulness and accuracy looks and sounds like. Though, there are people that do take advantage of this and create fake news.

The kind of generation that understands that news is always changing and evolving is known as the “YouTube generation,” according to this article. Although, this generation wants their news instantaneously, they are well aware of the fact that the stories are sometimes “dirty and not always right.” The good thing about this is that this group of people are aware of how the news we see today is sometimes more entertaining than it is accurate. Kentucky Fried Chicken decided to partake in fake advertising a few years ago. They starting calling themselves a healthy restaurant but we all know that it KFC is anything but healthy. Like I said earlier, people take advantage of the world we live in today. By doing this, you are only losing your credibility and it will hurt you in the long run. 

Another issue that we face in media is who can tell the difference between opinion and fact. In this article, researchers surveyed 5,093 Americans and came to the conclusion that some people identified at least 3 out of the 5 statements right in each set they showed them. However, more people identified a majority of the circumstances they provided for them wrong. This is a huge problem because ability to differentiate fact from opinion affects the way people perceive journalism and the media as a whole. This particular article also touches up on what I discussed earlier. Due to the fact that news is continuously flowing across all social platforms at all hours of the day, it creates the problem of people believing everything they hear.

We as journalists have to be aware of these issues and take action because this is our profession. It is so easy to get caught up with the world we live in today and settle for the circumstances that the media is in. You must put in the effort to change this. If you really love this profession you have to keep pushing and demanding more credibility and less bias from yourself and others. 

Word Choice with a Truthful Voice

Kelly Lambers

kl807917@ohio.edu

People deserve the full truth. This fact has been apparent since the beginning of time. Journalistic work is their main source of receiving information. Somehow, people have not always received the full truth. As communication professionals, what do we do about that? For starters, we need to look at history and realize how we got there.

The Columbia Journalism review states, “...for nearly two decades, a culture war has divided journalists. The gap seemed mostly generational, but it always boiled down to a battle over the very purpose of what we do.” Journalists are not all on the same page about what is central to good journalism, and that needs to change. 

A $320,000 grant was just given by the Knight Foundation to support software development that can tell if a video is real or fake. This is a threat to journalistic work and all journalists should make note of that. Even businesses are less trusting of the media. While this false information may not be our doing, and someone makes a false video, it is our mission as journalists to tell people where the video came from and make sure the public is aware that it is false information.

Specific businesses are in the hot seat for marketing that is not honest. Bob Garfield from AdAge, states that “KFC ... is fully aware of our nation's struggle with obesity, yet has cynically attempted to exploit a massive health problem through deceptive advertising.” This is a problem because KFC is profiting off something that causes people to be unhealthy. They continuously promote unhealthy products by creating a title and using words that seem more beneficial health-wise to their customers. This act is manipulative, which is not what good communication professionals should be striving for.

In that same way, journalists need to not sugar-coat the news they are sharing. Everything is what it is. Attempting to receive more gain is inherently the opposite of what we must strive to do as journalists. The words we use must be honest in all senses.

Image from https://medium.com/@plthomasedd/mainstream-journalism-cant-handle-the-truth-94fd460b434f

According to the New Yorker, “Even veterans of august and still thriving papers are worried, especially about the fake news that’s risen from the ashes of the dead news.” Journalism is under attack and will continue to be this way until ethical principles such as using proper word choice and honesty when telling stories.

Researchers at the Columbia Journalism Review have added some insight. They reiterate the importance of honesty. They also add that unbiased views are central as journalists. This is something that many professional journalists need to be reminded of in our current state of the field.

Let’s look at this way. The public is entrusted to us as their source of news. We tell them what is going on in the world and what to be aware of and they deserve to know about it all, good and bad. When the public is being lied to, communication professionals are failing. We must hold one another accountable to create relationships with consumers, whether that be the public, clients or consumers.