Media military relationships and embedded journalism

Corttany Brooks
cb970011@ohio.edu
Make up blog 10/22

In times of war, there is a delicate balance between government censorship of war correspondence and the right of the press to produce unregulated news stories. In essence, both rely on each other for propagation of war sentiment and both have the power to destroy each other’s credibility with the American public. 

The mistrust between the military and the media that was established in Vietnam is a sentiment that continues to be felt by both sides today. In the war in Iraq, the media and military continue to look for a balance between censorship and free press. 

Embedded journalism

Whether to alleviate tension or to gain political and militaristic control, the Pentagon decided to be proactive about setting up safe media relations for the war in Iraq. Unlike previous attempts to keep the press away from the battlefield, the Pentagon established a system of “embedded” reporters, which by definition are "media representatives remaining with a unit on an extended basis.” 

Embedded journalists in Baghdad (via BBC)

For the journalist there is a trade-off. Embedding will get you closer to the front line but often, it is at the price of editorial independence. And in the same way journalists use militaries to get news stories, militaries use journalists to get their story out, which proved throughout the war two agendas on a collision course.

Critics have also argued the embedding program was the administration’s attempt to build popular support for the war in Iraq. Several influential members of the Pentagon leadership and the administration believed the media contributed to defeat in the Vietnam War by demoralizing the American public with coverage of atrocities. They hoped to avoid a similar result in Iraq by limiting journalists’ coverage of darker stories on combat, the deaths of Iraqi civilians, and property damage. 

Alternatives to embedding

Although the embedding program was the dominant form of reporting during the early days of Operation Iraqi Freedom, two alternatives did exist. Though slightly more expensive than embedding, some news organizations opted to station a reporter in Baghdad. These journalists bunkered down in central Baghdad and watched as American “shock and awe” bombing raids wrought death and destruction on the city.

The second alternative—funding an independent reporter with the freedom to roam—was far more costly and largely the province of elite news sources, like The New York Times and other national newspapers. While ground commanders interacted positively with independent reporters, on several occasions Pentagon officials criticized what they called “four-wheel-drive” and “cowboy” journalists for operating outside of the embedding program.

War reporting in perspective

The relationship between the mass-media and the army is a special relationship due to the many elements that may form. For this reason, we must always remember the importance of professionalism, our ability to show impartiality, fairness, and responsibility as journalists. Both elements, the military and the media, are pillars of society; a good cooperation between the two is essential.

Military Leaders Address the Media (Via Wikimedia)

Media construction and crime reporting

Corttany Brooks
cb970011@ohio.edu 
Make up blog 10/13

Crime reporting has risen dramatically in newsrooms across America, and some studies suggest viewers want more of these stories. As fascinating as crime may be for some viewers, is it right that a local news station air the gory details of a tragic event, possibly jeopardizing an ongoing police investigation, and violating suspects' rights? How much does the public need to know?

For reporters, the struggle over how far to pursue a story may present serious ethical and even moral complications. Investigative reporting, on any level, requires asking invasive and sensitive questions of people who may not want their privacy invaded. 

Aside from the moral and ethical objections of some reporters to acting with disregard for suffering victims, there is a far more practical reason for exercising restraint. In-depth crime reporting and investigating depends upon reporters and producers cultivating and sustaining relationships with well-placed, informed sources, like employees of the police department or other city, county, or state agencies. If a reporter burns those bridges by revealing confidential information that impedes an investigation, those sources may, in the future, refrain from sharing information.

Unfortunately (I use this adjective as a personal belief), a basic fact in the news media is that, if a story involves a brutal death or injury of some kind (or the likelihood of it), it is likely to get higher ratings. The more lurid the story, the better its chances of being the ratings leader. Natural disasters, bank robberies, shootouts, rapes, serial killers, and school violence all draw an army of news vans the same way that a limping gazelle draws a pride of lions. 

This mantra is deeply ingrained in journalistic norms. Newsworthiness is determined by several factors, and destruction fulfills many of them a lot better than news about society working its wonders another day. Also, because getting information on them is easy (through the police or government agencies via press releases) and since they take place on public streets where permits or business permission are never required to film near, they are generally rather cheap to cover. They also tend to provide flashy visuals.

Some have suggested that coverage like this, focusing on negative stories of war, death, and destruction rather than the positive things that are happening in society, is responsible for making people cynical about the world around them. People who watch the news start to feel that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and give up on the idea that society's problems can be fixed. In addition, when the media obsess over violent crimes, deeper problems with society (such as cities running out of money) go ignored, leaving the public uninformed.

Even further, this type of coverage is even being glamorized by Hollywood blockbusters like ‘Nightcrawler’, which chronicles the life of an aspiring video journalist who spends his nights cruising the streets of L.A., hunting and prying to capture violent crimes or accidents on his video camera, in order to sell the footage to news stations. Although this film presents an extreme and stylized reflection of the news industry, people love the narrative, and our industry phrase, “if it bleeds, it leads” remains at the front of the news scene. 

'Nightcrawler' Official Trailer (Via Youtube)

3 Basic Rules for Being Ethical

Alexandra Newman
an077811@ohio.edu

I think being objective is a very important part of being a journalist. It’s one of the first things you learn. It’s a good skill to have to make your stories stronger. The conflict comes in when you’re not sure what to call something, or you’re not sure if you should report something because it is so scandalous.

An example that comes up often is whether or not to call the Affordable Care Act “Obamacare." I have written several stories in which I talk about the Affordable Care Act. I start out by saying, “The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.” Then I continue to call it Obamacare throughout my story.

I made this ethical decision because I felt like most Americans just know it as Obamacare, and it is easier to say over and over again in a story than the Affordable Care Act. I didn’t think I was adding any bias at the time. After reading this article about weather or not to call it Obamacare, I realized that maybe the use of it makes it seem like you have an opposition to it. I actually don’t, and find it funny that I still find myself using the term just because it is easier.

Just because something is easier, does it make it the right thing to do? I am all for taking the easy route, but in a news story you’re not always getting your strongest story out there. You can make up quotes from people who don’t exist, you can Google something until you find the information instead of calling someone who would know the answer off hand, and you can even make up false details to add more to your story, but all those things are wrong to do and unethical. They may be easier than going out and finding the answer yourself, but when you’re a journalist you are trusted by many to report in the best way you can.

I think being objective comes into this idea of doing stuff the easy way. When you’re doing things fast and just throwing a story together you tend to only include a bare minimum of details. If you took some time to look into the story and spend more time finding all of the sides of the story you may find that there is an angle you would have missed it you didn’t take the time to look into the case fully. 

Here is an example of a reporter who made comments quickly, without having actual proof to back them up.

In this case he lost his job over the things he said. He wasn't informed enough and jumped to conclusions based on his opinions, not actual facts. So before sitting down to write a story, or put a package together for television, make sure you:

1. Have every side to the story possible.
2. Don't let your opinions intrude.
3. Don't take the easy route.

Please take these things into consideration during your journalistic career. I do.

You Can't Handle the Truth: A College Junior's Ramblings on WikiLeaks

Amanda Hagley
ah725510@ohio.edu

What do I think?

You can't handle the truth! That's what I sometimes think of individuals who criticize whistle-blowers and information leakers.  Although I will recognize the fact that certain information being publicly released can lead to conflicts involving national security and our country's safety, I'm conflicted because I also believe that our nation's citizens have the right to know about certain information and the things that our government is doing behind our backs.

Let's put it like this, everyone's seen the movie Mean Girls right?  Of course you have, it's pretty much a classic at this point.  At one point in the movie Regina George, popular queen bee, releases pages of the Burn Book to the entire school. This burn book was basically just a bunch of crude comments about other students at the school.  Although these girls may have believed that the hateful comments they wrote were not all true, it still created havoc throughout the entire school.  Okay, so maybe this isn't the most appropriate example because half of what was written was just petty high school drama, but you can see the comparison, right?

The question we have to ask ourselves is "What does the public really need to know, and whose responsibility is it to decide this in the name of protecting a nation?"

The Populars.

So where are these leaks coming from?  Why are they even taken into account?  I'll be honest and say that I had to do some research on this popular site called WikiLeaks that I kept hearing about prior to composing this blog.  Although I understood the basic idea, I couldn't honestly say that I was knowledgeable about how the whole thing actually functioned.

Here's a run down of how it works:

WikiLeaks is a non-profit organization that publishes secret and leaked information provided by completely anonymous sources. If you need more information than that you can check out Wikipedia's page on the topic if it so fancies you.  There have been several big cases of government information leaked through WikiLeaks including the popular news stories covering individuals like Bradley E. Manning and Edward Snowden, both of who are facing serious legal repercussions for their actions of releasing government information.

So were these men right in their actions of alerting the public of seemingly private government action? Although it may come as a shock, I don't know that I have a solid opinion on this topic for you.

Manning Left. Snowden Right.
Photo Courtesy of Media.Wired.It   

The Final Say.

The questions we have to take into account when deciding whether or not to publish released confidential information is whether or not the positives will really outweigh the negatives.  Maybe it's controversial that the government has been reading our emails, but are you willing to give up your sense of national security in order to find out about this occurrence and to maintain that right to privacy?

Was it necessary for Manning to release half a million government reports to the public at the expense of a possible threat to the country?  Maybe and maybe not.  I guess what it all comes down to is what you hold to be your highest concern:  the truth or your country's well-being.  

Going the Distance for Diversity

Meredith McNelis

mm132010@ohio.edu

We have become all too comfortable with taking the easy way out. In a place where libraries were the main source of knowledge, Google now reigns supreme. Journalists should not cover what is convenient to them; they should cover what is suitable for their audience. Diversity is lacking from many news outlets because many are taking the easy way out. They have to get up from their desks, step away from their computer screens and dive into reality. They must step back and include everyone in their community and audience.

Step Outside the Box

Most of the time, when students are assigned with a research project that involves interviewing fellow students, they turn directly to their neighbor that lives down the hall or a friend. In doing so, their friends may not answer the questions in an appropriate manner. They might just answer them in a way that they know the interview wants to hear. This creates a sort of bias in the reporting. Going to an outside source or someone you do not know as well, allows the interviewer to gain a different perspective. If the interviewee does not know them that well, it allows them to be more candid with their answers.

This creates a sort of lazy foundation that could be carried on to an aspiring journalist in the professional world. While it does not seem as big of a deal from a high school or college perspective, continuing on this sentiment in a newsroom is detrimental.  For example, how can a community, or even the nation, gain a solid insight to an election if they only have a select demographic reporting and gathering information on it? The infographic below displays just this problem.

The Atlantic

Most newsrooms that lack diversity, lack diverse reporting. Because of this, news stations may internalize worldwide issues and only report on them from their own perspectives. Why is this so? Because it is convenient. If a newsroom is run by predominantly Whites, their reporting directly reflects that because they often do not seek views outside their own. It is easy to report what you personally believe in and to interview people with similar view as your own, but it takes a determined and principled journalist to seek out other conflicting viewpoints. It should be second nature to do so, but for many it takes a conscious decision to step outside of the box.

Community Journalism as a Model for Success

Perhaps, major news stations should take a step back and look at community journalism. Yes, they do cover a smaller portion of the United States but what they do cover is all-inclusive. Smaller news publications and newsrooms look at their community under a microscope; they see everything that goes on, are involved in everything that goes on and feel that everything that goes on is important, vital information. The Tampa radio station WMNF does a great job in including their community in their news stories. They take people directly from their community and allow them to host shows about all different races, demographics and ethnicities. This creates such rich diversity in their broadcasts because they are allowing novice reporters to come in and talk on a more personal level.      

To report on an all inclusive, unbiased nature, journalists must create further diversity in their news coverage. Whether it is making a conscious decision to put personal ideals aside and incorporate a diverse range of information or including people directly from your community, diversity must be present. Without it, how can people paint a clear picture of the differences in a society?  

There are no stupid questions

Alexandra Newman
an077811@ohio.edu

As an advocate for human rights, I think that everyone needs to be considerate of what people identify as, whether that be gender, sexuality or anything else. In the case of Bradley Manning, or as she is known now as Chelsea Manning, I think the media needs to be respectful of her choices.

Although it may be true that she does not really identify as a woman and is just doing this to be in a woman’s prison instead of a men’s prison, it is imperative that we recognize the bigger picture here.

A blog post on the Human Rights Campaign website does a good job of summing up the whole situation. It makes a point to say, “What should not be lost is that there are transgender service members and veterans who serve and have served this nation with honor, distinction and great sacrifice.”

Just because society as a whole can’t figure out how to accept the LGBTQA community (even Pvt. Manning’s Wikipedia page is confused), doesn’t mean that our journalists should be just as ignorant. Equality starts by recognizing every one is different and was raised a little bit different. The media needs to compensate for this by being fair.

It is our duty as news gatherers and presenters to be fair to what people want/feel/are. We can’t be fair, one of those concrete ethical rules, by not respecting the trans community.

Photo courtesy of people.com.

Something else I would like to point out is that transgendered and transsexual are two different things. Transsexual is after you get the surgery to become a male or female and transgendered is “all in your head” and how you present yourself on the outside.  I have noticed that people use these interchangeably and that is not fair.

When the pregnant man came into the news a couple years ago people freaked out. They couldn’t just accept that this person was born with female reproductive parts and just doesn’t physically look like a female and that they identify as a man.

Something else I would like to point out is that not everyone fits into the gender binary. Some people don’t identify as a man or woman. When this occurs people freak out because they just simply don’t know what to do or how to act around these people. You should act the same around all people, because all people have feelings.

If you don’t know which pronoun to use with someone, use a gender-neutral pronoun like “they” or just ask them. In school they tell you to ask questions when you don’t know something; the same applies to the real world.

Now back to Chelsea Manning. She specifically sent out a letter asking to be called “she,” and I don’t think it gets much more simple than that. It is easy to be confused when this person has been in the news so much as “Bradley Manning”, but if we want to be fair to this person, no matter what they have done criminally, we have to respect their wishes.

If we were doing our jobs right at journalists and human beings then there would be no question in regard to what to call this or any person. Just ask what they prefer to be called. Even better yet, if they TELL YOU what they want to be called, your job is 100 times easier!

Cracking the Code

Meredith McNelis

mm132010@ohio.edu

Journalism is not what it used to be. Online forums, blogging and the digital world as a whole have reshaped this profession. Heck, it feels like you don’t even have to be a ‘professional’ to be one of today’s "journalists." Because of the growing ambiguity of this career, the code of ethics it adheres to must alter as well.

The other obvious issue that arises is how can there be one universal definition of what is ethical? Every person has a different idea of what is morally acceptable and fitting to one’s character.

What is Ethics?

When boiled down to its pure definition, ethics simply means “character”, derived from the Greek word ethos. It is what a person, or organization, believes is morally acceptable; what is in good character of someone.

Theory of Knowledge

Ethical Public Relations

I took a personal interest to the Public Relations Society of America Code of Ethics since I am a Strategic Communications major and am a member of PRSSA. When being a part of an organization that’s job is to represent other companies branding and standards, it is imperative that you think in terms of that client. One of their main points is building trust. The fact that they not only want to gain trust within their clients, but their own employers and the public as well, is something that I think is vital to a successful PR firm.

Not Set in Stone

Is it really possible for everyone who is a part of an organization to have the same opinions and moral compass? People are raised differently, have different beliefs, have distinctive characteristics; it’s hard to fit everyone in a box. If you are applying for a job or are a part of an organization, you may not always fall into the same ethical standpoint as their code. I think that a person should not have to adhere to a company’s ethics if it does not match their own, but the person should seek out a job that holds the same ethical code as them.

There is a section in PRSA’s Code of Ethics that is ever changing. They have a portion called Provisions of Conduct that “are actual examples of misconduct” and “more will be added as experience with the code occurs.” They understand that the world of journalism and public relations is constantly shifting. Most codes do not include such sections. For example, Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics was adopted in 1996 and has not been revised sense. I am pretty sure journalism is not the same as it was 17 years ago, so shouldn’t their rules evolve as well?

The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth

I do believe however that every code, and everyone, should remain truthful. As journalists, or public relations professionals, it is our job to report the truth. The public puts their trust in credible reporting and do not want to weed through what is real or not. If a person does not think that reporting false information is unethical, journalism is probably not the profession for them.

Ethics is hard to condense into one simple term. It is different from person to person and changes daily. Technology and the advancement of journalism and public relations play important roles as well in shaping ethics.