What is Journalism Today?

Katie Cameron
kc313010@ohio.edu

Following Codes of Ethics 

Today's journalists are more dedicated to professional ethics than any journalists have been in the past. However, with our fast-paced, technology-based society; journalists are struggling to beat the competitors. With heightened competition and increased pressure to cut ethical corners, "good journalism" could essentially disappear. 

What could be causing this?

Money issues: As news outlets expand, many news companies are cutting staff and budget and investing in online marketing materials. With fewer employed journalists, vast amounts of important newsworthy stories and less time to create a good story, the news world is losing credibility.

Political outlooks: A new trend called media bashing has recently surfaced as an outlet for political figures, talk shows, books and blogs to bash “mainstream media” without too much of a consequence.  Most of the public eye is centered around what is happening in the media and today’s world, so media bashing affects what people think about the media as well as the issue at hand. 

More and More People are Turning Away

The majority of the public does not necessarily trust the “mainstream media” anymore because of past journalists posting incorrect information, biased information, etc. As stated earlier, there is heightened competition and increased pressures to cut ethical corners. With this in mind, journalists need to discover their own personal code of ethics and stick to it regardless of the issue at hand to ensure credible media outlets.

So…

How does a journalist design their ethical philosophy? Is it easy to create a list of ethical rules to follow in uncomfortable situations?  

A main factor in designing a code of ethics is your background. You might have something you strongly believe in or do not believe in because of your religion or the way you were socialized. When you are more concerned with yourself and what will better you than your way of thinking it is called ethical egoism. This ideally is not the best way to think in a journalistic society because the definition of ethical reasoning is being concerned with self-in-society and not just self.

A great way to create a code of ethics after establishing if you are an ethical egoism thinker or an ethical reasoning thinker is to read The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) code of ethics. Although these codes changes every once in a while, it is a great list to follow and adopt. 

Is Journalism a profession or a craft?

Journalism, like law and medicine, has important public services roles and a set of ethics to follow. However, journalism does not require any special training or certification process like law and medicine do. Also, there is no governing body to prevent any mishaps from happening, although journalists have their own code of ethics. There is no real way to prevent false information or biased information from entering the public's eye except for the journalist personal code of ethics.

Sloppy Journalism is Now a Culture Norm.

AJ Davis
ad487710@ohio.edu

"Moral Reasoning for Journalists" by Steve Knowlton and Bill Reader pointed out that Western society has long upheld its moral code.  They pointed out that we justify what we are doing is good because that is what the rest of society is doing.  It has gotten to the point where journalism has suffered as a whole because of the cultural norm dictating it to be sensational.  Sites such as TMZ are more popular than CNN or Fox News.  The short stories, easy vocabulary and the overdramatic stories draw in a larger readership among young people than respected news outlets. 

Political Bias

The worst accepted cultural norm in journalism is political bias.  The reading made an excellent point that right-winged new outlets, such as Fox News, claim that the rest of the media business is a "liberal" media, while MSNBC points out at what a bad job Fox News is doing for being to conservative.  Both news outlets are in the wrong. They should not be focused on what the other is reporting, but doing their duty as journalists to report the news to the public.  For many people, these are their only source of news.  In fact one article even goes as far as claiming that viewers who turn into Fox News actually are less informed than those people who don't have any news sources.

Social Media is the Only Media

Another culture norm for us seems to be our obsession with social media.  Most of us are always on Twitter, in fact, we have to be for this class.  But is that really such a good thing?  When all your news is shortened to 140 character "tweets" are you getting the full story?  Is who you are following a reliable source?  So much emphasis is placed on connecting to your audience on social media, but here lies the problem.  Important news useful to the consumer is drowned out in useless knowledge and pictures of cats.  When every one with a Twitter claims to be right, how do you know which one actually is?  This is the reason the journalism industry should break away from the cultural norm and stop relying on social media.  News tweets get ignored for "Bobcat Makeouts" or "OU Confessions".  Why bother with the news when there are more entertaining options?

Courtesy of www.twitter.com @OU_Confessions

Courtesy of www.twitter.com @bobcatmakeOUts

The Glass is Half Empty...

It is a long shot to assume that political biases and social media will stop being important pillars for the journalism industry.  But by breaking these culture norms, it may lead to real journalism, instead of quickly put together, creating sloppy journalism.  Sloppy journalism is becoming our cultural norm, and as much as people seem to complain about it, they still talk about Miley Cyrus's VMA performance even though it happened a week ago.  It starts with us, future journalists, to take a stand to decide what the public truly needs to hear, not what it wants to.  Maybe one day those two will be the same, but for right now, we must unfortunately accept the cultural norm.

The Credibility Crisis and Media Mishaps

Megan Carnahan
mc054910@ohio.edu

The Credibility Crisis and Media Mishaps

With the growth of technology in today's society, we as journalists are able to get our stories out more widely and more efficiently than ever. News is now directly at our fingertips! As soon as something major and newsworthy happens, you can pick up your phone and there are already tons of tweets, posts, blogs and articles about it. However, it wasn't until I read "Moral Reasoning for Journalists" by Steve Knowlton and Bill Reader that I began to realize that there are many downsides to this technological expansion. Although the technological world keeps making advances, journalists' credibility and the public's confidence in their news sources are shrinking. Here's how: 

Social Media 

Be careful in believing everything you find on the Internet! There are many fake profiles, fake stories and fake websites all over the Internet. In fact, here is a list of five, out of many, false news stories that the media reported were true. The problem is that social media sites like Twitter, Facebook and many others allow for just about anyone to share news, leading to errors in judgement, plagiarism and fabrication, once again, decreasing journalists' credibility. The key is to not fall victim! This makes me think of the show Catfish on MTV where Nev Schulman and Max Joseph do some serious profile investigating on the Internet!

http://www.mtv.com/shows/catfish/series.jhtml

Bias

Bias in the media comes from the idea that journalists are unable to report the whole story and all of its facts. Bias happens because stories are sometimes selected to please a certain audience, or they are reported just because everyone else is reporting them, straying away from stories that might offend anyone. Double standards, stereotypes, unclear sources, assumptions and one-sided points of view are things that viewers and readers look for, leading to their distrust in some news outlets.

Tabloid Journalism and Sensationalism

I, personally, fall victim to being a fan of this one. What this topic means exactly, is that the media tends to dwell on and play up sensational stories, like murders, car crashes and gossip columns about celebrities and sports stars. My examples of this are the highly anticipated reunion of the boyband, *N SYNC at the VMAs or how the media is constantly lingering over ex-New England Patriot, Aaron Hernandez's imprisonment and indictment for a murder and other instances of violence. While the media is spending so much time ranting on these topics, they are avoiding important issues like education, foreign aid and the environment. This tendency leads directly into my next point.

http://tvline.com/2013/08/25/nsync-reunion-mtv-vma-2013-video/

http://elitedaily.com/sports/patriots-aaron-hernandez-is-being-questioned-in-murder-case/

Money Matters!

Daily Source mentions a study by the American Society of Newspaper Editors that states that eighty percent of the American public said they believe "journalists chase sensational stories because they think it will sell papers, not because they think it is important news." Money can lead news sources to sacrifice good journalism for good ratings. Money is definitely an influencing factor in people's decisions.

So...

From this research, it is clear that media ethics is becoming more and more troubling. Though I didn't see it before, I now realize that this is clearly an issue. The vast number of news sources there are today, the changing population and the youth's dissatisfaction with traditional news outlets have all been a part of the decreasing confidence and trust in the media.

 A website titled Nieman Reports claims that "in 1985, Americans overwhelmingly viewed the press as “moral” rather than “immoral” (by 54 percent - 13 percent). By 2003, the percentage who called the press immoral had nearly tripled (to 32 percent), though a plurality (45 percent) still viewed it as moral. Not surprisingly, credibility ratings declined sharply during the same period."

Journalists need to regain their credibility and the public's trust, fast! We college students, as the future of the media, need to focus on reasoning, facts and truths rather than expectations, assumptions and emotions. After all, we relish the constitutional security of the First Amendment, but we must be careful not to abuse that capability.

How Ethical Can a Journalist Be?

William Ashton

wa054010@ohio.edu

 http://www2.wlu.edu/images/journalism/signature/journalism_ethics.jpg

Rules and Ethics

As I was reading Steven Knowlton and Bill Reader's "Moral Reasoning For Journalists," one point that struck me was their notation on the norms of journalistic rules. In this section, they discuss how, commonly, journalists have a ground set of codes that they follow from The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), which the authors said journalists often treat as scripture when adhering to their journalistic efforts. But, in a telling piece of information, Knowlton and Reader are quick to note that these "rules" are commonly changing with each yearly addition, meaning that the rules that these journalists try to keep to within each passing year is never really consistent. Their takeaway from this note was to mention that "a journalist should be concerned with ethics, not just rules." This is something that I agree with, wholeheartedly, but it was something that also got me thinking in broader strokes. Namely, this made me ask the question, "If the rules that we hold dear to us are constantly changing, does this mean that ethics are changing, if slightly, too? If so, just how ethicial can one be as a journalist?"

The Evolution of Ethics

After thinking this over, what I believe is the answer to this question is that it is not so much that ethics are changing these days as they are evolving. In our constantly changing world of technology and growing advancements in it for our field, we have to ask ourselves new questions that we never were able to ask before. For example, today, journalists may have to decide if what they post on Twitter is going to cost them their creditability or even their job. But 10 years ago, of course, that question wasn't even a possibility. Therefore, the future of journalism is going to be holding questions to which we have no clue what we are going to be asking. So, ultimately, what should truly be asked is whether or not what we are deciding is ethical is ethical today. 

In his discussion of this question, Craig Silverman, of Poynter, said that the core of ethics are, no matter the time, striving for the human connection. He believes that the heart of journalism is not based on simply telling the story and facts, but to "connect with them through stories, shared experiences and the important developments in our world. In order to enable that, we must act with humanity and with the values and emotions that inspire human connection." As we grow more as a social media society, we learn that we have the ability to connect to our readers, viewers and other audiences in ways that journalists could never even imagine before. With this, we have to keep in mind a new level of ethics, some of which are not completely well-known. 

So, what is the next step?

At this time, I don't think anyone can say for sure. But, ultimately, in order to be the best journalists we can be, we have to make sure that we are striving to be as moral as we can be. Ultimately, the question of how ethical a journalist can be is unanswerable, especially today when the field is going through its revision. But, as Kira Goldenberg argues in the Columbia Journalism Review, "(We) journalists may lose relevance unless we learn to work within rules we don’t always get to make." Even though we don't understand all the rules, we must ultimately follow them the best we can for the greater good of our profession. By following the rules and the ethics of journalism today, we strive to keep the medium in the best quality we possible can. So, even though there is no definitive answer to the question, there is a moral one, and it's the best answer we can give, at least at this time.

How does one benefit the common good

Allie Dosmann
ad449212@ohio.edu

Utilitarianism- Initial Reaction

            After reading a segment of "Moral Reasoning for Journalists" by Steven Knowlton and Bill Reader, I had a few questions about utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the idea that whatever helps the most people is what is the most ethical. This also means that it is a person’s ethical responsibility to prevent pain for as many people as possible. When I first read this theory, I thought that it made perfect sense. By maximizing the happiness and well-being for as many people as possible, you are thereby being the most ethical you could possibly be. Since helping people and protecting their happiness is an ethical thing, then basing your decisions on this concept appears logical. This argument crumbles however, when looked at any closer.

Whose happiness is the most valuable?

This theory implies that lying to a group of people to keep them in the dark over the truth of a painful situation is more logical then telling the truth and causing them pain. Another way to look at this in contrast, is does this justify lying to a source about the real point of your story in order to get more information that will be useful to you? I found this story addressing that issue here. It is something I still feel unsolved about.

I decided simply cannot agree with this concept. What if you are to lie and later the truth comes out? While you were trying to act as ethically as possible at the time by maintaining happiness, you would be increasing pain for the later date when the truth is revealed. 

This theory also is not sound because it implies that someone’s happiness or pain may be more valued than another person’s.  Another flaw is that this concept invites people to rate how much of an emotion they are feeling, whether pain or happiness. This is something that is nearly impossible to do objectively. 

Yet another flaw to this theory is the idea that people might not really know what is best for them. What makes a person happy is very possibly not the most ethical circumstance. For example, if it would make me happy to steal a candy bar and I would not get caught and therefore my mother would not be disappointed and the store clerk would not be angry, does that make it ethical? No. 

*This theory is not all bad. This shows how utilitarianism is the basis for the concept of freedom of expression and speech.

What does this mean about our government?

         Once deciding that this theory is not what I agree with, it led me to question: Why is this the basis of our government? Appeasing the most people does not lead to the most ethical scenario in arguably the majority of situations. There could be people with ill intentions and people who are ignorant to the reality of a situation that make up part of the majority. Therefore, these people’s happiness might not really be in the majority’s best interest or ultimate pleasure when all the information is revealed. The only conclusion I could come to is that a “majority rule” is the only way to make government seem fair, even though some people’s views being weighed equally to other’s may not be such a good thing. 

Talk about something that makes you feel skeptical about government.

Do Ethics and Bias Go Hand In Hand?

Markita Briggs

mb702210@ohio.edu

Media: Can’t Live With You, Can’t Live Without You

Have any of you ever sat back and wondered what the world would be like if there was no such thing as the media? That would mean no daily dose of politics from MSNBC or Fox, no hearing the latest music and news from your favorite radio or television station and God forbid, what if we couldn't get on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram every day? Our generation would lose their minds!

Whether we want to admit it or not, our lives are controlled a great deal by the media. No matter how big or small an incident is you can find some type of coverage about it some how, some way.  As a result, we constantly debate what’s really newsworthy or only entertainment. It’s common for the public to believe that the news they’re receiving is trustworthy, but is the news we’re getting actually accurate, or are we being swayed to believe one opinion over another? The truthfulness of what we’re being informed about all comes down to one thing: the ethics of journalism. 

Reason v. Gut Reaction

Some may wonder, what exactly is ethics? According to this week’s reading here, ethics is the study of good. Good ethics reflect reasoning, while on the contrary unethical choices reflect one’s assumptions, emotions or gut feelings. As journalist, it is expected of us to follow a code of ethics, such as here, to make sound moral decisions, which will eventually affect the public.

What should be considered morally right or wrong may seem obvious to a lot of us, but as history has proven time and time again moral reasoning is influenced by so many various factors. These factors can include but are not limited to religion, social movements or societal norms, so much that I begin to ask myself more and more whether ethical reasoning and being biased can be the same thing, and if not, are they on the same playing field?

The Inevitable Bias

Our reading for this week did not touch on the topic of bias specifically, but it did touch on the role of self in ethical thinking. It was stated that many philosophers believe in something called ethical egoism, the act of making a choice that will produce the greatest good for oneself. I believe that all individuals practice this is some way, but what one must realize is that what you think may be good for you, may not be good for others.

We all know that remaining unbiased is one of the biggest dos in journalism. The goal of news is to reveal both sides of a story, but truthfully it is nearly impossible for one to do so. This is especially impossible when journalists are working for a certain media outlet whose organization’s agenda or purpose is perceived as biased. Take for example The Guardian's recent article here, covering the decision of the Republican Party to boycott CNN and NBC during the 2016 primary election as a result of their upcoming projects covering Hillary Clinton. This is clearly based off a perceived, and maybe evident, bias. However, bias is still the root of the issue.

Our field is in a constant struggle over covering what is fair, covering what is right and covering in a correct way. Ideally, having good ethics is something we all want to live by, but within our field no one will ever completely follow a group of rules, especially if it hinders revealing what one may believe the public should know.  The moral obligation of journalists is really dependent on the journalists themselves and not on a group of rules that society has formed. Personal bias will triumph ethical reasoning every time.

*Photo credit here

Blame It on the Media

Meagan Dixon
md341410@ohio.edu
www.meagandixon.com

The 21st century has an entirely different view on journalism, and it's not a good one. Today we blame almost everything on the media, from eating disorders to mental health disorders. Journalists get blamed for relaying false information on the daily while society loses their trust in reporters one-by-one. It's as if the truth doesn't exist anymore, or at least no one believes it does. How ironic.

Are there honest journalists out there?

This is a tough question these days. As if people don't already have trust issues from parents abandoning them or their high school sweetheart breaking up with them, now we have to worry about whether or not we can trust the people who are supposed to tell our stories of heartbreak to the world.

The thing is, there are honest journalists out there. Reporters, too. Especially Scripps kids (OU, oh yeah)! Sure, the media has gotten a little out of control lately, with Snooki running around half-naked and Miley Cyrus twerking it at the VMAs. The plus side to this is that journalists from the 21st century know that there have been trust issues, and they are here to give journalists a new name.

http://wsfcsintouch.blogspot.com/2011/05/what-does-21st-century-learner-look.html

Ethical to you may be unethical to me.

Ethics in journalism is a big deal now because our generation is the generation of change. We are gaining rights for people, we are creative and we are bold. While some are about tradition here and there, we mostly want to create our own traditions, like supporting gay marriage or having a say on abortion laws. The 21st century is all about the unspoken. Therefore, we seem unethical. We seem like we don't respect people's views because we are willing to talk about the tough subjects.

As mentioned in the article here, ethics focuses on what is possible. Some confuse ethics with law; law is focused on what society allows.

To some, ethics have nothing to do with it. Some people don't believe in morals, they just don't want to be lied to. They are right to feel this way. Journalists are the people with the backstage passes to everything. It's wrong to lie to the public, which is why ethics in journalism has become a prominent subject. The public has been lied to one too many times, and they are disrespecting journalists because of it. It is going to take a generation of journalists to recreate their image to the public.

Journalism is a craft by ability and a trade by content.

Some believe that journalism is a craft, something you do for fun in your spare time. I would have to disagree. Even though most writers are people who were born with this sixth sense for writing, others see the art in writing and believe in its purpose.

Journalism is everything to do with communication. It is reporting, writing, story-telling, ethics, creativity, event planning and so much more.

For those that say journalists are unethical and have no sense of right from wrong, I would tell them to look here. Most journalists of the 21st century abide by this, so get ready for a new wave of journalism.