Finding the Balance: Journalistic Freedom, Ethics, and Respecting the Citizen

Kayla Blanton
kb408112@ohio.edu

As our readings pulled from Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel's book, The Elements of Journalism, point out, we as journalists are faced with multiple decisions and thought processes to maneuver through before, during, and after a story is produced. As representatives of ourselves as journalists and the media outlet we will be employed by, it's our job to consider all of these important elements with each and every story that our name is behind, no matter how big or small. Not only do we have to consider all of these with each project, but it's important that we consider each element with the same amount of interest and commitment.

What are these elements, you ask?

With every project we are assigned, we have to find a balance within our own freedoms that we have as journalists and American citizens, as well as between the ethical code of our own and that of the media organization for which we work, and last but not least, between said elements and the opinion and feelings of the source and/or third party involved.This third party can be considered as an interviewee who provides information for your story and/or the viewer that is consuming the content being produced.

If any of these elements are neglected, the quality of a story can be compromised. If not in the eyes of your own, it's possible that a source may think differently when they read a story. It's our job as journalists to make news, even the hardest  hitting of news that many may have a hard time dealing with, digestible and informative, without sugar-coating true events. However, as journalists, I think it's important to understand the situation of a source in times of tragic news, and to know how to respect their thoughts and feelings in the production of your news story, without reporting in a biased or unprofessional manner. In other words, we should do our best to minimize harm on our sources, as discussed by fellow journalist and Society of Professional Journalists member Fred Brown in this article.

In an article found on The Barre Montpelier Times Argus website, a media ethics class similar to ours discussed this subject with a woman who has experienced being a target source of the media first hand. "It makes you feel entrapped," said Mariah Phillips, whose father, Capt. Richard Phillips was being held hostage by Somali pirates while she was being asked to provide more information on the incident. This is only one example of many situations where the sensitivity of a source must be balanced with a journalist's code of ethics and freedom to inform and ask questions.

Writing a balanced story that is put together based on the implementation of these elements is vital to every story, but especially those that will directly affect the personal life of a source. I think the Times Argus article provides a good example of this type of story, as well as the recent breaking story of the Roanoke, VA journalist shooting, that affected the lives of many. As journalists and as citizens, we never know when this type of news will break, so it's important to be prepared to ask yourself and your potential sources the questions that are ethically and journalistically sound.

flickr.com

Diversity within the Newsroom

Tiffany Bey
tb908912@ohio.edu

Diversity in the newsroom is on the rise, and I absolutely love it! Being an African-American woman and dreaming to be a reporter someday makes me feel even more optimistic seeing more and more people that look just like me on my television screen! Reporters such as Robin Roberts, Juju Chang, Soledad O'brien, Oprah, Gayle King and many more have paved the way for many minorities that hope to be in the news industry.

Courtesy of American Society of Newspaper Editors

But then the question leads to, are the minorities just behind the scenes? Are they in the newsroom, but not on the television screen? Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. A newsroom is made up of many roles and the only role we mainly see on our television screens are the anchors, so with that being said, maybe there are more minorities in the newsroom than we think. Data still shows that we have a lot more work to do!

Although I've been noticing more and more diversity within the newsrooms, according to "American Society of Newspaper Editors" 90% of the newsroom employees are white. That means only 10% are minorities. This is an issue because America is made up of many racial backgrounds and just having white people in the newsroom is a false representation of America. In the text that we read titled "The Elements of Journalism" it says "getting more minorities in the newsroom is a target, but not the goal", and I totally disagree with that statement. I think the goal should indeed be to recruit more minorities into the newsrooms because diversity is something that brands a company. 

Viewers at home, want to be able to see people on television that look similar to them. That includes, Asians, African-Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans and etc. For example, If I'm at home watching the news and I only see white people on my screen, I'm going to think hmm are my people not good enough for the job? I want to be able to connect and trust what the anchor is telling me, but I can't do that if I'm questioning the fact that I don't see a minority in sight. Also, I think it says a lot about the company. Again, going back to the concept of "branding". If a news station only has white employees, it makes me feel that they're not open to diversity, which makes me disconnected to the news station.

Courtesy of Free Press

Gender is also an issue. The pie chart above shows that only 38% females work in the newsroom. That's less than half! For years, diversity has been an issue in the United States of America, but I'm hopeful that there will be more progress in this area. Its strange to me because I feel that I see more female anchors than male anchors, so the data actually surprised me! Females have always been given "the short hand of the stick", but I still believe that I've seen more females reporters than males.
I'm looking forward to seeing more minorities in the news industry, and I'm definitely looking forward to be apart of that change!

What's News?

Spenser Dopp

sd470213@ohio.edu

Journalists do not always have carte blanche over what stories they deal with. Sometimes journalists are asked to cover stories that they would prefer not to, and other times they are asked not to cover stories that they truly believe in. How journalists react in these situations tells us a great deal about them and the industry in which they work.

In 2005, Bob Costas declined to host CNN’s Larry King Live, saying, “I didn’t think the subject matter of Thursday’s show was the kind of broadcast I should be doing.” The broadcast in question was about the May 2005 disappearance of Natalee Holloway, a story that had already been grossly overreported. Costas was praised for his decision to not pile onto the redundant and unproductive news coverage of a months-old disappearance.

In 1997, Carol Marin resigned from her job as an anchor at WMAQ in Chicago because she disagreed with the decision to bring Jerry Springer onto the news.  She felt that Jerry Springer and his material were too sleazy for a serious news operation.

Costas and Marin both faced pressure from above to conform to what they considered a sub-standard practice of journalism. Rather than meekly accept their assignments and perfunctorily carry them out, these public servants decided to stand up for their principles in support of good journalism.

Credit: nytimes.com

I do not have a concrete definition of what news is or should be, but I can tell you now that something like Jerry Springer does not make the cut. Neither does incessantly repetitive coverage of, say, the disappearance of a Malaysian Airlines plane. Another example of what I consider faux-news is coverage of celebrities.

When Justin Bieber egged his neighbor’s house, everyone in America who watched the evening news was made aware. I cannot understand why. The time and resources spent on that story could have been devoted to covering science, politics, law, economics or just about any other topic that would have been infinitely more beneficial to bring into the public eye than the latest shenanigans of a young pop star. It’s a shame that the people working at our top news networks apparently do not have a problem airing stories devoid of any value beyond perhaps entertainment. News is meant to serve many purposes, and entertainment is definitely not near the top of the list.

Either the journalists who cover stories like Justin Bieber throwing eggs truly believe that these stories are newsworthy, or they recognize that these stories are garbage but choose to pursue and air them anyway in place of real news. In any case, I am disheartened and incensed. News is meant to play an important role in our democratic society, and every “news” story about celebrity gossip or skydiving cats distracts from that role and that mission to the detriment of our entire culture.

I got into journalism because when I watch or read what passes for national news I feel upset. I worry that this faux-news is damaging to the good name of American journalism, as well as to the audiences that news journalists are meant to work with and for. There may be a place in the world of journalism for celebrity gossip, scare tactics and otherwise frivolous stories, but that place is not on the prime time slots of our nation’s top news networks or on the front pages of our leading newspapers.

I hope that this trend of reporting bunk news stories is on the way out. I hope that more journalists and news consumers alike begin to acknowledge that these stories have no business taking resources and attention away from truly newsworthy subjects that could stand to benefit us all.

Should ABC News Cover Disney?

Zachary Berry
zb781311@ohio.edu

Disney is often considered the happiest company on the planet. From beloved films like The Lion King to amazing theme parks like Disneyland, just the thought of Disney evokes fond memories in the minds of people. It's also one of the fastest growing companies in the world. Disney seems to have placed mouse ears on intellectual properties in every facet of the industry, from ESPN to Marvel Comics and the Muppets! Disney's acquisition of all these companies has some people perceiving the company less like this:

Courtesy of Disney Parks

And more like this:

Only with Mickey Ears
Cartoon by Udo Keppler

Having your fingers in media conglomerate pie can make things a little sticky, especially when news associations are involved. That's the situation Disney found itself in when it acquired ABC nearly 20 years ago. 

Rewinding time, ABC was established in 1943. ABC's connection with Disney has its roots long before the two companies merged. According to Designing Disney.com, ABC agreed to loan Disney $500,000 to help with the construction of Disneyland if ABC could air a weekly Disney-themed program on their channel. Enter The Wonderful World of Disney and other Disney programs broadcasted on ABC. 

In the 1980s, ABC merged with media company Capital Cities Communications. During this time, ABC News programs were number one across the board in every time slot, covering a variety of hard pressure news.

In 1996, Disney bought out Capital Cities, thus acquiring ABC. This led to some big changes. First, legendary ABC News president Ron Arledge stepped down from his position two years after the acquisition, according to the LA Times. Rumors abound that Arledge was forcibly removed after his management style clashed with Disney's vision.

The true test of ABC's relationship with Disney came about that very same year. Brian Ross, a reporter working at ABC News, was covering a story about lax employment security at theme parks across the country that could allow convicted pedophiles to be hired. This included Disneyland and Disney World.

However, days before the story was set to be published, it was terminated, according to The New York Times. Critics immediately claimed that Disney had pressured the company it now controlled into not publishing the story.

Adding fuel to the fire were statements made by then CEO of Disney, Michael Eisner. A few days before the story was shelved, Eisner was quoted on NPR as saying, "I would prefer ABC not to cover Disney...I think it's inappropriate for Disney to be covered by Disney."

ABC denied that the decision to terminate the story was due to pressure from upper-mouse management. The story's termination raises the question: Should ABC News cover Disney?

On one hand, it is an ethical responsibility of a journalist to inform the public of the news. That means all the facts presented in a true and unbiased way. Journalists are supposed to be watchdogs of corrupt companies, not lapdogs for Disney like Pluto is to Mickey.

Courtesy of Disney Clip Art

On the other hand, just as Disney might pressure ABC to ax bad news, they could also pressure ABC to highlight good news. If done improperly, ABC News reports about the parent company could sound more like the march from the Mickey Mouse Club.

Fortunately, ABC News has not always shied away from stories depicting Disney in a negative light. An ABC news station covered a story about a family who filed a complaint after a Disneyland employee commented the mother needed to wear less revealing clothing in the park.  This is an optimistic sign that ABC can and does in fact present Disney News from an unbiased perspective.

The balancing act of serving your company and serving the public is one that journalists struggle with every day. There is no quintessential guide for navigating the tightrope, and one false step could lead to a fall into the abyss below. 

One way to make the task at hand easier is clear communication between journalists and company heads. If the executives recognize the duty of journalists to report the news truthfully, and if clear, but reasonable, boundaries are put in place for journalists, fewer conflicts of interest will arise. With more companies becoming conglomerates, it would appear that the issue will become more prevalent and more difficult to solve in the near future. 

Despite an atmosphere of uncertainty from the public audience, there is good news for ABC. Last year, ABC News earned some of its best ratings since the days of Arledge. Hopefully, it can earn those ratings without trading integrity for a ride with Steamboat Willie. 

Media Bias; Is it real or not?

T.L. Schilling

ts568115@ohio.edu

In today’s media there are certainly what seems to be “biases” among the networks. If one watches television, especially around this time of an election year, it clear to see. FOX news is synonymous with the conservative point of view while the major networks of ABC, NBC, CBS, and notable cable station MSNBC are labeled liberal by some. There are facts to back up these claims as seen in an article from http://newsbusters.org/ regarding statements made about Mitt Romney. Below are some numbers of where respondents of a recent poll said they derived their news information from.

                                     Courtesy of Business Insider

Whether or not you subscribe to the theory of bias in the news media you should be reminded of the old adage of “perception is reality”. For this very reason, I conducted my own survey to see if there is any truth to this question.

I asked 10 people of whom I felt were conservative in their political views where they news information from. Of those 10 conservative view people asked, 7 of them said FOX news or the Huffington Post. I was somewhat surprised to hear that every one of those 7 who said either FOX News or The Huffington Post said so because they believed that the other media outlets were too liberal in their views and that those two media outlets were not as biased. I think you know where the next part of the story is going, right?

 So then I asked 10 people of whom I felt would be more liberal in their views the same question I asked of the conservative group and got more staggering results. I was stunned to hear that 9 out of 10 said that they either watched or listened to anything but FOX News. The typical answers were CNN, MSNBC and of course the always reliable answer of “I don’t care; they’re all a bunch of liars anyway”. All of this says what about the media and the public’s view of them? It says that perception is reality.

The whole theory of bias in the news media, to me at least, is no more apparent than with the first election of Barrack Obama some of which can be read in this interesting article from the L.A. Times.  The campaign of hope and change was inscribed into the national spotlight with a barrage of massive media blitzes and high dollar affairs.

 Obama's backers were a who’s who of America's elite and his campaign was masterfully orchestrated to reach the younger voters. This is when the “biased” battle lines seemed to be drawn a little deeper in the sand than ever before. It seemed to pit the younger more open minded generation against the old guard, more staunch conservatives wondering where the good old days of Mr. Reagan had gone. Yet one thing sticks out to me as much now as it did then. In keeping with the “time for change” theme, once Obama had been elected, he was hailed as the first African –American president of these great United States of America. The more accurate headline could have very well read “Obama, America’s bi-racial president”. Yes, his father is an African –American from Kenya, but his Caucasian mother is from Kansas (a fact usually left out of discussions).

I don’t think that there will ever be a totally bias free media. I think in today’s world of vast resources, we can talk ourselves into just about anything we want to believe in. The main reason there may never be a totally bias free media is: Perception is reality.

  

The Evolution of Ethics

Samantha Schilder
ss469613@ohio.edu

Today we ask ourselves, "what is the purpose of journalism?" Does it carry the same meaning it had over 300 years ago when you heard press through song and story? Today the story can be heard via hashtag, Instagram,  Twitter, Snap chat, Facebook post etc. The list can go on and on; why?

We are evolving. We are currently living in the generation of the future. What we learn today will be something new tomorrow.

As we evolve things that were once considered rational are now considered to be irrational. In regards to my generation. An ethical dilemma that has had an impact on me was the recent scandal on the Alabama Alpha Phi Recruitment video.

The video received attention from a wide platform, US magazine, ABC news, The Huffington Post and many more; including social media.

Courtesy of US magazine

The chapter was criticized because the sorority was 'objectifying' recruitment and women as well as showing no form of diversity. As a sorority member here at Ohio University, our Formal Recruitment is taking place this coming weekend. The Women's Panhellenic Association strives to make each member coming through recruitment  feel as comfortable as possible. To look at the attention Alpha Phi has received, I question the feedback we could potentially receive as any Greek member across the nation.

As time evolves, our opinions can be easily heard through news outlets out of our hands. With a simple click you can actively become a "journalist."

A journalist is here to inform and provide, but above all things; provide truth.  Many people feel entitled to their own opinion which is important. In regards to the Alpha Phi recruitment video the women of this chapter received backlash mainly from past generations, the generations that didn't grow up with social media or "e-readers."

As a generation Y; I ask myself, "Is the 2015 Alpha Phi recruitment video getting attention because past generations aren't evolving over time?"

Is ethics something that has lost its meaning or has the meaning just grown into something that we "the majority" can relate to. Did this video go viral with over 700,000 clicks in less than 2 days because of the sorority stereotype? We could form hundreds of questions that could have hundreds of different answers. That's what keeps journalism media in business, it leaves you wanting more, you receive information and spread the word.

http://quotes.lifehack.org/quote/viggo-mortensen/i-like-stories-that-leave-you-wanting/

The norms of journalism are always being redefined but the problem we carry as a whole is we aren't redefining with the change we see.  The traditional platforms of journalism will always remain, although it may not always be black and white, we will continue to spread the word through professional platforms and "professional tweets." As we grow more and more greedier to receive information as quickly as possible, we also grow to accept the information we receive with a little more acceptance. As for ethics goes, remember, the next time you only have 140 characters to voice your opinion, those 140 characters go a long way.

Can Ethical Responsibility Be Organic?

Tracy Brewer

Tb289493@ohio.edu

Many believe that common sense is innate.  People either have it or they do not.  Can ethics be placed in the same category?  Or is being ethical something that we are only taught?  Is it more than knowing right from wrong?  And how is today’s ethics different than our parent’s generation?

Courtesy of picturequotes.com

In our reading it’s mentioned “every generation creates its own journalism.”  I bet our parents didn’t see these creations coming!  “Blogging,” “tweeting,” “facebooking,” “snapchatting” and the list continues to grow almost every day.  The way we consume the news is fast and furious.  Once upon a time you watched television for the news and those offering it were trusted and reliable.  What happened to that trust?  What causes someone with so much credibility to decide to fabricate or embellish a situation?  Is it the pressure to “go viral?”  Is there so much competition with the noise of other “journalists” that you need to differentiate yourself by stretching what happens to you in certain circumstances?

Courtesy of The Huffington Post - A favorite news source for me.

We assume that Brian Williams had a class similar to this, when he was in college.  We can also assume he knew the consequences he would face with adding a bit more drama to his recollection, right?  Shouldn’t he have been taught this?  Or maybe we feel he was one of those with common sense and he would just know right from wrong. Changing gears from being the go-to source for news and competing with 140 character tweets that run 24/7 can be a bit …threatening. 

Bloggers and Vloggers have changed the landscape of journalism.  No longer do you have to work for a company to have a valid voice.  People have created their own way.  People have defined themselves, marketed their own niche and gained HUGE followers.  Some have been taught.  Others have an organic charm that helps their message attract followers.  Then there is a mixture of the two.  So where do their “ethics” come from?  How do they know how to “act” when everyone is watching them or hanging on their every word?  I found an interesting video about ethics in blogging by an international blogger.

To hear how (almost every) blogger begins by sharing personal accounts as a way to just find some individuality… to growing that voice into an actual company, is amazing.  One way that pepper.ph sustains ethics is through transparency.  Attempting to let the audience know if a post is sponsored is a great way to keep the trust up. 

But what if your blog grew from controversy?  What if everyone or everything you spoke about wanted to sue you for giving your opinion?  As Perez Hilton found out when he began his unique blog, he was known as a Hollywood troublemaker when he started. 

Everyone wanted to press charges of his use of their “photos” as he shared them on his blog.  Little by little, these people realized the old adage “there is no bad publicity” and the attention they grew from his opinions started to give him a valid (as much as it can be in Hollywood) voice.  So, whose ethics changed?  Was it Perez’s ethics?  Was it the celebrities?  How about the readers and followers of his messages?  Was what he did just breaking a new mold and the internet realized that this was a new norm.  This method was a new “gossip mag” format that they just needed to accept?  More and more celebrities are taking the shock out of it and just posting such “scandal” themselves (Hello, Kardashians) to get the attention first. 

So without the filters, the people deciding what we follow, watch or find “newsworthy” how do you define ethics in journalism. Because, how do you define journalism?  We can’t blame the networks when we’re offended anymore because we’re going to see it or hear about it on social media.  If you can’t figure out how to use social media correctly, then how you can blame it when it shows you something unethical.  I hear time and time again people are made at something that comes up on their Facebook wall.  Well if you knew how to manage your wall, follow, list, categorize and operate all of the functions available to you, then maybe those “unethical” images/videos/posts would not appear.  You can’t complain about a FREE social media service and then turn around and gripe about it when you’re not using it correctly!  Take a class, read a tutorial, ask a friend…but don’t rant about how it operates when you’re not operating correctly. 

People have almost limitless choices for journalism today. Traditional mediums are still around (maybe temporarily…it’s yet to be the end of the newspaper) and ethics in all mediums are still very important.  But the way ethics is defined has also changed.  People are more “tolerant” (for lack of a better word) towards what is acceptable because we want to KNOW everything immediately.  We will follow a story and repost it ourselves, without checking facts. We want to be the FIRST one to share it.  Heck, we’ll just go check snopes.com later to see if it was a “real” story.  So has our requirement for ethics softened?  Are we going to tune into MSNBC and watch Brian Williams for the news or to see how he handles being back on the air? How does our attitude towards journalism define our own ethics as a consumer of media?  Maybe that’s the better question to ask since we are truly in control of our journalistic behavior.