Ethical Entertainment

Julia Brown
jb863113@ohio.edu

Why do ethics matter today?

In the time of the 24 hour news cycle, why are ethics important?  Isn't it more important to get a story out to your readers before anyone else instead of stopping to think about the ethical implications a story may have?

But ethics are still important. They create a sense of credibility and authenticity for the publication, building a deep-rooted bond between author and reader.

According to “Moral Reasoning for Journalists,” the press wields a lot of power and has many constitutional rights, and “abuse of that power can have disastrous consequences for their governments, their societies, and their major institutions.”

But what happens as it gets more and more difficult to maintain a reader’s attention? What happens when the lines between journalism and entertainment become blurred?

Entertainment Journalism

In order to keep readers’ attention in this world of ever-changing media, news outlets have had to adapt to the constant transformation of broadcast, print, and web-based journalism, which is dictated by what people are interested in right now.

An easy and obvious way to adapt is to look at what types of media people consume outside of the typical journalism outlets of, say, a newspaper.

As MP3 players and smart phones have reason to popularity, so have podcasts. According to the Associated Press Style Guide, a podcast is a  “digital media program, in audio or video form, that can be downloaded or streamed to a computer, smartphone or portable media device.”

One of the more popular podcasts, “Serial,” is blurring the line between news and entertainment. The podcast examines the 1999 murder of high school senior Hae Min Lee, and the later conviction of her ex-boyfriend Adnan Syed.

An article from The New Yorker claimed the podcast combined “the drama of prestige-television-style episodic storytelling [with the] the portability of podcasts…”

Photo from: http://dudeslovethis.com/serial-podcast-returns-season-two/

But is that what we want?  Do we want our news presented to us as an episode of reality television, no different from the new episode of “Keeping Up With the Kardashians”?  Or is there a way to maintain listener interest while still adhering to basic journalistic ethics?

The Ethical Issues Within “Serial”

“Think Progress” examinedthe ethical dilemmas that are posed by a podcast like “Serial”. For example, the podcast uses several storytelling tactics that are rarely seen in typical journalism, like cliffhangers and personal asides.

The podcast has become as much about the way it's being told as it is about the actual story that's taking place. 

“Serial” is also a story that has yet to have a true conclusion. Throughout the first season of the podcast, reporter Sarah Koenig would release information to the listeners sporadically as she uncovered it, without putting the whole puzzle together first.

From left, Dana Chivvis, Emily Condon, Sarah Koenig, Ira Glass and Julie Snyder of "Serial." Photo from: http://www.wsj.com/articles/serial-podcast-catches-fire-1415921853

This has the potential to create ideas or doubts that turn out to be baseless and false. “You don’t want to be giving voice to things because they’re plausible, or they’re possible, if they turn out to be false,” said Edward Wasserman, dean of the University of California Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.

Wasserman also cited the problem of reverb: “the problem of the reporting she’s doing now interacting with the reporting she’s going to do tomorrow.”

What Now?

So why do so many people cry out that journalism has lost its way, yet they continue to lap up this story with many obvious ethical oversights?

Perhaps that’s because it addresses the other issues people have with the media: “it’s shallow; it’s boring; it panders.” 

The future of journalism lies in finding a way to promote the story that needs to be told in an entertaining way while preserving the ethical values that have given journalists the important reputation of being the watchdog for the average person.

Morality is the Gray Area of Journalism

Keily Balduff
kb641512@ohio.edu


Journalists function as the middle man within our society. The majority of what people read, hear or watch is coming from the hard work of journalists. The morality behind what journalists publish is questioned now more than ever. What is ethical journalism? To what moral standards are we supposed to hold journalists?

It is a journalist's job to serve the public by delivering the news that we would otherwise not be given. In the book Moral Reasoning for Journalists by Steven Knowlton and Bill Reader, the first chapter covers ethics from ancient Greece to modern day. Journalists are held to a moral standard in which they are expected to maintain morality while providing useful and truthful information.

Money, spinmeisters, tabloid journalism, and political bias are cited as "reasons for the sorry state of the news business." Each topic has strong holds within the journalism community and it is clear that sometimes, they take ahold of the journalist. These reasons for unethical journalism play like a broken record. In an online publication, Columbia Journalism Review, an article titled "The Worst Journalism of 2014" highlights the low points of journalism. This article provides examples and, in my opinion, the most shocking are the ethical mishaps of CNN anchor, Don Lemon. In a time where there is a national conversation surrounding sexual assault, the insensitivity of a seasoned news anchor proves how easy the lines of ethical and unethical journalism can be blurred. An excerpt from Lemon's interview with an alleged rape victim of Bill Cosby's is as followed, "You know, there are many ways not to perform oral sex if you didn't want to do it... Meaning the use of the teeth, right?" Below is the full video clip of the interview.




The fine line that journalists walk in order to produce investigative and influential work has become increasingly easy to cross. Even seasoned reporters dip their toes, or dive head first, into an unethical firestorm.

In relation to the ethics of journalism, Knowlton and Reader make a point in Moral Reasoning for Journalists when discussing journalism as a profession or a craft. "Those who argue that journalism is a profession note its similarities to other professions. Journalism, medicine, and law all have important public service roles... including ethics codes." On the other hand, those who view journalism as a craft note that "...although journalists do have their own codes of ethical behavior, there is not governing body for journalists that has the power to prevent transgressors from practicing." While each argument makes valid points, it is important to remember that regardless of journalism being a craft or a profession, it is important to remain ethical in reporting.

At the end of the day journalists are at an ethical disadvantage. Protected by the First Amendment, journalists could be "unethical" if they so choose. Personally, I believe that journalists have a responsibility to themselves and the public to provide hard hitting, important and influential news while trying to maintain a moral high ground.

Methods, not just outcomes, should be ethically sound

Maygan Beeler
mb076912@ohio.edu

Physicians take The Hippocratic Oath, pledging to “first, do no harm.” It’s probably fair to assume that most people would prefer to harm as few individuals as possible in any given situation. This idea that actions are ethical if they produce the most good for the most people, called utilitarianism, is one way journalists approach ethical dilemmas. When weighed against journalism’s purpose and the responsibility journalists have to their audience, however, it may not always be the best approach.

The reading Moral Reasoning for Journalists explains that utilitarianism is in line with populism and democracy, concepts from which journalism is derived. When examined in this context, it makes sense that journalists should operate under the notion that people are equally important and thus entitled to their share of the good. Utilitarianism seems logical in situations like Watergate, during which coverage of the scandal was not beneficial for President Nixon, but was beneficial for the majority of the American people. Journalists have a duty to enlighten the public and prevent power from resting with a few, unchecked individuals. There are some instances, though, when doing the most good for the most people can still be considered unethical.

Utilitarianism considers the outcomes of a certain action, but doesn’t account for the methods used to reach that outcome. For example, if a journalist is seeking to expose a fraudulent business practice to save consumers millions of dollars but deceives the business owner in the process, the act could be considered unethical. Likewise, a journalist aiming to uncover flaws in the health system to benefit the general public could be seen as unethical if they didn’t identify themselves to healthcare administrators as a reporter or if they lied in some way to receive information.

This is not a new issue.

In the late 1800s, journalist Nellie Bly feigned mental illness so that she would be committed to a “mad-house” for the purpose of secretly reporting the conditions within. While this illuminated poor conditions suffered by mental health patients and potentially helped a majority of people, Bly’s tactics were unethical.

Moral Reading for Journalists goes on to express that an entirely utilitarian approach would allow the government to execute an innocent person for no other reason than to appease a rioting crowd. This example is extreme, but illustrates a good point.

When rioting was at its height in Ferguson, MO in 2014, journalists were quick to blast social media with videos and images of looting and other signs of unrest. It was beneficial for the majority of Americans to see and try to comprehend the situation so that aid could be organized and solutions could be considered. However, as pointed out in the article Unethical journalism can make Ferguson more dangerous, the photos and videos gave police the opportunity to look more closely at specific individuals involved. This closer look put those in the area (innocent or not) at a greater risk of being identified, (correctly or not) then arrested.

While a utilitarian approach to journalism ethics may be an easy and obvious choice, it is worth considering the consequences of acting on a philosophy that doesn’t consider right or wrong independent of outcome.

Photo provided via The University of Pennsylvania, Digital Library

Philosophical Theories That Could Help Journalists?

Emily Cunningham
ec470514@ohio.edu

http://www.theswcsun.com/good-journalism-requires-integrity-fairness-and-courage/

It is no secret that many people in today’s world are questioning ethics in journalism. “Moral Reasoning for Journalists” accurately states that “because of corruption, bias, or sloth, journalists are not living up to their moral obligations to report and write certain things and in certain ways.” Journalists are doing everything they possibly can to increase profits, status, ratings, circulations, etc.

I understand that journalists struggle with making ethical decisions when reporting and writing stories for their audiences. However, I think it is important for them to understand that the choices they make directly affect our society as a whole. The only way to fix this spiraling problem is to have journalists make better ethical choices. When making ethical choices, one uses reasoning to decide. Unethical choices are decided upon by using “assumption, emotion, or reflex” (Moral Reasoning for Journalist’s).

Actually, I really enjoyed reading “Moral Reasoning for Journalists” because it defined a number of philosophical theories that I believe would help a journalist make ethically and morally right decisions. The three theories that stood out to me the most were ethical egoism, teleology, and utilitarianism.

Ethical egoism would be used if a journalist wanted to make a decision that resulted in an outcome that best fit his or her needs. In today’s world we see a lot of journalists using ethical egoism to make decisions. They come up with solutions that will benefit themselves the most.

The theory of teleology is also one that a journalist could use to help make better ethical decisions. When using teleology as a decision making tool, a journalist will need to consider what could happen in both cases. Then make a choice depending on which one provides the most “good.”

Utilitarianism philosophy is similar to teleology, but with a slight difference. If a journalist was going to use utilitarianism to make an ethical decision, they would make a choice that produces the most “good,” for the most amount of people.  (When researching utilitarianism, I found a great article that delves into further examples of all three theories, that could be helpful to someone who is more interested).

I’ve sat for a while now thinking about which theory would be the best one for a journalist to use when making an ethical decision. I threw out ethical egoism first. There is too much of that kind of decision making being used on a daily basis by journalists. To be frank, it is obviously not helping our current ethical problem in journalism.

Mulling back and forth between using teleology or utilitarian ethical decision making, I ran across a video that helped me decide which was best, “The Most Important Ethical Issues in Journalism Are the Human ones.” This video of a journalist who told of a time when he used real last names in a story, which caused the featured family to be ridiculed by many.

 

Watching the video made me realize journalists should use a utilitarian way of making ethical decisions. People are the reason why journalists have something to report about. People are also the reason that journalists still have jobs; they are the ones that are reading the stories. When making ethical decisions, I whole heartedly believe that journalists should make choices that provide not only the most “good,” but the most “good” for the greatest amount of people. People are the reason why journalism exists, so why not make ethical decisions that will most benefit the people.

Ethical Egoism or Public's Closing Ears

Allison Cook

ac830913@ohio.edu

Warning: This article contains a photo at the end that can be seen as graphic.

When having a discussion with my Ethics class about what pushes a journalist to be unethical, many of the groups reasons related to the journalist's personal interests, most commonly relating back to money. Examples included: rushing to get an article done in time, making the story more exciting so the journalist would get more clicks or views, bias toward one side to attract a certain audience and trying to make a story out of nothing. A lot of these unethical decisions come from the journalist's pressure to keep his/her job and get paid.

According to Moral Reasoning for Journalists by Steven Knowlton and Bill Reader, ethical egoism is defined as a way of thinking that reflects the idea that "all of us are, eventually, concerned only with our own well-being," or acting "upon that choice that will produce the greatest good for me."

The ideas of what make journalists unethical in my class seems to echo the same ideas that I hear from many of my relatives, friends, co-workers, and even other scholars and journalists themselves. In Malcolm Harris's article 'Unethical journalism can make Ferguson more dangerous,' Harris talks about how by taking photos of the Ferguson curfew violators put them in danger. 

Harris mentioned in his article that, through social media, he saw fellow journalists showing very little regard to "the well-being of their subjects, repeatedly putting them at further risk of harm" by telling the media, and therefore the police, exactly where the violators were at that very moment. 

Harris attributes this unethical behavior to the environment where the correct picture or post can gain a journalist thousands of followers on Twitter and national profile. Harris noted in his article, "Journalists are supposed to care about people's safety as well as the quality of their stories and the number of followers on Twitter they gain."

Jenny Marc reports similar ethical problems in "Journalists reposting on the refugee crisis are acting unethically. I've seen it first hand in Calais." Marc talks about her time in Calais, France and her experiences with the refugees and filming. 

Marc makes a point in her article to emphasize the time she takes to gain the subject's trust and consent before pointing a lens in his/her face. Why many of the subjects turned down her request to film them for her stories did not come clear until she began asking them. She found, "that the reason was part of the story too." The subjects feared harming the family and friends that had been left behind. 

Unfortunately, Marc notes that she saw and heard from many refugees and volunteers, that several fellow journalists were filming whatever they wanted or needed for their stories. Marc finished her article with, "I worry that some of us are forgetting to employ the most basic and human practices of all" to stop, to ask and to listen."

In both of these cases, one could say that these journalists were working and acting for their own personal gains, whether it be to gain likes or to please an editor. But maybe there is another side to this. Maybe journalists are doing what they know how to do best: get the facts and the story to those of us in the nation that can't be there to witness the tragedy ourselves.

Knowlton and Reader talk in their book about the idea that deep down people (and animals) want to keep their society functioning. The example Knowlton and Reader use is with bees. A bee will return to the hive to tell her bee co-workers that there is a good patch of flowers and she will then give them directions on how to get to the flowers. If she "were to transmit false information and thus send the other bees off in the wrong direction, the whole hive would suffer."

In other words, while there are better ways to obtain and send the information out, in the moment the journalists may be just reporting what they can and have to get the true information to the readers. Take the 'Falling Man,' a photo of a man falling from one of the Twin Towers on 9/11, for example.

In 'The Falling Man: An Interview with Henry Singer' by Adam Harrison Levy, Levy and Singer talk about the photo itself (and other 9/11 photos) as well as the ethical dilemma with photos.

Singer makes the point that the image serves as a representation to the audience of the true horror of the day. He also mentions that the victims who chose to jump from the towers "weren't acknowledged. And there is nothing worse (than) not being acknowledged." These people existed. These people were a part of families who mourned their loss in the days following. Pictures like The Falling Man are proof that the jumpers were there and are victims of the tragedy too. 

Levy asked Singer, "Should there be a moral or an aesthetic limit to images of atrocity?" Singer agreed that there should be, but that each person draws the line of what's okay to publish at a different place. 

I think, overall, The Falling Man is a photo that was needed in the news of the tragedy. Yes, some say it was gruesome and even unethical to shoot a photo of a man dying, but in this case it was a part of the attack. It was a point that needed to be acknowledged so that the public could move forward in their response to the attacks. 

 

Photo Credit: AP Photo/Richard Drew "The Falling Man"

This last point comes back to the idea of the hive being able to thrive because the truth of the information was given. As for Calais and Ferguson, there were better, more ethical ways that could produce the same, or at least similar responses. In the case of Ferguson, Harris suggested that the journalist take timing into consideration: publishing the details or photos after a small delay is good enough for the readers and has no use for the police. According to Harris, "taking time to think about consequences for your subjects isn't an abdication of your duties as a journalist; it's a vital part of fulfilling them."

Good and Legal is Not Always Ethical

Christina Brosovich 
cb251613@ohio.edu 

Journalists are gatekeepers. It is their job to keep the public educated about what is happening at home and abroad. This is not an easy task, especially when ethics are added into the mix. A good journalist tries to be as transparent as possible, so they produce stories rich with images, interviews, and information. Journalists tend to have good intentions when gathering information and reporting, however, it is possible to look past ethics in the pursuit of a good story.

The reading Moral Reasoning for Journalists discusses ethical goals from the ancient Greeks. They stated, “we urge you to stop thinking of the terms ethical and unethical as synonyms from good and bad.” Following this school of thought indicates that a report can be good, but unethical and vise versa. 

In 1965 Morley Safer reported on the Vietnam War from Cam Ne, Vietnam. Safer’s broadcast was “controversial” due to the negative portrayal of US Marines. He received death threats and President Lyndon Johnson reprimanded CBS for allowing this story to be aired. This story was meant to give Americans an “uncensored” look into the Vietnam War. It was a sound or “good” report, with accurate facts and images. However, this broadcast was found unethical, because it was offensive to the men fighting in Vietnam and Americans. 

In Ferguson, Missouri after police shot Michael Brown journalists’ ethics were called into question. According to Malcolm Harris’ article Unethical journalism can make Ferguson more dangerous, “We also saw journalists display a shocking disregard for the well-being of their subjects, repeatedly putting them at further risk of harm.” The lack of respect for sources'  safety and mental state created a negative relationship between protestors, the public and the media. The pressure to be first or have the most emotional interview was damaging to the media’s reputation in Ferguson and has affected the public’s view of the media on all "Black Lives Matter" issues, Blatantly ignoring ethics harms everyone.

Harris also claims, “Just because journalists can legally get away with something doesn’t mean they should.” He believes journalists abused their power and legal protection to exploit sources. A story may be good, but if it is based on unethically acquired information it can have negative consequences. 

The First Amendment promises not to make laws that infringe on the freedom of the press. This freedom leaves it up to journalists and news organizations to monitor themselves. While it is not illegal to interview a source that is highly emotional, aggressive or distraught, it is not the ethical thing to do. It may provide an in-depth and cutting edge story, but acting in an ethical fashion should be a priority of journalist. If journalists put the story before sources or ethics, it will further damage the public’s relationship with the media, which is not ideal.

            

Speed Bump by Dave Coverly

http://www.gocomics.com/speedbump/2009/12/21