Student
Instruction Rating System (SIRS Online) collects student feedback on
courses and instruction at MSU. Student Instructional Rating System
(SIRS Online) forms will be available for your students to submit
feedback during the dates indicated:
JRN 200 004: 11/27/2017 - 12/27/2017 Direct students to https://sirsonline.msu.edu. Students are required to complete the SIRS Online form OR indicate within that form that they decline to participate. Otherwise, final grades (for courses using SIRS Online) will be sequestered for seven days following the course grade submission deadline for this semester. SIRS Online rating summaries are available to instructors and department chairs after 12/27/2017 at https://sirsonline.msu.edu. Instructors should provide copies of the rating summaries to graduate assistants who assisted in teaching their course(s). Rating information collected by SIRS Online is reported in summary form only and cannot be linked to individual student responses. Student anonymity is carefully protected. If you have any questions, please contact Michelle Carlson, (mcarlson@msu.edu, (517)432-5936). |
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
JRN 200: Homework for Wed./Fri. 11/29-12/1
First, you will have the AP Style quiz posted below to do as homework. The AP Style quiz will be due no later than 9 a.m. Monday, Dec. 4 by email to omars@msu.edu. That is the same deadline as your third out-of-class story and job shadow report.
Also, because you have so much due after the weekend and we have so little left to do in class right now, we will not have class on Friday, Dec. 1. Please do not show up here that day.
Class will resume on Wednesday, Dec. 6. In the meantime, I will be available as usual via email on weekdays, and by phone or text during nights and weekends.
Also, because you have so much due after the weekend and we have so little left to do in class right now, we will not have class on Friday, Dec. 1. Please do not show up here that day.
Class will resume on Wednesday, Dec. 6. In the meantime, I will be available as usual via email on weekdays, and by phone or text during nights and weekends.
JRN 200: AP Style Quiz
Use a Word document and rewrite the following sentences to correct all the mechanical, spelling and stylistic errors. The names in the sentences are spelled correctly. This is an open-book quiz; please use your AP Stylebook and AP Style blog posts to help you make corrections. Then, attach the word document to an email with the subject line of ap style quiz and send it to omars@msu.edu. Here are the sentences:
1. The clubs advisor, Reverend Sue Holt of Little Rock Arkansas spent two thousand dollars during her vacation in the East last Summer.
2. Irregardless of the cost, James Hazard Sr., a realtor in East Lansing michigan agreed to help the Vice-President win 60% of the delegates.
3. On Tuesday, August 13 the thirty two year old woman, a Journalism Professor in Ore. donated 5000 dollars to the democratic party.
4. 23 persons, all employes of the Federal Government, will attend the program, scheduled for 7:00 pm Tuesday, december 18 in Oshkosh, Wisc.
5. His number one candidate, Dist. Atty. Lisa Diaz of 87 North Roosevelt Dr. complained that only seven percent of the F.B.I. agents are women.
6. Both "Time Magazine" and "The Chicago Tribune" reported that James R Bughi, a presidential candidate, spent $42,000,000 dollars last fall.
7. 37 students in the philosophy class taught by Prof. Carlos Alicea finished the book entitled "American Outrage" before Dec. 12.
8. The girl, age 19, recieved a broken arm when her ford van overturned 3 times while traveling 80 mph on interstate 80 near Des Moines, Ia.
9. Doctor Maria Chavez, the Mayor of San Antonio Texas said the vice-president and first lady will speak to the Sophomores next Winter.
10. During the 1980s, Lynita Wong, now a sgt. in the US army, studied english, history, french and sociology at 3 colleges in the south.
1. The clubs advisor, Reverend Sue Holt of Little Rock Arkansas spent two thousand dollars during her vacation in the East last Summer.
2. Irregardless of the cost, James Hazard Sr., a realtor in East Lansing michigan agreed to help the Vice-President win 60% of the delegates.
3. On Tuesday, August 13 the thirty two year old woman, a Journalism Professor in Ore. donated 5000 dollars to the democratic party.
4. 23 persons, all employes of the Federal Government, will attend the program, scheduled for 7:00 pm Tuesday, december 18 in Oshkosh, Wisc.
5. His number one candidate, Dist. Atty. Lisa Diaz of 87 North Roosevelt Dr. complained that only seven percent of the F.B.I. agents are women.
6. Both "Time Magazine" and "The Chicago Tribune" reported that James R Bughi, a presidential candidate, spent $42,000,000 dollars last fall.
7. 37 students in the philosophy class taught by Prof. Carlos Alicea finished the book entitled "American Outrage" before Dec. 12.
8. The girl, age 19, recieved a broken arm when her ford van overturned 3 times while traveling 80 mph on interstate 80 near Des Moines, Ia.
9. Doctor Maria Chavez, the Mayor of San Antonio Texas said the vice-president and first lady will speak to the Sophomores next Winter.
10. During the 1980s, Lynita Wong, now a sgt. in the US army, studied english, history, french and sociology at 3 colleges in the south.
RFTM Ch. 5: Media Law
First, let's look at some general concepts:
Libel is defamation by written words, including stories, headlines, photo captions, TV scripts that are then read out loud, online content, ect. It's a degree apart from slander, which iss defamation by spoken word.
There are several elements of libel, including ...
... defamation. Did the words injure a reputation? It must be phrased in a literal way.
... identification. Was the person identified, directly or by reference?
... publication. Was the item actually published?
... falsity. Is the statement false? The burden is on the plaintiff -- not the defendant -- to prove it was false.
This is where most libel cases are thrown out of court, provided that the news organization did their due diligence in reporting and the story is, in fact, clearly true. If it's true, then there cannot be libel.
... injury. Did the accused actually suffer some form of harm as a result, such as monetary losses, harm to reputation, humiliation and/or mental anguish?
... fault. Did the news organization make the statement intentionally, recklessly or negligently? Did the news org know it was false, and shared it anyway? Did the news org fail to do due diligence in checking out the claim before reporting it? Did the news org have a reckless disregard for the truth?
Fault is very difficult to prove. The plaintiff must prove the news org knew facts that would call the story into question; refused to examine contradictory evidence; relied on an inherently unbelievable source; published/posted/broadcast the story without investigating; and/or simply made up the story. This is what is known as actual malice.
It's not enough for the plaintiff to prove there were simple unintended mistakes in handling the story, or that the defendant simply disliked the plaintiff. Fault is almost impossible to prove IF proper due diligence --like verifying facts, getting multiple sources to confirm information; giving the story subject a chance to rebut allegations -- is done in reporting, writing and editing the story.
Many journalists are frequently threatened with libel suits -- in my professional career I was threatened many dozens of times! -- but the vast majority are never sued, because the story is true.
There are several libel defenses. Those inlcude ...
... truth; that the gist of the charge is true. If there is no falsity, then there cannot be libel. A story that harms a reputation but is true is called the truth. From a legal standpoint, a story need not be correct in every detail; just the point the defendant is claiming to be libelous.
There are, however, exceptions to the truth rule. For example, if a quote is defamatory, but cited correctly without investigation into substance. (That's why we need multiple sources on things.) Or the omission of facts that create a misleading conclusion. Or the misuse of words to create a false impression. (We have to get context right.)
... fair report privilege. That is when we correctly quote defamatory statements during (but notbefore or after) public meetings in all levels of government, such as those offered during a city council meeting or a criminal trial or in an official document like a police report.
... fair comment and criticism. That is, opinions based on true facts, including opinions in news stories. Yes, an unattributed opinion in a news story is bad journalism, but it enjoys the same legal protections as good journalism.
The textbook offers a good libel avoidance checklist on p. 137; please review it.
Now that we talked about libel, let's move on to invasion of privacy. It involves intrusion, or intentionally intruding on someone's privacy in a highly offense manner.
For it to be invasion of privacy, this must take place in a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as if the reporter was trespassing in a private home, private property or a business open to the public but privately-owned (like a shopping mall), or using an eavesdropping device, or looking inside a person's home uninvited.
Courts do not consider ordinary newsgathering techniques to be intrusive, such as examining public records naming the person; interviewing their friends, relatives, associates and enemies; requesting interviews; and anything happening in a public place (like public streets, sidewalks, parks, and publicly-owned buildings).
Next, there is the issue of publicizing private facts. To be off-limits, the information must truly be private; that is, it's information not available via any public record; facts that are not widely known; and regarding a matter that is "highly offensive" and not just embarrassing; and that there is no legitimate public interest in disclosure.
There is also false light. That's where reporting creates a false and offensive impression. Legally, it's similar to libel, and a defendant must prove actual malice. Again, if we interview a wide variety of sources, double-check our information, give the story subject an opportunity to respond and keep the context of the story based on what we discovered and confirmed, then this should never be a real threat to us.
Let's now move on to access to public proceedings and records. First, at a breaking news scene like a car accident or house fire, it's important to remember reporters have no greater rights than citizens to gather at a news scene. Officials may extend access as they see fit, and they often do. But it's their call.
To help mitigate that, always carry press credentials identifying yourself as a working journalist; don't trespass on private property or cross marked police lines without permission; and obey all orders from police, even ones you don't think are right. You can always complain later.
Often, reporters access documents by citing state or federal Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) laws, regarding access to such documents. FOIA requires government to make most documents publicly accessible, but there are exceptions.
Those exceptions usually include: classified information; information regarding internal personnel rules and practices;; trade secrets; confidential commercial information; memos that would reveal decision-making processes; information that would intrude on personal privacy; police investigative files which, if disclosed, could cause harm or compromise an ongoing criminal investigation; and other limited exceptions.
It's hard for courts to close or otherwise restrict courtrooms or court proceedings to the press,unless media attention threatens the fairness of a trial. Courts may sequester jurors, issue gag orders to witnesses, seal some court files, or delay trials, but only in very rare instances can they legally shut the press out of a courtroom.
Libel is defamation by written words, including stories, headlines, photo captions, TV scripts that are then read out loud, online content, ect. It's a degree apart from slander, which iss defamation by spoken word.
There are several elements of libel, including ...
... defamation. Did the words injure a reputation? It must be phrased in a literal way.
... identification. Was the person identified, directly or by reference?
... publication. Was the item actually published?
... falsity. Is the statement false? The burden is on the plaintiff -- not the defendant -- to prove it was false.
This is where most libel cases are thrown out of court, provided that the news organization did their due diligence in reporting and the story is, in fact, clearly true. If it's true, then there cannot be libel.
... injury. Did the accused actually suffer some form of harm as a result, such as monetary losses, harm to reputation, humiliation and/or mental anguish?
... fault. Did the news organization make the statement intentionally, recklessly or negligently? Did the news org know it was false, and shared it anyway? Did the news org fail to do due diligence in checking out the claim before reporting it? Did the news org have a reckless disregard for the truth?
Fault is very difficult to prove. The plaintiff must prove the news org knew facts that would call the story into question; refused to examine contradictory evidence; relied on an inherently unbelievable source; published/posted/broadcast the story without investigating; and/or simply made up the story. This is what is known as actual malice.
It's not enough for the plaintiff to prove there were simple unintended mistakes in handling the story, or that the defendant simply disliked the plaintiff. Fault is almost impossible to prove IF proper due diligence --like verifying facts, getting multiple sources to confirm information; giving the story subject a chance to rebut allegations -- is done in reporting, writing and editing the story.
Many journalists are frequently threatened with libel suits -- in my professional career I was threatened many dozens of times! -- but the vast majority are never sued, because the story is true.
There are several libel defenses. Those inlcude ...
... truth; that the gist of the charge is true. If there is no falsity, then there cannot be libel. A story that harms a reputation but is true is called the truth. From a legal standpoint, a story need not be correct in every detail; just the point the defendant is claiming to be libelous.
There are, however, exceptions to the truth rule. For example, if a quote is defamatory, but cited correctly without investigation into substance. (That's why we need multiple sources on things.) Or the omission of facts that create a misleading conclusion. Or the misuse of words to create a false impression. (We have to get context right.)
... fair report privilege. That is when we correctly quote defamatory statements during (but notbefore or after) public meetings in all levels of government, such as those offered during a city council meeting or a criminal trial or in an official document like a police report.
... fair comment and criticism. That is, opinions based on true facts, including opinions in news stories. Yes, an unattributed opinion in a news story is bad journalism, but it enjoys the same legal protections as good journalism.
The textbook offers a good libel avoidance checklist on p. 137; please review it.
Now that we talked about libel, let's move on to invasion of privacy. It involves intrusion, or intentionally intruding on someone's privacy in a highly offense manner.
For it to be invasion of privacy, this must take place in a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as if the reporter was trespassing in a private home, private property or a business open to the public but privately-owned (like a shopping mall), or using an eavesdropping device, or looking inside a person's home uninvited.
Courts do not consider ordinary newsgathering techniques to be intrusive, such as examining public records naming the person; interviewing their friends, relatives, associates and enemies; requesting interviews; and anything happening in a public place (like public streets, sidewalks, parks, and publicly-owned buildings).
Next, there is the issue of publicizing private facts. To be off-limits, the information must truly be private; that is, it's information not available via any public record; facts that are not widely known; and regarding a matter that is "highly offensive" and not just embarrassing; and that there is no legitimate public interest in disclosure.
There is also false light. That's where reporting creates a false and offensive impression. Legally, it's similar to libel, and a defendant must prove actual malice. Again, if we interview a wide variety of sources, double-check our information, give the story subject an opportunity to respond and keep the context of the story based on what we discovered and confirmed, then this should never be a real threat to us.
Let's now move on to access to public proceedings and records. First, at a breaking news scene like a car accident or house fire, it's important to remember reporters have no greater rights than citizens to gather at a news scene. Officials may extend access as they see fit, and they often do. But it's their call.
To help mitigate that, always carry press credentials identifying yourself as a working journalist; don't trespass on private property or cross marked police lines without permission; and obey all orders from police, even ones you don't think are right. You can always complain later.
Often, reporters access documents by citing state or federal Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) laws, regarding access to such documents. FOIA requires government to make most documents publicly accessible, but there are exceptions.
Those exceptions usually include: classified information; information regarding internal personnel rules and practices;; trade secrets; confidential commercial information; memos that would reveal decision-making processes; information that would intrude on personal privacy; police investigative files which, if disclosed, could cause harm or compromise an ongoing criminal investigation; and other limited exceptions.
It's hard for courts to close or otherwise restrict courtrooms or court proceedings to the press,unless media attention threatens the fairness of a trial. Courts may sequester jurors, issue gag orders to witnesses, seal some court files, or delay trials, but only in very rare instances can they legally shut the press out of a courtroom.
RFTM Ch. 6: Ethics
What are ethics? Simply put, acting and thinking morally and being able to distinguish between right and wrong. It's key to establishing credibility. But the answers to what is ethical and what is not can be elusive, situational and judgmental.
In ethical decision-making, there are several guiding questions. Among them:
There are several issues central to ethics. First, we must maintain objectivity. We must put aside personal biases; be accurate, and offer proper context based on the facts we find.
Second, we must be on guard against exploiting grief. It's important to establish the true human impact of a bad happening; that's why we try to talk to victims and survivors and their loved ones. But that's difficult because of the state of victims and their families. We risk hurting victims again by creating a "second wound" of retelling and detailing a tragic event.
So, we need to weigh the importance in the community being able to appreciate the full, tragic weight of an event versus the harm that may be done to victims.
I mean, would you feel the same about something like 9/11 if you didn't hear the personal stories of what people went through that day? That's what made 9/11 news; not that planes hit buildings, but that those events altered scores of human lives like ours.
Then again, how must it be for victim families to hear those details re-aired, not only to them but to the whole world? There is no perfect answer; so we try to come up with the best imperfect answer we can.
Third, we should never steal or fabricate information. There's no grey area here; it's never acceptable. We're in the truth business. We tell the truth. It's the same as not tolerating a cop who steals or a firefighter who's a pyromaniac or a doctor that murders people.
Fourth, we must take care in handling rumors and speculation. Ideally, reporters investigate rumors and come up with evidence so they can turn rumors into facts, or debunk rumors. We don't just report rumors.
Fifth, when witnessing a crime or disaster, we need to weigh the risk to the victim versus the value of information gleaned. If we come across a victim that is not being assisted, we should be human first and help others in need. If those hurt are already being assisted, do your job and let professional responders do theirs.
As journalists, we are trying to assist humanity. Our primary way of doing that is by sharing stories of importance to the greater world. It also means using common sense, being a human being and not being a dick when the circumstances call for humanity.
Sixth, conflicts of interest should be avoided. We are in a conflict of interest when we or someone close to us are in a position to benefit from a story we cover. Circumstances that create a conflict of interest include ...
... accepting freebies. We should not accept anything of even minimal value from a news source. Whether or not the freebie actually influences a story is irrelevant; it can create a reasonable appearance of a conflict of interest, and it's that appearance we're trying to avoid.
... free trips. We cannot accept transportation or lodging for an event that would otherwise be inaccessible. If we must be embedded with those we cover, we need to pay back the cost of our access.
... participating in the news. We should not hold public office, help with campaigns or special-interest issues, or write about issues in which we have a direct or indirect interest. For example, if we're the member of a fraternity, we shouldn't be the one writing about that frat's fund-raiser. If we think we have a conflict of interest, alert your boss and ask to be reassigned.
... dating and cronyism. Don't date who you write about. If you do, ask to be reassigned. Plus, don't allow similar conflicts with friends, family or your own private interests.
... "scratching backs." Don't write stories with the purpose of currying favor with a source. You write stories only because they are in the public interest, not your own. Try to have multiple sources in any subject area so you are not beholden to any single source for info.
In ethical decision-making, there are several guiding questions. Among them:
- Who will be hurt by this story?
- Who will be helped?
- What do we usually do in similar situations?
- Is this the best alternative?
- Can you look yourself in the mirror tomorrow and believe you did the right thing for the right reasons?
- Can you justify your actions to the public?
- What principles or values can you apply?
- Does this decision fit the kind of journalism you believe in and the way people should treat one another?
- What is the objective of this story?
- Will my decisions contribute to the reason for writing the story?
- Is there a greater good that you're trying to accomplish that outweighs whatever bad that may result from my actions?
There are several issues central to ethics. First, we must maintain objectivity. We must put aside personal biases; be accurate, and offer proper context based on the facts we find.
Second, we must be on guard against exploiting grief. It's important to establish the true human impact of a bad happening; that's why we try to talk to victims and survivors and their loved ones. But that's difficult because of the state of victims and their families. We risk hurting victims again by creating a "second wound" of retelling and detailing a tragic event.
So, we need to weigh the importance in the community being able to appreciate the full, tragic weight of an event versus the harm that may be done to victims.
I mean, would you feel the same about something like 9/11 if you didn't hear the personal stories of what people went through that day? That's what made 9/11 news; not that planes hit buildings, but that those events altered scores of human lives like ours.
Then again, how must it be for victim families to hear those details re-aired, not only to them but to the whole world? There is no perfect answer; so we try to come up with the best imperfect answer we can.
Third, we should never steal or fabricate information. There's no grey area here; it's never acceptable. We're in the truth business. We tell the truth. It's the same as not tolerating a cop who steals or a firefighter who's a pyromaniac or a doctor that murders people.
Fourth, we must take care in handling rumors and speculation. Ideally, reporters investigate rumors and come up with evidence so they can turn rumors into facts, or debunk rumors. We don't just report rumors.
Fifth, when witnessing a crime or disaster, we need to weigh the risk to the victim versus the value of information gleaned. If we come across a victim that is not being assisted, we should be human first and help others in need. If those hurt are already being assisted, do your job and let professional responders do theirs.
As journalists, we are trying to assist humanity. Our primary way of doing that is by sharing stories of importance to the greater world. It also means using common sense, being a human being and not being a dick when the circumstances call for humanity.
Sixth, conflicts of interest should be avoided. We are in a conflict of interest when we or someone close to us are in a position to benefit from a story we cover. Circumstances that create a conflict of interest include ...
... accepting freebies. We should not accept anything of even minimal value from a news source. Whether or not the freebie actually influences a story is irrelevant; it can create a reasonable appearance of a conflict of interest, and it's that appearance we're trying to avoid.
... free trips. We cannot accept transportation or lodging for an event that would otherwise be inaccessible. If we must be embedded with those we cover, we need to pay back the cost of our access.
... participating in the news. We should not hold public office, help with campaigns or special-interest issues, or write about issues in which we have a direct or indirect interest. For example, if we're the member of a fraternity, we shouldn't be the one writing about that frat's fund-raiser. If we think we have a conflict of interest, alert your boss and ask to be reassigned.
... dating and cronyism. Don't date who you write about. If you do, ask to be reassigned. Plus, don't allow similar conflicts with friends, family or your own private interests.
... "scratching backs." Don't write stories with the purpose of currying favor with a source. You write stories only because they are in the public interest, not your own. Try to have multiple sources in any subject area so you are not beholden to any single source for info.
Ethics: A Code To Follow
Listed below is the Code of Ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists, the nation's leading organization of journalists. I strongly recommend you print out the code and keep it handy for however long you are a journalist. The principles offered within can help you guide an ethical and responsible response to numerous situations:
SPJ Code of Ethics
Download a printable copy [PDF]
Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.
Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Journalists should:
Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
Journalists should:
Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.
Journalists should:
Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.
Journalists should:
The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of writers, editors and other news professionals. The present version of the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months of study and debate among the Society's members.
Sigma Delta Chi's first Code of Ethics was borrowed from the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1926. In 1973, Sigma Delta Chi wrote its own code, which was revised in 1984, 1987 and 1996.
SPJ Code of Ethics
Download a printable copy [PDF]
Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.
The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of journalists, regardless of place or platform, and is widely used in newsrooms and classrooms as a guide for ethical behavior. The code is intended not as a set of "rules" but as a resource for ethical decision-making. It is not — nor can it be under the First Amendment — legally enforceable.
For an expanded explanation, please follow this link.
For an expanded explanation, please follow this link.
Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Journalists should:
— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
— Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
— Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
— Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
— Never plagiarize.
— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.
Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
Journalists should:
— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
— Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
— Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
— Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
— Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.
Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.
Journalists should:
—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.
Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.
Journalists should:
— Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
— Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.
The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of writers, editors and other news professionals. The present version of the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months of study and debate among the Society's members.
Sigma Delta Chi's first Code of Ethics was borrowed from the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1926. In 1973, Sigma Delta Chi wrote its own code, which was revised in 1984, 1987 and 1996.
Ethics: 9/11's Falling Man, The Buzzard And The Girl, The Burn Victim
There's a fine line between showing readers the brutal truth of a situation so that they understand the powerful truth of any story, and showing readers a truth so brutal that readers ignore the point you were trying to make and instead question your judgment.
I can think of no better example of this than the so-called "Falling Man" photo, taken by an Associated Press photographer during the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks and published by The New York Times the next day. Here it is:
This remarkable article from Esquire Magazine in 2003 offers a summation of the complex and contradictory forces at play in deciding if running the image was the absolute right thing or the incredibly wrong thing to do.
If you were an editor on Sept. 11, what would you have done? And why?
Likewise, what would you do if you were a photographer covering an African famine and you came across a starving girl being stalked by a vulture?
That was a real-world decision for one photog, and it may have led to his own unfortunate end.
Finally, what would you do if you were the photographer who took this award-winning pic of this badly-burned girl in the Vietnam War?
Look carefully at each picture; read each link carefully and in its entirety; and then let's talk it out.
What I'd like you to do for each photo is to answer the following questions for each of the three photos and scenarios:
-- Do you agree with the course of action actually taken by the photojournalist? Why or why not? Cite ethical values we've discussed in the blog and read in the ethics chapter.
-- What you would have done and why if you were the photographer? Cite ethical values we've discussed in the blog and read in the ethics chapter.
I want to hear what you think, and why. I'm not looking for simply your personal opinions; I'm looking for your professional opinions, based on what we've learned and what we believe in as journalists and as human beings.
I can think of no better example of this than the so-called "Falling Man" photo, taken by an Associated Press photographer during the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks and published by The New York Times the next day. Here it is:
This remarkable article from Esquire Magazine in 2003 offers a summation of the complex and contradictory forces at play in deciding if running the image was the absolute right thing or the incredibly wrong thing to do.
If you were an editor on Sept. 11, what would you have done? And why?
Likewise, what would you do if you were a photographer covering an African famine and you came across a starving girl being stalked by a vulture?
That was a real-world decision for one photog, and it may have led to his own unfortunate end.
Finally, what would you do if you were the photographer who took this award-winning pic of this badly-burned girl in the Vietnam War?
Look carefully at each picture; read each link carefully and in its entirety; and then let's talk it out.
What I'd like you to do for each photo is to answer the following questions for each of the three photos and scenarios:
-- Do you agree with the course of action actually taken by the photojournalist? Why or why not? Cite ethical values we've discussed in the blog and read in the ethics chapter.
-- What you would have done and why if you were the photographer? Cite ethical values we've discussed in the blog and read in the ethics chapter.
I want to hear what you think, and why. I'm not looking for simply your personal opinions; I'm looking for your professional opinions, based on what we've learned and what we believe in as journalists and as human beings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)