Media follows public opinion - sell out?

Our society has a massive appetite for drama, and little for reality. We read about Britney Spears when we need to read about Afghanistan. And the media, which has the mandate -- and the constitutional right -- to lead us from this abyss, are all too often not doing so. Media, which once led public opinion, now all too often follow it.

A startling, and true, commentary on media today stated by Bill Dwyre from the LA Times, describes what is becoming an all too familiar trend.

Going against Walter Lippman's Public Opinion, which claimed public opinion must be guided, and John Dewey's belief that mass communication should educate the public so that, as a community and as individuals, people can form their own opinions, Dwyre's view of media today claims that it neither serves as an educational tool nor a guide for public opinion. The media follows what the already-formed public opinion demands.

It's true. The balance between entertainment and traditional hard news is faltering. As the television stations, like CNN and Fox, have experts discussing the failing US economy, this critical information is interrupted by the breaking news that Patriot Quarterback Tom Brady has been seen with his foot in a cast. Suddenly everybody's asking, "what could this mean for the Superbowl?"

Shouldn't we be much much more concerned about how quickly the Dow is falling? Should we expect and demand the media give us the tools to make an informed decision about how to survive a possible recession instead of how to place our Superbowl bets?

I definitely think so. Give me reality over drama, please.

How to make ethicial media decisions for dummies.

Please read:

Bob Steele's "Ask These 10 Questions to Make Ethical Decisions"

Thanks.

Independent media politics. What?

We've all seen it - the questionable relationship between the media and the political world, especially now that the '08 race to the White House is becoming increasingly critical.

Kelly McBride, ethics blogger for Poynter, wrote an article about how an independent relationship can be compromised by a campaign's use of a reporter's positive feedback on their candidate:

"When favorable stories about a political candidate are used by a campaign or a
political action committee to generate support, or when the opposition uses
negative stories to tear down a candidate, it compromises the perception that
the reporter and the newsroom are independent."

However, isn't this relationship already compromised by their traditional announcement of their endorsements of political candidates, such as the Des Moines Register's endorsement of both Clinton and McCain before the caucus took place.

Should a major media outlet be allowed to endorse candidates? Isn't that potentially influencing instead of merely educating? Isn't that removing their unbiased position that journalists are supposed to maintain?

"Despite research challenging the effectiveness of endorsements, many news
organizations embrace the tradition because, as they see it, endorsing
candidates is a journalistic
obligation to readers.

'We have such a rare opportunity as residents but also as journalists to
listen to these candidates,' said Monitor editor Felice Belman [...] 'Why
wouldn't we give readers the opportunity to tell them what we've learned?'"
- Mallary Jean Tenore, Centerpiece
blogger for Poynter

A journalistic obligation to inform the public? Yes. A journalistic obligation to ruin the supposedly independent relationship between politics and the media? No way.

Wikipedia fake

As reported by Media Ethics, a Wikipedia editor is a fake. Surprised? He used Catholicism for Dummies as a resource for entries.

"P-word" consequences

Plagiarism. It's bad. It's unethical. We are reminded of it daily in the classroom. We are constantly reminded to cite our sources correctly.

We know this happens in schools everywhere; somebody you know has probably been caught plagiarizing a work, whether it was accidental or not.

This act is not contained within a campus, there are several incidents of plagiarism within media. Those reporters who are caught in the act are quickly dealt with, commonly immediately terminated, their reputations irreconcilably tainted.

Roy Peter Clark, an expert on plagiarism, believes that the punishment for an act of plagiarism should depend on the severity of the crime and that the "p-word" should be used less frequently to define pure laziness or sloppiness:

"Because the p-word is the scarlet letter of the literary world, because it is
associated with a rogues gallery of writers and reporters, it should be
reserved, in my opinion, for the most serious cases of malpractice.To use the
term to cover too many sins may be a kind of ethical problem unto itself.
You can be called a lazy or sloppy reporter and recover. To be called a
plagiarist, and fired for it, has a deeper meaning and darker consequences."

Take for example, Clark says, Professor Emeritus John C. Merrill. An article he had written contained work from a student reporter, which was placed within quotations, he merely failed to attribute it correctly.

"...We may have a case here where even a famous journalism professor and a
fine newspaper editor are confused about what constitutes plagiarism. Join the
club, boys, I'm right there with ya.
I've studied Merrill's column and the student story from which he appropriated quotes. There are two things I do not like about his column:

He should have dropped a quick attribution into the column ("as
reported in The Maneater"). I'm not suggesting that not doing so was an
ethical lapse, only that doing so would have shown respect to the student and
the publication.

The column itself was a dinosaur cliché, the easiest kind of attack by
a cranky old prof against the political correctness of gender studies. But
that's not unethical either."

Merrill was labeled a plagiarist and fired. However, Clark disagrees. The editor of the Missourian "has no more right to call Merrill's actions plagiarism, than a prosecutor has the right to refer to reckless endangerment as murder in the first degree." He continues:

"It is a far greater ethical transgression, I believe, to create a
consequence -- excommunication and humiliation -- out of all
proportion to the violation. If it were up to me, I would have printed a
clarification, attributing the quotes to the student reporter. I would
have called Merrill and informed him that using quotes that way, even in an
opinion column, violates the standards of the Missourian, and that if he did not
want to adhere to such standards, he should pitch his column somewhere
else.

What we are left with instead is a stain on a scholar whose work over
decades has been judged original, and a good editor who looks more than a little
like those Puritans who pinned a scarlet 'A' on ladies suspected of adultery."

From this case, it is clear the definition of plagiarism is fuzzy; no one is sure of what to do with Merrill's mistake, honest or not. So they do what every other media outlet would do - terminate the reporter.

Ethical? I'm not sure. Give me a clear cut definition of the "p-word" and this argument would be a lot easier.

Just an update...

In a previous post, I discussed the suicide of Megan Meier who killed herself after an ex-friend's mother, under the pretenses of "Josh," posted and sent cruel messages over MySpace.



Today, according to CNN, there will not be criminal charges filed against the person behind the fake MySpace page not because there is no fault involved, but because there is no way to prove any wrongdoing, as well as no charge to fit the crime.

A Missouri prosecutor said Monday no charges would be sought in the
case of a teen who hanged herself last year after chatting on MySpace, although
he said adults should have prevented the tragedy.
[...]
"There is no way that anybody could know that talking to someone or saying
that you're mean to your friends on the Internet would create a substantial
risk," Banas said. "It certainly created a potential risk and, unfortunately for
the Meiers, that potential became reality. But under the law we just couldn't
show that."
But Banas said that conclusion doesn't mean no one is to blame.
"Regardless of what we can charge or what we can't charge, there is no question
the adults should have said something to stop this," he said.
[...]
Missouri's harassment statute says nothing about the Internet, and the
stalking statute requires repeated conversations, so neither would apply in this
case, Banas said.
The purpose of the neighbor who arranged for the "Josh"
character "was never to cause her emotional harassment that we can prove," Banas
said. Any case would be based on "what we can prove and what a jury would
believe."

Tragic. Hopefully this has drawn enough attention to Internet crimes that we will soon have laws offering even a little bit of protection against this sort of an incident.

Shield laws don't always protect

Santa Barbara Independent's staff reporter is found in contempt of court after refusing to turn over pictures he took following the death of a 15-year-old. A 14-year-old is on trial for his murder.

Even though California has shield laws designed to protect the media from this same scenario, this does not meet the four criteria necessary for absolute protection.

The judge ruling in the case stated the following:

"Any one of these photographs might cause the defense to rethink the way they
were preparing (their case),” he said, such as who they might call to the stand
or who they might impeach.

True enough, I suppose. However, he'll have to fight the attorney for the Independent.

The Independent's attorney, Michael Cooney, said this case was important not
only for the Indy, but for all media organizations. He said if Wellman is
forced
to hand over the photos, it could open the door to more serious
subpoenas in the
future asking for reporters’ or photographers’ testimony
regarding what they may
have seen or who they might have talked to. “We’re
on a slippery slope,” he
said.

Judge Hill said he understood the media's interests, but cited the 1990
Delaney case which concluded that in some circumstances, the defendant’s
federal
Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial preempts state shield law.

[...]

Wellman commented that he was "relieved to hear that Judge Hill understood
that this could set a precedent for us to hand over all our photographs for any
investigation. If you hand over unpublished photos you stop being part of the
media and you start being an arm of the government. If I went onto a scene," he
explained, "and I said, 'This is off the record,' or 'I'm not going to show your
face,' or 'I'm not going to disclose the location,' it's going to be hard to
sell that to someone if they feel I'm going to turn over photos every time I get
subpoenaed."

Well stated Attorney Wellman. Well stated.

Keep watching this case - it could be more important than it seems.