Since its beginning in 2003, the genocide in Darfur has been widely ignored and left out of U.S media, therefore out of the public's collective memory. Because the mainstream media has failed to address the issue, press coverage is left to alternative media outlets. Documentary films like The Devil Came on Horseback and Familiar Voices, non- profit Darfur awareness websites, and blogs have become the main source of information about the genocide. T-shirts that read “Save Darfur” have also become a trend and help spread awareness, but still do not inform the public to the necessary degree of understanding. Since the Sudanese government has not declared genocide, superpowers like the U.S and the U.N cannot intervene. Previous to the genocide in Darfur, there was a major genocide in Rwanda in 1994. A feature film called Hotel Rwanda was a success in educating people 10 years later, however served as a major distraction from the current genocide in Darfur.
Is it ethical for the U.S media to continue to ignore such a large issue?
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Ethics in the MOVIES!
Ever seen the movie Shattered Glass with Hayden Christensen? It follows the life of Stephen Glass who worked for The New Republic magazine...
“Broken Glass”
It’s 1998: Stressed out, underpaid and overworked journalists work hard to be the first to report breaking stories for The New Republic magazine. The pressure is on to find the most interesting stories and scandals at this political magazine. Few do, but one journalist seems to find the quirkiest, most intriguing stories that no other magazine or journalist has covered. It almost sounds too good to be true. In fact, 25-year-old Associate Editor Stephen Glass fabricated 25 of 41 stories during his time at The New Republic, and his story is portrayed in the 2003 blockbuster Shattered Glass. This film not only depicts the true nature and story of Glass’s deceit, but it also calls attention to a number of ethical dilemmas that lead to the investigation of Glass’s reporting and following pieces. In addition to exposing Glass, the film ultimately warned viewers to be critical of the media.
The New Republic had been a trusted news source since 1914, and its staff in 1998 consisted of 15 young, eager, hardworking journalist (Shattered Glass, 2003). The film begins with a clip of Stephen Glass, played by Hayden Christensen, gloating while walking through a crowd saying, “Your work can actually influence public policy. It’s an amazing privilege and huge responsibility” (Shattered Glass, 2003). He continues to give a public speech to a high school classroom full of young journalism students, “I never encourage anything sneaky in pursuit of a story, such as a phony identity… it’s important to get every quote and every detail” (Shattered Glass, 2003). Glass followed half of his own advice because each one of his fabricated stories were so detailed that the average person would not question their validity. Glass was challenged by Journalist Adam Penenberg, who worked for Forbes Online, about one story in specific titled “Hack Heaven.” Penenberg intended to write a follow up in response to Glass’s completely made up article about a 15-year-old computer hacker who was hired as software security by a company called “Jukt Micronics” whose system he had hacked into (www.forbes.com). Penenberg could not confirm any of Glass’s sources which is where the first ethical dilemma arose. Glass had fabricated stories prior to this particular article under Editor Michael Kelly, however with the expulsion of Kelly came new Editor Charles Lane who uncovered Glass’s lies (www.cbsnews.com).
Should editors have complete trust in the integrity of their writers? And secondly, can a story be valid solely based on the notes of the journalist? Glass knew that as long as his notes matched the specifics of his story he could pass a basic fact check at his magazine. But the legitimacy of “Hack Heaven” proved that more fact checking was necessary, and as Editor Charles Lane unraveled Glass’s lies another ethical question came about. Lane called the editor of Forbes Online and explained that revealing Glass and his fabricated story would ruin his [Glass] career and morale. Should Lane’s loyalties be to his news magazine, or to care about the potential damage this could cause to Glass? Freelance Photojournalist Amber Mosby, 24, believes that editors should have trust in their writers but at the same time listen to their gut feeling when a reporter consistently comes back with extraordinary stories. Mosby suggests that Editor Michael Kelly should have fact checked Glass’s notes and called or emailed sources. In response to Lane’s call to Forbes’s editor Mosby revealed, “Lane only called Forbes to save his own ass. It’s apparent that what Glass did was wrong, so obviously Forbes was going to print it. Lane just didn’t want to look bad because he was ultimately responsible and that’s unethical.” In an interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Glass reveals that he was driven by people’s reactions of his stories during conference meetings, that he wanted every story to be a “home run,” and that he lied in order to be published (www.cbs.com).
Did he feel too pressured by his boss and colleagues to provide a home run story every issue? Should editors expect less from younger reporters? 27-year-old former reporter for the Indianapolis Star and Northwestern graduate, Andrea Cohen, can identify with Glass in the fact that she too was a young journalist who wanted to make a good impression. “I think there is a lot of pressure to come to staff meetings with big features, but some weeks there is really nothing going on,” she says. Cohen also thinks that editors should always support their writers but at the same time check the validity of their stories. She explains that basing a story entirely on a journalist’s notes is a reliable way of reporting, but that it is the editors job to call the sources. Two preventative measures that could have taken place to ensure the legitimacy of Glass’s stories are 1.) A tape recording of the interview conducted (Cohen), and 2.) Photos of the subjects (Mosby). Mosby says that it is too easy to make up a name or an email these days, but that photographic proof shows validity of the sources.
In a Baltimore City Paper review of Shattered Glass, Journalist Blake de Pastino suggests that the reason Glass’s stories were never questioned is because his editor was pleased by their entertainment, suggesting that the media seems to thrive on sensationalism (www.citypaper.com). He thinks that the film serves as a criticism of the media and essentially brings attention to the fact that a journalist can make up stories and get away with it. Film Critic Clint Morris says that the film is a “Do Not guide to journalism” (www.citypaper.com). Mark Sells of the Oregon Herald believes, “This film caused the entire industry to rethink and evaluate its editorial practices
and it's a great learning tool for young, aspiring journalists; particularly in the way it engages you in the editorial process” (www.oregonherald.com). Sells explains that the pressures in journalism can drive journalists to cross the boundaries between uneventful true stories and sensationalized interest stories. Perhaps director Billy Ray produced Shattered Glass as a warning to be more critical of the media and not believe everything we read. Throughout the film a series of ethical dilemmas arise that ultimately reveal Stephen Glass as a liar and suggest that had they been addressed earlier, he may not have gone on fabricating stories for so long.
“Broken Glass”
It’s 1998: Stressed out, underpaid and overworked journalists work hard to be the first to report breaking stories for The New Republic magazine. The pressure is on to find the most interesting stories and scandals at this political magazine. Few do, but one journalist seems to find the quirkiest, most intriguing stories that no other magazine or journalist has covered. It almost sounds too good to be true. In fact, 25-year-old Associate Editor Stephen Glass fabricated 25 of 41 stories during his time at The New Republic, and his story is portrayed in the 2003 blockbuster Shattered Glass. This film not only depicts the true nature and story of Glass’s deceit, but it also calls attention to a number of ethical dilemmas that lead to the investigation of Glass’s reporting and following pieces. In addition to exposing Glass, the film ultimately warned viewers to be critical of the media.
The New Republic had been a trusted news source since 1914, and its staff in 1998 consisted of 15 young, eager, hardworking journalist (Shattered Glass, 2003). The film begins with a clip of Stephen Glass, played by Hayden Christensen, gloating while walking through a crowd saying, “Your work can actually influence public policy. It’s an amazing privilege and huge responsibility” (Shattered Glass, 2003). He continues to give a public speech to a high school classroom full of young journalism students, “I never encourage anything sneaky in pursuit of a story, such as a phony identity… it’s important to get every quote and every detail” (Shattered Glass, 2003). Glass followed half of his own advice because each one of his fabricated stories were so detailed that the average person would not question their validity. Glass was challenged by Journalist Adam Penenberg, who worked for Forbes Online, about one story in specific titled “Hack Heaven.” Penenberg intended to write a follow up in response to Glass’s completely made up article about a 15-year-old computer hacker who was hired as software security by a company called “Jukt Micronics” whose system he had hacked into (www.forbes.com). Penenberg could not confirm any of Glass’s sources which is where the first ethical dilemma arose. Glass had fabricated stories prior to this particular article under Editor Michael Kelly, however with the expulsion of Kelly came new Editor Charles Lane who uncovered Glass’s lies (www.cbsnews.com).
Should editors have complete trust in the integrity of their writers? And secondly, can a story be valid solely based on the notes of the journalist? Glass knew that as long as his notes matched the specifics of his story he could pass a basic fact check at his magazine. But the legitimacy of “Hack Heaven” proved that more fact checking was necessary, and as Editor Charles Lane unraveled Glass’s lies another ethical question came about. Lane called the editor of Forbes Online and explained that revealing Glass and his fabricated story would ruin his [Glass] career and morale. Should Lane’s loyalties be to his news magazine, or to care about the potential damage this could cause to Glass? Freelance Photojournalist Amber Mosby, 24, believes that editors should have trust in their writers but at the same time listen to their gut feeling when a reporter consistently comes back with extraordinary stories. Mosby suggests that Editor Michael Kelly should have fact checked Glass’s notes and called or emailed sources. In response to Lane’s call to Forbes’s editor Mosby revealed, “Lane only called Forbes to save his own ass. It’s apparent that what Glass did was wrong, so obviously Forbes was going to print it. Lane just didn’t want to look bad because he was ultimately responsible and that’s unethical.” In an interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Glass reveals that he was driven by people’s reactions of his stories during conference meetings, that he wanted every story to be a “home run,” and that he lied in order to be published (www.cbs.com).
Did he feel too pressured by his boss and colleagues to provide a home run story every issue? Should editors expect less from younger reporters? 27-year-old former reporter for the Indianapolis Star and Northwestern graduate, Andrea Cohen, can identify with Glass in the fact that she too was a young journalist who wanted to make a good impression. “I think there is a lot of pressure to come to staff meetings with big features, but some weeks there is really nothing going on,” she says. Cohen also thinks that editors should always support their writers but at the same time check the validity of their stories. She explains that basing a story entirely on a journalist’s notes is a reliable way of reporting, but that it is the editors job to call the sources. Two preventative measures that could have taken place to ensure the legitimacy of Glass’s stories are 1.) A tape recording of the interview conducted (Cohen), and 2.) Photos of the subjects (Mosby). Mosby says that it is too easy to make up a name or an email these days, but that photographic proof shows validity of the sources.
In a Baltimore City Paper review of Shattered Glass, Journalist Blake de Pastino suggests that the reason Glass’s stories were never questioned is because his editor was pleased by their entertainment, suggesting that the media seems to thrive on sensationalism (www.citypaper.com). He thinks that the film serves as a criticism of the media and essentially brings attention to the fact that a journalist can make up stories and get away with it. Film Critic Clint Morris says that the film is a “Do Not guide to journalism” (www.citypaper.com). Mark Sells of the Oregon Herald believes, “This film caused the entire industry to rethink and evaluate its editorial practices
and it's a great learning tool for young, aspiring journalists; particularly in the way it engages you in the editorial process” (www.oregonherald.com). Sells explains that the pressures in journalism can drive journalists to cross the boundaries between uneventful true stories and sensationalized interest stories. Perhaps director Billy Ray produced Shattered Glass as a warning to be more critical of the media and not believe everything we read. Throughout the film a series of ethical dilemmas arise that ultimately reveal Stephen Glass as a liar and suggest that had they been addressed earlier, he may not have gone on fabricating stories for so long.
Going Undercover
There can be a lot of controversy around the topic of journalists going undercover to get a story. Is it ethical to deceive your sources, or is it sometimes a necessary measure to get the story?
Misleading or Investigative Reporting?
It is no lie that undercover reporting has brought about changes in corrupt institutions throughout history. Ambitious Elizabeth Cochrane posed as mentally ill “Nellie Bly” in 1887 in hopes of exposing the horrible conditions of the Women’s Lunatic Asylum near Manhattan Island. She was successful in helping raise awareness and eventually a larger budget was initiated for the Asylum to improve the conditions (www.womensenews.org). But sometimes undercover reporting can go terribly wrong like in the case of Cecelia Lynn Coy-Jones who posed as a “suspicious” character wearing scrubs in the nursery of hospital. There had been two local kidnappings prior to Coy-Jones’s stunt, which was the initial reason she entered the hospital undercover. She was arrested, charged with two counts of attempted aggravated kidnapping, and bail was set for $10,000 (www.amarillo.com). Not only can going undercover be risky, but it can also raise questions about deception, dishonesty, and overall trickery. There are benefits to going undercover, but in doing so, some journalists lose their respect in a business widely held accountable for its system of ethics.
In the fall of 2003 Chronicle reporter Kevin Fagan and photojournalist Brant Ward hit the streets of the Tenderloin area in San Francisco. Anyone familiar with the area knows that it is highly populated with the homeless, junkies, police, and a few confused tourists. They ran a series called “Shame of the City” that took readers into the world of the homeless and addicts. It was a call for change and brought hope to the people Fagan and Ward had become very close with. The two Chronicle reporters spent a lot of time with their sources before they pulled out a notepad or snapped a photo. They didn’t want to intimidate, and ultimately their tactics were successful in capturing the lives of the individuals most people group together as “the homeless” (www.sfgate.com/homeless).
In one specific instance, Fagan and Ward entered a shelter notorious for dangerous and unsanitary conditions. They stayed two nights at Multi-Service Center South Shelter, and upon arrival did not identify themselves as reporters. However, they did not dress any different than they normally would and never lied about their purpose of visiting; no one had asked (www.gradethenews.org). They spoke with many people about what goes on in the shelters and how they ended up there. Fagan paints a vivid picture of four men who easily sneak in beer and crack and begin to use in an isolated corner of the shelter. They [Fagan and Ward] are warned to hold their belongings tight because things go easily missing. A late night attendant reveals that, "This is where the city sends the dopers or boozers who say they don't want to clean up,” later explaining that they are aware of the crack and booze in the shelter they just don’t hunt for it. During their time in the shelter Fagan and Ward asked permission to print photos or quotes if names were used. An ethical question arose after the story was published: Was it ethical for Fagan and Ward to go undercover?
Yes, says Fagan. He thinks that if the shelter were warned in advance of the Chronicles presence his experience would have been different. "If you let public officials know you're coming, you're going to get the cleaned-up version," said Fagan in his defense of going undercover. His intentions were to capture the reality of shelters, not to deceive anyone (www.gradethenews.org). He admits that he did wrestle with the idea but that it was originally editor Phil Bronstein’s idea and ultimately the collective decision of the editors.
The Chronicle follows a set of ethics that determine whether or not it is justified to go undercover. The newspapers asks: Is the resulting news story or photograph of such vital public interest that its news value outweighs the potential damage to trust and credibility? Can the story be recast to avoid the need not to disclose one's identity in gathering the information? And, have all other reasonable means of getting the story been exhausted? In this case, the issue of homelessness was of vital public interest and a big problem that needed to be addressed. The story needed to speak for itself in the form of pictures that were more powerful than words; and the reality of the issue was emphasized through first hand accounts. On the other hand the newspaper also applies the same code of ethics when it’s necessary that a reporter identify him/herself. Will some of the most vulnerable people on the streets be upset when they learn the person they have been speaking with turns out to be a journalist? Most importantly, failing to identify oneself as a reporter is deceiving.
Misleading or Investigative Reporting?
It is no lie that undercover reporting has brought about changes in corrupt institutions throughout history. Ambitious Elizabeth Cochrane posed as mentally ill “Nellie Bly” in 1887 in hopes of exposing the horrible conditions of the Women’s Lunatic Asylum near Manhattan Island. She was successful in helping raise awareness and eventually a larger budget was initiated for the Asylum to improve the conditions (www.womensenews.org). But sometimes undercover reporting can go terribly wrong like in the case of Cecelia Lynn Coy-Jones who posed as a “suspicious” character wearing scrubs in the nursery of hospital. There had been two local kidnappings prior to Coy-Jones’s stunt, which was the initial reason she entered the hospital undercover. She was arrested, charged with two counts of attempted aggravated kidnapping, and bail was set for $10,000 (www.amarillo.com). Not only can going undercover be risky, but it can also raise questions about deception, dishonesty, and overall trickery. There are benefits to going undercover, but in doing so, some journalists lose their respect in a business widely held accountable for its system of ethics.
In the fall of 2003 Chronicle reporter Kevin Fagan and photojournalist Brant Ward hit the streets of the Tenderloin area in San Francisco. Anyone familiar with the area knows that it is highly populated with the homeless, junkies, police, and a few confused tourists. They ran a series called “Shame of the City” that took readers into the world of the homeless and addicts. It was a call for change and brought hope to the people Fagan and Ward had become very close with. The two Chronicle reporters spent a lot of time with their sources before they pulled out a notepad or snapped a photo. They didn’t want to intimidate, and ultimately their tactics were successful in capturing the lives of the individuals most people group together as “the homeless” (www.sfgate.com/homeless).
In one specific instance, Fagan and Ward entered a shelter notorious for dangerous and unsanitary conditions. They stayed two nights at Multi-Service Center South Shelter, and upon arrival did not identify themselves as reporters. However, they did not dress any different than they normally would and never lied about their purpose of visiting; no one had asked (www.gradethenews.org). They spoke with many people about what goes on in the shelters and how they ended up there. Fagan paints a vivid picture of four men who easily sneak in beer and crack and begin to use in an isolated corner of the shelter. They [Fagan and Ward] are warned to hold their belongings tight because things go easily missing. A late night attendant reveals that, "This is where the city sends the dopers or boozers who say they don't want to clean up,” later explaining that they are aware of the crack and booze in the shelter they just don’t hunt for it. During their time in the shelter Fagan and Ward asked permission to print photos or quotes if names were used. An ethical question arose after the story was published: Was it ethical for Fagan and Ward to go undercover?
Yes, says Fagan. He thinks that if the shelter were warned in advance of the Chronicles presence his experience would have been different. "If you let public officials know you're coming, you're going to get the cleaned-up version," said Fagan in his defense of going undercover. His intentions were to capture the reality of shelters, not to deceive anyone (www.gradethenews.org). He admits that he did wrestle with the idea but that it was originally editor Phil Bronstein’s idea and ultimately the collective decision of the editors.
The Chronicle follows a set of ethics that determine whether or not it is justified to go undercover. The newspapers asks: Is the resulting news story or photograph of such vital public interest that its news value outweighs the potential damage to trust and credibility? Can the story be recast to avoid the need not to disclose one's identity in gathering the information? And, have all other reasonable means of getting the story been exhausted? In this case, the issue of homelessness was of vital public interest and a big problem that needed to be addressed. The story needed to speak for itself in the form of pictures that were more powerful than words; and the reality of the issue was emphasized through first hand accounts. On the other hand the newspaper also applies the same code of ethics when it’s necessary that a reporter identify him/herself. Will some of the most vulnerable people on the streets be upset when they learn the person they have been speaking with turns out to be a journalist? Most importantly, failing to identify oneself as a reporter is deceiving.
Pulitzer-prize worthy?
Kevin Carter photographed the devastating famine in Darfur in 1993. He won a Pulitzer-prize for his compelling picture of an emaciated child struggling to make it to a food center. Behind the child is a preying vulture waiting to attack. This photo was extremely powerful and served as a rude awakening to a lot of people. He didn't help the child get to the food center however, he just chased the vulture away. Should he have been deemed such a hero, even though he didn't help the poor child?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5241442
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5241442
TMZ first to report Michael Jackson's death?
Over the summer when Michael Jackson passed away it was TMZ of all sources to first report his death. Here's the story: http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/25/michael-jackson-dies-death-dead-cardiac-arrest/
Before hand TMZ was not considered so credible, but I'm wondering if their ability to report the death of such a great musical figure has given them a more dependable name?
Before hand TMZ was not considered so credible, but I'm wondering if their ability to report the death of such a great musical figure has given them a more dependable name?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)