It looks like bloggers are now going to be more like traditional journalists. The FTC is considering regulations to keep bloggers from posting a link to an online retailer and getting commissions from sales. Basically, conflicts of interest that journalists (are supposed to) refrain from will be regulated for bloggers, too.
As more and more people turn to blogs for information, we can expect to see more regulations so that journalistic standards apply to all forms of journalism.
When looking at user comments on newspaper web sites, it makes you wonder how user-generated content should be handled. Many ignorant or tasteless people comment on web sites with incredibly offensive opinions. Things can get especially heated when the subject of the story is controversial and two differing opinions are represented on the boards. Is the newspaper responsible for these comments since they are appearing on its web site?
It’s a hard line to walk when it comes to user-generated content. On the one hand, you want your readers to be able to respond and be involved. On the other hand, you don’t want offensive things to appear on your web site. One option is moderating the comments, but to approve every one would be a huge job in itself and would keep immediate discussion from happening. Right now, the best answer is to only moderate those that are flagged as offensive by other readers. But it is yet to be seen whether newspapers are legally responsible for these comments.
Last week, I read an article in the New York Times about how one of its reporters (David Rohde) who had been kidnapped in Afghanistan had escaped. As I read this, I wondered “What reporter that got kidnapped?” I’m sure a lot of people thought the same thing.
The New York Times decided not to cover the kidnapping and asked other media outlets to do the same in order to protect the reporter’s safety. The question is would the New York Times have taken the same considerations for any other kidnapping if it hadn’t involved one of its own?
I don’t think so. I understand the safety issue here, but a newspaper, especially one with the prestige of the NYT, has the responsibility of reporting the news, giving important information to the public. If any other person had been kidnapped abroad and the captors had warned the Times not to report on it, I don’t think the Times would have listened. These are thoughts editors at such a renowned newspaper have to think about. People are counting on them for ALL the news.
As a white girl, I’m probably not as sensitive to racial issues as I should be. But I also think there are a lot of people who are much too sensitive to race.
I read this post on fair.org and couldn’t help but think that maybe Ishmael Reed is overreacting a little. There are plenty of negative stories done on white people. I guess the problem here is the title “Black in America.” It draws too much attention to the fact that these subjects are black; it makes their race the emphasis, and Reed worries that it will cause people to make negative generalizations about black people. But I think the only people who will make these generalizations are people who are ignorant and would make uneducated generalizations anyway. One black person acting a certain way doesn’t mean all black people act that way. Just as if a white person is a meth addict doesn’t mean all white people are. Hopefully Reed realizes that not all Americans think that way.
The news media should be color blind and not base stories on color of skin unless it really makes a difference to the story. This goes in the other direction, too, because I’ve heard of some networks not running stories because they involve negative footage of black people. If it’s news, than it’s news. It should run regardless of race.
In this post on Poynter Online, a citizen of a small-town talks about how the town’s newspaper has very shallow coverage of the local government and also how the newspaper happens to share the same law firm with several local government agencies. It’s also been noted that those with the legal representation seem to avoid any negative coverage.
Lawyers are very important when it comes to keeping newspapers out of legal trouble, like helping them avoid libel or defamation suits. But sharing legal representation with the government that a newspaper is expected to cover and investigate is a huge conflict of interest. Lawyers have to look out for all their clients, so it probably serves them very well to be able to protect their government clients by advising the newspaper not to have any probing coverage of them. But the newspaper has more responsibility to its readers than its lawyers. The newspaper should consider journalistic concerns over overly cautious legal concerns.
On the topic of Michael Jackson, it seems like social networking sites are replacing news organizations for breaking news information. I found out about Michael Jackson’s death by reading the status updates on my Facebook news feed, which is the same way a lot of people heard about it. Most of us went to a news source for more details, but my Facebook friends definitely scooped CNN.
A similar incident happened to Shaquille O’Neal. He was recently traded to the Cleveland Cavaliers and found out about it through Twitter.
Will news organizations have to start tweeting as soon as they hear about a story if they want to break it first? And will this come at the cost of accuracy?
With the very recent death of Michael Jackson, the media have got their work cut out for them balancing the good times of Jackson with the bad. Most of what I’ve seen have been very positive stories about Jackson, dealing with his great influence on music and his help bridging the gap between races.
Those who write the news are charged with reporting it without any bias. Does this count news obituaries? Or when someone dies, is the media allowed to focus more on his or her good qualities and accomplishments and ignore the bad? We all know Michael Jackson has produced his share of weird stories, but is it okay to gloss over those when covering his death? Is this the journalists’ way of honoring the dead?
South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has gotten a lot of attention in the news lately for his disappearance to Argentina, his affair and his possible misuse of funds, but not a lot of people are questioning the methods of how the e-mails between Sanford and his lover were obtained.
It seems privacy has lost a lot of its importance in today’s culture. While everyone is twittering about their every move, invasion of privacy issues seem to be non-existent.
The steamy e-mails between the governor and his lady friend became the center of the news, probably because they were entertaining, instead of how his job was affected by the affair or his sudden trip out of the country. While it may not be moral to take a mistress, is it moral for the media to make public someone’s private e-mails if they do not have to do with his public office? Or is everything on the internet fair game if you can find it?
As I was doing research for my paper, I came across a lot of articles dealing with the manipulation of fashion models for magazines, whether for the cover or for advertising. I’m sure most girls would agree that many of those models look too good to be true, but many don’t know exactly how much editing (if any) has gone into the photos. This doesn’t help the self-image of teenage girls who look at these magazines.
It’s easy to say from an ethical standpoint that airbrushing should be minimal if allowed at all, but don’t photo editors have some artistic freedom? Do advertisers have the right to say how flawless they want the models who are representing their products?
It’s hard to discern the line between how much editing is too much editing for photos in magazines. For news photos, it’s been suggested that any photo that undergoes editing (besides the normal kind to correct technical things like color, brightness, etc.) should be labeled as an illustration or an edited photo. But if that were the standard for a magazine, every photo would have a label like that.
Should magazines change their standards for photo editing so that young girls will see what beauty standards they should realistically try to live up to?
The Washington Post reported today that the Obama administration is trying to have the statements Dick Cheney made to a special prosecutor during the Valerie Plame case kept secret. The reason: they don’t want future leaders to be afraid of being made fun of on The Daily Show.
The lawyer defending this idea, Jeffrey M. Smith, said that releasing the statements would discourage future vice presidents from voluntarily speaking during criminal probes because they would be concerned “that it’s going to get on ‘The Daily Show’” or be used against them by their political adversaries.
Isn’t that kind of how checks and balances work? If a leader of the country is doing something that could be used against them, that’s exactly when they need to be kept in check. In a democracy, the top positions of the government should not be out of reach of reporting or satirizing. I would hope the top government officials would be worrying about bigger things than Jon Stewart.
