To say that technology can have a negative impact on certain aspects of journalism and the practice of journalistic ethics isn’t necessarily wrong (in fact I’m sure it’s true in a lot of cases), but it is a little bit misleading. Technology does bring added pressure to be the first with the story, to tell the story in a flashy way, even to tell the story people want to hear rather than what they probably need to hear. But desire to be first rather than best has been around for over 100 years, since Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst squared off in the late 1800's. It is not by any means a new phenomenon, and I’m sure there were people denouncing the rise of yellow journalism as a byproduct of the new desire for speed (weeklies had become dailies) and sensationalism then as there are now.
Of course, the numbers have changed a little bit. Days have become hours, minutes and seconds, and there’s no doubt that the pressure to post stories early and often has heightened over the past several years. But keep in mind, we are talking about newspapers, here. The argument that technological advancement in the print industry has led to the ability to move quickly, which has in turn led to a greater propensity for error, hinges on the idea that newspapers have really bought into the hype. And I think that’s a difficult argument to make.
In other media, I’d agree, the need for speed really has changed the game. In the early days of television, for example, the news was updated only a few times a day, once in the morning and once or twice at night. That changed in the early ‘80s with the advent of CNN. Suddenly, the news spun on a 24 hour cycle. Not only did producers have to come up with more news to fill the void, they had to do it more quickly and in the face of greater competition. This of course led to some mistakes, a notable one I can remember involving the West Virginia mining tragedy of a few years ago, when news outlets initially reported that all but one of the victims had survived. They eventually had to go back and inform the public (and some of the families) that somebody had heard wrong, and that they’d jumped the gun. In reality, all but one of the victims had died. In this case, the desire to be the first with the story led to a tragic bit of misinformation.
But when newspapers hit the stands the next day, they got the story right. There wasn’t a mention – outside the coverage of the original gaffe – of the error that had caused the broadcast media so much embarrassment. The point is that newspapers remain the most poured over, edited medium, even the online versions. In certain cases, they have the luxury of watching the news cycle evolve from outside it. They can take their time and decide what to report and what not to report, what is credible and what isn’t. On that front, I’d be curious to know how many newspapers actually update their websites on a regular basis more often than once a day. I’d venture to say the online aspect doesn’t change error frequency as much as one might think. The paper I grew up reading (the Post-Dispatch) very rarely updates their website more than once per day (unless it’s to run new AP stories or to run updated versions of stories from the previous day), so the likelihood of error on that front isn’t all that great.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t problems on the horizon. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that there is panic spreading through the newspaper community: readership is falling, apathy and competition are rising. But there will always be a niche for newspapers in some form. Online readership, while low relative to circulation numbers, is at an all-time high, and there will never be a better way to produce and distribute local news than through the newspaper. As long as the editors and reporters who make up the medium keep in mind that there will always be room for newspapers – and by that I mean for informative, accurate and trustworthy information – maybe the pressures of technological innovation won’t be too much to bear.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Let's do what we do best
Technology constantly is improving upon itself and creating new forms of communication. Newspapers, magazines, radio, television, telephones, the Internet and who knows what is next — all are a result of technology and improved our ability to be better journalists. With that, they also improved our ability to become more ethical journalists.
With the spread of communication, our ability and speed to check information in our stories, in theory, should be near perfect. You can double check information with sources in person, over the phone, through e-mail or by message over a social networking Web site. You can check information you get in documents or from sources against countless other sources online, many of which are accurate. If discrepancies pop up, it’s easy to contact experts you look up on the Internet or talk to the people involved.
With greater technology, we can now figure out who good sources might be for stories. This is no substitute for going to an event, as proved by Jason Leopold in his book News Junkie, but it is a great starting point to do great reporting on an event. We also have the ability to easily figure out what other stories have been done on a topic in the past. Vast databases contain many papers’ works, so writers’ originality can be checked and new ideas can be easily formulated.
And seeing how many journalists in recent memory have been busted for making up sources, information and stories in their entirety, you would think that if nothing else, the fear of being caught lying would be enough to keep journalists ethical. After all, names can be looked up in a fraction of a second, a paragraph cut-and-pasted into a story is quickly traceable and made up events can be debunked by a quick check on the Web.
So why do these lies, in an age where our work should be better than ever, continue happening?
To start with, I think there’s too much of a rush to get things up on the Internet first. Leopold clearly wanted to be the one breaking news about the California energy crisis, and I think his situation is very similar to those other journalists across the country face. If you simply replace the words “California energy crisis” with any other significant breaking news event, I’m sure there are people willing to sacrifice a little integrity in order to be the one to break the news.
Integrity, to me, is putting out the most accurate and well-reported story you can. Yes, there’s always a source that breaks the news, but if you break with something that contains inaccuracies or is flat-out wrong, what’s the point of doing it?
The stories that break almost always bypass the copy desk, an essential part of putting out a quality story. The errors in a story could be caught within 20 minutes. Putting something up 20 minutes after another source, but having the story grammatically correct and error-free seems worth the wait to me.
I've had friends who go to news Web sites and read online editions of papers point out mistakes many of these sites make in a rush to be first. I was reading a breaking story about the Royals signing a player on ESPN.com just a few months ago, when it mentioned a player named Billy Buckner, a hot minor league prospect. I was confused for a moment, but soon realized they must have meant Billy Butler, a good-hitting outfielder. Mistakes like these make it look like journalists could care less about being right as long as they slop something together quickly. It’s an embarrassment to the profession.
There will always be competition for the title of who breaks a story first, but I still think there’s a demand for the best-reported, best-written story out there amongst the readers. It’s the reason I chose the newspaper path, because I think we ultimately have the ability to do just that. Leave the competition for who did it first to the other guys, and let’s put out the best work that we can. I think people want and need it.
With the spread of communication, our ability and speed to check information in our stories, in theory, should be near perfect. You can double check information with sources in person, over the phone, through e-mail or by message over a social networking Web site. You can check information you get in documents or from sources against countless other sources online, many of which are accurate. If discrepancies pop up, it’s easy to contact experts you look up on the Internet or talk to the people involved.
With greater technology, we can now figure out who good sources might be for stories. This is no substitute for going to an event, as proved by Jason Leopold in his book News Junkie, but it is a great starting point to do great reporting on an event. We also have the ability to easily figure out what other stories have been done on a topic in the past. Vast databases contain many papers’ works, so writers’ originality can be checked and new ideas can be easily formulated.
And seeing how many journalists in recent memory have been busted for making up sources, information and stories in their entirety, you would think that if nothing else, the fear of being caught lying would be enough to keep journalists ethical. After all, names can be looked up in a fraction of a second, a paragraph cut-and-pasted into a story is quickly traceable and made up events can be debunked by a quick check on the Web.
So why do these lies, in an age where our work should be better than ever, continue happening?
To start with, I think there’s too much of a rush to get things up on the Internet first. Leopold clearly wanted to be the one breaking news about the California energy crisis, and I think his situation is very similar to those other journalists across the country face. If you simply replace the words “California energy crisis” with any other significant breaking news event, I’m sure there are people willing to sacrifice a little integrity in order to be the one to break the news.
Integrity, to me, is putting out the most accurate and well-reported story you can. Yes, there’s always a source that breaks the news, but if you break with something that contains inaccuracies or is flat-out wrong, what’s the point of doing it?
The stories that break almost always bypass the copy desk, an essential part of putting out a quality story. The errors in a story could be caught within 20 minutes. Putting something up 20 minutes after another source, but having the story grammatically correct and error-free seems worth the wait to me.
I've had friends who go to news Web sites and read online editions of papers point out mistakes many of these sites make in a rush to be first. I was reading a breaking story about the Royals signing a player on ESPN.com just a few months ago, when it mentioned a player named Billy Buckner, a hot minor league prospect. I was confused for a moment, but soon realized they must have meant Billy Butler, a good-hitting outfielder. Mistakes like these make it look like journalists could care less about being right as long as they slop something together quickly. It’s an embarrassment to the profession.
There will always be competition for the title of who breaks a story first, but I still think there’s a demand for the best-reported, best-written story out there amongst the readers. It’s the reason I chose the newspaper path, because I think we ultimately have the ability to do just that. Leave the competition for who did it first to the other guys, and let’s put out the best work that we can. I think people want and need it.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
The greatest opportunity
I don’t think technology is the problem here. It’s the teaching and development of ethics that are at fault.
The problem with rapidly-developing technology and journalistic ethics is that the technology is actually developing past journalism’s ethical development. Journalists have been developing ethical philosophies for since Americans were granted free speech – and they still haven’t perfected an absolute, widely-accepted philosophy, beyond “don’t plagiarize” and “don’t make things up.”
Rather than focus the discussion on journalistic ethics as applied to technology, the conversation should concern ethical basics. The problem is that we – not just as journalists, but as general people – don’t know how to deal with ethics. It’s just not something that everyone learns as they grow and mature. Even if our parents did teach us that it was wrong to lie, we didn’t learn much more than that: it was wrong and you’d get a spanking. We need to learn about ethics early, often and in context.
This applies to budding journalists, too. Perhaps journalism students should be required to take a full course on journalistic ethics, as opposed to discussing it in a few class periods of each journalism class we take. We should learn what ethics are early in our education and not wait to have these discussions until our final class in our final semester of study. And perhaps that course shouldn’t just be about journalistic ethics. To understand such a complex subject, we need to have broad understanding of how ethics apply to daily life. For example, is it okay to change the date and time of a late blog post to make it appear you turned it in on time? (Obviously, according to my ethics it is not.) It’s not just about how to make an ethical decision – we need to know the actual definition of “ethical” and how it relates to societal values and personal morals.
And, as both journalists and regular people, it needs to be okay when we make mistakes. No, you can’t constantly make bad decisions and expect to keep your job (or A+), but you should be able to make a slip up or two as you go. Just like technology, the components of ethical decision-making are ever-changing. It has to be okay to make some less-than-kosher ethical judgments, partly because we are always learning, partly because the situations are always changing and mostly because there is no universal correct answer.
Technology hasn’t created problems for this business; it’s created opportunities. Opportunities for 24-hour news services, Internet source databases, convergence of all news mediums. But the most important opportunity offered is the one that allows journalists to reassess our ethics – the process of decision-making, the teaching – and make true advances in perfection.
The problem with rapidly-developing technology and journalistic ethics is that the technology is actually developing past journalism’s ethical development. Journalists have been developing ethical philosophies for since Americans were granted free speech – and they still haven’t perfected an absolute, widely-accepted philosophy, beyond “don’t plagiarize” and “don’t make things up.”
Rather than focus the discussion on journalistic ethics as applied to technology, the conversation should concern ethical basics. The problem is that we – not just as journalists, but as general people – don’t know how to deal with ethics. It’s just not something that everyone learns as they grow and mature. Even if our parents did teach us that it was wrong to lie, we didn’t learn much more than that: it was wrong and you’d get a spanking. We need to learn about ethics early, often and in context.
This applies to budding journalists, too. Perhaps journalism students should be required to take a full course on journalistic ethics, as opposed to discussing it in a few class periods of each journalism class we take. We should learn what ethics are early in our education and not wait to have these discussions until our final class in our final semester of study. And perhaps that course shouldn’t just be about journalistic ethics. To understand such a complex subject, we need to have broad understanding of how ethics apply to daily life. For example, is it okay to change the date and time of a late blog post to make it appear you turned it in on time? (Obviously, according to my ethics it is not.) It’s not just about how to make an ethical decision – we need to know the actual definition of “ethical” and how it relates to societal values and personal morals.
And, as both journalists and regular people, it needs to be okay when we make mistakes. No, you can’t constantly make bad decisions and expect to keep your job (or A+), but you should be able to make a slip up or two as you go. Just like technology, the components of ethical decision-making are ever-changing. It has to be okay to make some less-than-kosher ethical judgments, partly because we are always learning, partly because the situations are always changing and mostly because there is no universal correct answer.
Technology hasn’t created problems for this business; it’s created opportunities. Opportunities for 24-hour news services, Internet source databases, convergence of all news mediums. But the most important opportunity offered is the one that allows journalists to reassess our ethics – the process of decision-making, the teaching – and make true advances in perfection.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Technology and Dissemination
I have often worried about monopolies on information. If one corporation controls what people read, hear and watch, it can affectively control what people know and maybe even how people think. Journalists began expressing this concern as more and more cities lost competing newspapers. It came about again with the Telecommunication Acts when corporations began controlling multiple forms of media in a single city.
High speed Internet, in theory, should rest my troubled mind. Today, Americans can compare multiple news sources. The New York Times’ version of the truth can be checked against a U.S. government website, which can be compared to reports from television stations abroad. Information flows unrestrained and freely across different media, corporations, cities, and countries. This technological development is nothing short of a democratic necessity today.
Before I sing praise and glory to online journalism, I must point out a serious flaw: it is a medium for the middle class and elite.
According to 2003 U.S. Census data, only 54.7 percent of American households had Internet access at home. Unsurprisingly, the relationship between Internet access and household income was inversely correlated. A staggering 92 percent of households making $100,000 or more had Internet access, while only 41 percent of households making less than $25,000 a year had access.
If newspapers are attempting to follow the money in America, they would be wise to focus resources on their websites and online reports. Corporations could even be advised to hurry along the seemingly inevitable deaths of slower, costlier and less interactive print media. However, if there are CEO’s out there who believe in informing the masses and journalism for democracy, perhaps they find this new emphasis on technology in the newsroom slightly bothersome.
The emergence of the penny press in the 1830’s was another type of information revolution. Average American’s could now afford to read about the political and economic happenings in their cities. Moreover, these papers were written in a way that the average man could understand. While the content strayed towards entertainment and sensationalism, the ideal of news for the masses was there. Technology has seemingly outgrown the desire to inform the masses that was present with Gutenberg’s invention and golden days of newspapers.
Where the fine line between elite interests or financial success and serving the greater good falls is hazy at best. The amount and depth of information on the Internet is staggering and inspiring for those who seek to inform. It takes very little to get swept away in enthusiasm for the endless possibilities of technology. The simple invent of search engines and archives have changed journalism for the better, adding background and context to stories, which were once ephemeral. Clearly the ability to read the same story from five different reliable newspapers with the click of a mouse and with no additional cost (aside from computer and access), is serving democracy better.
Yes, the Internet serves people well. Except for, of course, the 45.3 percent of Americans who don’t have Internet access at home. To be honest, I couldn’t find statistics on how many of the unconnected individuals get Internet access at work or at local libraries. But the simple fact remains, that an informed public is key to democracy, and online journalism simply fails to inform the masses.
A middle ground must be found between rushing feet first into the best and most expensive media and providing free newspapers on every street corner or every doorstep in low-income neighborhoods.
High speed Internet, in theory, should rest my troubled mind. Today, Americans can compare multiple news sources. The New York Times’ version of the truth can be checked against a U.S. government website, which can be compared to reports from television stations abroad. Information flows unrestrained and freely across different media, corporations, cities, and countries. This technological development is nothing short of a democratic necessity today.
Before I sing praise and glory to online journalism, I must point out a serious flaw: it is a medium for the middle class and elite.
According to 2003 U.S. Census data, only 54.7 percent of American households had Internet access at home. Unsurprisingly, the relationship between Internet access and household income was inversely correlated. A staggering 92 percent of households making $100,000 or more had Internet access, while only 41 percent of households making less than $25,000 a year had access.
If newspapers are attempting to follow the money in America, they would be wise to focus resources on their websites and online reports. Corporations could even be advised to hurry along the seemingly inevitable deaths of slower, costlier and less interactive print media. However, if there are CEO’s out there who believe in informing the masses and journalism for democracy, perhaps they find this new emphasis on technology in the newsroom slightly bothersome.
The emergence of the penny press in the 1830’s was another type of information revolution. Average American’s could now afford to read about the political and economic happenings in their cities. Moreover, these papers were written in a way that the average man could understand. While the content strayed towards entertainment and sensationalism, the ideal of news for the masses was there. Technology has seemingly outgrown the desire to inform the masses that was present with Gutenberg’s invention and golden days of newspapers.
Where the fine line between elite interests or financial success and serving the greater good falls is hazy at best. The amount and depth of information on the Internet is staggering and inspiring for those who seek to inform. It takes very little to get swept away in enthusiasm for the endless possibilities of technology. The simple invent of search engines and archives have changed journalism for the better, adding background and context to stories, which were once ephemeral. Clearly the ability to read the same story from five different reliable newspapers with the click of a mouse and with no additional cost (aside from computer and access), is serving democracy better.
Yes, the Internet serves people well. Except for, of course, the 45.3 percent of Americans who don’t have Internet access at home. To be honest, I couldn’t find statistics on how many of the unconnected individuals get Internet access at work or at local libraries. But the simple fact remains, that an informed public is key to democracy, and online journalism simply fails to inform the masses.
A middle ground must be found between rushing feet first into the best and most expensive media and providing free newspapers on every street corner or every doorstep in low-income neighborhoods.
"A Bloggers' Code of Ethics"
Lately at my apartment, the internet seems to go out about once a week for a period of a couple days. It’s an extremely frustration situation when I can’t check my e-mail, browse my favorite Web sites and use the internet for homework, of course. We all have our routines every day including checking our favorite Web sites, however, I don’t think we really understand how much we rely on the internet until we can’t use it. This situation, as incredibly irritating it has been for me, has actually been an eye-opener because it’s made me realize how much I really do rely on the internet and technology.
The internet is just like any other tool we have available to us. You can look up information for a story in a book, but why waste the time finding the book when you could have looked it up on the internet before you got out the door? While the internet makes us more efficient and information much more readily available, it has its drawbacks, of course. Sometimes people are in such a hurry to get the information quickly or break a story, that they overlook the fact that the information might not be credible. This includes journalists even though some wouldn’t like to admit it. Clearly, technology can be a curse to journalists as we saw with Jason Leopold and his book, News Junkie. Leopold was so focused on being the first to break a story that he put the ethics of journalism aside. While many are so focused on whether journalists are following the code of ethics related to technology, they seem to forget the idea that an ethical journalist is going to be ethical with or without the internet. The code of ethics for a medium such as broadcast or print, isn’t really different than the online community.
In the online community, bloggers have an ethical obligation to their readers just as much as a newspaper does. To be clear, whether the bloggers are journalists or not, not all are going to feel they have an ethical obligation to their readers, only the responsible ones. To reporters and bloggers alike, the foundation of credibility is integrity. Just like a reporter, a blogger who fails to report the truth is going to lose credibility and their readership. Responsible bloggers should recognize that anyone has the capability to read what they write and therefore they should understand that they have certain ethical obligations to their readers. But just how strict should these ethical obligations be? Like I said before, a bloggers’ code of ethics shouldn’t be much different than a trained reporter.
Founded in 2000, cyberjournalist.net is edited and published by Jonathan Dube, an award-winning online and print journalist. The Web site identifies itself as “a news and resource site that focuses on how the Internet, convergence and new technologies are changing the media.” In order to create a code of ethics for the blog world, Dube modified the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. Titled a “Bloggers’ Code of Ethics”, it was created to give guidelines to bloggers so that they can practice ethical publishing. The first main idea in the code is to be honest and fair. This includes being transparent to your readers about sources, not publishing questionable information and distinguishing between fact and commentary. So far, sounds like a code that reporters and newspapers practice. The next main point is to minimize harm. This includes being sensitive to those affected by tragedy or grief and even references to laws about privacy when it comes to public vs. private figures. Again, these guidelines are quite similar to ones journalists practice as well. The final point of the Bloggers’ Code is to be accountable. Admitting and correcting mistakes, disclosing conflicts of interest and exposing the unethical practices of other bloggers are all parts of that idea. Yes, technology can be a shortcut for journalists which can harm their ability to be ethical. But, it doesn’t have to be. As long as journalists remember the principles in which ethical journalism (blog or not) is practiced, I think we will be just fine.
Blogging reporters
The future of journalism, or more particularly the grim future of newspaper journalism, lies in the hands of technology. Newspaper readership is declining and people are turning to the Internet more and more. So it makes sense that technological improvements be made in order for the news to reach more people.
Though these improvements can pose challenges to the journalists who are trying to make best use of the new technology. Often these are ethical challenges.
An example of this is blogs, namely reporters who blog. The popularity of blogs has grown dramatically over the past few years, and now nearly anyone with access to a computer and something to say can put their thoughts online. There are few barriers to posting blogs, especially when it comes to requirements that what is posted is accurate and ethical.
With so many people today being able to blog, it seems journalists should be no exception. Though there are a few issues to take into consideration before jumping to the conclusion that reporters should be able to have blogs just like anyone else.
It makes sense to encourage people who have reporting experience to maintain blogs. The writing likely will be more accurate and better researched than a lot of what is out there.
But a line should be drawn when it comes to journalists blogging about any kind of personal issues. Reporters discussing their political leanings or personal biases, which certainly all people have, could put their skills into question.
If a journalist writes about being liberal, then readers could attack the journalist’s story about a Republican candidate as being slanted. The story might have been completely accurate and objective, but the blog gave people reason to believe it wasn’t.
Studies show the public’s skepticism of print journalism. Readers increasingly don’t view newspapers as the most trustworthy source of news. Reporters blogging about their personal lives just furthers that problem. Newspapers should make an attempt to prohibit their writers from keeping this kind of blog. At this point it’s not a matter or censorship or stifling anyone’s expression, it’s preserving the integrity of the paper that hopefully will lead to an audience that is more inclined to believe what it reads in the paper.
Though there is some value in encouraging reporters to blog. Blogs can be a valuable tool when it comes to promoting transparency.
A blog can give reporters room to be ethical in their work. They can describe how they did their reporting and how they found their sources. That is not to say they should give away everything they have worked hard to uncover so that another paper can steal the information. But rather, journalists perform a public service, so the public has a right to know how a journalist reported a story.
Many of the problems Jason Leopold ran into related to his methods for gaining information, meaning the lying he did to get what he wanted. Ideally that is not how journalism should be done.
Technology in the case of blogs can help promote ethical decisions and actions among journalists. The News about the News talked about the work that people in newsrooms put into determining how to report and present a news story.
“In our experience, newspaper people are more conscious of the risks inherent in their enterprise that readers might realize. In the newsroom . . . bright people worry intently with one another over how to handle the news, what leads to chase, how to write and present complex stories” (74).
There isn’t always space in a newspaper for a reporter to be transparent about the reporting process, but a blog allows for that, which hopefully will lead to more ethical journalism.
Readers often do not realize the work that can go into a single story. Countless decisions are made, rewriting is done and editors are consulted all to produce a 12-inch story. But the readers just get the words on the page.
The News about the News discussed New York Times reporter Doug Frantz and the story he did on Scientology. “Asked if he thought ordinary newspaper readers understood how investigative reporters worked, Frantz said, ‘I think people don’t understand the difficulty in getting information. They really think that the press conferences they see on TV are the way everybody gets every story’” (41).
A blog can help people understand the process an investigate reporter goes through. It can include the details of all the work that goes into a story, which normally wouldn’t be printed or published anywhere.
Though these improvements can pose challenges to the journalists who are trying to make best use of the new technology. Often these are ethical challenges.
An example of this is blogs, namely reporters who blog. The popularity of blogs has grown dramatically over the past few years, and now nearly anyone with access to a computer and something to say can put their thoughts online. There are few barriers to posting blogs, especially when it comes to requirements that what is posted is accurate and ethical.
With so many people today being able to blog, it seems journalists should be no exception. Though there are a few issues to take into consideration before jumping to the conclusion that reporters should be able to have blogs just like anyone else.
It makes sense to encourage people who have reporting experience to maintain blogs. The writing likely will be more accurate and better researched than a lot of what is out there.
But a line should be drawn when it comes to journalists blogging about any kind of personal issues. Reporters discussing their political leanings or personal biases, which certainly all people have, could put their skills into question.
If a journalist writes about being liberal, then readers could attack the journalist’s story about a Republican candidate as being slanted. The story might have been completely accurate and objective, but the blog gave people reason to believe it wasn’t.
Studies show the public’s skepticism of print journalism. Readers increasingly don’t view newspapers as the most trustworthy source of news. Reporters blogging about their personal lives just furthers that problem. Newspapers should make an attempt to prohibit their writers from keeping this kind of blog. At this point it’s not a matter or censorship or stifling anyone’s expression, it’s preserving the integrity of the paper that hopefully will lead to an audience that is more inclined to believe what it reads in the paper.
Though there is some value in encouraging reporters to blog. Blogs can be a valuable tool when it comes to promoting transparency.
A blog can give reporters room to be ethical in their work. They can describe how they did their reporting and how they found their sources. That is not to say they should give away everything they have worked hard to uncover so that another paper can steal the information. But rather, journalists perform a public service, so the public has a right to know how a journalist reported a story.
Many of the problems Jason Leopold ran into related to his methods for gaining information, meaning the lying he did to get what he wanted. Ideally that is not how journalism should be done.
Technology in the case of blogs can help promote ethical decisions and actions among journalists. The News about the News talked about the work that people in newsrooms put into determining how to report and present a news story.
“In our experience, newspaper people are more conscious of the risks inherent in their enterprise that readers might realize. In the newsroom . . . bright people worry intently with one another over how to handle the news, what leads to chase, how to write and present complex stories” (74).
There isn’t always space in a newspaper for a reporter to be transparent about the reporting process, but a blog allows for that, which hopefully will lead to more ethical journalism.
Readers often do not realize the work that can go into a single story. Countless decisions are made, rewriting is done and editors are consulted all to produce a 12-inch story. But the readers just get the words on the page.
The News about the News discussed New York Times reporter Doug Frantz and the story he did on Scientology. “Asked if he thought ordinary newspaper readers understood how investigative reporters worked, Frantz said, ‘I think people don’t understand the difficulty in getting information. They really think that the press conferences they see on TV are the way everybody gets every story’” (41).
A blog can help people understand the process an investigate reporter goes through. It can include the details of all the work that goes into a story, which normally wouldn’t be printed or published anywhere.
Guarding credibility
It’s almost hard to imagine a world where we couldn’t have information at our fingertips. If I don’t know something I google it and instantly find an answer. While these search engines, news sites and information mills can be very helpful, this need for immediate response and constant information can also be dangerous. The need to know quickly has overtaken the need for accuracy. Journalists have been willing to sacrifice their credibility—the most important thing they can hold onto—to hold the coveted title of “first” out of the gate.
In Elements of Journalism, John Seeley Brown, former director of Xerox PARC, says how he thinks changing technology has affected journalist’s role: “What we need in the new economy and the new communications culture is sense making. We have a desperate need to get some stable points in an increasingly crazy world.”
But, for some, the new age of technology has not caused journalists to make sense of the crazy world, but rather jump right into the frenetic pace. In News Junkie, Jason Leopold’s case may seem extreme at first. His journalistic ethics seem to become nearly nonexistent in his quest to win the news game. But his example may not be as isolated and obscure as what it seems. Everyday journalists are faced with ethical questions and dilemmas they never had years ago. Should I publish the story right now even though we aren’t sure just to make sure we’re first? Can I insert this information in my story from wikipedia? I can’t find it anywhere else, but I’m pretty sure it’s true.
Although the internet can be a significant help in finding information it can also be detrimental when reporters rely solely upon it without checking facts. The paper I worked at this summer recently ran a story that said the person would not return phone calls but a Google search had revealed certain information. It’s sad when reporters are relying on Google to get information they once got through hard work. Newfound technology not only has the capability for reporters to sacrifice accuracy for timeliness, like Jason Leopold, but also, to become lazy and simply sit on their computer and publish whatever information they find on the internet without ensuring its reliability.
So why is it that a little bit of copying and pasting, not quite checking all the facts to be quick and getting some information from your story from Wikipedia can be so harmful to journalism? The answer is simple. Journalism’s cornerstone—its legitimacy—rest in one thing—credibility.
In The Elements of Journalism, Kovach and Rosensteil say, “Since there are no laws of journalism, no regulations, no licensing and no formal self-policing, and since journalism by its nature can be exploitative, a heavy burden rests on the ethics and judgment of the individual journalist and the individual organization where he or she works.”
Ultimately, it’s up to you and me. We are the ones that will be faced with ethical dilemmas where we are forced to decide if it’s okay to bend the truth or cross the line to get the story. One of the most concerning things I heard from Jason Leopold was not in his book but when he spoke to us in class and basically said journalists have special rights. Although he negated later that he meant journalists were above the law, I think that’s an attitude many journalists can easily adopt. It’s okay if I bend these rules, if this information isn’t quite right, because the people need to know.
Whenever journalists forget their responsibility to the people that they are serving they are potentially not only sacrificing their own credibility, but the credibility of journalists everywhere. While technology serves many good purposes, it is also important to guard against it corrupting the soul of journalism.
In Elements of Journalism, John Seeley Brown, former director of Xerox PARC, says how he thinks changing technology has affected journalist’s role: “What we need in the new economy and the new communications culture is sense making. We have a desperate need to get some stable points in an increasingly crazy world.”
But, for some, the new age of technology has not caused journalists to make sense of the crazy world, but rather jump right into the frenetic pace. In News Junkie, Jason Leopold’s case may seem extreme at first. His journalistic ethics seem to become nearly nonexistent in his quest to win the news game. But his example may not be as isolated and obscure as what it seems. Everyday journalists are faced with ethical questions and dilemmas they never had years ago. Should I publish the story right now even though we aren’t sure just to make sure we’re first? Can I insert this information in my story from wikipedia? I can’t find it anywhere else, but I’m pretty sure it’s true.
Although the internet can be a significant help in finding information it can also be detrimental when reporters rely solely upon it without checking facts. The paper I worked at this summer recently ran a story that said the person would not return phone calls but a Google search had revealed certain information. It’s sad when reporters are relying on Google to get information they once got through hard work. Newfound technology not only has the capability for reporters to sacrifice accuracy for timeliness, like Jason Leopold, but also, to become lazy and simply sit on their computer and publish whatever information they find on the internet without ensuring its reliability.
So why is it that a little bit of copying and pasting, not quite checking all the facts to be quick and getting some information from your story from Wikipedia can be so harmful to journalism? The answer is simple. Journalism’s cornerstone—its legitimacy—rest in one thing—credibility.
In The Elements of Journalism, Kovach and Rosensteil say, “Since there are no laws of journalism, no regulations, no licensing and no formal self-policing, and since journalism by its nature can be exploitative, a heavy burden rests on the ethics and judgment of the individual journalist and the individual organization where he or she works.”
Ultimately, it’s up to you and me. We are the ones that will be faced with ethical dilemmas where we are forced to decide if it’s okay to bend the truth or cross the line to get the story. One of the most concerning things I heard from Jason Leopold was not in his book but when he spoke to us in class and basically said journalists have special rights. Although he negated later that he meant journalists were above the law, I think that’s an attitude many journalists can easily adopt. It’s okay if I bend these rules, if this information isn’t quite right, because the people need to know.
Whenever journalists forget their responsibility to the people that they are serving they are potentially not only sacrificing their own credibility, but the credibility of journalists everywhere. While technology serves many good purposes, it is also important to guard against it corrupting the soul of journalism.
Technology and Journalism Ethics
Technological advances in recent years have opened the doors to a wide range of possibilities for journalists. We now have infinitely more ways to gather, edit, produce and disseminate substantive information to a broad audience in a much timelier manner. But as technology has ushered in a new age of information, it has also brought about a plethora of new ethical problems and dilemmas. The challenge for current and future journalists is to take advantage of the beneficial aspects of new technology while maintaining traditional journalistic values and ethics.
Technology has been especially helpful in the production of news, as the Internet and computer programs have revolutionized the production process. As we discussed in class, copy editors can now fact-check names and other information in half the time with a simple online search. In turn, this shorter production time allows reporters more time to focus on getting accurate, complete information that provides context and depth.
Online publishing also provides a new opportunities to serve the public interest and hold the powerful accountable. (1) With online records searches and computerized databases, journalists have even more opportunities for investigative research and reporting. News organizations can communicate breaking news and urgent information to a wide audience in a short time through text casting, RSS feeds and other tools. And because the Internet allows two-way communication between the news media and its audience, it encourages citizen participation and community discussion on important issues and events. Better communication with readers and the public allows journalists to stay more informed of community interests and concerns, and it helps to ensure the media report the news accurately, fairly and completely.
But for all the benefits of computer technology and the Internet, there are just as many — if not more — professional and ethical challenges for journalists. There are innumerable problems related to blogging and Web publishing that, when combined, can produce a “stew that can turn from tasty to troubling.” (2) Perhaps the most important ethical dilemma associated with online journalism is the need to “balance the value of serving readers with timely, immediate information versus the value of providing them with accurate, fair, complete and carefully vetted information.” (2) Journalists must walk the line between being first and being right.
In many situations, the ability and desire to be the first one out of the gate with a story can push the boundaries of acceptable journalistic practices. For Jason Leopold, the rush of breaking a story completely overshadowed any concerns about ethics or accuracy. “I didn’t care about ethics,” Leopold says. “I didn’t even think about ethical violations. I just wanted to be the first one to get to the truth.” (3) Although Leopold’s behavior may be more extreme than that of most reporters, the temptation to cut corners is nonetheless an issue for many journalists. In an industry that rewards speed, accuracy can become an afterthought. Even small news organizations, such as the Missourian, may be beginning to adopt a policy of “post now, check later.” Of course, when stories are completely accurate, this strategy can be very rewarding. But when they’re not, the results can be disastrous.
In addition, computer technology also presents opportunities to alter or falsify information. With the click of a button, a journalist can easily manipulate a photograph, alter the contents of a document or create a fake e-mail. Journalists can now even alter or falsify information in their resumes and portfolios. With electronic versions, it’s relatively simple to re-do a reporting, editing or design clip to improve it or fix an error. Technology has made misrepresentation much easier — and much more tempting.
The Internet and other technologies have given journalists boundless tools with which to improve and perfect their craft. But the same tools that enable us to serve the public good are full of opportunities for ethical missteps. While our technological abilities have advanced, journalists have not yet developed a comprehensive set of ethical guidelines to manage the challenges of a changing industry. It is essential that ethical discussions related to these changes continue to take place in classrooms and newsrooms as we continue to struggle with the limitless capabilities of technology and online journalism.
(1) “Online Journalism Ethics: Guidelines from the Conference.” The Poynter Institute. http://poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=117350. Updated: 11 February 2007.
(2) Steele, Bob. “Helter Skelter No More: An Evolving Guidebook for Online Ethics.” The Poynter Institute. http://poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=117347&sid=32. Updated: 1 February 2007.
(3) Leopold, Jason. News Junkie. Los Angeles: Process Media, 2006. pp. 201.
Technology has been especially helpful in the production of news, as the Internet and computer programs have revolutionized the production process. As we discussed in class, copy editors can now fact-check names and other information in half the time with a simple online search. In turn, this shorter production time allows reporters more time to focus on getting accurate, complete information that provides context and depth.
Online publishing also provides a new opportunities to serve the public interest and hold the powerful accountable. (1) With online records searches and computerized databases, journalists have even more opportunities for investigative research and reporting. News organizations can communicate breaking news and urgent information to a wide audience in a short time through text casting, RSS feeds and other tools. And because the Internet allows two-way communication between the news media and its audience, it encourages citizen participation and community discussion on important issues and events. Better communication with readers and the public allows journalists to stay more informed of community interests and concerns, and it helps to ensure the media report the news accurately, fairly and completely.
But for all the benefits of computer technology and the Internet, there are just as many — if not more — professional and ethical challenges for journalists. There are innumerable problems related to blogging and Web publishing that, when combined, can produce a “stew that can turn from tasty to troubling.” (2) Perhaps the most important ethical dilemma associated with online journalism is the need to “balance the value of serving readers with timely, immediate information versus the value of providing them with accurate, fair, complete and carefully vetted information.” (2) Journalists must walk the line between being first and being right.
In many situations, the ability and desire to be the first one out of the gate with a story can push the boundaries of acceptable journalistic practices. For Jason Leopold, the rush of breaking a story completely overshadowed any concerns about ethics or accuracy. “I didn’t care about ethics,” Leopold says. “I didn’t even think about ethical violations. I just wanted to be the first one to get to the truth.” (3) Although Leopold’s behavior may be more extreme than that of most reporters, the temptation to cut corners is nonetheless an issue for many journalists. In an industry that rewards speed, accuracy can become an afterthought. Even small news organizations, such as the Missourian, may be beginning to adopt a policy of “post now, check later.” Of course, when stories are completely accurate, this strategy can be very rewarding. But when they’re not, the results can be disastrous.
In addition, computer technology also presents opportunities to alter or falsify information. With the click of a button, a journalist can easily manipulate a photograph, alter the contents of a document or create a fake e-mail. Journalists can now even alter or falsify information in their resumes and portfolios. With electronic versions, it’s relatively simple to re-do a reporting, editing or design clip to improve it or fix an error. Technology has made misrepresentation much easier — and much more tempting.
The Internet and other technologies have given journalists boundless tools with which to improve and perfect their craft. But the same tools that enable us to serve the public good are full of opportunities for ethical missteps. While our technological abilities have advanced, journalists have not yet developed a comprehensive set of ethical guidelines to manage the challenges of a changing industry. It is essential that ethical discussions related to these changes continue to take place in classrooms and newsrooms as we continue to struggle with the limitless capabilities of technology and online journalism.
(1) “Online Journalism Ethics: Guidelines from the Conference.” The Poynter Institute. http://poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=117350. Updated: 11 February 2007.
(2) Steele, Bob. “Helter Skelter No More: An Evolving Guidebook for Online Ethics.” The Poynter Institute. http://poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=117347&sid=32. Updated: 1 February 2007.
(3) Leopold, Jason. News Junkie. Los Angeles: Process Media, 2006. pp. 201.
Technology's just another tool
Technology, especially the Internet, poses new ethical issues in journalism. However, these issues are qualified by some of the advantages that technology can offer a journalist. The biggest technological ethical dilemma that faces the industry today is the temptation to cut corners. Everything is available so quickly, so easily online. Facts are at once quickly verifiable and yet, everything on the Internet is painted with a brush of unreliability. The question we have to ask ourselves is how much trust we want to put into internet sources. In addition, email and other messaging technologies pose their own sets of problems. How much credibility should we give to an interview if it is done electronically, without eye contact and body language feedback? In a worst case scenario, can we ever believe people are who they say they are online.
The example of the New York Times investigation into the online lives of gay teenagers was a complex one. It mixed all of the ingredients of an ethical dilemma and a good story: minors, the internet, sexual behavior and the scariest one of all for journalists: anonymity. The internet is replete with anonymous communication. Commentary on blogs, message board threads and topics, and messaging can all be done with screen names, nicknames or even fabricated names. When identities and communication on the Internet are so easily masked where are the lines between investigation, invasion and illusion marked?
This is not to say that technology does not present ethical solutions in journalism as well. Whether or not it is always reliable the Internet can also be looked at as just one more way to verify a fact. It is also another way to gather information, a very good one. It “broadens the net.” In a “big-picture” construct, the Internet is uniquely able to increase the number and type of voices that are able to participate in public debate. This is especially true with blogs, and certainly a reason for their appeal. There is a cost barrier associated with this otherwise equalizing characteristic of the Internet. Only those who can afford access get it. This is something that is currently tempered by the fact that computers are readily available in public libraries and other such places. Eventually, the technology will become something that everyone can afford, like a radio or landline phone.
It will require care and thought, but there is no reason why the desire to cut corners or mislead sources should be so great that technology erases all the ethical lessons from four years in journalism school. Technology certainly has many challenges to offer journalists. However, the good that technology brings outweighs all of its potential pitfalls. This is because while technology poses new and interesting ethical questions, these questions are still answered the same way they were in that long long ago before Bluetooth and blogging. We can answer new questions with the good old quest for transparency. The principle of public good outweighing private interest does not lose its meaning just because we are looking to message boards or using iChat.
The example of the New York Times investigation into the online lives of gay teenagers was a complex one. It mixed all of the ingredients of an ethical dilemma and a good story: minors, the internet, sexual behavior and the scariest one of all for journalists: anonymity. The internet is replete with anonymous communication. Commentary on blogs, message board threads and topics, and messaging can all be done with screen names, nicknames or even fabricated names. When identities and communication on the Internet are so easily masked where are the lines between investigation, invasion and illusion marked?
This is not to say that technology does not present ethical solutions in journalism as well. Whether or not it is always reliable the Internet can also be looked at as just one more way to verify a fact. It is also another way to gather information, a very good one. It “broadens the net.” In a “big-picture” construct, the Internet is uniquely able to increase the number and type of voices that are able to participate in public debate. This is especially true with blogs, and certainly a reason for their appeal. There is a cost barrier associated with this otherwise equalizing characteristic of the Internet. Only those who can afford access get it. This is something that is currently tempered by the fact that computers are readily available in public libraries and other such places. Eventually, the technology will become something that everyone can afford, like a radio or landline phone.
It will require care and thought, but there is no reason why the desire to cut corners or mislead sources should be so great that technology erases all the ethical lessons from four years in journalism school. Technology certainly has many challenges to offer journalists. However, the good that technology brings outweighs all of its potential pitfalls. This is because while technology poses new and interesting ethical questions, these questions are still answered the same way they were in that long long ago before Bluetooth and blogging. We can answer new questions with the good old quest for transparency. The principle of public good outweighing private interest does not lose its meaning just because we are looking to message boards or using iChat.
Row, row, row your boat...
By Stephen Nellis
Technology brings new temptations for journalists. Reaching audiences instantaneously – previously the province of only broadcast media – is at any news outlet’s disposal via the internet. The internet also brings possibilities that no one could have envisioned a decade ago: the ability to give readers a practically limitless amount of information, if they want it.
All of this means a mixed bag for news ethics. In some ways, in some ways it’ll be easier to act ethically and some ways it’ll be markedly more difficult. At the very least, technology will amplify and make salient the strengths, weaknesses and inconsistencies in the various ethical codes (or lack thereof) at play in the media world.
Let’s say we’re a newspaper and we report a fact that’s wrong. In the pre-Web days, you had a few options. You could do the right thing and put your tail between your legs and write a correction the next day. If the fact were never going to come up again in a story, you could simply remain silent. Or you could employ the favorite trick of the fine folks over at the Columbia’s evening newspaper: the row-back, wherein the newspaper corrects itself without ever acknowledging an error in a previous story, pretending as though the previous, erroneous story never happened.
Let’s say we’re an evening newspaper and we publish a story online for the lunch rush in traffic. Unbeknownst to online editors, the story has an error in it, but a hawk-eyed designer catches the error before it makes the print version of the paper and corrects the faulty fact. The online version, however, has been up for two hours and has already been read by thousands of readers, error and all. Internet publishing technology puts forth a new way to be unethical: Correct the online version of the story to make it match the print story and don’t tell anybody. If those thousands of people who read the story online choose to read it again in the paper, they’ll probably scratch their heads when it doesn’t square with what they read earlier in the day on the Web. When they go back to check the Web, they’ll see it matches the print version of the story -- and probably think it’s time to see a shrink.
(Disclosure: I don’t mean to insinuate that any evening newspaper in Columbia is guilty of anything like the above scenario.)
So here we see that the relative impermanence of digital media – there’s no way for a reader to tell if an online story has been updated – has created a new problem. We’ve gone from facing the ethical specter of a row-back to the specter of a memory hole, Orwell style. Unless readers printed out a story or saved it to their hard disk, a newspaper can play Big Brother all it wants.
Of course, newspapers won’t make the memory hole a policy. Many large metro newspapers are already acting ethically with online content by permanently attaching corrections when they occur. But the very possibility of an undetectable row-back adds new temptation, and some outlets are sure to give in. And as we’ve seen, threats to journalism’s integrity anywhere unfortunately tend to translate to threats to journalism’s credibility everywhere.
There is, however, a silver lining to the memory hole problem: bloggers. (Incidentally, there’s a fascinating blog called the Memory Hole that’s garnered significant mainstream attention.) For each new opportunity the internet opens up for new organizations to act unethically, it opens up another for a blogger to call the news organization’s misstep out before an audience. In other words, if you work for a high profile news organization and you screw up, you can count on someone catching you.
In an ideal world, acting ethically would mean acting the same no matter what the possibility of getting caught. But we don’t live in that ideal world, and that’s neither a wholly good nor wholly bad thing. The certainty of getting caught straightens you up pretty quick. To be sure, internet publishing technology opens up new ways for news organizations to break old ethical guidelines, but it also opens up new ways for those readers whom the guidelines are designed to ultimately benefit to hold news organizations accountable.
Technology brings new temptations for journalists. Reaching audiences instantaneously – previously the province of only broadcast media – is at any news outlet’s disposal via the internet. The internet also brings possibilities that no one could have envisioned a decade ago: the ability to give readers a practically limitless amount of information, if they want it.
All of this means a mixed bag for news ethics. In some ways, in some ways it’ll be easier to act ethically and some ways it’ll be markedly more difficult. At the very least, technology will amplify and make salient the strengths, weaknesses and inconsistencies in the various ethical codes (or lack thereof) at play in the media world.
Let’s say we’re a newspaper and we report a fact that’s wrong. In the pre-Web days, you had a few options. You could do the right thing and put your tail between your legs and write a correction the next day. If the fact were never going to come up again in a story, you could simply remain silent. Or you could employ the favorite trick of the fine folks over at the Columbia’s evening newspaper: the row-back, wherein the newspaper corrects itself without ever acknowledging an error in a previous story, pretending as though the previous, erroneous story never happened.
Let’s say we’re an evening newspaper and we publish a story online for the lunch rush in traffic. Unbeknownst to online editors, the story has an error in it, but a hawk-eyed designer catches the error before it makes the print version of the paper and corrects the faulty fact. The online version, however, has been up for two hours and has already been read by thousands of readers, error and all. Internet publishing technology puts forth a new way to be unethical: Correct the online version of the story to make it match the print story and don’t tell anybody. If those thousands of people who read the story online choose to read it again in the paper, they’ll probably scratch their heads when it doesn’t square with what they read earlier in the day on the Web. When they go back to check the Web, they’ll see it matches the print version of the story -- and probably think it’s time to see a shrink.
(Disclosure: I don’t mean to insinuate that any evening newspaper in Columbia is guilty of anything like the above scenario.)
So here we see that the relative impermanence of digital media – there’s no way for a reader to tell if an online story has been updated – has created a new problem. We’ve gone from facing the ethical specter of a row-back to the specter of a memory hole, Orwell style. Unless readers printed out a story or saved it to their hard disk, a newspaper can play Big Brother all it wants.
Of course, newspapers won’t make the memory hole a policy. Many large metro newspapers are already acting ethically with online content by permanently attaching corrections when they occur. But the very possibility of an undetectable row-back adds new temptation, and some outlets are sure to give in. And as we’ve seen, threats to journalism’s integrity anywhere unfortunately tend to translate to threats to journalism’s credibility everywhere.
There is, however, a silver lining to the memory hole problem: bloggers. (Incidentally, there’s a fascinating blog called the Memory Hole that’s garnered significant mainstream attention.) For each new opportunity the internet opens up for new organizations to act unethically, it opens up another for a blogger to call the news organization’s misstep out before an audience. In other words, if you work for a high profile news organization and you screw up, you can count on someone catching you.
In an ideal world, acting ethically would mean acting the same no matter what the possibility of getting caught. But we don’t live in that ideal world, and that’s neither a wholly good nor wholly bad thing. The certainty of getting caught straightens you up pretty quick. To be sure, internet publishing technology opens up new ways for news organizations to break old ethical guidelines, but it also opens up new ways for those readers whom the guidelines are designed to ultimately benefit to hold news organizations accountable.
Ethics and Technology
Technology. Without it, our lives would be completely different. Technology impacts me, a lazy college student, starting at the very beginning of my day. When I wake up in the morning, the first thing I do is go to weather.com to see how cold it is outside. Then I check my e-mail before logging into Facebook (of course) to see how many people poked me the night before.
So, how does technology impact our ability to be ethical journalists?
Technology can be very helpful. Trying to find a source? Where do I go? The Internet. Fact-checking? The first place I go is the Internet. For journalists, technology makes things faster.
Technology has also enhanced how people get their news. When I want to know more about breaking news, I turn on the television and head straight to my news Web site of choice. News Web sites have changed drastically in the last few years. Newspaper Web sites are no longer only regurgitating what their print editions say. Now we see up-to-the-minute news and more in-depth coverage that might not have had space in print. In addition, more and more news sites are including other forms of journalism just as video and audio clips as well as interactive graphics.
Technology can also have a negative impact. While Internet is great from getting information on the spot, sometimes this information isn't so trust-worthy. When I first heard about Anna Nicole Smith dying, I went straight to Google News to see what had happened. One site said she died at the hospital after overdosing on sleeping pills. Another site said she was found died in her hotel and insinuated that she had died because of her use of TrimSpa.
This example is just one way technology has failed us, as journalists. People are so eager to be the first to break a story that lines are blurred and fact-checking is compromised.
Technology can have a positive impact on our ability to be ethical journalists if we are smart about how we use it. If we get lazy or too eager, technology can hurt our ethics, too.
So, how does technology impact our ability to be ethical journalists?
Technology can be very helpful. Trying to find a source? Where do I go? The Internet. Fact-checking? The first place I go is the Internet. For journalists, technology makes things faster.
Technology has also enhanced how people get their news. When I want to know more about breaking news, I turn on the television and head straight to my news Web site of choice. News Web sites have changed drastically in the last few years. Newspaper Web sites are no longer only regurgitating what their print editions say. Now we see up-to-the-minute news and more in-depth coverage that might not have had space in print. In addition, more and more news sites are including other forms of journalism just as video and audio clips as well as interactive graphics.
Technology can also have a negative impact. While Internet is great from getting information on the spot, sometimes this information isn't so trust-worthy. When I first heard about Anna Nicole Smith dying, I went straight to Google News to see what had happened. One site said she died at the hospital after overdosing on sleeping pills. Another site said she was found died in her hotel and insinuated that she had died because of her use of TrimSpa.
This example is just one way technology has failed us, as journalists. People are so eager to be the first to break a story that lines are blurred and fact-checking is compromised.
Technology can have a positive impact on our ability to be ethical journalists if we are smart about how we use it. If we get lazy or too eager, technology can hurt our ethics, too.
Join the Club
Technology and journalism. Admittedly this is a subject I’ve gotten really tired of discussing. It’s here, it’s not going anywhere, so we better just get used to it and learn how to use it responsibly. Bloggers aren’t going away either, so we should accept them and their effects on our craft and people’s perceptions of the media. We can complain and feel as entitled as we want, but that’s not going to change the evolving reality of our field.
Technology is great for journalism. It gives us exposure to more people. Even though I’m sitting in Columbia, MO, I can watch my hometown news or read my hometown newspaper on their respective websites. Now, anyone can read the New York Times if she wants to. It helps to keep more people more informed on any subject they want. Isn’t it a main part of our job to disseminate information – why would we be against something that could help us do that in a more widespread and efficient manner? Technology is such an amazing asset to journalism. At one point it was revolutionary to have 24 hour news on TV. Then it moved to breaking news at any time on websites. Now we have the ability to get to people through their cell phones, which they most likely have with them at all times!
Technology, if used responsibly, can only make stories better and more accurate. Anything can be looked up at any moment. It makes it much easier to fact check. It makes it much easier to find sources, through the huge number of social networking sites that are available. When I did my NewSunday cover story on ethanol, finding people to talk to was a piece of cake. I found farmers through the Missouri Corn Growers’ Association webiste. I found ethanol plants in Missouri by googling “ethanol plants in Missouri.” The only source that I found the “old-fashioned way” was a restaurant owner in the extremely small town where a large ethanol plant is located. I cannot imagine how much more difficult it was for journalists to find a multitude of sources before the internet.
Now while I am a huge proponent of technology, I realize that it can have some drawbacks. With the rapid pace of news that technology spurs on there is going to be more competition. This seemed to be Jason Leopold’s problem as described in News Junkie. There is so much pressure to be first and fastest that people often make errors trying to break a story. Also, not every website out there is credible. However, if journalists are just educated about how to find credible websites and check their facts against other sources then this would not be a problem.
I think this is something that definitely needs to be addressed at the J-school. There are students out there who think that Wikipedia or some “expert’s” blog is a credible source. Clearly this is not so. Wikipedia is frequently wrong, and anyone out there could call himself an expert. Education is the key. If there was a small unit in one of the introductory journalism classes addressing this, then I think it would go a long way.
Technology also gives ample opportunity for cheating and plagiarism. However it also makes it easier to catch someone who is making numerous errors or plagiarizing. Almost every news outlet has a searchable website. If someone is so bold to copy something from another news outlet without crediting them, then they are just looking to get caught. As it happens, those people will be punished (probably fired) and made examples of (i.e. Jayson Blair) and fewer instances of plagiarism will occur.
While technology can sometimes hurt, it is much more likely to help journalists. It’s going to continue to grow and develop. Those who refuse to accept it will fall behind or always feel it nipping at their heels. They might as well just join the club now.
Technology is great for journalism. It gives us exposure to more people. Even though I’m sitting in Columbia, MO, I can watch my hometown news or read my hometown newspaper on their respective websites. Now, anyone can read the New York Times if she wants to. It helps to keep more people more informed on any subject they want. Isn’t it a main part of our job to disseminate information – why would we be against something that could help us do that in a more widespread and efficient manner? Technology is such an amazing asset to journalism. At one point it was revolutionary to have 24 hour news on TV. Then it moved to breaking news at any time on websites. Now we have the ability to get to people through their cell phones, which they most likely have with them at all times!
Technology, if used responsibly, can only make stories better and more accurate. Anything can be looked up at any moment. It makes it much easier to fact check. It makes it much easier to find sources, through the huge number of social networking sites that are available. When I did my NewSunday cover story on ethanol, finding people to talk to was a piece of cake. I found farmers through the Missouri Corn Growers’ Association webiste. I found ethanol plants in Missouri by googling “ethanol plants in Missouri.” The only source that I found the “old-fashioned way” was a restaurant owner in the extremely small town where a large ethanol plant is located. I cannot imagine how much more difficult it was for journalists to find a multitude of sources before the internet.
Now while I am a huge proponent of technology, I realize that it can have some drawbacks. With the rapid pace of news that technology spurs on there is going to be more competition. This seemed to be Jason Leopold’s problem as described in News Junkie. There is so much pressure to be first and fastest that people often make errors trying to break a story. Also, not every website out there is credible. However, if journalists are just educated about how to find credible websites and check their facts against other sources then this would not be a problem.
I think this is something that definitely needs to be addressed at the J-school. There are students out there who think that Wikipedia or some “expert’s” blog is a credible source. Clearly this is not so. Wikipedia is frequently wrong, and anyone out there could call himself an expert. Education is the key. If there was a small unit in one of the introductory journalism classes addressing this, then I think it would go a long way.
Technology also gives ample opportunity for cheating and plagiarism. However it also makes it easier to catch someone who is making numerous errors or plagiarizing. Almost every news outlet has a searchable website. If someone is so bold to copy something from another news outlet without crediting them, then they are just looking to get caught. As it happens, those people will be punished (probably fired) and made examples of (i.e. Jayson Blair) and fewer instances of plagiarism will occur.
While technology can sometimes hurt, it is much more likely to help journalists. It’s going to continue to grow and develop. Those who refuse to accept it will fall behind or always feel it nipping at their heels. They might as well just join the club now.
Blurring ethical lines
It was my first day as a reporter and I was sitting in the Missouri Senate in my newly purchased suit thinking I was one of the cool kids. I got to sit at the reporters’ table, right between the Associated Press and Post-Dispatch reporters. A senator took the floor to welcome his next- door neighbor, a cute little girl in a black dress with bright red hair, as the page girl for the day. As she bounced onto the floor she waved and everyone began to clap for the young girl, or so I thought. I joined in with the applause and then realized I was the only reporter clapping. “We don’t clap for anyone,” my editor whispered behind me. Embarrassed, I stopped. But then I began to think: was I really being unethical by showing a political bias by clapping for the seven-year-old girl? I don’t think so.
Journalists will face much more ethical decisions throughout their career. Ethics is the heart of journalism, and credibility is the main ingredient to a successful reporter. Technology has and will continue to change journalism. And as technology continues to develop, so will the ethical dilemmas and choices that journalists will confront.
The advancement of technology blurs the line of what is considered ethical in journalism. Sometimes technology helps and improves news stories, and other times it compromises coverage. Technology has changed how people want their news, and quickness often trumps accuracy. It takes time to verify spelling of names, exactness of statistics, and make sure proper style and grammar is used. Editors become so wrapped up in being “first” they overlook problem spots in a story, or don’t ask the ever-important question: “How do you know this?” This is where mistakes come in, and mistakes lead to lose of credibility. Sending breaking news quickly to people’s cell phones, e-mails and Blackberries, should not be a goal. The goal should be sending breaking news accurately.
Technology has also made reporters less aggressive with their stories. Why attend a boring five-hour long committee meeting when you know the minutes will be available immediately after the meeting online? Reporting is about being in the field, witnessing what’s happening, meeting victims and telling a story. Not sitting behind a desk, relying on what others tell you. Jason Leopold hit the nail on the head when he told new reporters the importance of cultivating sources. “You guys need to go out our and start cultivating sources. Everyone knows what that means right? You need to befriend the cashier at the grocery store, the cops, they guy at the newsstand. Those are the people who are going to tip you off” (143). Too often reporters will search online for a discussion group or social network on a specific topic to locate sources instead of cultivating relationships. Often people found online will have a hidden agenda, and not provide accurate information.
Technology can also help journalists too. The Internet can provide a quick means to help verify certain facts, the spelling of a name or the correct address for the restaurant that burned down. The plethora of professional research available online also helps reporters become quick experts on a topic, which will help increase the thoroughness of the story. Technology can help improve accuracy. It allows a reporter to double, triple check facts.
We’ve all done it. After working on a big story reporters compare their story to what other news outlets put out. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with comparing your story to what other reporters produced. It helps budding reporters develop into a more solid reporter by finding holes in their story, seeing different angles and approaches used, and what sources others cited. But it becomes unethical to take information that other reporters worked to gather and use it in your story. Everyone tries to be first with breaking a story, but most of the time someone will beat you to it. So is the information that they worked to dig up fair game for you to use, even if you verify it yourself?
In the newsroom where I worked this summer there was one editor who on a weekly basis would tell a reporter, “if they’re dumb enough to put it on the Internet, you can use it to your advantage.” He was referring to the home or spouses work number of a source a reporter was trying to get in contact with. The Internet gives us almost immediate access to personal information that many people are not even aware exists. The ability to Google a person, or mapquest a location helps, but how far is too far? What if you stumble across a chatroom or discussion board bashing one of your sources, do you use the information?
Reporters have to be careful with how they obtain and use information. As ethical standards fall in other professions and industries, journalists have the obligation to maintain high ethical standards.
Journalists will face much more ethical decisions throughout their career. Ethics is the heart of journalism, and credibility is the main ingredient to a successful reporter. Technology has and will continue to change journalism. And as technology continues to develop, so will the ethical dilemmas and choices that journalists will confront.
The advancement of technology blurs the line of what is considered ethical in journalism. Sometimes technology helps and improves news stories, and other times it compromises coverage. Technology has changed how people want their news, and quickness often trumps accuracy. It takes time to verify spelling of names, exactness of statistics, and make sure proper style and grammar is used. Editors become so wrapped up in being “first” they overlook problem spots in a story, or don’t ask the ever-important question: “How do you know this?” This is where mistakes come in, and mistakes lead to lose of credibility. Sending breaking news quickly to people’s cell phones, e-mails and Blackberries, should not be a goal. The goal should be sending breaking news accurately.
Technology has also made reporters less aggressive with their stories. Why attend a boring five-hour long committee meeting when you know the minutes will be available immediately after the meeting online? Reporting is about being in the field, witnessing what’s happening, meeting victims and telling a story. Not sitting behind a desk, relying on what others tell you. Jason Leopold hit the nail on the head when he told new reporters the importance of cultivating sources. “You guys need to go out our and start cultivating sources. Everyone knows what that means right? You need to befriend the cashier at the grocery store, the cops, they guy at the newsstand. Those are the people who are going to tip you off” (143). Too often reporters will search online for a discussion group or social network on a specific topic to locate sources instead of cultivating relationships. Often people found online will have a hidden agenda, and not provide accurate information.
Technology can also help journalists too. The Internet can provide a quick means to help verify certain facts, the spelling of a name or the correct address for the restaurant that burned down. The plethora of professional research available online also helps reporters become quick experts on a topic, which will help increase the thoroughness of the story. Technology can help improve accuracy. It allows a reporter to double, triple check facts.
We’ve all done it. After working on a big story reporters compare their story to what other news outlets put out. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with comparing your story to what other reporters produced. It helps budding reporters develop into a more solid reporter by finding holes in their story, seeing different angles and approaches used, and what sources others cited. But it becomes unethical to take information that other reporters worked to gather and use it in your story. Everyone tries to be first with breaking a story, but most of the time someone will beat you to it. So is the information that they worked to dig up fair game for you to use, even if you verify it yourself?
In the newsroom where I worked this summer there was one editor who on a weekly basis would tell a reporter, “if they’re dumb enough to put it on the Internet, you can use it to your advantage.” He was referring to the home or spouses work number of a source a reporter was trying to get in contact with. The Internet gives us almost immediate access to personal information that many people are not even aware exists. The ability to Google a person, or mapquest a location helps, but how far is too far? What if you stumble across a chatroom or discussion board bashing one of your sources, do you use the information?
Reporters have to be careful with how they obtain and use information. As ethical standards fall in other professions and industries, journalists have the obligation to maintain high ethical standards.
Let's not sacrifice accuracy
It used to only be the mission of television stations to be the first station to break news. When we talk in class about whether or not to go with accuracy or speed, my first instinct is to still think of TV stations, not newspapers.
But with the emergence of the Internet, it’s an issue newspaper companies must address now too. Nearly every newspaper has a Web site. But the problem arises with the newspaper business’ relative inexperience in dealing with breaking news. TV has had the objective of rushing news onto the air since it’s been around. Newspapers, on the other hand, haven’t had much time to adjust to the fact that their Web sites are now breaking news outlets as well.
Some people hear of breaking news but don’t have the opportunity to turn on a TV. Take students at Missouri, for example. Just a week or two ago I was in class and didn’t have the opportunity to turn on a TV to check the updates on a breaking news situation in Kansas City. So my first instinct was to have a friend check the Star’s Web site to see if it had any information on the situation, which it did.
Newspapers are quickly rushing breaking news to Web sites. But you have to wonder what’s lost in the process. There’s no time to fact check an article, yet still be the first outlet to present the news on your Web site. So accuracy is what gets left behind.
I noticed this in a recent case here in Columbia. When Mike Anderson Jr. of the Missouri basketball team was arrested for a DWI, the Kansas City Star posted the news on its Web site the next day. It was the first outlet to report the information that I saw. I’m sure the Star thinks its credibility improves because it was first to report the news. But when reading the article, I thought less of the publication. I was disappointed to see how many errors the story included, both grammar and factual.
I was at the Missourian when we reported the breaking news about Anderson Jr. on our on Web site. The first thing I heard when we finished the article was a comment about us being 40 minutes behind the Star. Ignored was the fact that our story included much more in-depth coverage about the situation.
But I also questioned our method of putting the story onto the Web site. We skipped over the copy desk, as to make sure our story was up on the site faster. It wasn’t until after the story was posted that I noticed a couple rather small factual errors in the story, which we later changed. While these particular errors were not unethical, rushing a story and choosing time over accuracy always allows for the possibility of having something important wrong with an article.
While growing up, I always looked at newspapers as the most credible media outlet. I figured they had the most time to get everything right. They had the time to check the facts in articles and to present all the information correctly. There were more people reading an article to ensure of its minimal mistakes. The Internet, unfortunately, has somewhat changed my opinion. Errors in a story on the Kansas City Star’s Web site affects much more than just the site. It affects my view of the entire publication.
Technology affects all media outlets. But the problem with newspapers is it might take awhile for them to learn how to become a breaking news publication. In my opinion, the most important thing is that they are careful not to hurt their credibility in the process of trying to be first. Accuracy needs to be chosen instead.
Sam
But with the emergence of the Internet, it’s an issue newspaper companies must address now too. Nearly every newspaper has a Web site. But the problem arises with the newspaper business’ relative inexperience in dealing with breaking news. TV has had the objective of rushing news onto the air since it’s been around. Newspapers, on the other hand, haven’t had much time to adjust to the fact that their Web sites are now breaking news outlets as well.
Some people hear of breaking news but don’t have the opportunity to turn on a TV. Take students at Missouri, for example. Just a week or two ago I was in class and didn’t have the opportunity to turn on a TV to check the updates on a breaking news situation in Kansas City. So my first instinct was to have a friend check the Star’s Web site to see if it had any information on the situation, which it did.
Newspapers are quickly rushing breaking news to Web sites. But you have to wonder what’s lost in the process. There’s no time to fact check an article, yet still be the first outlet to present the news on your Web site. So accuracy is what gets left behind.
I noticed this in a recent case here in Columbia. When Mike Anderson Jr. of the Missouri basketball team was arrested for a DWI, the Kansas City Star posted the news on its Web site the next day. It was the first outlet to report the information that I saw. I’m sure the Star thinks its credibility improves because it was first to report the news. But when reading the article, I thought less of the publication. I was disappointed to see how many errors the story included, both grammar and factual.
I was at the Missourian when we reported the breaking news about Anderson Jr. on our on Web site. The first thing I heard when we finished the article was a comment about us being 40 minutes behind the Star. Ignored was the fact that our story included much more in-depth coverage about the situation.
But I also questioned our method of putting the story onto the Web site. We skipped over the copy desk, as to make sure our story was up on the site faster. It wasn’t until after the story was posted that I noticed a couple rather small factual errors in the story, which we later changed. While these particular errors were not unethical, rushing a story and choosing time over accuracy always allows for the possibility of having something important wrong with an article.
While growing up, I always looked at newspapers as the most credible media outlet. I figured they had the most time to get everything right. They had the time to check the facts in articles and to present all the information correctly. There were more people reading an article to ensure of its minimal mistakes. The Internet, unfortunately, has somewhat changed my opinion. Errors in a story on the Kansas City Star’s Web site affects much more than just the site. It affects my view of the entire publication.
Technology affects all media outlets. But the problem with newspapers is it might take awhile for them to learn how to become a breaking news publication. In my opinion, the most important thing is that they are careful not to hurt their credibility in the process of trying to be first. Accuracy needs to be chosen instead.
Sam
Cutting Corners
Saturday afternoon I was sitting in front of the computer at the Missourian sports desk. It was around 3 or 4 and I had been in the newsroom since 11 that morning. Earlier that afternoon, I had finished writing a feature story on swimmer Micheal Phelps. I still had another story to finish writing before I could leave, and I really wanted to leave the newsroom by around 5. I wasn’t covering the Missouri Grand Prix, where Phelps was competing that night, for the paper. But, I had been researching the event and talking to swimmers all week, and I felt somewhat attached to it. I wanted to go just to watch, as an interested spectator, not a journalist. I was frustrated as I searched the internet for biographies on Phelps. We wanted to run a graphic listing Phelps’ gold medals in the 2004 Olympics with the days they were won, what events, the winning times, etc. When I was researching my story, I found a bio on Phelps on the official website for USA Swimming. I wrote down much of the info we wanted for the graphic, but didn’t have all of it. The problem was, the bio section of the USA Swimming website was down that day. As I searched for the info I came across Phelps’ bio on Wikipedia. It had a chart of the six gold medal wins in 2004 with all the info we wanted. It matched all the info I had gotten earlier, and I was pretty certain that it was all correct. But, still, it was Wikipedia. Needing an official source, I spent quite awhile reading biographies and coming up empty. Finally, I found a list of all Olympic winners in 2004 from the official Olympics website, browsed through for the events Phelps won, and sent it on to the graphics department. I didn’t get out of the newsroom until 6 that day. I missed the swimming events, and Phelps broke a world record, I was disappointed that I missed it, but at least we ran a graphic sure that we had the accurate information.
I bring this up because I think it demonstrates how easy it is to use technology to cut corners these days. If I had been a huge swimming fan and was determined not to miss the competition that night, I may have simply relied on the information from Wikipedia. After all, I was pretty sure it was correct. There’s a dangerous line for journalists when it comes to information we get from the internet, and it’s pretty easy to cross it if it will save us some time in the newsroom. If we find something on a website that may not be reliable, but it sounds right, it’s easy to just trust it, plug it into our stories, and leave.
It’s scary to think that I could go into Wikipedia, throw in some false information, and some fellow writer could come across it before it’s edited out, take it as fact, and include it in a story. The abundance of information sources out there makes our lives as journalists a lot easier, for sure, but it also makes cutting corners way too easy. Thus, one of the most important tasks for journalists today is to not be lazy, to not cut corners just because we can, to spend the extra time to validate facts and information. After all, even if we do have to spend a little bit of extra time fact-checking, we still have it easy compared to the journalists who came before us. A writer writing a similar story on Mark Spitz’s 7 gold medals in 1972 wouldn’t have had the internet to find the information the way I found it. They wouldn’t have been able to find the background info prior to an interview which helped me ask the right questions to get the right answers that led to a good feature story. I can’t even imagine a newspaper running smoothly without the internet. Obviously, there had to be other places to get facts before the internet, or newspapers wouldn’t have existed. But, I’m sure it took a lot longer to make phone calls in order to fact-check every little detail about a person or an event.
It’s great not to have to spend as much time researching these days. It allows us more time to get out of the newsroom, to find interesting stories and interesting people. It gives us more of an opportunity to focus on our writing and our storytelling abilities. Simply put, it allows for us to write more stories, and to write better stories. Just don’t trust Wikipedia.
I bring this up because I think it demonstrates how easy it is to use technology to cut corners these days. If I had been a huge swimming fan and was determined not to miss the competition that night, I may have simply relied on the information from Wikipedia. After all, I was pretty sure it was correct. There’s a dangerous line for journalists when it comes to information we get from the internet, and it’s pretty easy to cross it if it will save us some time in the newsroom. If we find something on a website that may not be reliable, but it sounds right, it’s easy to just trust it, plug it into our stories, and leave.
It’s scary to think that I could go into Wikipedia, throw in some false information, and some fellow writer could come across it before it’s edited out, take it as fact, and include it in a story. The abundance of information sources out there makes our lives as journalists a lot easier, for sure, but it also makes cutting corners way too easy. Thus, one of the most important tasks for journalists today is to not be lazy, to not cut corners just because we can, to spend the extra time to validate facts and information. After all, even if we do have to spend a little bit of extra time fact-checking, we still have it easy compared to the journalists who came before us. A writer writing a similar story on Mark Spitz’s 7 gold medals in 1972 wouldn’t have had the internet to find the information the way I found it. They wouldn’t have been able to find the background info prior to an interview which helped me ask the right questions to get the right answers that led to a good feature story. I can’t even imagine a newspaper running smoothly without the internet. Obviously, there had to be other places to get facts before the internet, or newspapers wouldn’t have existed. But, I’m sure it took a lot longer to make phone calls in order to fact-check every little detail about a person or an event.
It’s great not to have to spend as much time researching these days. It allows us more time to get out of the newsroom, to find interesting stories and interesting people. It gives us more of an opportunity to focus on our writing and our storytelling abilities. Simply put, it allows for us to write more stories, and to write better stories. Just don’t trust Wikipedia.
When is quick too quick?
I'll always remember something my now-late grandfather told me when I used my cell phone at family get-togethers. No, it wasn't "Who gets more money: The girl or the phone company?" or "What, looking for love?" Instead, he asked a simple question — "Isn't technology supposed to make our lives easier?"
Well, it does, I would always reply.
"Then why does it seem those things usually (foul) things up for everybody?"
I never was able to give my grandfather a satisfactory answer. He died two years ago next month but his question about me and my old brick of a cell phone is applicable to ethics. It seems that the more technology people have, the easier it is for people to (foul) things up. But, it is also easier for people to fix when they have (fouled) up.
A good example of this is something I experienced exactly a week ago. It was around 4:30 in the afternoon and everybody that I knew was eager to start their weekend. Unfortunately for those on the cops and courts beat and the MU men's basketball beat, Mike Anderson Jr. had to go and get arrested for DWI the night before. This meant, at least I felt, a lot of extra work and time so the Missourian could have an online-only story, probably one that few would read.
So, after requesting and obtaining a phantom press release from the MU athletics department, my co-writer and I sat down with an editor at the Missourian to get this little piece of news online. The editor read through it a couple times, shifted a comma and so forth, and got it put online. I thought it was a job well done for me and my new, one-time writing partner. We got some news, got confirmation, and put it online.
The story we put online, however, wasn't exactly correct. The main facts weren't wrong, but there were some errors that, at least to me, were glaring.
Either a detail about the crime was wrong, or somewhat embarrassingly for me personally, a stat about Anderson. Being the perfectionists we are at the old MIssourian, my writing partner and I kept making changes to the online story. While we making the story as factually correct as possible, we didn't note anywhere that we continued to alter the story while it was online. There was no "This story has been corrected" tag at the bottom or anywhere else.
And I feel, there should have been.
Let's say you're Mr. Henry Rowengartner of Columbia and you look to DIGMO.com for breaking news about your home city. You see that Mike Anderson Jr. has been busted for a DWI but you read the first version only. That version, it turns out, was not fundamentally wrong but had one or two minor problems. If you're Mr. Rowengartner, wouldn't you like to be able to go back to DIGMO and see that the version of the story you read was not entirely correct? Or at least check for updates and see that the old version was wrong?
In short, by just fixing the errors without telling anybody on the website, it feels like the Missourian is just covering up its mistakes. While that won't lead to Nixonian type troubles for the Missourian, it does set a bad precedent. It's a precedent that says, "Yeah, we can screw up online but we can just fix it and nobody will tell anybody and we'll just pretend we're the perfect little daily we aren't even close to being." Or something like that.
If I remember my J1100 lectures correctly, and there's a chance I don't, isn't something mentioned about the credibility of the news industry? If there was something mentioned, I believe the point of the lecture would be for the journalist and paper in question to try its hardest to be factually correct. And if it isn't, then shouldn't the institution making the error say that it was wrong?
I don't think that going on-line has made this less important. It does make this more difficult, though.
When we were writing this article, that turned out to be less than 5 inches, we kept being told by our editor that we wanted to keep up with the Trib. That meant we were in a rush we wouldn't have been in the past. In the past, we would have been able to just take our time, proof the thing a little closer, and put it in the paper the next day. That era, though, is gone. Now, it's all about speed. And accuracy can't be forgotten.
The real conflict I see with ethics and journalism comes with that desire for speed. When one paper gets anything before its competition, it just seems like it will put it online without checking the accuracy or even the newsworthiness. And this is dangerous for the public, especially when they depend on us to tell them what is going on. If two papers have conflicting stories, that hurts the public more than the eventual loser paper. In short, technology has made everything in journalism a race. And unless you are a perfect reporter with perfect methods and ability, you will eventually screw up when against the clock.
Then, it's up to the newspaper to tell people you've screwed up. If we're not going to get it right, that's probably the least we can do. And when we do (foul) things up, we have to tell people.
Well, it does, I would always reply.
"Then why does it seem those things usually (foul) things up for everybody?"
I never was able to give my grandfather a satisfactory answer. He died two years ago next month but his question about me and my old brick of a cell phone is applicable to ethics. It seems that the more technology people have, the easier it is for people to (foul) things up. But, it is also easier for people to fix when they have (fouled) up.
A good example of this is something I experienced exactly a week ago. It was around 4:30 in the afternoon and everybody that I knew was eager to start their weekend. Unfortunately for those on the cops and courts beat and the MU men's basketball beat, Mike Anderson Jr. had to go and get arrested for DWI the night before. This meant, at least I felt, a lot of extra work and time so the Missourian could have an online-only story, probably one that few would read.
So, after requesting and obtaining a phantom press release from the MU athletics department, my co-writer and I sat down with an editor at the Missourian to get this little piece of news online. The editor read through it a couple times, shifted a comma and so forth, and got it put online. I thought it was a job well done for me and my new, one-time writing partner. We got some news, got confirmation, and put it online.
The story we put online, however, wasn't exactly correct. The main facts weren't wrong, but there were some errors that, at least to me, were glaring.
Either a detail about the crime was wrong, or somewhat embarrassingly for me personally, a stat about Anderson. Being the perfectionists we are at the old MIssourian, my writing partner and I kept making changes to the online story. While we making the story as factually correct as possible, we didn't note anywhere that we continued to alter the story while it was online. There was no "This story has been corrected" tag at the bottom or anywhere else.
And I feel, there should have been.
Let's say you're Mr. Henry Rowengartner of Columbia and you look to DIGMO.com for breaking news about your home city. You see that Mike Anderson Jr. has been busted for a DWI but you read the first version only. That version, it turns out, was not fundamentally wrong but had one or two minor problems. If you're Mr. Rowengartner, wouldn't you like to be able to go back to DIGMO and see that the version of the story you read was not entirely correct? Or at least check for updates and see that the old version was wrong?
In short, by just fixing the errors without telling anybody on the website, it feels like the Missourian is just covering up its mistakes. While that won't lead to Nixonian type troubles for the Missourian, it does set a bad precedent. It's a precedent that says, "Yeah, we can screw up online but we can just fix it and nobody will tell anybody and we'll just pretend we're the perfect little daily we aren't even close to being." Or something like that.
If I remember my J1100 lectures correctly, and there's a chance I don't, isn't something mentioned about the credibility of the news industry? If there was something mentioned, I believe the point of the lecture would be for the journalist and paper in question to try its hardest to be factually correct. And if it isn't, then shouldn't the institution making the error say that it was wrong?
I don't think that going on-line has made this less important. It does make this more difficult, though.
When we were writing this article, that turned out to be less than 5 inches, we kept being told by our editor that we wanted to keep up with the Trib. That meant we were in a rush we wouldn't have been in the past. In the past, we would have been able to just take our time, proof the thing a little closer, and put it in the paper the next day. That era, though, is gone. Now, it's all about speed. And accuracy can't be forgotten.
The real conflict I see with ethics and journalism comes with that desire for speed. When one paper gets anything before its competition, it just seems like it will put it online without checking the accuracy or even the newsworthiness. And this is dangerous for the public, especially when they depend on us to tell them what is going on. If two papers have conflicting stories, that hurts the public more than the eventual loser paper. In short, technology has made everything in journalism a race. And unless you are a perfect reporter with perfect methods and ability, you will eventually screw up when against the clock.
Then, it's up to the newspaper to tell people you've screwed up. If we're not going to get it right, that's probably the least we can do. And when we do (foul) things up, we have to tell people.
To be first or to be accurate?
Be first.
It was just this week I was reminded of the importance of that factor when it comes to reporting news. The Missourian would not run a story on the front page because our competition, the Columbia Daily Tribune had printed the story the previous day and we were late. We were last, which isn't where you want to be journalistically. The news is old - no one will want to read it.
Technology now provides journalists with an easy way to be first - to break a story - and in consequence to be deemed the best because of it. And as technology improves and grows, we're always looking for a better way to get news to people even quicker.
Getting your news by a text message on your cell phone is a common occurrence in today's technologically-savvy world. With most people carrying their cell phones with them everywhere they go, you're guaranteed an easy way to get the news to your audience before that person may even see the story on the Web.
Jason Leopold wrote about his desire to be the first to break news and how it literally became an addicition for him. But in the process he often got important things wrong in his story. In the talk we had with him in class he talked about how he had learned from those mistakes and how he now views accuracy in his stories to be more important than to get his byline on a breaking news story.
I do most of my work at the paper as a designer and copy editor. My job is to prevent inaccuracies from getting into the newspaper. The editing desk takes on the responsibility as the last line of defense for a publication's credibility. When it comes to online content, those levels of prevention are often thrown out the window in an attempt to post first.
An example of this also presented itself at the Missourian this past week. We had a story about how Columbia-based First National Bank & Trust had announced some major shifts in upper management with its increasing growth. We posted the story online immediately and then one of our student teaching assistants printed it off to edit it.
In an article on poynter.org about online ethics, it says, "In its highest form, journalism is the dissemination of accurate information...that puts service to the reader and the common good above any special interest or economic, political or philosophical agenda...such credibility will likely give journalism its enduring value in society." The article is all about guidelines for online journalists that were developed at a conference the Institute held last year to address issues and dilemmas special to the world of technology and journalism.
One of the topics was when to edit and when to get rid of gatekeepers for a story that needs immediacy. Just like the story for ColumbiaMissourian.com on the bank management, it was important to get it up on the Web as soon as possible, but the paper also took a big risk with its credibility by not editing the story before posting it. It's not necessarily a risk that should never be taken - TV stations take those risks often with live broadcasts.
Those at the Poynter conference discussed lots of topics, but one was about how to deal with corrections to news stories. There obviously is no easy way to track who is reading your content and find out at what exact time they might have read it. So if you post a breaking news story it is more than likely that the reader will take a quick glance at it and not think of it again, because they'll feel like they got what they needed out of the story. But if there is something wrong in the story and you go back later to make the correction there is no way to make sure that those who have already read the news get the correction they need.
You're providing a disservice to your audience anytime you blindly go into breaking news with technology. They might have inaccurate information and not even realize it, or if they do find out later that it's wrong, they'll lose that all important respect for your publication's credibility.
While I've identified a lot of the harms that technology can present to sticking to journalistic ethics, there are times that it can be beneficial to other ethical matters, such as being transparent. Online journalism provides the opportunity to show a lot of layers of journalism.
One instance is a series of articles that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ran last month. Their online content was much more thorough than what was in the print version though and they used technology to their advantage by providing multimedia slide shows, blog entries, personal points of view from the reporter and readers, and links to sources they used. An important ethical issue that could have been lost had the newspaper not done it correctly, is labeling and explaining how each of those sections differ from traditional journalism. It was very transparent and it provided a forum for thought that a print version could not have provided.
Poynter's conference identified a set of principles and values that journalists should follow and that they "believe these ethical principles apply to all content, regardless of whether it's text, photos, audio, video, etc., and whether it's on the web, on a blog, in print, on broadcast, or delivered via email, podcasts or beyond."
Rules for journalists using technology are very fluid as of now, but as more awareness is being raised with things like Poynter's conference, we can only hope more online journalists will take those basic journalistic ethical principles into account before using technology for a different agenda than serving their readers with accurate, important and useful news.
It was just this week I was reminded of the importance of that factor when it comes to reporting news. The Missourian would not run a story on the front page because our competition, the Columbia Daily Tribune had printed the story the previous day and we were late. We were last, which isn't where you want to be journalistically. The news is old - no one will want to read it.
Technology now provides journalists with an easy way to be first - to break a story - and in consequence to be deemed the best because of it. And as technology improves and grows, we're always looking for a better way to get news to people even quicker.
Getting your news by a text message on your cell phone is a common occurrence in today's technologically-savvy world. With most people carrying their cell phones with them everywhere they go, you're guaranteed an easy way to get the news to your audience before that person may even see the story on the Web.
Jason Leopold wrote about his desire to be the first to break news and how it literally became an addicition for him. But in the process he often got important things wrong in his story. In the talk we had with him in class he talked about how he had learned from those mistakes and how he now views accuracy in his stories to be more important than to get his byline on a breaking news story.
I do most of my work at the paper as a designer and copy editor. My job is to prevent inaccuracies from getting into the newspaper. The editing desk takes on the responsibility as the last line of defense for a publication's credibility. When it comes to online content, those levels of prevention are often thrown out the window in an attempt to post first.
An example of this also presented itself at the Missourian this past week. We had a story about how Columbia-based First National Bank & Trust had announced some major shifts in upper management with its increasing growth. We posted the story online immediately and then one of our student teaching assistants printed it off to edit it.
In an article on poynter.org about online ethics, it says, "In its highest form, journalism is the dissemination of accurate information...that puts service to the reader and the common good above any special interest or economic, political or philosophical agenda...such credibility will likely give journalism its enduring value in society." The article is all about guidelines for online journalists that were developed at a conference the Institute held last year to address issues and dilemmas special to the world of technology and journalism.
One of the topics was when to edit and when to get rid of gatekeepers for a story that needs immediacy. Just like the story for ColumbiaMissourian.com on the bank management, it was important to get it up on the Web as soon as possible, but the paper also took a big risk with its credibility by not editing the story before posting it. It's not necessarily a risk that should never be taken - TV stations take those risks often with live broadcasts.
Those at the Poynter conference discussed lots of topics, but one was about how to deal with corrections to news stories. There obviously is no easy way to track who is reading your content and find out at what exact time they might have read it. So if you post a breaking news story it is more than likely that the reader will take a quick glance at it and not think of it again, because they'll feel like they got what they needed out of the story. But if there is something wrong in the story and you go back later to make the correction there is no way to make sure that those who have already read the news get the correction they need.
You're providing a disservice to your audience anytime you blindly go into breaking news with technology. They might have inaccurate information and not even realize it, or if they do find out later that it's wrong, they'll lose that all important respect for your publication's credibility.
While I've identified a lot of the harms that technology can present to sticking to journalistic ethics, there are times that it can be beneficial to other ethical matters, such as being transparent. Online journalism provides the opportunity to show a lot of layers of journalism.
One instance is a series of articles that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ran last month. Their online content was much more thorough than what was in the print version though and they used technology to their advantage by providing multimedia slide shows, blog entries, personal points of view from the reporter and readers, and links to sources they used. An important ethical issue that could have been lost had the newspaper not done it correctly, is labeling and explaining how each of those sections differ from traditional journalism. It was very transparent and it provided a forum for thought that a print version could not have provided.
Poynter's conference identified a set of principles and values that journalists should follow and that they "believe these ethical principles apply to all content, regardless of whether it's text, photos, audio, video, etc., and whether it's on the web, on a blog, in print, on broadcast, or delivered via email, podcasts or beyond."
Rules for journalists using technology are very fluid as of now, but as more awareness is being raised with things like Poynter's conference, we can only hope more online journalists will take those basic journalistic ethical principles into account before using technology for a different agenda than serving their readers with accurate, important and useful news.
Tech troubles
As technology continues to improve and become more prevalent, it will undoubtedly become further ingrained in the way that journalists operate. Similarly, it will likely change how we think about journalism as a whole. As was seen in Jason Leopold’s account of the reporting he did in “News Junkie,” technology can be either incredibly helpful, or incredibly damning. When it was working for him, technology helped Leopold get electronic copies of forms and turn stories faster. He scooped the bigger fish. He won awards. He didn’t have to snort so much coke. Not much later, however, an e-mail with no source and no verification ruined his career. He lost his credibility. He lost his job. He took shots from numerous news outlets. I bet that made him want an eight ball real bad.
Jason Leopold certainly was not the first, and definitely won’t be the last, person to be both helped and harmed by technology. What’s yet to be seen is whether this increased access is ultimately better or worse for journalism and, more importantly, how it changes the ethics landscape. I think that technology is a great thing for journalism. Sure, Joe Sixpack might scoop me one day because he’s caught something on his video phone, but ultimately, more participants in journalism — and more eyes on journalists — will improve the trade. Even the watchdogs need a watchdog from time to time.
For instance, in this new age of technology, blogging is becoming an increasingly more important news medium. There are arguments that it shouldn’t be considered journalism because of the multitude of crap that floats around the internet. However, I would argue that the vast majority of people that frequent blog sites know the difference between a pure breed and a mut — they know the layout and the language of the internet and will not fall prey (as easily) to fake sites. That being said, reporters who blog must face an international audience that is capable of commenting on every word that it written. This allows for a much stronger check on power than the readership of a traditional news medium because the conversation is more open. Never before has a reporter been as available for criticism than with blogging — it makes transparency a much larger issue.
Outside of the blogosphere (which is a word I love, along with globesity a,k,a, the global obesity epidemic), technology has improved fact checking and possible source lists. You don’t need to get the government on the horn, or the census bureau, to get some facts, they’re available through the organization’s Web sites now. Additionally, news can be updated continuously, creating greater opportunities for in-depth reporting. So, when 9/11 hit, the news the next day wasn’t that it happened, by why it happened, who did it, etc. Technology has allowed for journalists to keep the public more informed.
These improvements do, admittedly, have a darker side. I know I am very dependent on spell check, something that can come back to haunt you (see public v. pubic if you don’t believe me). Furthermore, the sites that are often used for fact-checking can be wrong — places like Wikipedia contain a plethora of errors and inaccuracies and cannot be relied upon for a news source. With up-to-the-minute reporting also comes at-the-last-minute editing, in which editors and copy editors alike are unable to get ample time to look for inaccuracies, inconsistencies or even libelous content. Additionally, documents can be doctored or fabricated entirely. Sources with any sort of experience on programs like Photoshop can alter pictures to fool news agencies, whose excitement at a breaking story can lead to publishing a falsity. Fake blogs are created by public relations companies to create favorable news for their clients. All of these “improvements” in technology make it that much easier for a journalist to step on a metaphorical landmine. However, that in itself should ultimately lead journalism down a trail of stronger ethics. People who cut corners seem to get caught. Unethical reporters like Jason Leopold or Jayson Blair got caught and it seems likely others will too. In the end, the news organizations with the strongest reputations and strongest reporting will be comprised on journalists with the strongest ethics — or at the very least the journalists who are too scared to act unethically.
After all, if journalists don’t shape up and start acting better, robot journalists will eventually take our spots. And I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have a robot as a butler than a reporter. Think about it.
Jason Leopold certainly was not the first, and definitely won’t be the last, person to be both helped and harmed by technology. What’s yet to be seen is whether this increased access is ultimately better or worse for journalism and, more importantly, how it changes the ethics landscape. I think that technology is a great thing for journalism. Sure, Joe Sixpack might scoop me one day because he’s caught something on his video phone, but ultimately, more participants in journalism — and more eyes on journalists — will improve the trade. Even the watchdogs need a watchdog from time to time.
For instance, in this new age of technology, blogging is becoming an increasingly more important news medium. There are arguments that it shouldn’t be considered journalism because of the multitude of crap that floats around the internet. However, I would argue that the vast majority of people that frequent blog sites know the difference between a pure breed and a mut — they know the layout and the language of the internet and will not fall prey (as easily) to fake sites. That being said, reporters who blog must face an international audience that is capable of commenting on every word that it written. This allows for a much stronger check on power than the readership of a traditional news medium because the conversation is more open. Never before has a reporter been as available for criticism than with blogging — it makes transparency a much larger issue.
Outside of the blogosphere (which is a word I love, along with globesity a,k,a, the global obesity epidemic), technology has improved fact checking and possible source lists. You don’t need to get the government on the horn, or the census bureau, to get some facts, they’re available through the organization’s Web sites now. Additionally, news can be updated continuously, creating greater opportunities for in-depth reporting. So, when 9/11 hit, the news the next day wasn’t that it happened, by why it happened, who did it, etc. Technology has allowed for journalists to keep the public more informed.
These improvements do, admittedly, have a darker side. I know I am very dependent on spell check, something that can come back to haunt you (see public v. pubic if you don’t believe me). Furthermore, the sites that are often used for fact-checking can be wrong — places like Wikipedia contain a plethora of errors and inaccuracies and cannot be relied upon for a news source. With up-to-the-minute reporting also comes at-the-last-minute editing, in which editors and copy editors alike are unable to get ample time to look for inaccuracies, inconsistencies or even libelous content. Additionally, documents can be doctored or fabricated entirely. Sources with any sort of experience on programs like Photoshop can alter pictures to fool news agencies, whose excitement at a breaking story can lead to publishing a falsity. Fake blogs are created by public relations companies to create favorable news for their clients. All of these “improvements” in technology make it that much easier for a journalist to step on a metaphorical landmine. However, that in itself should ultimately lead journalism down a trail of stronger ethics. People who cut corners seem to get caught. Unethical reporters like Jason Leopold or Jayson Blair got caught and it seems likely others will too. In the end, the news organizations with the strongest reputations and strongest reporting will be comprised on journalists with the strongest ethics — or at the very least the journalists who are too scared to act unethically.
After all, if journalists don’t shape up and start acting better, robot journalists will eventually take our spots. And I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have a robot as a butler than a reporter. Think about it.
The e-journalist
As news sources around the country work to keep up with the changing e-landscape, few organizations have had the time to revise what are now outdated ethical standards.
This can be seen in the contradictory stance journalism has taken on blogs and personal profiles. While journalists and journalism students around the country are encouraged or even required to be available electronically, the fine line between availability and too much information has wavered. For example, recently the Missourian’s own Tom Warhover sent out an e-mail to Missourian staff and students prohibiting political or organizational ties to be published on Facebook profiles, a popular social network for college students. The Facebook has been a growing student venue for almost two years now, but the conflict only just came to light (and thanks to a reporting student no less).
Blogs are even more nebulous, mostly because they encompass not only mainstream journalists but also “citizen journalism.” First things first, the publications have been able to deal with their own staffs, even if the decisions vary among organizations. Some journalists are prohibited from blogs altogether; others can have them only if they don’t identify their profession or discuss their work. Still more are completely open to the commentary found on reporters’ electronic counterparts.
As far as citizen journalism on blogs, there is less consensus on what should be counted as true journalism. During the group discussions in class, the main concern with bloggers as journalists was the absence of an editorial process and staff. Before publication in a paper, broadcast, textcast or posting online, a story must be vetted through an editorial process and checked over for factual and grammatical errors. While this process is not foolproof, it does prevent a lot of mistakes. There is no such editorial standard for bloggers who claim to be journalists.
Such blogs are not only in danger of writers’ biases and anonymity, but also of their psychology. “Flame First, Think Later: New Clues to E-mail Misbehavior,” a New York Times article by Daniel Goleman, argues that people are more likely to say offensive or rude things over the Internet than they are in person because they miss out on the emotional cues in a face-to-face conversation that typically cause empathy. This lack of inhibition can cause unnecessary misunderstanding and offense. In an e-mail to Missourian editors dated February 23, Pulitzer Prize winner Jacqi Banaszynski notes that the tendency for people to write offensive or rude material on the Internet may affect this journalism blogs as well: “Clearly this isn’t a strictly apples-to-apples comparison. But I do think it will be worth watching the “raw” coverage that is encouraged on online sites to see how much of it becomes the journalistic version of offensive and rude.”
On top of the conceptual questions behind traditional versus new journalism, there are shining examples like Jason Leopold. After an arguably too-long stint in mainstream journalism, the ethically flexible reporter now freelances for various independent journalism sites. In this particular case, the reporter has claimed to tighten his ethical standards. (Leopold, in-class message) However, that may be a slippery slope, and without the barrier and gatekeepers of mainstream journalism, credibility may be called into question.
Journalistic ethics should provide an anchor, a standard that holds journalism to its values. As journalists and the general population continue to be rocked by technological waves, they need not forget to lengthen the ethical chain.
This can be seen in the contradictory stance journalism has taken on blogs and personal profiles. While journalists and journalism students around the country are encouraged or even required to be available electronically, the fine line between availability and too much information has wavered. For example, recently the Missourian’s own Tom Warhover sent out an e-mail to Missourian staff and students prohibiting political or organizational ties to be published on Facebook profiles, a popular social network for college students. The Facebook has been a growing student venue for almost two years now, but the conflict only just came to light (and thanks to a reporting student no less).
Blogs are even more nebulous, mostly because they encompass not only mainstream journalists but also “citizen journalism.” First things first, the publications have been able to deal with their own staffs, even if the decisions vary among organizations. Some journalists are prohibited from blogs altogether; others can have them only if they don’t identify their profession or discuss their work. Still more are completely open to the commentary found on reporters’ electronic counterparts.
As far as citizen journalism on blogs, there is less consensus on what should be counted as true journalism. During the group discussions in class, the main concern with bloggers as journalists was the absence of an editorial process and staff. Before publication in a paper, broadcast, textcast or posting online, a story must be vetted through an editorial process and checked over for factual and grammatical errors. While this process is not foolproof, it does prevent a lot of mistakes. There is no such editorial standard for bloggers who claim to be journalists.
Such blogs are not only in danger of writers’ biases and anonymity, but also of their psychology. “Flame First, Think Later: New Clues to E-mail Misbehavior,” a New York Times article by Daniel Goleman, argues that people are more likely to say offensive or rude things over the Internet than they are in person because they miss out on the emotional cues in a face-to-face conversation that typically cause empathy. This lack of inhibition can cause unnecessary misunderstanding and offense. In an e-mail to Missourian editors dated February 23, Pulitzer Prize winner Jacqi Banaszynski notes that the tendency for people to write offensive or rude material on the Internet may affect this journalism blogs as well: “Clearly this isn’t a strictly apples-to-apples comparison. But I do think it will be worth watching the “raw” coverage that is encouraged on online sites to see how much of it becomes the journalistic version of offensive and rude.”
On top of the conceptual questions behind traditional versus new journalism, there are shining examples like Jason Leopold. After an arguably too-long stint in mainstream journalism, the ethically flexible reporter now freelances for various independent journalism sites. In this particular case, the reporter has claimed to tighten his ethical standards. (Leopold, in-class message) However, that may be a slippery slope, and without the barrier and gatekeepers of mainstream journalism, credibility may be called into question.
Journalistic ethics should provide an anchor, a standard that holds journalism to its values. As journalists and the general population continue to be rocked by technological waves, they need not forget to lengthen the ethical chain.
Is laziness unethical?
Unethical journalists have always existed and they always will. In every fast-paced, money-driven, and cutthroat industry there will always be cheaters. (See steroids in baseball).
And just like baseball, the “cheaters” have evolved at the same rapid pace as technology. Technology has made unethical behavior easier. But, does that mean it’s more prevalent?
I don’t think so.
There are journalists who want to do it the right way and there are those who just want to get ahead at any price. While technology creates an ever-increasing temptation to cut corners, well-trained journalists will not waiver. Maybe that’s just the Cubs optimism in me leaking out.
Every reporter wants to break the big story. Jason Leopold, in his book “News Junkie,” revealed his lies, shortcuts, and manipulation that led him to the forefront of the California energy crisis. But, he eventually got caught, just like Jason Blair. Then there was Dan Rather in 2004. He (knowingly/unknowingly) used forged military documents in a CBS news story that attacked President Bush’s (lack of) military service.
But as in all these cases, technology was a double-edged sword. Computers can forge documents, and the Internet can give you background on locations even if you aren’t really there. But, in the end technology was a major reason why they were caught.
I believe the biggest problem with technology isn’t necessarily the increase of unethical behavior. I believe it promotes laziness.
Bob Steele, director of journalism ethics programs for the Poynter Institute said, “…Computers are changing the news-gathering process. Turning to online sources for information or using computers to analyze information has become almost as commonplace as dropping in on city hall. And, with the increased use of different newsgathering methodology, editors might face new ethical challenges, or at least, new twists on old problems.”
This isn’t making up sources, forging documents, or lying to sources. This is just pure laziness. The best reporting is done outside of the newsroom. But, it requires lots of legwork and creativity.
Bob Steele continued by adding two crucial findings about technology’s affect on the media. I suspect these points are more at the heart of resolving the debate concerning techonology and ethics.
First he said, “So far, there have been relatively few reported instances of ethical problems associated with computer-assisted journalism.”
Later he said, “One of the most common forms of technology misuse has been in the arena of photojournalism. Several publications have been caught in computer photo manipulations.”
So, where do we stand?
I believe we are in the same place as before the technology boom. I have used Google and Wikipedia to find sources or to find background information. But, then I called sources, met with those involved, and attended meetings. Technology can just as easily supplement quality journalism as it could promote unethical behavior.
And just like baseball, the “cheaters” have evolved at the same rapid pace as technology. Technology has made unethical behavior easier. But, does that mean it’s more prevalent?
I don’t think so.
There are journalists who want to do it the right way and there are those who just want to get ahead at any price. While technology creates an ever-increasing temptation to cut corners, well-trained journalists will not waiver. Maybe that’s just the Cubs optimism in me leaking out.
Every reporter wants to break the big story. Jason Leopold, in his book “News Junkie,” revealed his lies, shortcuts, and manipulation that led him to the forefront of the California energy crisis. But, he eventually got caught, just like Jason Blair. Then there was Dan Rather in 2004. He (knowingly/unknowingly) used forged military documents in a CBS news story that attacked President Bush’s (lack of) military service.
But as in all these cases, technology was a double-edged sword. Computers can forge documents, and the Internet can give you background on locations even if you aren’t really there. But, in the end technology was a major reason why they were caught.
I believe the biggest problem with technology isn’t necessarily the increase of unethical behavior. I believe it promotes laziness.
Bob Steele, director of journalism ethics programs for the Poynter Institute said, “…Computers are changing the news-gathering process. Turning to online sources for information or using computers to analyze information has become almost as commonplace as dropping in on city hall. And, with the increased use of different newsgathering methodology, editors might face new ethical challenges, or at least, new twists on old problems.”
This isn’t making up sources, forging documents, or lying to sources. This is just pure laziness. The best reporting is done outside of the newsroom. But, it requires lots of legwork and creativity.
Bob Steele continued by adding two crucial findings about technology’s affect on the media. I suspect these points are more at the heart of resolving the debate concerning techonology and ethics.
First he said, “So far, there have been relatively few reported instances of ethical problems associated with computer-assisted journalism.”
Later he said, “One of the most common forms of technology misuse has been in the arena of photojournalism. Several publications have been caught in computer photo manipulations.”
So, where do we stand?
I believe we are in the same place as before the technology boom. I have used Google and Wikipedia to find sources or to find background information. But, then I called sources, met with those involved, and attended meetings. Technology can just as easily supplement quality journalism as it could promote unethical behavior.
ethical obligation to democratic society
Last semester, when working the copydesk during the night of the elections, I remember the newsroom buzzing about the break up of Brittney and K-Fed. All day I was anxious to hear the results of the election and hear which party had seized control in congress. For others, however, election news during most of the day was over-shadowed by news of this Hollywood breakup. When staff members in The Missourian asked me if I had heard about the ground-breaking split, my response was, “Why should I care?”
Technology’s most significant negative impact on news is the change in what is considered “news.” Technology has become the news hub for the younger generation of readers. This has caused reporters and editors to focus on a different form of news in order to attract more readers. The current news priorities are music, local, current events, international, national and politics, respectively. In addition, there has been an increased emphasis on celebrity gossip being passed off as news. Our society has been infiltrated by new technologies, so much that most people have become dependant on television, internet and their MP3 players.
Journalism plays a unique role in democratic societies. In order to make educated decisions concerning elections and different legislative policies, voters need information about local, national and international events. Journalism is the manner in which this information can be widely dispersed. However the current media’s attention has been redirected to a daily analysis of Hollywood. By the increased coverage of celebrities, the media is affirming that pop culture news is more important than local, national and international current events and political news. Celebrity news, however, does not contribute to the helping voters create a political consciousness.
The internet still offers a wide-array of information on politics and foreign affairs, though sometimes placed in a position subordinate to Brittney’s breakup. However even with the hard news provided, the news websites are only abbreviated versions of the print and television versions, Gans explains.
“In fact, the internet provides the most abbreviated news in all the news media, which may help explain why many young people, who are traditionally the least interested in the news, are getting most of their news from the web.”
When reporters fold to the market’s demands, in the manner of elevating news of music and celebrities above traditional news, they are failing in their role to serve their democratic society. Journalists need to be continually cognizant of their role in society. Editors are able to dictate what people think about by their choice of what to report and the choice of placement of different stories.
Journalists have an important ethical responsibility. Readers are always able to find news concerning just about any topic they want, however with the growing prominence of celebrity news the readers have to dig deeper to find the news that actually matters to their lives. Brittney’s breakup has no effect on the average reader’s life, however new immigration policies has an effect on the immigrants, small businesses, agriculture, prices of commodities, etc…
And, as Gans pointed out, the younger readers of internet news – which the celebrity gossip is appealing to – has a limited attention span for news. Therefore it is unlikely that these readers will set out to search for traditional news, the form that matters to their everyday lives.
So with technology pervading every aspect of society, celebrities are rising in the ranks and becoming more dominant figures. But where does journalism draw the line between reporting on celebrity news – which the market might demand – and traditional news of current events and politics which is pertinent to a democratic society?
Technology’s most significant negative impact on news is the change in what is considered “news.” Technology has become the news hub for the younger generation of readers. This has caused reporters and editors to focus on a different form of news in order to attract more readers. The current news priorities are music, local, current events, international, national and politics, respectively. In addition, there has been an increased emphasis on celebrity gossip being passed off as news. Our society has been infiltrated by new technologies, so much that most people have become dependant on television, internet and their MP3 players.
Journalism plays a unique role in democratic societies. In order to make educated decisions concerning elections and different legislative policies, voters need information about local, national and international events. Journalism is the manner in which this information can be widely dispersed. However the current media’s attention has been redirected to a daily analysis of Hollywood. By the increased coverage of celebrities, the media is affirming that pop culture news is more important than local, national and international current events and political news. Celebrity news, however, does not contribute to the helping voters create a political consciousness.
The internet still offers a wide-array of information on politics and foreign affairs, though sometimes placed in a position subordinate to Brittney’s breakup. However even with the hard news provided, the news websites are only abbreviated versions of the print and television versions, Gans explains.
“In fact, the internet provides the most abbreviated news in all the news media, which may help explain why many young people, who are traditionally the least interested in the news, are getting most of their news from the web.”
When reporters fold to the market’s demands, in the manner of elevating news of music and celebrities above traditional news, they are failing in their role to serve their democratic society. Journalists need to be continually cognizant of their role in society. Editors are able to dictate what people think about by their choice of what to report and the choice of placement of different stories.
Journalists have an important ethical responsibility. Readers are always able to find news concerning just about any topic they want, however with the growing prominence of celebrity news the readers have to dig deeper to find the news that actually matters to their lives. Brittney’s breakup has no effect on the average reader’s life, however new immigration policies has an effect on the immigrants, small businesses, agriculture, prices of commodities, etc…
And, as Gans pointed out, the younger readers of internet news – which the celebrity gossip is appealing to – has a limited attention span for news. Therefore it is unlikely that these readers will set out to search for traditional news, the form that matters to their everyday lives.
So with technology pervading every aspect of society, celebrities are rising in the ranks and becoming more dominant figures. But where does journalism draw the line between reporting on celebrity news – which the market might demand – and traditional news of current events and politics which is pertinent to a democratic society?
Ethics and Technology
I haven’t had my computer for 7 days.
It’s been very difficult. I kind of feel lost. I know you’re probably already rolling your eyes because this sounds pathetic (and I agree it kind of is), but this inconvenience couldn’t have come at a better time because as I was thinking about this essay, I’ve realized how important technology really is. Usually (when my computer is not locked up in the MacExperts store) I check my student email probably about 20 times a day- not to mention my Gmail account, Facebook, Bank of America account, and a series of newspapers’ websites- while also being signed on to AOL instant messenger for most of the day. If you couldn’t tell, I can’t live without my computer.
And my cell phone isn’t any different. I truly don’t leave home without it. It’s the first thing I check when I get out of class (if I haven’t already during class), when I am leaving the gym, when I’m walking out of my house, and when I wake up in the morning.
I really cannot understand how people used to live without technologies such as a cell phone or the Internet. But what I really cannot comprehend is how a newsroom operated without these types of technology. Already in my journalism career, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve used my cell phone to call a source on a way to an interview, call to check in with my editor, or call the copydesk to change a fact in my story. Google is my best friend when fact checking for name, addresses, and phone numbers. Online dictionaries and thesauruses are my saving grace when I’m sitting on the copydesk. And who are we kidding? The Missourian couldn’t even be published without the Internet since we electronically send the paper to the publishing plant in Jefferson City.
Technology allows journalists to catch plagiarism more easily (while also tempting plagiarism at the same time). It gives us (meaning journalists) a world of easily assessable data to add to stories and lets us crunch that data at a high level. It connects us with sources around the world and creates a Web community for journalists to draw from. It lets us find out what other media outlets are doing (either in celebration that we’ve beaten our competitors on a story or in disappointment that we’ve been scooped). It allows us to file easily from remote locations and send our work out far and wide.
On the other hand (there’s always another hand), it can hamper with journalists’ ethical ability. It (like I already noted) invites temptation to plagiarize, especially in such a fast paced competitive news world. It encourages reliance on wire copy and electronic sources. It encourages lax fact checking from places like Google or Wikipedia. And it keeps us from getting out of our chairs and actually leaving the newsroom to report the story.
It’s almost mind boggling to think about how many journalists rely on Wikipedia for factual information. While it on some occasions can serve as a SMALL stepping stone, it is by no means a source. If you were writing a thesis and submitted your paper with Wikipedia as a source, you would get laughed out of the room while trying to do your defense. So why do so many journalists use it as a source for newspapers?
The best advice I’ve ever been given (for the purpose of journalism) is to get off my butt and leave the newsroom to find the best stories. While technology vastly improves our ability to get the story out quick and fact check efficiently, there is no question that you will get a better story if you actually leave the newsroom than if you stay sitting at your desk. In the age where technology is at our fingertips, we still need original and creative reporting- neither of which will come from staring at a computer screen.
So to answer the question- does technology harm or improve our ability to be ethical journalists- it does both.
It’s been very difficult. I kind of feel lost. I know you’re probably already rolling your eyes because this sounds pathetic (and I agree it kind of is), but this inconvenience couldn’t have come at a better time because as I was thinking about this essay, I’ve realized how important technology really is. Usually (when my computer is not locked up in the MacExperts store) I check my student email probably about 20 times a day- not to mention my Gmail account, Facebook, Bank of America account, and a series of newspapers’ websites- while also being signed on to AOL instant messenger for most of the day. If you couldn’t tell, I can’t live without my computer.
And my cell phone isn’t any different. I truly don’t leave home without it. It’s the first thing I check when I get out of class (if I haven’t already during class), when I am leaving the gym, when I’m walking out of my house, and when I wake up in the morning.
I really cannot understand how people used to live without technologies such as a cell phone or the Internet. But what I really cannot comprehend is how a newsroom operated without these types of technology. Already in my journalism career, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve used my cell phone to call a source on a way to an interview, call to check in with my editor, or call the copydesk to change a fact in my story. Google is my best friend when fact checking for name, addresses, and phone numbers. Online dictionaries and thesauruses are my saving grace when I’m sitting on the copydesk. And who are we kidding? The Missourian couldn’t even be published without the Internet since we electronically send the paper to the publishing plant in Jefferson City.
Technology allows journalists to catch plagiarism more easily (while also tempting plagiarism at the same time). It gives us (meaning journalists) a world of easily assessable data to add to stories and lets us crunch that data at a high level. It connects us with sources around the world and creates a Web community for journalists to draw from. It lets us find out what other media outlets are doing (either in celebration that we’ve beaten our competitors on a story or in disappointment that we’ve been scooped). It allows us to file easily from remote locations and send our work out far and wide.
On the other hand (there’s always another hand), it can hamper with journalists’ ethical ability. It (like I already noted) invites temptation to plagiarize, especially in such a fast paced competitive news world. It encourages reliance on wire copy and electronic sources. It encourages lax fact checking from places like Google or Wikipedia. And it keeps us from getting out of our chairs and actually leaving the newsroom to report the story.
It’s almost mind boggling to think about how many journalists rely on Wikipedia for factual information. While it on some occasions can serve as a SMALL stepping stone, it is by no means a source. If you were writing a thesis and submitted your paper with Wikipedia as a source, you would get laughed out of the room while trying to do your defense. So why do so many journalists use it as a source for newspapers?
The best advice I’ve ever been given (for the purpose of journalism) is to get off my butt and leave the newsroom to find the best stories. While technology vastly improves our ability to get the story out quick and fact check efficiently, there is no question that you will get a better story if you actually leave the newsroom than if you stay sitting at your desk. In the age where technology is at our fingertips, we still need original and creative reporting- neither of which will come from staring at a computer screen.
So to answer the question- does technology harm or improve our ability to be ethical journalists- it does both.
Ethics and Technology
I believe that technology both hurts and harms our ability to be ethical journalists. We can use technology to look up almost anything we want to in an instant, rather than being forced to go to a library or spend valuable time looking up facts and figures. This helps our ethics because it big situations where we need to make calculated ethical decisions, technology allows us to spend more time weighing the ethics of a certain decision.
Technology can also help our ethics because we can talk with almost anyone in the world who has the capable technology. This can allow us to bring a lot of people into the conversation to help us make ethical decisions.
Poynter recently held a conference on ethics in online journalism. Here is one of the things they concluded:
“Journalists should accept the challenge and embrace the opportunity to build new business models that will flourish in an era of digital media. Journalism's highest values can endure only if they stand on a sound economic foundation. It is essential that the journalists who adhere to those values be proactive -- not just reactive -- participants in the process of innovation.”
But technology can also hurt our ethics in multiple ways. As discussed in class, Jayson Blair’s reporting on Private Jessica Lynch’s family looking out over tobacco fields was blatantly false and it almost skipped by everyone. In fact, the false information wasn’t even checked at the newspaper. Blair was obviously a very smart, if very unethical newspaper reporter. He even fooled the rest of the newspaper by saying he was actually in Lynch’s hometown when he wasn’t even close. Instead, he committed a huge breach of ethics by reporting on what he saw on television and then sprinkling in his own lies.
What’s important to remember and what’s pertinent to this discussion, is that Blair was allowed to use technology to help make an unethical decision. It allowed him, and gave him the temptation, to skirt the basic rules of journalism. Technology harmed Blair’s ability to be an ethical journalist and gave him the easy way out of what could have been a good story.
There’s also the issue of Wikipedia. As with any class, it allows for a lot of room for error in our ethics as journalists. Wikipedia is easy, informative and incredibly convenient. However, it’s not always filled with accurate information with whatever article you’re looking at. It can be tough to verify some of the information that’s in there. It can allow journalists to make unethical decisions easily.
Technology can help us become ethical journalists with its ease and volume of usable information. But it can hurt if that information is false.
--John Sahly
Technology can also help our ethics because we can talk with almost anyone in the world who has the capable technology. This can allow us to bring a lot of people into the conversation to help us make ethical decisions.
Poynter recently held a conference on ethics in online journalism. Here is one of the things they concluded:
“Journalists should accept the challenge and embrace the opportunity to build new business models that will flourish in an era of digital media. Journalism's highest values can endure only if they stand on a sound economic foundation. It is essential that the journalists who adhere to those values be proactive -- not just reactive -- participants in the process of innovation.”
But technology can also hurt our ethics in multiple ways. As discussed in class, Jayson Blair’s reporting on Private Jessica Lynch’s family looking out over tobacco fields was blatantly false and it almost skipped by everyone. In fact, the false information wasn’t even checked at the newspaper. Blair was obviously a very smart, if very unethical newspaper reporter. He even fooled the rest of the newspaper by saying he was actually in Lynch’s hometown when he wasn’t even close. Instead, he committed a huge breach of ethics by reporting on what he saw on television and then sprinkling in his own lies.
What’s important to remember and what’s pertinent to this discussion, is that Blair was allowed to use technology to help make an unethical decision. It allowed him, and gave him the temptation, to skirt the basic rules of journalism. Technology harmed Blair’s ability to be an ethical journalist and gave him the easy way out of what could have been a good story.
There’s also the issue of Wikipedia. As with any class, it allows for a lot of room for error in our ethics as journalists. Wikipedia is easy, informative and incredibly convenient. However, it’s not always filled with accurate information with whatever article you’re looking at. It can be tough to verify some of the information that’s in there. It can allow journalists to make unethical decisions easily.
Technology can help us become ethical journalists with its ease and volume of usable information. But it can hurt if that information is false.
--John Sahly
Who draws the line?
I met a good-looking guy on the shuttle bus once, and after a delightful conversation, I spontaneously gave him my phone number. Within five minutes of walking through the door into my apartment, equipped with only his first name, his major and his class year, I found the boy on Facebook. Within seconds, I learned our music tastes matched, I had looked at every posted photo and even knew his brother’s name.
If that’s not creepy, I don’t know what is.
The boy confided later that he had done the same thing for me when he got home that night. Only my name is a unique occurrence under the Missouri Facebook network and is therefore much easier to find than a random “Brad*” (*name changed to protect the innocent).
Was this a necessary thing for me to do? Of course. I actually answered my phone when he called, because based on the things I learned from his profile, I quickly deduced I would make it home from a date in one piece and with my integrity intact.
I can’t live without the Internet. I check my e-mail at least 20 times a day. I’m usually connected to an instant messenger. I routinely check a few message boards, update my fantasy racing team and scan for classmates’ bylines. Don’t get me started about my Facebook use.
But I mostly use the Internet for good, and not evil or amusement. I think I’ve memorized the Web address for every Big 12 Conference athletic program, and frequently use the information on those sites.
In my short life, I can’t imagine successfully producing a newspaper, magazine or television news broadcast without the help of the Internet. I know it was done. But I just cannot comprehend how.
The Internet is a copy editor’s dream. How else would I have ever figured out that the name of Red Schoendienst, a former St. Louis Cardinal and Hall of Famer, was misspelled? Thanks, Google.
Reporters use it. Designers use it. Photographers use it. Editors live on it.
The Internet can cause problems, though. I can make a Web site, post doctored photos with the head of my roommate on the body of a cat and it will make it into the National Enquirer the next day. The Internet in no way discriminates its content.
As an information graphics designer, you become utterly fluent in whatever information you are trying to display. Sometimes the reporter helps you out with official sources, both Web related and not. Other times, it’s all up to you.
As you are digging into information about the science of teeth whitening, you will quickly realize there isn’t much information on the health and safety of the process, and especially no visual information regarding the actual microscopic chemical process. What you will find, thanks to the mighty search engines, is a Web site that looks authentic. It smells authentic. In fine print, you see that the supposed scientific article you are viewing has been sponsored by Crest. So much for authenticity and objectivity.
Under Wikipedia, as you are background surfing, you find the same article. The American Dental Society Web site includes a link to the biased article. Another organization, which claims to be objective and is seemingly trustworthy, has the same article and is pawning it off as its own original information.
It’s your final graphics project and it’s worth a good chunk of your grade. What do you do?
You half-ass it, accept your C, and bury the detested document deep within a folder on the server, never again to be seen on screen and especially not in print.
For a graphics designer, you can find information on any topic you want. But it’s up to you to determine if it’s the most accurate and fair information you can find. For some graphics, you find and combine information from nearly a dozen sites. You source them in a credit line, but is that enough? Did you get it right?
A lot of times in graphics, it’s easier to publish a photo and use it as your main image instead of illustrating a complex thing. Use a Google image search for “morel mushroom” and you get nearly 2,000 results. Can you just klep an image off one of those sites and then add the site to your source line? Do you have to go through the trouble of e-mailing the Web master, only to find out that they stole the image from another site?
I was working on a sports graphic, detailing MU’s chances of making it to one of several bowl games. I went to each bowl’s Web site to find a representative icon of the bowl. Some sites had prepared media kits so I could download high-resolution jpegs. Others had no disclaimer. One site forbade the publication of the icon without prior permission. When the information officer does not e-mail you back giving you permission, what do you do?
I snagged the image from the home page and stuck it on my graphic along with eight others that I may or may not have had express permission to reproduce. Is this an ethical quandary? I don’t even yet know. All I know is that the Missourian hasn’t been sued yet and things are looking good for that not to happen.
In writing even, there is that gray area where you don’t know whether to source general knowledge or even when an item can be considered general knowledge. If a fact appears repeatedly in Google’s top 20 results, does that mean the entire public should know about it?
These aren’t conversations people would be having as they scurried to put a newspaper together 15 years ago. These little things probably aren’t even real, bona fide ethical issues. The Internet opens the door for easy plagiarism, which is 10 times more questionable than publishing a bowl game icon in a non-threatening way.
Then there’s always that sneaky, ethical issue of privacy. A good portion of what’s on the Web is user-generated and therefore has the permission of the subject, him- or herself, before it goes worldwide. Professors at MU often have professional Web sites that link directly to personal sites that publish photos of them on vacation with their families and friends. Go a step further and google (and this is verb form of the proper noun which has become vernacular) some of those names found on the site. The digging here is endless.
And then it all comes back to Facebook. Am I supposed to be checking in on the MU women’s basketball players and browsing their photo galleries for infractions? Can I fact- check a source using the networking site?
I don’t know. I’ve done both.
I do know that Facebook stalking does not guarantee success in finding a mate. Nor does giving your phone number to a random fellow on a bus. Web profiles and campus transportation do not always produce good prospects.
If that’s not creepy, I don’t know what is.
The boy confided later that he had done the same thing for me when he got home that night. Only my name is a unique occurrence under the Missouri Facebook network and is therefore much easier to find than a random “Brad*” (*name changed to protect the innocent).
Was this a necessary thing for me to do? Of course. I actually answered my phone when he called, because based on the things I learned from his profile, I quickly deduced I would make it home from a date in one piece and with my integrity intact.
I can’t live without the Internet. I check my e-mail at least 20 times a day. I’m usually connected to an instant messenger. I routinely check a few message boards, update my fantasy racing team and scan for classmates’ bylines. Don’t get me started about my Facebook use.
But I mostly use the Internet for good, and not evil or amusement. I think I’ve memorized the Web address for every Big 12 Conference athletic program, and frequently use the information on those sites.
In my short life, I can’t imagine successfully producing a newspaper, magazine or television news broadcast without the help of the Internet. I know it was done. But I just cannot comprehend how.
The Internet is a copy editor’s dream. How else would I have ever figured out that the name of Red Schoendienst, a former St. Louis Cardinal and Hall of Famer, was misspelled? Thanks, Google.
Reporters use it. Designers use it. Photographers use it. Editors live on it.
The Internet can cause problems, though. I can make a Web site, post doctored photos with the head of my roommate on the body of a cat and it will make it into the National Enquirer the next day. The Internet in no way discriminates its content.
As an information graphics designer, you become utterly fluent in whatever information you are trying to display. Sometimes the reporter helps you out with official sources, both Web related and not. Other times, it’s all up to you.
As you are digging into information about the science of teeth whitening, you will quickly realize there isn’t much information on the health and safety of the process, and especially no visual information regarding the actual microscopic chemical process. What you will find, thanks to the mighty search engines, is a Web site that looks authentic. It smells authentic. In fine print, you see that the supposed scientific article you are viewing has been sponsored by Crest. So much for authenticity and objectivity.
Under Wikipedia, as you are background surfing, you find the same article. The American Dental Society Web site includes a link to the biased article. Another organization, which claims to be objective and is seemingly trustworthy, has the same article and is pawning it off as its own original information.
It’s your final graphics project and it’s worth a good chunk of your grade. What do you do?
You half-ass it, accept your C, and bury the detested document deep within a folder on the server, never again to be seen on screen and especially not in print.
For a graphics designer, you can find information on any topic you want. But it’s up to you to determine if it’s the most accurate and fair information you can find. For some graphics, you find and combine information from nearly a dozen sites. You source them in a credit line, but is that enough? Did you get it right?
A lot of times in graphics, it’s easier to publish a photo and use it as your main image instead of illustrating a complex thing. Use a Google image search for “morel mushroom” and you get nearly 2,000 results. Can you just klep an image off one of those sites and then add the site to your source line? Do you have to go through the trouble of e-mailing the Web master, only to find out that they stole the image from another site?
I was working on a sports graphic, detailing MU’s chances of making it to one of several bowl games. I went to each bowl’s Web site to find a representative icon of the bowl. Some sites had prepared media kits so I could download high-resolution jpegs. Others had no disclaimer. One site forbade the publication of the icon without prior permission. When the information officer does not e-mail you back giving you permission, what do you do?
I snagged the image from the home page and stuck it on my graphic along with eight others that I may or may not have had express permission to reproduce. Is this an ethical quandary? I don’t even yet know. All I know is that the Missourian hasn’t been sued yet and things are looking good for that not to happen.
In writing even, there is that gray area where you don’t know whether to source general knowledge or even when an item can be considered general knowledge. If a fact appears repeatedly in Google’s top 20 results, does that mean the entire public should know about it?
These aren’t conversations people would be having as they scurried to put a newspaper together 15 years ago. These little things probably aren’t even real, bona fide ethical issues. The Internet opens the door for easy plagiarism, which is 10 times more questionable than publishing a bowl game icon in a non-threatening way.
Then there’s always that sneaky, ethical issue of privacy. A good portion of what’s on the Web is user-generated and therefore has the permission of the subject, him- or herself, before it goes worldwide. Professors at MU often have professional Web sites that link directly to personal sites that publish photos of them on vacation with their families and friends. Go a step further and google (and this is verb form of the proper noun which has become vernacular) some of those names found on the site. The digging here is endless.
And then it all comes back to Facebook. Am I supposed to be checking in on the MU women’s basketball players and browsing their photo galleries for infractions? Can I fact- check a source using the networking site?
I don’t know. I’ve done both.
I do know that Facebook stalking does not guarantee success in finding a mate. Nor does giving your phone number to a random fellow on a bus. Web profiles and campus transportation do not always produce good prospects.
Technological temptation
Technology tempts us. It’s the candy dish that never gets depleted. It’s there for us whenever we want it. But too much sugar can be a bad thing. And it’s the same with technology – the laziness it can induce goes right to the thighs.
Availability of information makes it easier for ethical journalists to ensure accuracy. But it also makes it easier for the unethical to deceive. Do a Google search for “ethics,” and what do you get? The top result is Wikipedia, a Web site that can be edited by anyone, shaped into whatever form the public deems to be truthful and/or ethical. Ironic, isn’t it?
Technology enables us to do with it whatever we like. It can be easy to use it ethically if we have the right intentions and differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources. Technology also needs to be used ethically.
People feel the need to be constantly interconnected and informed. This is good news for media. Online updates and text casting are hugely beneficial for media consumption. The utilization of these technological tools can turn newspapers into a preferred medium. Paper publications won’t be regarded as much as “yesterday’s news” when they can keep people up to date with proper use of technology.
Most of the public thinks newspapers are a "backward" medium that is lagging behind. Public consumption of news via forms of technology requires the understanding that text casts and online updates are not the whole story. If this isn't made clear, it's not ethical because audiences aren't receiving the whole truth. Technology should be used to tell audiences they should look further.
As a copy editor, I love the Internet. LOVE IT. I've saved the paper and reporters great embarrassment many times by using the Internet, my catch-all research tool.
I’ve double-checked Donald Rumsfeld’s middle name against a government Web site when a Washington Post letter had “Donald H. Rumsfeld.” His middle initial is “M,” by the way.
I’ve read “Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation” and gone to the humanitarian gazillionaire’s Web site to see the “Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.”
Want to know the proper spelling of a medical term not covered by Merriam-Webster? Try the American Medical Association’s Web site. And while you’re there, look up a few peer-reviewed articles that make reference to the term and find out if that Dr. So-and-So in paragraph four actually knows what he’s talking about.
All of these examples show how technology can help us to be more ethical by being accurate.
But this use of technology needs to be ethical. The proper sources need to be used, and the person using the sources needs to have good intention.
Technology has made it easier for members of the boardroom to know more about their target audiences; it shouldn’t be used as an excuse for invading people’s privacy to get their attention.
As an ethical issue, technology falls into the same dichotomy as so many other things we’re told. Look, but don’t touch. Proceed, but with caution.
Technology is there for us to use; it’s that tempting candy dish. But we should use it wisely, use it carefully, use it with others in mind.
Availability of information makes it easier for ethical journalists to ensure accuracy. But it also makes it easier for the unethical to deceive. Do a Google search for “ethics,” and what do you get? The top result is Wikipedia, a Web site that can be edited by anyone, shaped into whatever form the public deems to be truthful and/or ethical. Ironic, isn’t it?
Technology enables us to do with it whatever we like. It can be easy to use it ethically if we have the right intentions and differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources. Technology also needs to be used ethically.
People feel the need to be constantly interconnected and informed. This is good news for media. Online updates and text casting are hugely beneficial for media consumption. The utilization of these technological tools can turn newspapers into a preferred medium. Paper publications won’t be regarded as much as “yesterday’s news” when they can keep people up to date with proper use of technology.
Most of the public thinks newspapers are a "backward" medium that is lagging behind. Public consumption of news via forms of technology requires the understanding that text casts and online updates are not the whole story. If this isn't made clear, it's not ethical because audiences aren't receiving the whole truth. Technology should be used to tell audiences they should look further.
As a copy editor, I love the Internet. LOVE IT. I've saved the paper and reporters great embarrassment many times by using the Internet, my catch-all research tool.
I’ve double-checked Donald Rumsfeld’s middle name against a government Web site when a Washington Post letter had “Donald H. Rumsfeld.” His middle initial is “M,” by the way.
I’ve read “Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation” and gone to the humanitarian gazillionaire’s Web site to see the “Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.”
Want to know the proper spelling of a medical term not covered by Merriam-Webster? Try the American Medical Association’s Web site. And while you’re there, look up a few peer-reviewed articles that make reference to the term and find out if that Dr. So-and-So in paragraph four actually knows what he’s talking about.
All of these examples show how technology can help us to be more ethical by being accurate.
But this use of technology needs to be ethical. The proper sources need to be used, and the person using the sources needs to have good intention.
Technology has made it easier for members of the boardroom to know more about their target audiences; it shouldn’t be used as an excuse for invading people’s privacy to get their attention.
As an ethical issue, technology falls into the same dichotomy as so many other things we’re told. Look, but don’t touch. Proceed, but with caution.
Technology is there for us to use; it’s that tempting candy dish. But we should use it wisely, use it carefully, use it with others in mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)