Calling all journalists, bloggers…

What prompted me to write this blog post was an email response I received from an editor of a top San Francisco blog.  I was conducting research on the ethics of blogging and how it differs from journalism, if at all – and to start, I reached out to bloggers to find out if they had a personal set of ethics.  This editor responded, “My hope is that one of the fine instructors being paid by the University of San Francisco can help you with your many questions.”  And let me tell you, I was shocked with the response.

Well, here is my response:  The “fine instructors” at the University of San Francisco do answer our “many” questions.  In fact, they do so thoroughly.  What this editor overlooked was our persistence as students to search beyond our classroom lectures.  Seeking out professional journalists (and bloggers) for our quest to truly dig inside the institution is hardly to be overlooked.  Do these journalists, editors, bloggers – whatever, consider that we are the future?  Editors and writers find themselves quite busy during the holiday season and cannot respond to every email – and I completely understand.  A response is not always necessary.  In this editor’s case, no response would have been better than the response given.

From a student’s perspective: the future is bright and the best way to learn is through our own trial and error.  But additionally, we learn from the advice, suggestions and feedback from current journalists and bloggers.

Thank you to all the journalists and bloggers that have contributed to my semester.  You allowed me to back up my research, strengthen my findings and most of all, showed me that you want to enrich student’s education with your professional insight.

A Personal Code of Ethics

In a profession that dabbles into the murky waters between what is right and wrong, I strongly believe a personal set of ethics can strengthen an individual’s journalistic career.  I believe it is the core of a journalist.  The industry creates a public forum for opinion – foreshadowing a great deal of controversy.  A code of ethics helps define a moral set of guidelines that contribute to the journalist’s ability to act.

To me, the greatest of all ethics to consider is truth.  The ability to seek truth and report it is a fundamental journalistic practice that mirrors credibility for an individual, or the industry as a whole.  I base this ethical code on John Milton’s self-righting principle that truth prevails over evil.  I spent a great deal of time this semester researching and learning about the fraudulent careers of Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair through plagiarism and fabrication.  Through their mistakes, I found truth to ultimately prevail.

Although truth telling is essential, it is also necessary to consider whether the information is for the greater good of the public.  In several cases we studied this semester, I carefully considered how information would affect the public.  I was introduced to the Potter Box, which allowed me to strategically categorize ethical dilemmas that affected the public in some sort of way.  From laying out the loyalties to considering the values, I utilized an ethical form of understanding why and how to best report.

Lastly, I consider James Mill’s belief in the power of the press.  Journalists hold the responsibility to deliver news as well as bear its ramifications.  Because we are given the power to report, a personal set of ethics strengthens our abilities to successfully deliver news to the public.  The power of the press is not to be undermined.  For the profession and the individuals whom partake in a cyclic rotation of deliverance, it cannot be forgotten the ethics that stand firmly behind the institution.

I have finally, and carefully, considered the ethics of journalism over the course of three months.  Immersing my knowledge to the history and evolution of the industry has allowed me to properly apply the journalism skills I have obtained through my college career.  From here, whether I pursuer a career in journalism or not, a personal set of beliefs to best apply to my profession will define who I am – and I plan to use the ethics stated above as a starting point.

Seek and Tweet

Twitter has been the topic several times now, and I can’t help it.  The articles surrounding the social media powerhouse seem to be everywhere.  So here I go again.

In a recent Poynter article, the question raised is whether reporters should be able to report on information before it is approved by their employees.  Here’s the story: AP journalists were recently arrested at OWS protests and tweeted “too soon” about it while their social media guidelines state, “Don’t break news that we haven’t published, no matter the format.  And in response to those guidelines, Brian Stelter of The New York Times asked, “Shouldn’t the wire speed up?”  Stelter has become well-known in the Twitter-world through his tweets during the Joplin tornado.

I must say, I agree with Stelter.  He says to a fellow journalist, “if a reporter has information and it’s accurate, wire delays shouldn’t impede that information.”

The Twitter conversation goes even further as an anonymous Tweeter questions a journalists’ tweet as beneficiary for their personal brand or for the company.  Again, this refers back to my previous posts.  Regardless of what the anonymous Tweeter says, this is a social media practice used in wide variation.  And especially when it is used for timely reporting, I don’t see the problem.

See the entire Twitter debate here.  I side with Stelter in this case.  I believe a journalist has the right to act a timely manner.  After all, isn’t that what Twitter’s all about?

The power of RT

I never considered the power of a “retweet” on Twitter.  And for journalists, the simple click to retweet can convey a thousand meanings to their followers.  Recently, a problem with retweets is raised through a Poynter article.  One of the problems it raises is links back to my conversation on objectivity.  Does a retweet suggest a journalist is reflecting a bias?

The Poynter article describes these raised problems as a “shame, because Twitter is a vibrant network for real-time information, and journalists should participate fully in it.”  Is a retweet automatically suggesting a reporter’s opinion?

Three types of retweets are explained: the native retweet, the manual retweet and the modified retweet.  But the newest idea brought to journalists is the “the neutral tweet.”  This would be executed by retweeting a post with “NT:” in front of the text, with the expectation that people don’t read into their motives.  However, it’s important for journalists to know when to use neutrality over Twitter.  If they overuse or misuse the neutral tweet, credibility for the new idea could get lost.  Journalists say “this is an opportunity to share with Twitter followers your beliefs about bias — political or otherwise — and journalism.”

Check out the article.  It’s a new idea that’s being explored and considered by journalists.  What are your thoughts on neutral retweeting?

“Transparency is the new objectivity”…or is it?

To continue on the topic of objectivity, here is a link to a new website called News Transparency created by Ira Stoll.  It works similarly to Wikipedia – allowing anyone to edit, delete or add information on a journalist.  But what does this mean for objectivity during a transforming technological era?  How will readers attempt to perceive journalists as objective after viewing News Transparency?  Is this taking the idea of transparency too far?

My classmates and I had briefly discussed this in class, but I’m curious for more thoughts.  What’s the real deal?

Journalists are people, and people have opinions.

The core values that constituted journalism was discussed in our class blog and the video of Hot Chicks of OWS.  And it was brought to my attention that one of the basic ideals of journalism is for a journalist to leave their opinion out of the piece.  I came across an article on Poynter that asks, “Is it really a big deal if journalists share personal opinions?”  Are journalists allowed to vocalize their opinions when they aren’t “on the job”?  Does this make them less objective when it does come back to work?  How are these lives separated?  So really, the questions is…can journalists have opinions?

While objectivity is practiced, what extent do journalists exercise this?  Some journalists say, “transparency is the new objectivity.”  Check out this article on Jeff Jarvis and the idea of new journalism and how it effects objectivity.

What are your thoughts on new age journalism and objectivity?  How has it affected you and your opinions?

Hot Topic: Plagiarism

My journalism class had the privilege of  having Nanette Asimov, Higher Education reporter of the San Francisco Chronicle speak to us yesterday.  And of the many fascinating stories and mind boggling scenarios she had our minds wrapped around, she brought up the infamous name, Jayson Blair.  As journalists, after hearing the name, one word comes to mind: plagiarism.

Recently, Jayson Blair’s name has reappeared in several articles as the recent plagiarism scandal with Politico reporter, Kendra Marr has erupted.  Blair’s high-profile scandal and fraud made other journalists and future journalists aware of the repercussions of plagiarism, and more importantly, the ethical dilemma it creates.  Perhaps those lessons were not engrained to Marr, who had plagiarized in at least 7 transportation-related stories – 4 times from the New York Times and 2 times from the Associated Press, to name a few.  She was reported by several journalists that noticed similarities in writing and ideas.  Marr has recently resigned from her position at Politico.

In an article by Julie Moos on Poynter, Marr’s mishaps are discussed.  We take a step back and try to determine whether we consider Marr’s decision a lack of personal ethics, or whether newsrooms should be provided stronger/stricter ethical guidelines reporters.

What are newsrooms providing for their reporters, in terms of ethical guidelines these days?  It’s a basic question for us to ask other journalists that simply don’t come to mind.  Do we assume ethical guidelines are enforced in newsrooms?  What’s the real deal here?

A note to self: When interviewing the next journalists, ask them if their newsroom enforces an ethical code.  And if so, what is it?  Or better yet – what is their personal ethical code?  I’d be curious to know Blair and Marr’s answer to that.

Richard Peppiatt on Journalism Ethics

The hierarchy in a newsroom is the dilemma here.  Richard Peppiatt, former tabloid reporter of The Daily Star, delivered a powerful speech at the Leveson inquiry on the deteriorating truths published in newspapers and how it battles journalism ethics.

Peppiatt said, “The majority of reporters aren’t comfortable with constantly walking the conceptual tightrope between telling the truth and lying, and certainly not with breaking the law. But when the PCC won’t even enforce the first section of their code – ‘The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information’ – is it any surprise that newspapers push the boundaries, hacking phones, bribing police, pursuing their own commercial and ideological aims under the cloak of journalism, with reporters used as the foot soldiers?”

In this case, is it up to the individual journalist or do we blame it on the hierarchy that we should obey?  I raise my glass to Peppiatt and his courage to choose good ethics over untruths.

“I remember one shift there being just myself and two other reporters to write the whole of a national newspaper. It was so bad we had to use pseudonyms to make it appear there were more of us. In such an environment, proper journalistic rigor is impossible,” said Peppiatt during his time at The Daily Star.  Maybe we can blame this on the ethics of the tabloid paper, but let’s say its a different paper.  Who’s to blame?

“Instead of being accurate, the demand is to be first,” said Peppiatt.  This is a statement that philosophers would have a difficult time decoding.  Ethically, truth outweighs untruths in most cases – but what do reporters at papers like the Daily Star consider their code of ethics?

Plenty of thoughts here…what do you think?

Thank you, Steve.

The world has lost a visionary, a genius.  But as we mourn a death, we celebrate a life.  I take the time in this post to thank Steve Jobs for his contribution to journalism and his faith in the future of it that we often fear.

Judy Lubin of the Huffington Post gives an ode to Mr. Jobs in an article that speaks gratitude on behalf of many journalists to the late Apple inventor.  While there isn’t an ethical controversy here, I thought it was a pleasant article for us to read.

I speak for myself, but as journalists, we are forever grateful for the creative inventions that helped push journalism in positive ways.

No ethical dilemma today, only my condolences to an innovative human being.  Thank you, Steve.

Posted from my MacBook

Exposed: The King of Pop

My interest in photojournalism has become evident as my past few entries have proved.  Recently, the media has had overwhelming attention surrounding the trial of Dr. Conrad Murray, former physician of the late King of Pop, Michael Jackson.  I’m not much of a pop culture analyst, but the photo of Jackson on his deathbed released yesterday were rather horrific – I know there’s some sort of ethical controversy brewing out there.

The jurors of the trial were shown a disturbing photo of Jackson, lying limp and frail on his deathbed.  I can possibly understand why the jurors were exposed to this photo, but when I saw it for my very own eyes, I was shocked.  When I saw the this link to this story title, “Michael Jackson Deathbed Photo Splashed Across Newspapers ” on the Huffington Post, I didn’t expect to see the actual photo.  I’m not quite sure the ethical dimension to consider this photo.  Was this photo to be spread across newspapers, and even the front cover of the UK’s The Sun?  The New York Post also posted this photo, but it included a warning of the graphic photo inside.  Were either of these ways handled properly?

Yet again, we see the differences of publishing between Britain and the United States – another topic in itself.

Neverthless, I’m a bit torn on this photo release and the way it was published.  What are your thoughts?