Case 4-B

We went about Chapter 4 in Media Ethics quite different this time around.  In four groups of five or six people, each individual group was to study a case at the end of the chapter.  At the end of class we had one spokesperson from each group summarize key points of the case and discuss the morally ethical decisions presented. 

Case 4-B “Where Everybody Knows Your Name: Reporting and Relationships in a Small Market” is the case my group was assigned.  The case revolved around the “more than friends” relationship between a small town reporter, Jessica Luce, and police sergeant Phil Schenck.  When Schenck’s boss “had been accused of shooting a great blue heron outside the police station and storing explosives at the station house and of having a threatening temper” Luce was ironically assigned to the beat.  When Schenck was given the position of acting captain, Luce quickly realized she needed to take herself from the beat.  She didn’t want locals to thinks she was pumping her boyfriend for pertinent information.  The question became, is the relationship between a small town reporter and acting captain at a police station ethically sound?

This chapter addresses the issue of loyalty.  I’m not quite sure how Luce came to the conclusion of taking herself off the beat, but let’s just pretend she used the method of the Potter Box discussed on page 100 in Media Ethics.  The Potter Box includes four key steps:

1)      Understanding the facts of the case.

   Although the case didn’t give any detailed facts about the illegal actions taken by Schenck’s boss, Luce most likely had to have done some research to reach her decision. 

2)      Outlining values.

   When you value something, “it means you are willing to give up other things for it” (Media Ethics 100).  Luce gave up presenting a story that could’ve potentially helped build her journalism career in order to keep her job and relationship.

3)      Application of philosophical principles.

   Luce more than likely used Josiah Royce’s philosophical influence discussed in Chapter 4 which states “what you choose to be loyal to should be capable of inspiring a similar loyalty in others who are both like and unlike you” (Media Ethics 101).  Luce decided to be loyal not only to herself and career, but her colleagues, as well.  Her loyalty to her career could then inspire other co-workers or even the small town locals to stay loyal in what they truly value.

4)      Articulation of loyalties.

   Luce completely avoided this step by not writing the story.  She did however, have an ethical decision with her editor discussing her future with Schenck.  So in a way, Luce articulated her loyalty to her journalism career and her boyfriend.

Luce and Schenck decided to get engaged and the community was extremely supportive.  What was unethical to Luce and Schenck seemed harmless to the public.  In the end, our group stood strongly by this phrase, “If you can’t be a real person, how can you report on real people” (Media Ethics 108).

Third Times a Charm: “All the President’s Men”

Article Comment: Watergate Anonymous Source “Deep Throat” Comes Forward

Helpful, but summarized what we already knew; however,   it is a great article to read if having no prior knowledge on the subject.  The information about Mark Felt, “Deep Throat”, was interesting.  Was Felt turned off by Nixon’s authoritative tactics after Hoover died?  Unfortunately, we may never really know.

Q: How would you characterize Woodward and Bernstein’s reporting process?  In what way did their actions exemplify or not exemplify the ethical standards listed in the ethical news values on page 35 in your textbook? Also compare their conduct with the Washington Post’s Code of Ethics.

 A: Woodward and Bernstein’s reporting process is characterized by persistence.  Completely confident in almost every source they attained, team “Woodstein” never gave up even when sources weren’t talking.  According to the ethical standards on page 35 of our text, “Woodstein” fell short.  For example, the ethical rule of “confirmation” in our text refers to “writing articles that are able to withstand scrutiny inside and outside the newsroom” (Media Ethics 35).  At times, “Woodstein’s” colleagues heavily doubted their stories or didn’t think the story would appeal to the masses.  There was also a scene in which a news broadcast involved politicians bashing “Woodstein’s” attempt to link Watergate to the White House. 

     According to the Washington Post’s Code of Ethics regarding the “Reporters Role” the document states to “report the news, not make the news”.  “Woodstein” and the Washington Post failed in this particular ethical code. 

Q: Is there ever a time when you think the press should suppress a story about the President or his family? Or, is every aspect of a politician or other public person fair game for the press?

A: When in the light of the public eye, every aspect of a politician or other public person is fair game for the press.  Although a cliché statement, “it comes with the territory”.  Notable figures in society more or less give up their rights to privacy.  If the leader of the United States is corrupt in some way, the people have the right to know.  The press would not be doing their job if they kept shady acts of the government under wraps.  With so many social media facets existing today, the government should know better than act corruptly.  However, sensationalism plays a role in this question.  For example, I don’t care to know petty facts about our current president. 

   Keep the stories true and worthwhile to the reader.    

Q:Do you think the movie was an accurate portrayal of journalism and an accurate retelling of what happened with Woodward and Bernstein? Or was this movie “Hollywood hype”?

A: Since attending Lindenwood, I have seen “All the President’s Men” three times.  Obviously, professors show this controversial movie for a good reason.  I think the portrayal of journalism is both accurate and inaccurate in retelling what actually happened with “Woodstein”.  Journalistically, the movie shows both the good and bad, the achievements and downfalls.  The movie displays some essential basics of what to do and what not to do in journalism.  Having never seen or heard of the movie until my college years, I feel as though “All the President’s Men” does not fall under “hollywood hype”.

Real Beauty

The first time I saw “Dove Evolution” was in Jill Falk’s Survey of the Professional Media class.  Each student was given a certain topic for the final project and one student received the topic of women portrayed in the media.  She began her project with the famous “Dove Evolution” video.  The video showed a normal woman’s transformation into the look of a supermodel with the use of make-up artists, hair stylists, photographers, and digital photo-shop experts. 

The media restricts women into two categories: beauty and physique.  I don’t think I have to go through all of the tedious examples of magazines or television shows that do this.  Just flip through a magazine or turn on your T.V. right now and you’ll see.  The way in which women are portrayed in the media has been an ongoing issue since the 1950s.  Even then women were supposed to be slim with a pretty face.  Dove’s “real beauty” campaign, featuring women that “range in dress sizes from 6 to 14 and have different body types”, is in fact real beauty (Media Ethics 82). 

Some might claim that Dove’s advertising agency, Ogilvy and Mather, are just trying to do what every other advertising agency does and that is make money.  So, what if Dove was just trying to make money?  Isn’t that what we all want?  While Dove’s primary goal may have been to make money on their products, their message behind the “real beauty” campaign is what truly matters.  Compare a Victory Secret ad to a Dove “real beauty” ad and the truth is revealed.  Slim standing next to curvy, brown-hair by blonde and black skin by white, Dove acknowledges the beauty in women’s diverse body types.  Helping women feel more beautiful, Dove commercials may also help women with a lack of self confidence. 

All women have insecurities.  Dove’s “real beauty” campaign gives commonality to all insecurities women may have.  Whether or not a woman decides to purchase Dove products after viewing these commercials isn’t the point.  In my opinion, Dove simply wanted to advertise their products for the sake of reality.  No one is perfect and the “real beauty” campaign by Dove addresses just that. 

 

TARES Test of Ethical Persuasion

 

Please watch this video before reading this post

While grocery shopping, I noticed an interesting advertisement for Michalob Ultra.  The ad displayed a icy, cold bottle of Michalob Ultra with a mountain biker in the background.  The two images presented, beer and mountain biking, portray two completely different lifestyles.  I’m not saying that one who mountain bikes can’t kick back and enjoy a few cold ones.  I’m simply suggesting that Michalob Ultra is trying to set higher marketing standards to enhance the slogan “Living the Ultra Life”. 

Let’s try something, shall we?  I want to give a Michalob Ultra commercial, featuring Lance Armstrong, the TARES Test of Ethical Persuasion. 

T: Are the ad claims Truthful? FAIL

                The ad emphasizes that Michalob Ultra drinkers “hate commuting, but are excellent drivers”…”ignore the elevator , live life to the fullest, and already make plans for tomorrow”.  Although Lance Armstrong leads an active lifestyle, not all Michalob Ultra drinkers seek athletic activity.  When the commercial mentions “they are all excellent drivers”, the obvious connection is golf.  I drink Michalob Ultra and absolutely hate golf.  To be quiet frank, if my legs are sore from a workout I WILL take the escalator or elevator. 

                Let’s be real.  The only truthful claim in this ad is that Michalob Ultra is in fact a light beer with only 95 calories and 2.6 carbs.  I’m not quite sure that everyone drinking Michalob Ultra is striving for or even has the “ultra life”.

A: Is the Claim an Authentic one? FAIL

                Chapter 3 in our text suggests that authenticity can be related to truthfulness.  While the need for a lighter beer is more appealing to some, would these same people support this commercial?  Would these people say, “I drink Michalob Ultra because I have the ultra life and love to be active”?  Chances are that some drinking this beverage are in fact active, but some simply drink this superior light beer for the taste. 

R: Does the ad treat the receiver with Respect? PASS

                The ad is not meant to intentionally offend a Michalob Ultra drinker.  If you are offended that active people like this beer and that nonactive people also like this beer, then that’s a personal issue. 

E: Is there Equity between the sender and the receiver?  PASS

                To interpret this ad, the viewer does not have to be “abnormally well informed, bright and quick-witted and completely without prejudice” (Media Ehtics 62).  One can watch this ad and decide to try the beer in hopes of losing some weight, drink the beer for the superior taste, or stick with another beer of choice.

S: Is the ad Socially responsible? PASS

                Yes, indeed an alcoholic beverage commercial passes social responsibility.  The message is to have an active lifestyle while still being able to have an alcoholic beverage.  Not all Michalob Ultra drinkers choose this beer because they are superiorly more active than the rest.  The ad includes a “please drink responsibly” caption at the bottom.  With this in mind, some will choose to drink the right way while others choose the opposite.  However, the commercial promotes drinking Michalob Ultra in a positive light.

Page 45: Minrange Issues #5

  

   Stanley Forman’s Pulitzer Prize winning photo of the girl falling to her death from a defective fire escape is much more personal than the picture by Richard Drew of a man falling from the Twin Towers on September 11.  The differences between the photos are blatantly obvious.

   Forman’s photo shows two young girls, sisters to be exact, falling from a faulty fire escape.  One sister lives and the other unfortunately dies.  Drew’s picture, while also showing a man falling to his death, is less dethatched than that of Forman’s.   Forman’s photo captures the expression of one sister’s face as she is hanging from what looks like the metal bar of the broken escape.  The other sister is photographed mid-fall, plummeting to her death.  Drew’s is blurred leaving no way to fully identify the person.  As Forman’s and Drew’s photos seem to have distinct differences, the controversial issues looming behind the photos make for interesting similarities. 

   Both photos were controversial because papers were not confident in running such inhumane, yet shockingly realistic photos.  Both photos bring to life the families and loved ones behind the picture.  Would the families of their loved one falling to their deaths want these pictures seen nationwide?

   As I am not able to answer on behalf of both families, I think the decision for running both Forman’s and Drew’s photo should be the same.  Both photos should run as both depict the truth behind the events that took place.  News should ethically unveil the truth.  If I were reporting on these cases, I would ask myself “Why should I do this” or “Why should I not do this”.  My justification for both questions would be simple.  My job is to report the information I uncover.  I would run both photos as they show the true, yet tragic events occurring nationally.  By not running the photos, I would have left out an important element of the story: REALITY.

Graphic Photos

    I’m not sure about the other Media Ethics classes with Oldham, but the 9:30 a.m. class produces extremely heated arguments regarding photography within media.  “If it bleeds, it leads” seems to be a pretty cliché journalistic statement; however such a statement seems to hold true especially in today’s ever-so curious generation. 

    On September 1, we discussed case 2-F “Monitoring The Monitor: Taste, Politics and an Explosive Photo” from our text.  The Monitor newspaper out of Uganda was faced with a difficult choice.  An unknown source brought a photo to the paper featuring a “young woman, nude and pinned down by seven men…the men, wearing the uniforms of the Uganda army, were shaving the woman’s genital area with scissors” (Media Ethics 52).  Although the photo was not printed in our text, the paper wanted to maintain high credibility among its readers so the photo was eventually published.  The question became: “Would the United States have handled the situation differently?”

    The US would have most likely featured the photo with some digitalization to the young woman being violated.  Many of my former classmates agree that a shocking photo will attract readers, thus making the story more memorable.  Given the fact that we all have freewill, it is essentially our choice to view or to not view a graphic photos, whether in the paper or on the web.  We only see what our eyes want us to see, figuratively and in this case literally.