What are the ethical dilemmas involved in editing a story that features a prominent source who is quoted using incorrect grammar and poor word choice?  The ethical dilemmas for the editor include: to use or not to use quotes with grammatical mistakes, altering the story to make the source appear ignorant about the issue within the story, considering how the public’s view of the source will change after the grammatically incorrect quotes are published, contemplating whether or not the source will bash the paper after seeing himself/herself in a bad light.  This issue, like many others in journalism, raises many gray-shaded predicaments. 

According to the SPJ Code of Ethics journalists should “minimize harm, treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect”.  For this particular scenario, the editor should pick the quote that least disrespects the source.  If the source failed to provide a quote with no grammatical errors, the editor should not quote the source at all, but rather summarize the main points of the main source.  In doing this, the source will be displayed in a good light to the public and the paper will maintain credibility.

When covering a story about a student involved in altering another student’s grade, should the name be printed?  This situation reminds me of an incident in high school.  A student was caught using there phone on the ACT.  When it was covered in the paper, the name of the student was not printed.  High school papers cover only a small community of citizens, so printing a students name could probably cause parent vs. administrative battles.  I would “seek the truth and report it” without publishing the name of the student (SPJ Code of Ethics).  The issue would still be addressed without causing excess drama behind the scenes.  The high school paper would be “showing good taste and avoiding lurid curiosity”(SPJ Code of Ethics). 

Well here it is the final blog for Media Ethics.  It was a great time and I enjoyed investigating the morally ethical decisions that plague the world of journalism.

Let’s first talk about Piaget’s model.  Piaget based his study on boys playing a simple game of marbles.  He discovered that certain age ranges perceived the game of marbles in different ways.  Piaget’s Stages of Moral Development are divided into four stages: early development (before age 2), egocentrism (years 3-7), heteronomy (years 7-8), autonomy (begins about age 11).  All four stages are cognitively based as each age group interacts differently with the marbles.  The early stages put the marbles in their mouths, the egocentric stage does not apply rules, the heteronomy stage believes the rules are passed down from outside authority figures, and the autonomic stage begin to internalize the rules behind the game. 

The chapter compares Piaget’s moral development model with the thinking process of a new journalist.  Beginning journalists “may be equated with the heteronomy stage of development…this journalist knows the rules and follows them” (Media Ethics 306).  The chapter goes on to compare Piaget’s third stage of autonomy to that of a more developed journalist by stating, “The journalist at this stage of moral development has so internalized and universalized the rules of ethical professional behavior that he or she can violate some of them for sound ethical reasons” (Media Ethics 306).  The one major flaw in Piaget’s model was that he failed to include females.

Unlike Piaget’s model, Kohlberg’s model is more “descriptive and not predictive…it does not anticipate how any one individual will develop but suggests how most will develop” (Media Ethics 307).  Kohlberg believed that only saintly figures like Socrates, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Mother Teresa could achieve the highest sense of moral development.  Kohlberg’s moral model is based on treating others right, achieving one’s goals, and adhering to the laws.  Researches have problems with Kohlberg’s six stages because it seems as though only certain people can reach the sixth, highest stage.  Another troubling issue is that women scored lower than men on stages of moral development in many of Kohlberg’s studies.  That is where Gilligan comes into play.

How could it be that women were less morally developed than men?  That question prompted Gilligan, former student of Kohlberg, to develop her own moral scale.  She decided to study women in regards to the ethical decision of abortion.  Gilligan learned that most women based their ethical decisions on relationships.  Gilligan’s stages are less categorized, but still provide a clear explanation that women “develop in ways that focus on connections among people (rather than separation) and with an ethic of care for those people (rather than an ethic of justice)” (“Gilligan’s In a Different Voice”). 

Could journalists use Gilligan’s model as a way to morally make decisions.  I would argue that a journalist could use Gilligan’s model to make decisions in relation to their work.  A good journalist should be able to abide by a “rights based approach” while also allowing a community to “reconnect” with media as a primary tool (Media Ethics 309-310). 

Case 8-E “Horror in Soweto” told the story of “photographer Gregory Marinovich documenting the killing, by a mob of African National Congress supporters, of a man they believed to be a Zulu spy” (Media Ethics 229).  The man was being walked from the Soweto, South Africa train station by men armed in life threatening weapons.  Marinovich witnessed the man being “stoned, bludgeoned, stabbed, doused with gasoline and set on fire” (Media Ethics 229).  The two photos Marinovich captured included the man lying on his back while being stabbed in the head and the second showed the man submerged in flames. 

Editors were confused as to why Marinovich failed to stop the horrible acts being performed by the African mob.  In response to this, an advisory was issued on the photo stating that Marinovich was ordered by the mob to stop taking photos and he informed the mob he would only stop when they stopped torturing the man.  Was this ethically sound?

To me, yes Marinovich should have tried to stop the mob, but I’m not a reporter.  In Marinovich’s defense, readers “need to be brought face-to-face with parts of reality that they would like to deny” (“Indiana University”).  The two photos were run by several different newspapers; however each decided to package the photos differently.  Some chose the stabbing photo in running it in color, while others like the Rocky Mountain News ran the three photos from the incident with a warning box to all readers. 

Which ever way a newspaper chooses to run shocking and graphic photos is ultimately up to them.  The reporter did their job in documenting the truth.  My stance on this subject brings me to one final quote from Case 8-E regarding the “breakfast test”.  When applying a graphic photo to the breakfast test, “many editors who rejected the more brutal pictures said the “breakfast test” is irrelevant” (Media Ethics 230).  Jeff Jarvis, Sunday editor at the New York Daily News states, ‘If you’re putting out a paper in New York and don’t have something that’s going to cause some discomfort over breakfast, then you’re probably not putting out the full paper you should’ (Media Ethics 230-231).

Micro Issue

Q:  Should students, either through their mandatory fees or other means, be required to support campus media?

A: No.  Campus media should be free to all students in college.  Although overly stereotyped, college students do not have adequate means to pay for tuition and other student fees, let alone pay to read the daily paper. 

The Dean argued the decision for cut-backs on newspapers provides Rice students with “high autonomy” (Media Ethics 204).  He believes taking away the freedom of reading a free paper will foster in the overall decision making process of all students as he stated, ‘My goal is to make as few decisions for them as possible’(Media Ethics 204). 

Regardless if Rice’s campus papers were free, students would have to make a decision to read the paper either way.  Even though papers at Lindenwood University are free, I don’t necessarily read one every day. 

Many journalism classes at Lindenwood ask for students to bring in the daily paper as a means of education and learning.  Requiring students to pay for the paper would cause chaos and most students would refuse to do so. 

Midrange Issue

Q: As a part of the educational experience, should campus media ever reduce staff? Cut budgets? Decrease circulation?

A: Campus media should only reduce staff if certain teachers seem unqualified to teach communication courses or if students on the campus paper are going against certain ethical codes.  Cutting budgets and decreasing circulation of campus media would downplay the “social institution” aspect of a college.  Even though the internet provides the same if not more information than that of a newspaper, ‘contemporary research on the rationale for using newspapers in education still validates’ (Media Ethics 203).

Macro Issue

Q: Is it the business of a university to assist students in acquiring the habit of consuming the news?  Does the venue (print vs. Internet) matter?

A:  I think all universities should encourage students to study the news and to reinforce the notion that not all news sources are valid.  Students should be encouraged to research news and to do some behind the scenes investigation if the sources seem flawed.   However, I don’t think it’s the universities business to tell a student how to get the news. 

I don’t mind newspapers; I just prefer watching television news or browsing the web to get my news information.  Print vs. Internet doesn’t really matter.  The news is news and an online paper or print paper is most likely going to contain the same information.

    “The truth business” contains an ethical code.  The SPJ Code of Ethics was written in 1926 and has been revised four times since, with the last revision in 1996.  The four main ethical rules explained in SPJ include “seeking the truth and reporting it, minimizing harm, acting independently, and being accountable” (“Society of Professional Journalism”).  The story addressing Robert’s affiliation with child pornography was published on April 22, 2007.  The front-page article took Robert by surprise as the Santa Barbara News-Press failed to contact him for comments.  The low ethical standards of McCaw were shown through her personal strike at Roberts and the entire profession of journalism.  Like the code states, McCaw was not “abiding by the same high standards” in which she held to others (“Santa Barbara Independent”).  What was McCaw’s reasoning for putting the former editor’s hard-drive through an extensive investigation?  She was trying to find dirt on Roberts.  This is one of the many ways McCaw tried to challenge or somewhat silence her enemies.  The phony story on Roberts went against all main points in the SPJ Code of Ethics. 

    The documentary highlights many of McCaw’s threats, intimidation tactics, and lawsuits against her former colleagues.  Although the story caused Roberts personal suffering, he can now be seen as an idol for journalism.  Roberts resigned from his dream job as to not infringe on the SPJ Code in order to maintain his credibility to the profession of journalism.

Hosting “To Catch a Predator” made me feel as though I was providing important news to viewers.  I didn’t really feel like a journalist.  I felt more of a news anchor reporting on the sex offenders living in people’s computers. The show worked in conjunction with online watchdog group Perverted Justice.  Although critics bash the show by saying that media outlets, such as “To Catch a Predator”, don’t have the right to expose criminal behavior is absolutely ridiculous.  Who was going to expose the information if we didn’t?  We left the legal punishment of each suspect up to police and prosecutors.

The show allowed viewers to understand the “need to know” basis of dangerous predators online.  Parents and all online users need to know the reality of online pedophiles and perverts. 

I don’t think the show did any harm to the public.  It simply showed the dangerous reality of online predators.

Dr. Benjamin Fine, the education editor of The New York Times, was one of the first reporters to cover the Little Rock story.  A firsthand witness to racism, Fine decided to channel his emotions as a journalist.  As Elizabeth Eckford made her way to the bus stop, whites yelled cruel and unfathomable remarks at the young black woman.  In such a controversial time against races, it took one to stand above the rest.  As Fine became that one person to avoid conformity, I am brought back to a memory from grade school.

Every grade has “that one nerd”.  “That one nerd” in my 6^th grade class had his head buried in a book at all times and could be seen occasionally picking his nose.  The vision of a nerd picking their nose is so stereotypical, but that’s really what he did! One day, during a snack break, my teacher took a bathroom break, leaving a bully free environment open for business.  When four boys had “that one nerd” pinned against the locker threatening him, I yelled, “Stop”, at the top of my lungs.  It got the attention of the entire class and the teacher walked in at the nick-of-time.  I felt at that moment that I had truly done something to help. 

Treat others as you would want to be treated.  You become a great example for others if you follow this Golden Rule.  Fine, a white journalist, kept his emotions in check while also showing humility toward his subject.  Fine wanted to get a good story and knew exactly how to approach such a sensitive situation. 

I don’t think journalists force empathy in situations similar to that of Fine’s, however I do think journalists should know when to help others.  They must be flexible enough to get a good story while relating to the subject.    

Watch the video of Elizabeth Eckford walking to the bus stop.  What would you do if you were a journalist trying to get a story?

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).

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”.

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.