How NOT to Cover a School Shooting

Being a journalist today is hard work. While getting it right and working under intense deadline pressure has always been part of the challenge, journalists today face increasingly difficult expectations from newsroom bosses, attacks from members of the increasingly partisan audience, and social media minefields where a misstep is rewarded with professional injury or death.

The school shooting this week gave us plenty of examples of good journalism performed by dedicated journalists. It also gave us reason to pause and reflect on what can go wrong when journalistic ethics are compromised. Let’s start with the good.

Data journalism and interactive technologies give us new ways to visualize old problems. The Washington Post gave us an excellent example in the form of a webpage that updates statistics about mass shootings.

Some of the reporting was done by students who were under attack. To better understand the horror experienced by students, read this series of text messages exchanged between two sisters.

But when students were contacted by members of the media while still in an active shooter situation, objections were raised…and justifiably so. Putting people at risk for the sake of a scoop is clearly unethical and directly contradicts the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics, specifically the directive to Minimize Harm.

Another problem with using source material generated by eye-witnesses is that there may be graphic images and sounds that may contribute to the trauma experienced by survivors. Poynter, a leader in journalistic ethics, provided a very thoughtful analysis of Wednesday’s coverage and asked important questions that all journalists need to consider before rushing to publish.

And finally there is the increasingly distressing problem created by fake news. Some of the fake news is predictable “spinning” by political agents or PR hacks advocating for their particular cause or position. One example is the claim circulating on social media that there have been 18 school shooting since Jan 1, 2018. That claim was debunked by a story in the Washington Post. There’s also been reporting of Russian troll farms using the event to further their campaign intended to divide and mislead the American public.

But perhaps the most alarming instances of fake news related to the Florida school shooting are the fake tweets that were intended to implicate a working journalist in the very kind of unethical behavior described earlier in this post. According to Poynter,

One of Harris’ early replies quickly went viral. Within 45 minutes, she was getting a barrage of harassment from random Twitter users. Someone made a screenshot of a fake tweet alleging that she had asked someone for photos or videos of dead bodies. She decided to ignore the hoax and report it to Twitter instead.

According to Jane Lytvynenko of Buzzfeed,

While traditional fake news stories have a financial incentive, amassing advertising revenue by monetizing page views, Lytvynenko said the motivation for creating fake tweets is less clear. While creating them could be politically motivated, there’s also the possibility that the people behind them are just bent on destruction.

There is virtually NO defense against misinformation motivated by that kind of animus.

 

Going for Ratings Gold

The 2018 Winter Olympic Games, aka XXIII Olympic Winter Games, are underway in Pyeongchang, South Korea and millions of viewers are tuning in to see nearly 3,000 athletes compete in 102 events in 15 sports. In addition to the traditional winter sports of figure skating and alpine skiing, you can watch athletes compete in big air snowboarding and mixed doubles curling.

Shaun White’s back-to-back 1440s for the gold medal and a high-flying gold medal performance by Chloe Kim in the half pipe have given Americans something to cheer about. And if you like spills and chills, pay attention to “notorious curve 9” on the luge course.

Besides the obvious appeal of world-class athletes competing on a world stage, the Olympic Games offer compelling stories with drama at every turn. Who can forget the Jamaican bobsleigh team or the US Hockey team’s miracle on ice at the 1980 Winter Olympics.

There’s also the political angle. Athletes from Russia are banned from competing in Pyeongchang under the Russian flag because of doping charges. However, Russian athletes are being allowed to complete under the banner of “Olympic Athletes from Russia.”  Also, the opening ceremony unity displayed by the teams from North and South Korea has prompted plenty of discussion about future prospects for peace.

But this is a media blog, so we need to mention that the US broadcast rights were purchased by NBCUniversal for $963M (part of a larger $4.38B rights package that extends through 2020 summer games in Tokyo). NBC will provide 2,400 hours of coverage with 176 hours of broadcast coverage, the most in winter Olympics history. The remaining coverage will stream on NBCOlympics.com and on their NBC Sports app.  More stats here. Some of the coverage will be in 4K UHD (Ultra High Definition) and HDR (High Dynamic Range) giving viewers options for high quality at a premium price. How to watch, and more info here.

And of course the costs will be passed along to advertisers who are paying top dollar to reach the desirable demographics provided by Olympic programming. However, with viewership in decline among younger viewers, the future of multi-billion dollar Olympic deals may be in jeopardy.

 

Tools of the Trade

It used to be that making a major motion picture was something that you could only do with the full support of a major Hollywood studio. Even independent movies were huge undertakings requiring massive budgets (in the millions of dollars) for the rental of expensive film cameras, lighting rigs, cranes and dollies. Even with the introduction of digital video cinematography, spending $100,000 on a RED or Arri camera was the cost of doing business.

Fortunately for many of us, low-budget filmmaker Robert Rodriguez started a trend towards ultra-low-budget filmmaking which lowered the barrier to entry for talented, but undiscovered, filmmakers.

Just last year Rodriguez offered $7,000 grants to five amateur filmmakers to shoot a feature film in two weeks. The film shoots became segments for Rodriguez’s show Rebel Without a Crew, based on his book by the same name, for the upstart streaming media service Go90.

But that was just the start. According to the CultofMac website, Hollywood feature film director  Steven Soderbergh recently shot a feature film with the iPhone X and is talking about doing it again. This was not just a stunt, according to Soderbergh.

“I think this is the future…anybody going to see this movie who has no idea of the backstory to the production will have no idea this was shot on the phone. That’s not part of the conceit.”

Not convinced? Check out this video.

The fact that many of us have, in our pockets, access to this kind of technology should be a wake-up call to anyone who has big dreams and a small wallet. Now get out there and shoot something!

Facebook’s Fraught Future

Facebook’s failed attempt to foil Fake News while fortifying financial fortunes at the expense of friends’ futures finally finds itself facing fearless foes. Okay, I can’t keep that up but I hope you get the idea. After an amazing decade of growth and incredible buy-in from more than 2 billion users, Facebook is finally getting some push-back. Investors and executives who have since left the company are publicly saying what others have wondered for some time: is Facebook too big and too focused on monetizing audience members’ attention for our own good? Here’s what some are saying:

In response to the criticism Facebook announced a change to the algorithm that dictates the contents of your news feed. According to Facebook,

…we’re making a major change to how we build Facebook. I’m changing the goal I give our product teams from focusing on helping you find relevant content to helping you have more meaningful social interactions.

We started making changes in this direction last year, but it will take months for this new focus to make its way through all our products. The first changes you’ll see will be in News Feed, where you can expect to see more from your friends, family and groups.

As we roll this out, you’ll see less public content like posts from businesses, brands, and media. And the public content you see more will be held to the same standard — it should encourage meaningful interactions between people.

While some may criticize this change as too-little, too-late, others may question whether these are mere cosmetic changes simply designed to deflect criticism. But it is fairly clear that several things are going to happen as a result: time spent on Facebook and engagement will both decline, (resulting in lower revenue for Facebook), and media companies that have relied on Facebook to distribute their content far and wide will have to find other ways to reach their audience.

But look on the bright side: that change will provide new opportunities for media-savvy storytellers who know how to reach an audience with compelling content. And that person could be you!

 

 

Fake News and Press Freedom

In an attempt to preempt President Trump’s announced “fake news” awards, the Committee to Protect Journalists has released its own list of world leaders who have done the most to undermine press freedom.

According to the CPJ website,

The Committee to Protect Journalists is an independent, nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide. We defend the right of journalists to report the news without fear of reprisal.

The Press Oppressor Award website identifies world leaders who have done the most to censor the press and weaken democratic ideals. Presidents of Turkey, China, Russia and Egypt are exposed for their chilling rhetoric and harmful policies.

One indicator of the global crack-down on press freedom is the record-high number of journalists who are serving time in prison…oftentimes simply for doing their jobs.

But what is unusual is the criticism leveled at a U.S. President. Other U.S. Presidents have been criticized by the CPJ for lack of transparency (Obama) or for not moving quickly enough to denounce attacks on global media (G. W. Bush), but never before has a U.S. President been singled out and recognized for the “Overall Achievement in Undermining Global Press Freedom” award. But then there has never been a U.S. President who has gone after the press quite like Donald Trump.

 

 

When is it Okay to Lie to Get the Story?

Journalism is all about finding and reporting the truth. And historically, to get to the truth, some journalists have resorted to telling lies. The history of yellow journalism, muckraking, and investigative journalism is filled with stories of reporters going to all lengths to get the scoop.

Renowned journalist Nellie Bly famously feigned insanity to gain access to the Women’s Lunatic Asylum just so she could report on the deplorable conditions experienced by its patients. A sting operation set up by the Chicago Sun-Times led to a series of reports about corruption and scandal that nearly won a Pulitzer Prize until the ethical questions surrounding the tactics used became a distraction. And just in the last few days we’ve been made aware of a clandestine attempt by Project Veritas to expose biased reporting on the part of the Washington Post newspaper.

What all of these incidents have in common is the use of deception to gain access to secret information with the goal of exposing corruption and outing bad characters. Where they differ is motive and outcome. In the case of the latest attempted sting, the target actually came out on top…and from all appearances was the party on the side of truth. While previous undercover investigations by Project Veritas may have exposed crooked dealings and bad characters, it appears this time that the Washington Post was vindicated and the undercover Project Veritas “reporter” exposed as the unethical party.

While the history of journalism has plenty of examples both of favorable and unfavorable outcomes when deception is part of the reporting strategy, there seems to be growing unease with the practice. An excellent piece by Jack Shafer at Politico includes this warning…

But if the press starts sanctioning the telling of lies and staging scenarios to get stories, what’s the next step? Wiretapping? Break-ins? Extortion? The employment of call girls? Other assorted dirty tricks? All of these methods would reap rich results, but at a cost that’s morally prohibitive.

Sometimes you just have to play by the rules and hope that the good guys win in the end. And regarding the rules, there actually are a list of ethical guidelines that have been developed to ensure that journalistic deception, when absolutely necessary, doesn’t go off the rails. Again, Jack Shafer writing at Politico

Even the high priests of journalistic ethics at the Poynter Institute allow for pure deception, high misrepresentation and hidden cameras in reporting. The circumstance must be isolated; the information gathered must be profound; all other alternatives must have been exhausted; the journalists must be willing to disclose their deceptions and justify them; and the harm prevented by the scoop must outweigh the harm caused by the deception.

Net Neutrality Regulations Under Review

Network neutrality is back in the news as FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has announced plans to review the Obama-era regulation. An upcoming vote by the five FCC commissioners will likely overturn the rules that attempt to level the playing field for businesses that depend on the internet to deliver their content to users. According to the Washington Post, Pai claims that his proposal would,

…restore a ‘light-touch’ regulatory framework for Internet services and would stop the government from micromanaging the Internet.

If you’re still unsure about what Net Neutrality is all about, or want to hear about the debate from multiple points of view, see this excellent card stack by Vox. MediaShift also has a nice 2017 guide on the topic.

As with any debate, the heated rhetoric on the margins often overlooks the nuance that captures the real issues at stake. You owe it to yourself to read carefully before taking a position on this divisive topic.

Thanksgiving Week Update

Although we’re off this week, breaking news is not letting up. Here’s a quick recap of media-related news stories of interest to Media & Society…

  • Charlie Rose (CBS, PBS) and Glenn Thrush (New York Times White House correspondent) are new additions to the growing list of media professionals accused of sexual harassment or misconduct. Both have been suspended.
  • The Department of Justice is attempting to block the proposed $85 billion deal between AT&T (a telecom company) and Time Warner (a content producer) on the basis of anti-trust violation. This is despite a similar deal in 2011 when Comcast bought NBC/Universal.
  • FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is considering a roll-back of Net Neutrality policies that were put in place during the Obama administration. More at Politico.
  • Multiple former insiders at Facebook are coming out to accuse FB of building a platform designed to compromise its users. Former engineers, designers, and investors are admitting their own involvement in aiding the tech giant in creating something that has become too big and too powerful for our own good. The person who created FB’s “like” button was quoted as saying, “It is very common for humans to develop things with the best of intentions and for them to have unintended, negative consequences.” There’s an old saying, “Confession is good for the soul.”

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours!

 

Paying for Media

Paying for media is both unavoidable and, at the same time, pretty unusual. All media content is paid for by someone, but for the end user that “cost” is not always visible. It used to be very obvious every time you bought a book or a movie ticket or a CD (remember those?). But most folks don’t buy books, movie tickets or CDs anymore. And a lot of our media content appears to be free. It’s not, but the cost is hidden from view and only apparent in the form of annoyingly-hard-to-avoid advertising.

According to an article in Politico, some of this is changing. Partly because of the gradual acceptance of online services that have a small monthly fee (e.g. Netflix and ad-free streaming music services) Millennials are starting to consider paying for other forms of media.

The other contributing factor that the article identifies is the election of President Trump. It appears that online journalism is getting a boost from those opposed to Trump, and that has been good news for online news providers…especially those that have taken an aggressive stance  to the current administration. The ideological factor is substantial according the following excerpt from the article.

Newman said that 29 percent of Americans responded to the survey that their reason for paying for news was, “wanting to help support or fund journalism,” which was twice the average for all countries included in the study. Americans on the political left were four times more likely than those on the right to cite supporting journalism as their reason for paying, Newman said.

But there are still concerns. Again, according to Politico…

For all the good news, the truth remains that those willing to pay for journalism still represent a relatively small group—according to the Reuters Institute study, 84 percent of Americans do not pay for online news. Subscriptions are not cheap, and Newman pointed out that there is danger in quality journalism becoming an increasingly elite product. “The danger is that you get a two-tiered system,” he said.

This notion of two classes–information “haves” and information “have nots”–is disconcerting for those who see income inequality as a barrier to political engagement.

Still, for an industry that has been pummeled for more than a decade by terrible financial news and, for the last 10 months, by the President of the United States, the growing willingness of millennials to open their wallets is welcome news.

 

Celebrity Endorsements

HuffPo recently published data reported by HopperHQ about rates charged by celebrities for social media endorsements. Here’s a list of some of the top dealmakers.

  1. Selena Gomez – 122 million followers – $550,000 per post
  2. Kim Kardashian – 100 million followers – $500,000 per post
  3. Cristiano Ronaldo – 104 million followers – $400,000 per post
  4. Kylie Jenner – 95 million followers – $400,000 per post
  5. Kendall Jenner – 81.7 million followers – $370,000 per post
  6. Khloe Kardashian – 68 million followers – $250,000 per post
  7. Kourtney Kardashian – 57.8 million followers – $250,000 per post
  8. Cara Delevingne – 40.4 million followers – $150,000 per post
  9. Gigi Hadid 34.7 million followers – $120,000 per post
  10. Lebron James – 30.7 million followers – $120,000 per post

As you can see it is largely a numbers game with a couple of notable exceptions, e.g. Kim Kardashian punches above her weight with a cool $500K per post to reach her 100M followers.

Just in case you, or anyone you know, have a plan to become one of these influence marketers, just remember that there are a few million folks in line ahead of you. You should probably have a plan B just in case.