ethics – Page 7 – Media Matters

October 12, 2016

Private Lies Exposed

A journalist’s job is to find and report the truth. Assuming for a moment that “the truth” exists and can be found and identified as such, journalists still face a plethora of challenges as they go about their work. For starters, the truth can be inconvenient. Thanks to Al Gore, the inconvenience of truth is now forever linked to a particular issue; global warming. But every issue has its inconvenient aspects. For example, a journalist may uncover a fact that runs counter to her personal values or beliefs. Or, a discovery may reveal a truth that defies simple explanation.

Of course a truth revealed can also be terribly inconvenient for the news maker. Celebrities, politicians, and others in the public eye are constantly trying to manage their public perception…which is often at odds with their private reality. Last week’s revelations from Wikileaks and NBC/Access Hollywood have been very inconvenient for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump respectively for obvious reasons. The leaks, while damaging, do not break new ground but rather reinforce existing concerns about Clinton’s propensity for lying and Trump’s sexist and demeaning behavior towards women.

In each case the public figure is damaged when the private self is suddenly revealed. This is, of course, most pronounced when the public and private selves are substantially at odds with each other. The greater the difference, the more pronounced the conflict when the private self is exposed. This kind of hypocrisy, of which we are all guilty on some level, can derail a public figure when it spins out of control. The public demands authenticity, or at least something closely resembling it, from their leaders.

Journalists are often the ones who have the dirty job of pointing out hypocrisy wherever and whenever it exists…even when it is found in “their” candidate…or themselves.

October 4, 2016

Fact Checking the Fact Checkers

truthmeter Mass media are essential to the process of democracy. “Government of the people, by the people, for the people” only works if the people know what’s going on…and the media provide the primary channels for that information. Of course the implication is that the mass media do their jobs in a responsible way, avoiding partisan bias and manipulation by outside interests. The brunt of this responsibility falls on journalists. Whether they work for newspapers, TV networks, or internet websites, reporters who cover the political beat are the eyes and ears of the American electorate. Ideally they report what they see and hear without speculation or conjecture.

In a political season such as this, journalists must be particularly careful when covering candidates who use every trick in the book to manipulate the media and advance their message. When candidates stretch the truth (often to the breaking point) journalists in a live reporting situation must make an effort to call out the error.

But fact checking candidates and their surrogates can be tricky business. While partisans may think that every statement by their political opponents is a flat-out lie, it is seldom that clear-cut. Journalists must have enough command of the facts to catch the easy calls, and the aid of researchers, aka fact-checkers, to parse the more difficult cases. This is not easy. NBC’s Matt Lauer was heavily criticized for pushing back too hard when interviewing Hillary Clinton for the Commander-In-Chief Forum, and NBC’s Lester Holt was criticized for fact-checking Donald Trump but not Hillary Clinton in the first presidential debate last week.

Fortunately journalists, and the public, have additional resources at their disposal. Independent fact-checking organizations have stepped up to provide non-partisan, independent fact-checking of politicians and other news-makers. Politifact’s Truth-O-Meter is one example. Here’s a short (light-hearted) video that explains how it works.

https://youtu.be/7r_8szmCVis

September 15, 2016

Russian Hackers Feed US Journalists

Hacker at keyboard You may have seen news reports about emails and other documents that have recently been released to the public after they were obtained by hackers, who are likely of Russian origin. Documents were obtained from Democratic National Committee computers, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and George Soros, a billionaire and liberal donor, earlier this summer. More recently, former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s emails were hacked. Some have speculated that Russia is targeting Democrats in order to sway public opinion towards Donald Trump.

Cyber warfare is not new, but this meddling by foreign countries in political matters on the eve of a Presidential election is cause for concern.

WikiLeaks, the organization founded by Julian Assange, and DCLeaks have published the leaked documents. Little is known about DCLeaks. While they claim to be a group of “American hacktivists”, some have speculated that Russian intelligence created DCLeaks for the express purpose of leaking sensitive data intended to manipulate the upcoming election.

But leaked information still needs a channel or conduit (aka “medium”) to reach its intended target audience…the American people. That is where journalists come in. Once private emails and other sensitive information is uploaded to the DCLeaks website, news/gossip websites, such as BuzzFeed, report on the privacy breach and the private information. Journalists working for established media outlets such as the New York Times, NBC Nightly News, CNN and Fox News file stories about the “breaking” news and these front-page and top-of-the-hour reports are seen by millions. Social media users take snippets of journalistic candy and spread it even further and wider. And yes, I recognize that this blog post is part of the problem!

Russian hackers, using the moniker Fancy Bear, have also hacked the World Anti-Doping Agency and released medical records from Olympic athletes from numerous countries, including celebrity athletes such as Simone Biles and the Williams sisters. Poynter.org, a journalism think-tank asked an important question: should journalists report on leaked information that was obtained illegally? You can read more here.

Whether it is private medical information or personal emails, questions remain. Should anonymous criminals with potentially nefarious motives be allowed to influence our culture and politics?, and should American journalists assist and abet them in the process?

May 16, 2016

What’s NOT Trending on Facebook?

Well, for starters there’s less conservative news from conservative sources than one might expect. A recent report by Gizmodo reveals that the Trending feed on Facebook may be less objective than many thought. One might fairly assume that these are organic results based on what is popular and being shared on Facebook…and you would be partly right. But the revelation that has the media world talking is that insiders say that Facebook intentionally directs human curators to leave out conservative news and opinions while injecting other news stories that are not actually trending.

Now, just to be clear, we fully expect traditional news sources to make decisions regarding what is news worthy and which stories to place on the front page. This is standard practice and any debate about the ethics of this practice is only to the extent that the editorial policies of any given news organization are consistent and transparent. The objection here is that Facebook appeared to be suggesting that the Trending stories were simply the result of algorithms analyzing Facebook for popular results. But if that’s not the case, and Facebook is injecting some stories and holding others back, then there is a real problem that deserves a response.

Sure, the news industry has long been viewed as an uneven playing field where liberal voices have had an upper hand. More recently talk radio and Fox News tilted things back towards the other side. The rise of the internet was seen as a solution for the potential threat of big media controlling access to information. But if Facebook (or Apple, Google, Microsoft, or any other new media mega-corporation) is willing to inject their own biases into their products and platforms, the playing field will become a swamp where no one will dare to venture. This idea that platforms ought to be agnostic is at the very core of the argument in favor of Net Neutrality.

Social media is increasingly becoming a source of news. While mainstream news media (broadcast and cable TV, newspapers, and news magazines) struggle to remain relevant, social media has stepped up to offer bite-sized morsels of news for the highly-distracted audience. Facebook, Google, Snap Chat, and others have been competing for the attention of this audience.

The enormity of the power that can be deployed by a company the size of Facebook is staggering. Just a short time ago Facebook was caught manipulating the emotional state of its users by selectively posting content to their wall intended to make them feel certain emotions. An earlier experiment was designed to discover if manipulating a person’s news feed could make them more inclined to vote in an upcoming election. Now, imagine for a moment if that same persuasive power were exerted for one side or the other in an ideological or political contest.

In response to the allegations Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has denied the charges but has offered to meet with conservative leaders. That meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 18th and one of the conservative leaders who will meet with Zuckerberg is MCCNM alumnus Dana Perino, former White House Press Secretary.

April 19, 2016

100 Years of Pulitzers

CentennialMarkwithMedal Pulitzer Prizes, arguably the most prestigious awards in journalism, were awarded yesterday and we were reminded, yet again, of the importance and significance of a free press. A quick glance at the winners reveals reporting, commenting, and editing on a wide range of issues of grave importance. For example: slavery, public school performance (or lack thereof), police brutality, and abusive behavior in mental institutions and prisons were topics that were recognized and acknowledged.

The role of the press as guardians of all that is good and right is a long-standing tradition that has come under great attack in recent years. Sloppy and biased reporting, ideological campaigns masquerading as objective coverage, and economic pressure to turn a profit have eroded the trust and credibility that took so long to build. According to Poynter Institute, a Pulitzer Prize was once retracted. In 1981, The Washington Post‘s Janet Cooke was awarded a prize for feature writing. It was retracted two days later when the Post learned it was fabricated.

American consumers of news have long counted on objective reporters shining lights in dark corners to root out corruption and malfeasance. The fact that the Pulitzers are 100 years old this year is a reminder that the legacy of journalism endures despite the disruptive nature of digital media technology. It is not just a little ironic that the prize is named for Joseph Pulitzer, one of the newspaper publishers best known for the scandalous rise of Yellow Journalism at the end of the 19th century. Pulitzer’s New York World was a significant part of the problem back then. Perhaps that is why the name associated with the newspaper was in need of rehabilitation; which the prize provides.

April 11, 2016

Porn: a Threat to Public Health

The research is in, and the facts overwhelmingly support concerns that pornography is unhealthy, dangerous, and taking a toll on public health. According to a report published in the Washington Post, which cites 40 years of peer-reviewed research, porn “shapes how we think about gender, sexuality, relationships, intimacy, sexual violence and gender equality — for the worse.”

Another article, published in Time magazine, views porn through a different lens. According to this article many young men are finding that they are incapable of being sexually aroused by their partner because of years of exposure to extreme pornographic images. These are not moralistic crusades by puritanical killjoys.

These men, and the thousands of others who populate their websites with stories of sexual dysfunction, are all at pains to make it clear that they are not antisex. ‘The reason I quit watching porn is to have more sex,’ says Deem. ‘Quitting porn is one of the most sex-positive things people can do,’ says Rhodes. One online commenter, sirrifo, put it more simply: ‘I just want to enjoy sex again and feel the desire for another person.’

And if you’re a woman who thinks this is a guy problem, think again. The Time magazine article has a sidebar about the effects of porn on women. Women who use porn experience some of the same negative effects as do men. And for women, the often violent and abusive nature of pornographic sex makes women more likely to face similar behavior from their partners.

It’s time to take this matter seriously and recognize it for what it is…a multi-billion dollar industry that does great physical and psychological harm to its customers.

The Time magazine article ended with this poignant quote by a man who decided to cut back on porn: “When I think about it,” he writes, “I’ve wasted years of my life looking for a computer or mobile phone to provide something it is not capable of providing.”

March 2, 2016

Living Inside the Bubble

I’ve posted about the “Filter Bubble” and mentioned it in another post, but a new trend is emerging that takes the concept and makes it even more troubling.

First, let me take a minute to review the idea behind the filter bubble. According to Eli Pariser’s Ted Talk, the filter bubble is a dangerous and unintentional consequence of software algorithms that social media platforms use to customize our user experience. In an attempt to keep us online and engaged, social media platforms feed us the content stream that they believe is of greatest interest to us.

Sounds good so far, right? But the problem is that by putting some things in and leaving others out our social media experience can begin to reflect and reinforce our personally held biases. Pretty soon we’re only seeing Facebook posts from people who agree with our political/social/religious positions. And while that may make us more comfortable it doesn’t do much to make us more aware of, and sensitive to, other points of view.

Now imagine for a moment a software hack that allows you to create your own filter bubble. Google’s Chrome browser allows users to download and install extensions that can do any number of things, including changing your browser to display certain words instead of other words.

This gained quite a bit of attention recently when John Oliver’s rant about Donald Trump went viral. With more than 13 million views in just a couple of days, the video makes reference to a claim that Donald Trump’s family name was originally Drumpf. That was all that some clever software programmer needed to create a Google Chrome extension that is designed to turn every mention of Trump into Drumpf! That’s right, the next time you search for Donald Trump, the results page will display results for Donald Drumpf. When your friends post about Trump on Facebook, your browser will automatically change it to Drumpf. Presto Chango, out with Trump and in with Drumpf!

Sounds like a great idea, right? But consider this. The Chrome extension website offers up some other “fixes” that are slightly less funny. Don’t like your news feed filled with comments about pro-life or pro-choice arguments. Just download the Chrome extension Choice Language or ProLife. Your webpage will no longer display the offending terms. Choice Language changes the words “Pro-Life” into “Anti-Choice”, while the Pro Life extension changes “Anti-Choice” or “Anti-Abortion” into “Pro-Life.” Simple as that you can browse the web and never encounter an offending phrase.

Ahhh, if life could be so simple. Imagine being able to rewrite the evening news or edit a popular film so that is more closely reflects your view of the world. Imagine the joy of never having to encounter an uncomfortable idea or thought. Imagine living in a bubble…a self-made filter bubble.

January 13, 2016

Dear Rolling Stone…

…please stick to music. Believe it or not, the magazine used to have a reputation for quality investigative journalism. But recent high-profile ethical failures have tarnished that seanpenn reputation. First it was the campus rape story that was retracted after the accuser’s story disintegrated. In this case irresponsible journalism damaged not only the reputation of individuals and the UVA campus community, it did damage to the cause of those working hard to reduce sexual assault on college campuses. You can read about the debacle here.

The Sean Penn interview with El Chapo puts another nail in Rolling Stone‘s coffin when it comes to journalistic integrity. According to an interview with David Folkenflik on National Public Radio,

the agreement that Rolling Stone made was extraordinary and, I think, wrong. It agreed to allow Joaquin Guzman, the real name of El Chapo, to review and demand changes in the article before publication. Rolling Stones says he chose not to do so. But what an abrogation, what a relinquishment of editorial control and authority.

Another reason for concern is the role of Sean Penn. We’ve seen other attempts at celebrity activism fail miserably. Remember Dennis Rodman’s basketball diplomacy with North Korea? When celebrities inject themselves into serious news stories, the story is often overshadowed by the celebrity’s fame or political baggage.

Perhaps the best thing to come of the interview was the capture of El Chapo. According to the AP as reported in the Washington Post,

Associated Press quoted Mexican authorities saying that Penn’s contacts with Guzmán helped them track down the fugitive in a rural part of Durango state.

UPDATE: Sean Penn feels terrible regret over his interview with El Chapo.

December 5, 2015

Journalists Behaving Badly

A tweet by Will Federman, an Audience Engagement Editor at Fortune Magazine, captured the essence of a bizarre incident that took place yesterday at the home of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, suspected of the recent mass shooting in San Bernardino, CA.

ThanksMSNBC

The tweet was a response to live news coverage from inside the home of the accused couple, where reporters from MSNBC, CNN, the LA Times, and other new organizations, were combing through the house and the occupants’ personal belongings. Social media erupted as the live coverage of the “home invasion” played out on the screen. According to reports, the landlord (the accused were renting) used a pry bar to gain access to the home.

For more coverage of the “coverage”, NPR has photos and commentary.

The fact that police and FBI agents apparently stood by as journalists entered and began sifting through personal belongings does not excuse their behavior.

Problems, of course, include: the invasion of privacy of people associated with the accused, the voyeuristic nature of the coverage, the inability to make editorial decisions on the fly when broadcasting live, and possible contamination of a crime scene. Journalists, and other members of the public, are typically kept out of crime scenes until after the police and investigators have done their work. In this case the police realized too late what was going on and failed to close down the scene until after the integrity of the home was compromised.

The lesson for students attending j[ournalism] school is that reporters should know their ethical and legal rights when covering criminal news, and should not allow a mob mentality to overtake them when doing their job. I’m sure that some of the journalists present knew that they were acting in a way that was unprofessional and potentially illegal, but the fact that others were doing it…potentially “scooping” them in the process…was enough to convince them to join in. Of course there may have been a few who were confused by the apparently lack of direction from those in authority. However, ignorance is not a defense and access to private property should always follow appropriate legal procedures.

So there you go j-school students…you don’t have to wait until next fall to learn this lesson.

know the law
don’t be swayed by the mob mentality
question authority…even if the authority figures in question appear to be aiding rather than obstructing your efforts to get the scoop