Category: journalism

Posted on

Someone’s about to die

Two photos, taken within a few days of one another in NYC, of men about to die.

In the period of a week these two photos were taken and published in newspapers and online. In each photo you can see the final moment before a life is snuffed out. In the first photo the victim is about to be hit by a New York subway train. In the second, the victim is about to be shot point-blank by the man approaching from behind. The first image was taken by R. Umar Abbasi, a freelance photographer for The New York Post. The second was a still from a surveillance camera.

The ethics of shooting, publishing, and captioning photos such as these are complex and difficult. You can find plenty of blogs and essays that attempt to dissect the issues involved (here’s one and here’s another) and they make many excellent points. It can be argued that I’m just as guilty by posting the pix on my blog and using the power of these very compelling images to draw you into a conversation about their appropriateness.

I hope that you will be prepared, if and when the day comes, to make the difficult choices that may be facing you. Do you take the picture? And if the picture is taken, do you print it? Which picture do you print? Which caption do you run? When does the public’s right to know trump the family’s right to privacy?

The best that we can hope for is that our choices come from ethical foundations that understands and appreciates the complicated, and often conflicting, values at play.

Posted on

The Future of Modern Warfare?

No, I’m not talking about the release of Call of Duty: Black Ops II this week, and the $500 million that players dropped on the first day. Rather, I’m talking about real conflict with real casualties, and tweets like this…

Some numbers from the last 3 days: 492 rockets fired from #Gaza hit #Israel + 245 Iron Dome interceptions = 737 rockets fired at us. @IDFSpokesperson

And this photo tweeted two days ago…

And this video posted to Youtube…

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6U2ZQ0EhN4]
If you watch the IDF YouTube channel you’ll also find a video that alleges to show Palestinian children taunting Israeli soldiers attempting to provoke a response for the cameras.

In a world where public support is necessary for democratic societies to engage in armed conflict, propaganda is a necessary and essential part of the campaign. According to an editorial in the Washington Post,

The @IDFSpokesperson Twitter account, encouraging followers to show support for the strikes, tweeted Wednesday: “More than 12,000 rockets hit Israel in the past 12 years. RT if you think #Israel has the right to defend itself.” More than 5,500 people have retweeted it.

The social media campaign being waged by the Israeli Defense Force is part PR campaign, part political posturing, part warning intended to minimize civilian casualties, and part intimidation, e.g. “We recommend that no Hamas operatives, whether low level or senior leaders, show their faces above ground in the days ahead.”

Hamas, the pro-Palestinian group responsible for the rocket attacks on Israel, has responded with their own campaign, including the twitter hashtag #GazaUnderAttack. Civilians, especially children, killed by Israeli retaliatory strikes are put on display for the TV cameras as mourners wail in the street.

The Middle East, post Arab Spring, is still a fractious place where opposing forces battle on a daily basis. While some of the conflict is physical, much of it takes place in the media where the battle is fought for the hearts and minds of both regional and global witnesses. And more and more of it is happening in near-real-time.

Posted on

An Out’rage’ous Newsweek Cover?

Newsweek magazine was once a leader in the news weekly genre. But that was a long time ago and Newsweek is now struggling to attract readers. One technique they’ve employed is the sensational cover photo and headline. According to an article in the Huffington Post, “The conservative Daily Telegraph called it a ” sickening piece of shock journalism that cheapens a once great magazine” and compared it to the anti-Muslim film that sparked the protests.”

This YouTube video captures some of the outrage directed at Newsweek and other journalists.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PaOfycgyCg]

 

In response to criticism about their cover, Newsweek invited the public to chime in with their own take on the events recently unfolding in Islamic nations around the globe. They invited people to post to Twitter using the hashtag #muslimrage which was quickly hijacked by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. You can find a collections of some of the tweets, and images of Muslim Rage at Gawker.

This mocking response to a serious issue demonstrates the challenges facing media companies who give up control to their readers/viewers/users. Listen to this NPR story about the Twitter backlash.

Yesterday’s LA Times points to a recent article in Foreign Policy magazine in which the author suggested,

that the increased democratization brought by the 2011 Arab uprisings and social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter helped break down the barriers between cultures and tamp down the cycles of outrage compared to the previous protests over Danish cartoons in 2006 that left hundreds dead.

It may be too soon to tell if democracy and social media will have a lasting positive effect on relationships that have taken centuries to grow apart.

Posted on

Disturbing Photos Create a Moral Dilemma

A few days ago the LA Times created a stir by publishing photos of U.S. soldiers posing with Afghan corpses. The two photos, published in the paper and online versions of the news publication, were taken in 2010 by a soldier in the 82nd Airborne Division and given to a Times reporter. According to the Poynter website, military officials asked the Times to not publish the photos, but the newspaper went ahead and offered this rational in defense:

After careful consideration, we decided that publishing a small but representative selection of the photos would fulfill our obligation to readers to report vigorously and impartially on all aspects of the American mission in Afghanistan, including the allegation that the images reflect a breakdown in unit discipline that was endangering U.S. troops.

This incident touches on several issues related to the textbook chapters currently being discussed in class. There are concerns over the legality of images that compromise personal privacy. There are also ethical issues related to images of a graphic nature. And there are concerns over journalistic ethics when national security is at stake. Another factor at play is the embarrassment of military and government leaders who would like to have miss-deeds go unnoticed. While military and government leaders have called the behavior captured in the photos “reprehensible” and “morally repugnant,” journalists have an obligation to shine a light on misbehavior whenever and wherever they find it. The question here is how to do so without compromising other important and cherished values. As the LA Times website noted, “the taboo against desecration of the dead is strong in this religiously conservative country.”

There are, unfortunately, plenty of other examples in recent history of visual imagery that posed ethical dilemmas. The Abu Ghraib photos in 2004 of U.S. military personnel posing with inmates in compromising positions comes quickly to mind. Graphic photos of slain Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi were carried by some news outlets while others decided to opt for photos of rebels celebrating his death. The White House refused to release photos of a dead Osama bin Laden thus relieving journalists of the pressure of having to make that decision. And just a few months ago a video surfaced of U.S. troops urinating on dead Taliban fighters.

Images are powerful. Perhaps cameras should come with a warning label: CAUTION, do not use without first considering consequences.

Posted on

Rushing to Judgement

This blog post is in no way intended to add to the current public debate about the guilt or innocence of either Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman. The tragic shooting has become the center of a national dialogue about race (Martin is African-American and Zimmerman is Hispanic), violence, and media coverage of the same. While there has been little verifiable evidence about the tragic incident, there is no shortage of opinion about what happened on that night of February 26th.

What we do know is that the national media were slow to report the initial shooting. Only after African-American commentators, bloggers and radio talk show hosts took up the cause–and after social media amplified the discussion–did the mainstream media finally pay attention.

Photos of Martin and Zimmerman widely disseminated by the mainstream media have also led some to jump to conclusions. Newer photos of both are now being released. One can’t help but think that the images being presented are part of the process of making a case for either innocence or guilt of those portrayed. Either way it is easy to see how important first impressions can be when forming an opinion in the absence of hard facts.

Additional facts about Martin’s record of suspensions from school are also changing the nature of the debate. Some are claiming that these are irrelevant facts that are being intentionally leaked to the media with intent to destroy the reputation of the victim.

Even coverage of the media coverage has been controversial. The Daily Texan, a student newspaper from University of Texas at Austin, pulled a controversial editorial cartoon that was critical of the media’s coverage of the story.

One of the most important responsibilities of the media in a democratic society is to draw attention to misbehavior and to do so in an even-handed and unbiased way. Crime reporting is just one example. But so is investigative reporting of how police and other civil servants carry out their duty to administer justice. When public outcry about a possible miscarriage of justice by the local police reached a tipping point, the US Department of Justice was called in to investigate the Sanford police department.

Questions remain: Is justice being served by the attention being given to this story? Would justice have been served if a few African-American journalists had not gained the attention of the social media megaphone…which then led to the mainstream media paying attention? Can truth and justice prevail in what some are now calling a “media circus”?

 

UPDATE 3/30/12

PEW Research has released an interesting study comparing the way that Twitter, blogs, and cable TV and talk radio have covered the story.

Posted on

Social Media and the OWS Movement

The Occupy Wall Street movement has been generating a lot of attention from the mainstream media in recent weeks. According to a report in the NYT, media coverage has been increasing as the movement gains strength and spreads to other cities. The proximity of the protestors to the nerve center of the US news industry, just blocks away in NYC, certainly helps. Organizers have also worked hard to create stories that the mainstream media are likely to cover, including orchestrated attempts to obstruct traffic and confront police.

The protestors have demonstrated some media savvy as indicated by a sign held by one protester-“Whoever controls the media, the messages, controls the culture.” They’ve got a website and they even have a print publication devoted to getting their story out. The Occupy Wall Street Journal is being supported  using funds raised by a Kickstarter campaign called Occupy Wall Street Media which has raised more than $75K to date. You can find their first issue on Google Docs here. On the Kickstarter site you can view a 3-minute video that includes sound bites from Michael Moore, a documentary filmmaker who has made a career championing the cause of the working class. Speaking of documentaries, the Academy Award winning doc from 2010, Inside Job, is an eye-opening look at the 2008 crash and subsequent attempts to deal with the financial mess that ensued. If you really want to understand the frustration being directed at Wall Street, big business, and the government this documentary would be a good place to start.

But just like the Arab spring and the Tea Party movements that came before, another factor that has helped the OWS movement gain attention and momentum is the use of social media. According to Jeff Jarvis, professor of journalism and author of the blog BuzzMachine, “#OccupyWallStreet is a hashtag revolt.” Jarvis goes on to explain that, “a hashtag has no owner, no hierarchy, no canon or credo. It is a blank slate onto which anyone may impose his or her frustrations, complaints, demands, wishes, or principles.” Using Facebook and twitter is neither new nor innovative in late 2011, but it is and will be an essential part of any current and future populist movement. The raw power of unfiltered, instantaneous mobile communication cannot be denied. The fact that mainstream media are taking their cues from social media certainly helps. While social media is a powerful tool for coordinating and inspiring participants in a populist movement, the mainstream media brings the movement to the attention of a much larger segment of the population.

In an interesting twist with conspiratorial overtones, some have accused twitter of censoring the OccupyWallStreet hashtag and downplaying the size of the twitter stream that is being generated. This alleged censorship may be the result of a cosy relationship that twitter has with investment banks on Wall Street, according to one report.

It is also worth noting that the OWS movement was instigated by the Adbusters organization out of Vancouver, Canada. Adbusters may be best known for their anti-consumerism and anti-capitalistic positions on advertising and consumption. The Adbusters media foundation is, according to their website, “a global network of artists,  activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age. Our aim is to topple existing power structures and forge a major shift in the way we will live in the 21st century.” The Adbusters organization is also known as sponsor of annual social marketing campaigns like Buy Nothing Day and Digital Detox Week.

Whether the OWS movement has legs and can reach critical mass may become evident on November 5th when, according to the Christian Science Monitor, “consumers are being urged to transfer their bank accounts from large, national financial institutions to community banks and credit unions.” If this movement grows, and hundreds of thousands close out their bank accounts, we’ll know that this is not just a fringe movement of leftists and anarchists.

Posted on

The power of moving images

Did you happen to see the video of bystanders lifting a burning BMW off of an injured motorcyclist? If you didn’t, watch it on Youtube here. I love seeing how, in just a matter of seconds, people jump in to do the right thing despite potential danger to themselves. A joint effort by construction workers and university students (including a young woman) resulted in a life saved from what would most certainly have been a tragic death. Watch the young woman get down on her belly to look at the victim pinned under the car. It was her announcement that he was alive that spurred the second effort. Before that they just thought they were trying to free a dead body.

There another angle to this story. If someone hadn’t pointed his cell phone camera at the accident from a nearby office building, we probably wouldn’t be celebrating this wonderful act of heroism that restores our faith in humanity. Sure, it would have been written up in local papers, including eyewitness testimony about the unfolding events…but it wouldn’t have been seen and appreciated by the millions of people worldwide who have now seen the video. An ordinary citizen, in the right place at the right time with a cell phone video camera, captured a few seconds of footage that we’re all talking about today. This is citizen journalism and eyewitness reporting at its best.

Years ago a person pointed his video  camcorder at a police action on the side of a California highway. The beating of Rodney King was videotaped and shared across the nation and around the world. After LAPD officers on trial for police brutality were acquitted, riots broke out in LA resulting in “53 deaths, 2,383 injuries, more than 7,000 fires, damages to 3,100 businesses, and nearly $1 billion in financial losses” (Wikipedia).

Both are examples of the power of documentary evidence of an event that might otherwise have passed with little or no attention. One highlights positive actions and the other destructive actions…and both make important contributions to a just and free society.

Posted on

Thank You & Goodbye

Last Sunday Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid News of the World was laid to rest after 168 years of operation. A scandal in which private individuals’ cell phones were hacked led to the public outrage that forced the closure. While politicians and celebrities, including Hugh Grant, have long complained of phone hacking by tabloid reporters, it was the hacking of the phones of  private citizens that brought strong criticism and investigations by law enforcement. Among those hacked: 13-year-old missing person Milly Dowler, relatives of victims of the London terrorist attacks and the families of fallen military.

Throughout history journalists have been rewarded for “scooping” the competition. The paper or news organization that got the story first was rewarded with the largest audience and the accolades of their peers. The challenge, of course, is knowing when to stop before aggressive journalism crosses the fine line that separates ethical from unethical practices. While this case appears to have focused attention on an unusually egregious lapse of ethics, the truth is that journalists push the envelope daily and often escape scrutiny. Sometimes the risk pays off in a big way. Other times it leads to someone getting fired–or an entire news operation being shuttered and hundreds of people loosing their jobs.

Posted on

Digital Tools of the Trade

A recent article critical of technology requirements  for students attending Missouri School of Journalism got me thinking about what should be the minimal tool-set required for students of mass media. The article focused on student objections to a proposed requirement that each student purchase an iPad. Previously students were required to purchase either an iPhone or iPod Touch and other journalism programs, e.g. Virginia Tech, have required incoming students to have a laptop with specific software. Specific courses at various universities may require students to purchase a digital camera, audio recorder or external hard drive in addition to a course textbook and recordable media. The days of books, pencils, binders and 3-hole punched paper are long gone!

Here at CSU-Pueblo we have avoided requiring majors to purchase specific hardware but that may be changing. For several years we have been charging a course fee for certain laboratory-based classes that have a technology component. The fee, ranging from $25 to $50 per course, has helped to defray the cost of computer hardware and software and audio and video recording hardware and media. The University is moving away from course fees and proposing “department fees” that would be applied to every student who has declared a major. For example, a $5 department fee would add an additional $5 per credit hour to all MCCNM majors in an attempt to recoup some of the cost of offering courses that require access to expensive technology. For a student taking 15 credit hours, this would add $75 to the cost of each semester enrolled. Some students, and their parents, may object to these additional fees forcing university administrators to look for other ways to address the cost of technology. One such idea, also controversial, is the one taken by Missouri School of Journalism–to make the technology a prerequisite for students enrolling in the major or in specific courses.

So that got me thinking. What exactly should a mass communication major at CSU-Pueblo, or any other respectable university, have in his/her toolbox of media technology? At a minimum, anyone working in journalism should have a digital camera (still and video), an audio recorder, and, ideally, software on a tablet or laptop that allows for photo, audio and video editing. Without endorsing a specific platform or product line it must be noted that an Apple iPhone or iPad contains all of the above features. Better quality and flexibility can be gained by purchasing the components separately, but the cost would certainly be higher. For a few hundred dollars you can secure a digital still/video camera, and an audio recorder can be had for under $100. However, the editing/encoding/uploading process will likely require a laptop and software that may add $1000 or more. Extensive digital audio and video editing will require extended storage. The good news is that a 1TB hard drive can now be purchase for less than $80 and recordable optical media is relatively inexpensive.

If you want to work in design and layout of print media, a laptop with Photoshop and a page layout program such as InDesign may be the minimal setup with a price tag approaching $1,000. For those who want to work in TV/Film and related visual industries DSLR cameras capable of HD are now readily available for about a thousand dollars. Add another $1,500 or so for the editing hardware/software.

My point in all of this is to ask the question, what is an appropriate level of university support for future media professionals and what should be expected of students? Would a music major be expected to own his own instrument? How about an art major? Do they purchase all or some of their tools and supplies? How about in the sciences? At what point do chemistry or biology lab fees kick in to provide everything from beakers to cadavers?

What do you think? What kind of technology would you be willing to purchase on your own and what do you expect your tuition and fees to provide?

Posted on

Hidden Camera Take Down

Hidden cameras and microphones date back to the earliest days of radio and TV. Candid Camera caught unsuspecting people reacting to dramatic or humorous situations created by the show’s producers. After the initial shock and surprise wore off, the unwitting victims were asked to sign a talent release thus allowing the producers to put them on the air. Their 15 minutes of fame seemed like a reasonable reward for a few minutes of awkward discomfort.

In recent years the popular series Prime Time Live and Eye to Eye with Connie Chung often used hidden cameras and set-ups to catch people behaving badly. Those who advocate for hard-hitting investigative journalism often argue that deception and hidden cameras/microphones are necessary tools to collect the kind of evidence that will “bust a story wide open.” Even 60 Minutes has resorted to hidden cameras and most of us are very familiar with the controversial sting operations conducted by Chris Hansen for his To Catch a Predator series.

The latest incarnation of gotcha journalism is pushing the envelope of what can be called journalism. At the head of the pack is James O’Keefe. O’Keefe rose to notoriety by posing as a pimp–along-side his assistant posing as a prostitute–to expose the seemly underbelly of Acorn. Acorn, an affiliation of community organizations with ties to Obama, has since lost its federal funding.

Because of recent events the same fate may await NPR and PBS. Just this week O’Keefe struck again by framing NPR fund-raising executive Ron Schiller. In a hidden-camera interview, Schiller is heard venting about conservatives, the tea party, and at one point proclaiming that NPR would be better off without federal funding. This embarrassment, close on the heals of the Juan Williams firing a few months ago, has resulted in the firing of NPR president and CEO Vivian Schiller (no relation to Ron). The bad news couldn’t come at a worse time as congress is currently debating whether to de-fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, i.e. PBS and NPR.

Another recent sting operation was conducted by the anti-abortion group Live Action. Planned Parenthood employees were caught on camera giving advice on how to get around restrictions for treating underage prostitutes. At the very least it appears that the employees were turning a blind eye to the sexual exploitation of minors. The uproar continues to dog Planned Parenthood and may jeopardize its funding as well.

But conservative operatives aren’t the only ones going after their opponents using questionable tactics. Just two weeks ago Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker was “punked” by Buffalo Beast editor Ian Murphy pretending to be a wealthy Republican donor. The phone conversation, which raised questions about Gov. Walkers true intentions, is available on YouTube for anyone who wants to draw his own conclusions.

Credible news organizations and journalistic entities, e.g. the Society of Professional Journalists, have very specific policies about deception and use of hidden microphones and cameras. According to the SPJ code of ethics, the examples above violate the very basic principles of journalism and compromise the integrity of the craft. Kevin Z. Smith, SPJ ethics committee chairman, said “This tactic and the deception used to gain this information violate the highest levels of journalism ethics.” Smith continued, “To lie to a source about your identity and then to bait that source into making comments that are inflammatory is inexcusable and has no place in journalism.”

What do you think…do these tactics cross the line and call into question the integrity of the journalists themselves? Or, are these tactics necessary to expose wrongdoing?

For a rather lengthy discussion of the ethics of hidden cameras, see Gotcha!

css.php