Ethics

Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct

It is interesting that electronic journalists should adhere to their own code of ethics. The RTNDA code appears to be the same, if not very similar, to the traditional code of ethics for journalists. Distinguishing a unique code for electronic journalists creates, in my mind, a schism between traditional journalists and neo-journalists. The divide is not necessary. I understand that new rules must be addressed involving multimedia and video/audio deception, however, is it not true that electronic journalists simply integrate the traditional mediums of print/radio/broadcast?

It's been a while since I last read the code of ethics... and it is hard for me to believe that many professionals abide by these standards. The concept of diversity parallels this weeks text reading. The majority of news coverage I am exposed to does little to provide diverse coverage. Perhaps journalists are eliminating controversial language, however, the lack of diversity is implicit. Global news coverage still highlights photographs of the poor, black woman balancing a water jug on her head while a baby with a swollen belly is strapped to her back. Our concept of poverty and the US agenda of foreign aid are reinforced by our domestic coverage. Our ethnocentric coverage only perpetuates the concept of 'the others' and neo-imperialism via the form of aid. If we are discussing electronic journalism we cannot ignore the reach of such medium... this reach is global and the news coverage must reflect the global realities.

Guidelines for Ethical Video and Audio Editing

This article reminded me the of palliative care videos I showed for my presentation. On the surface, the Dallas news org would not pass the ethics code. Perhaps my strong emotions were the result of fancy photo editing. My question is where does the responsibility lay? In the journalists or the audience. I am not condoning deception, however where are the critical readers/viewers? Since there is no such thing as objectivity, shouldn't receivers of news approach all news critically?

Our final project places an emphasis on editorial opinion. We are selecting the 20 most important stories of the day for our young adult audience. Audience loyalty grows from a shared opinion of issues. My audience, before knowing what our 20-something site is all about, logs on with expectations. It just seems contradictory to specify video/audio techniques that should be avoidable for fear of wavering too far from the line of objectivity, when the reporter, no matter how stringent she is to adhere to objective guidelines, is subjective... subject not only in the reality that she witnessed only one angle... but she herself is a for of media that communicates the subject view of some other witness. Perhaps if the industry was not so implicit about its subjectivity our audience would be forced to read/view/listen critically. It is an endless cycle of disillusion.

Ethics in Digital Photography

I have a difficult time deciphering the difference between the subjectivity of a photograph and the subjectivity of editing a photograph. A photo is a visual representation of a particular view point. Even if two photo j's stood in the same location they could capture and view different situations. Editing a photo creates the same conflict only now involving digital technology.

Considering this I still would not alter an image for my publication. Just because subjectivity consumes the photo from its conception does not compel me to further this process. A photojournalism code of ethics is obsolete in my opinion.

Photojournalism Ethics Guidelines

The Texarkana Gazette dead body policy is interesting. I enjoy how the industry can draw lines between what is right and wrong. I don't believe I would include photo's of dead bodies in my publication. The main question is the inherent news value of the photograph. Or is it? I appreciate the Gazette's attempt to exist within a community. We are not photographing and interviewing subjects... we are working with and for humans. It is interesting how there is causation between selling papers and printing content that appears controversial or taboo. I question our motives of death and devastation. Why show a glimpse of humanity in refusing to print photos of dead bodies... when a microphone/camera/tape recorder is easily thrust in the face of a family member who is viewing the dead body for the first?

Helter Skelter No More: An Evolving Guidebook for Online Ethics

"Are we comfortable with journalists who are not opinion columnists expressing more voice in their blogs than they can in the paper?":

That question parallels the concept that journalists cannot donate to political campaigns and the gamete conflict of interest issues. Majority of journalists are just an unknown byline. I don't believe anyone who claims to be objective and that their work reflects such objectivity. I don't know how many more times I can address this issue. I want my writers to keep a public blog. If my readers are informed of my writers opinions then the readers are better able to critically read the paper. If writers are given a medium to express their voice I feel that voice will less likely spill onto the 'news'.

"One area that's not really sorted out is the issue of what commentators can link to. Clearly porn sites are a no-no, but what about links to videos or photos of dead and wounded or politically inflammatory sites?":

If there are so many avenues were the writers voice may appear wouldn't one begin to critically debate objectivity? If a reader's understanding of a story is manipulated by a possibly suggestive link... who is at fault? I say the public school system and our societal priorities.

Online Journalism Ethics: Guidelines from the Conference

I enjoyed skimming the guidlines' FAQ. Transparency is the buzzword I am most interested in. I'm drawn to a memory of Christian Amanpour deferring questions of opinion to husband James Rubin during their lecture a couple of years ago. It is obvious that Amanpour has opinions. All writers must have opinions, especially due to their exposure to information. Why am I left guessing? I would think opinions are based at some level on an expertise or knowledge of a particular subject. Tell me what you saw and what factors influenced what you saw. Then I will ask the same of another writer on the scene. If we can intrude upon any subject why shouldn't our readers do the same to us? Why are we hiding behind the guise of objectivity?