Reading Abstract – Week 11 March 25, 2008

Under the Getting Sued section of Dr. R’s Journalism Readings, many issues come up regarding the importance of editing blogger comments and the risks that come along with true, but harmful, information.

In “Assessing Legal Risks and Guidelines for User Comments,” Al Tompkins stresses the implications of having third parties post their own information on news Web sites. With the increased use of technology in reporting news and information, non-expert journalists have the ability to post their own opinions that may, whether they are aware of it or not, can bring defamation; invasion of privacy; misappropriation and right of publicity; and emotional distress. While the posted information from online users is not directly from a professional news representative, news outlets should hold users’ opinions to the same editing standards that they do their own work. Since the media are responsible for informing the public, any posted comment that gives what might be considered professional advice should be published cautiously and under strict scrutiny.

As a journalism student, I find it inexcusable that news executives hold a common belief that if they do not edit comments, they are more protected from defamation and or/libel claims than if they edit the feedback. If editors edited feedback they way they edited their own stories, then they would have the opportunity to increase their reputations and credibility. In addition, if users knew that their information would be under strict editing standards, then defamatory and false information could possibly be prevented.

“Dialogue or Diatribe,” is a clear example of the problems that come with including user feedback and comments on news Web sites. While the survey in the article shows that most newspapers do edit, spike or kill comments before they are posted, Ellyn Angelotti points out that a majority of newspapers that responded are the ones that approve comments before posting. As with most other surveys, there is a hole in the results; they are misleading because newspapers that don’t approve or kill comments before publication aren’t represented.

While user comments can carry legal issues, sometimes reporters and editors are the ones who dig themselves into controversial lawsuits. While reporting the truth accurately is one of the main tenants of journalism, “reporting the truth is not always popular,” as described in “Truth v. False Light.” When government officials abuse their power, they do not always welcome media attention when their acts are negatively reported in the news. While defamation suits are usually held to the same standard of evidence as false-light actions, there is a lower standard of proof for the latter in Florida. News organizations, unfortunately, can be sued even when the information reported is true and accurate. While the standards in Florida threaten the ability of the media to report the truth, it also demonstrates the importance of careful editing. Editors and reporters alike need to realize the implications of word choice; for example, the use of “a man shot and killed his wife” should not be used in a story about an accidental death. Especially with the use of the Internet, news is a constant, fast-paced source of information that lives on infinitely. Editors have an obligation to make sure that information is true, fair and sensitive to others. In the end, they will protect their readers and themselves.

Reading Abstract – Week 10 March 25, 2008

When using statistics, polls and surveys in news stories, writers and editors both need to understand the margin of error and the possibility of deception and inaccuracies that come along with reporting that uses numbers and math. In “Margin of Error,” Robert Niles explains the mathematical definition of and process of margin of error, as well its relationship to the standard deviation. The problem is that the average reader probably does not comprehend the basics behind arriving at the margin of error, so the numbers can be misleading for them. As we have learned in previous articles regarding journalists and mathematics, many reporters and editors don’t see math as being part of their job, and consequently, the average journalist is most likely not aware of the repercussions of reporting facts with the inclusion of margin of error. Perhaps stories regarding polls where margins of error and surveys play an active role, a clear explanation should be included so the reader can fully understand the significance and meaning of the story. If the reporter were responsible to include that explanation, misleading and deceptive information and assumptions could be prevented.

            Jack Rosenthal also demonstrates the possibility of misguiding readers when using surveys and statistics. When dealing with surveys in general, there is often researcher and participant bias, similar to how the actual news does not reflect the general population. When the media have such an important role in providing truth and accuracy, it is important that readers understand the clear messages and facts behind a story. Rosenthal uses the example of the American Medical Association, which reported “an alarming rate of binge drinking and unprotected sex among college women during spring break.” In fact, the report was based on 644 women who volunteered to answer the questions, and only 25 percent of them had actually ever taken a spring break trip. This report is a clear example of how readers can be brainwashed into believing misleading information. Journalists need to be extremely careful not to create a story out of inconclusive data simply to have a story.

            Additionally, Rosenthal explains how The New York Times issued an extensive paper on polling standards for editors and reporters. While all newspapers should do the same, they also need to include these standards and guidelines for their readers as well. Seeing an overabundance of percentages and statistics won’t have any true importance if the readers don’t understand their implications. When covering polls, the National Council on Public Polls recommends that journalists ask themselves 20 questions, including such questions such as who did the polls; who paid for the polls; and what questions were asked. In order to have information that reflects accuracy, journalists should include the answers to these questions in polling stories so that readers won’t fall into the realm of deception. It is important to understand that many readers are naïve, and it is the media’s role to educate and inform readers to their highest capabilities with fair and objective reporting. If polls and surveys continue to be reported and published with research biases, then the media will ultimately fail to fill that role in society.

 

 

 

Reporting on pro-anorexic Web sites March 18, 2008

This past week, I had to do a research paper analyzing the popular account of a topic compared to scientific and scholarly research. I chose to look at an article that reported on Web sites that promoted anorexia and unhealthy eating habits and behaviors. The sites mentioned provide users with an anonymous safe haven where they can normalize their disorder with others who can relate to them. While the information is valuable so that people can become aware of the dangers, there also comes an inevitable possibility that readers who may already feel insecure about their body images and may not already know about these Web-based communities may become curious and visit the sites themselves. Similar to covering suicides, covering such a controversial topic such as anorexia and disordered eating, there always comes the potential for a copycat effect. Journalists need to do their best in reporting such stories with appropriate tones, slants and omissions of facts. Unfortunately, “The winner dies,” which appeared in Salon, did not comply with the ethics and guidelines of traditional journalism. When the media are part of the social constructing process, journalists need to be careful of what and to whom they report. While Brown gives a detailed and accurate account of the Web sites, the article neglects to consider those that may be reading the article as a curiosity into the world of an anorexic. There are exact names and Web sites and links on the online article that allow users to actively search and browse the online communities, which paradoxically goes against the authorial intent. Similar to the pro-ana sites themselves, Brown’s article reinforces certain norms of body images through certain inclusions and phrases. She includes the “pro-ana commandments” and examples of extreme dieting tips, which are informative of what the sites contain, but there is no cautionary disclaimer warning readers or potential visitors that the behavior should not be condoned.

Furthermore, the article was not representative of the total population. Because of the western assumption behind eating disorders, there are many different social and cultural factors that affect body satisfaction in other cultures and races that professionals may not understand or fail to acknowledge. The article says that the pro-anorexic Web sites promote similar tips and advice to what you would see in “any women’s magazine.” However, Latinas and Black females do not have the same body ideals as what the mainstream culture in the United States tells them. Therefore, the reporter of the article is presuming that all women have the same ideals, and neglects the multi-cultural audience, failing to be objective and fair.

As research has shown, many studies are inconclusive as information is usually dependent on volunteers who wish to disclose their anorexic identities. For individuals who are part of minority cultures that don’t traditionally have the same values and body perceptions as the majority Western culture, many accounts go underreported and undiagnosed due to differences in causes and behaviors among different cultures. Consequently, as in many news publications based on statistics and surveys, the percentages used by Brown in the article can be misleading in that saying that 3 percent of all women have eating disorders in the U.S. These figures do not take into account the numerous unreported cases. While her facts come from a credible source, the average reader probably does not understand or is unaware of the factors that are behind the figures documented in the article. In addition, nowhere in the article does Brown mention male anorexia or the use of online forums by males, despite research and evidence that proves men do suffer from the illness as well.

 

Importance of word choice in the media: “elderly” March 18, 2008

Throughout the semester, we have learned about the importance of meanings certain words carry. Reporters and editors need to take into account taste, sensitivity and accuracy when covering any story. While watching Nancy Grace, one reporter was talking about the recent news story of 800 dogs being captured in an “elderly” couple’s mobile home. Accordingly, Grace said to the reporter, “how old were they?” The reporter answered that they were in their sixties. Grace asserted that she wouldn’t consider that elderly and that using the word implies a different image. This is a clear example of how something so simple as an adjective used carelessly can bring a complete different connotation for readers and listeners alike. I doubt any 60-year-old listening to the story would consider themselves “elderly,” and editors need to constantly look for possible misleading information.

Starbucks training – real??? March 4, 2008

When browsing the many discussions posted on the blog pages of Poynter Online, I came across an interesting opinion regarding training sessions from numerous businesses, particularly Starbucks. One reader commented that the training was just a ploy for the media to advertise and explained why stores were reluctant to allow reporters sit in on training sessions, saying “If they wanted to train employees, you know how they’d do it? They’d send out instructions to each store, possibly a video tape, and employees would be told to take 10 minutes to watch it. Closing all the stores? Unnecessary. But it gets free advertising.” The discussion on Poynter was about the suggestion of taking time out in order to train newsroom staff, which I believe is a terrible idea, especially when time is money and society has moved into a 24/7 news world.

However, the Starbucks discussion does bring up questions about certain roles of the media. The media are supposed to be independent, but if a story like this simply is a way of advertising, how independent are they? Perhaps, editors should question the actual newsworthiness of a story before reporting on it. Any Starbucks enthusiast wouldn’t really care about a new training of employees and the company already is monopolizing the coffee industry. Secondly, if it was so important, Starbucks locations could have provided their own press releases explaining to customers why they were going to be closed for training.

Prince Harry Media Leak March 4, 2008

In light of the recent criticism that the media have received regarding the leak of the fact that Prince Harry has been serving in Afghanistan from the Drudge Report, I believe that the media’s actions cross the line. The media often wonder why readers distrust them, and this is a clear example why. The media had a prior agreement with military defense to withhold the information. Not only does the leak bring up ethical concerns, but also legal ramifications as well. While Prince Harry is a public figure and does have a lower expectation of privacy, I don’t believe that there was any public benefit or newsworthiness in publishing the information. Under a democratic society, the media have stripped him of what we value most – liberty and freedom of choice. If anything, the publishing of the information puts individuals in harm’s way, considering it involves war and human lives. I really don’t think it would have hurt the media if they waited until Prince Harry was finished at battle to publish the story. If they could have waited, they probably would have a better story in the long run and greater positive feedback from readers. It would have been one thing if the media discovered on their own that the prince was in Afghanistan, but the fact that they went against the agreement is simply a portrayal of vindictiveness and loss of credibility on the media’s part.

Reading Abstract – Week 9 March 4, 2008

This past week’s readings bring up debatable and ethical concerns regarding the use of anonymous sources, as well as how sources should be protected and whether or not reporters should have a certain privilege when writing these kinds of stories. When the media often report on highly publicized governmental and criminal events, reputations and national security are things that are often at stake.

Washington Post national security writer Walter Pincus explains how he made his decisions regarding the Valerie Plame case and how other general guidelines should be used when using confidential sources in “Anonymous sources: their use in a time of prosecutorial interest.” When an administration official was talking to Pincus confidentially about a matter involving Iraqi nuclear activities, he told him about former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s CIA-sponsored trip to Niger in 2002, which was set up as a “boondoggle” by Wilson’s wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction.

With information from a confidential source, Pincus had a dilemma. He disclosed the information, but not the source, after Valerie Plame had been named by Robert Novak, who was under criminal investigation. Under certain circumstances, a government official’s disclosure of identity could be a violation of federal law. Receiving a subpoena in order to find out the identity of his source, Pincus refused. He believed that the identity should be withheld until he agreed to reveal himself publicly. With such vital information, Pincus behaved in a way that would abide by the ethical principles of journalism, safeguarding national security and credibility within the media. Pincus brings up an interesting perspective on reporter’s privilege in that he views it as something that is shared by the source and the reporter. Nevertheless, it is extremely risky for a reporter to pledge anonymity and for newspapers to publish information from anonymous sources, as information eventually lacks credibility and readers ultimately don’t know what to believe to be true. As seen in the movie “All the President’s Men,” the use of anonymity harms the media’s profession and diminishes the value of confidentiality given to the people who risk their jobs and reputation for what they believe is the moral thing to do.

One Poynter article by Ryan Pitts asks for the opinions of readers on confidential sources and reveals that “a significant number of readers say the media would be better off not using them, even if that means waiting longer for an important story.” One reader asserts that if a source is willing to give information, then they should be willing to be named, as it is far too easy “to hide behind the cloak of anonymity.”

A lot of times, it is understandable why a newspaper would choose to publish confidential information on a governmental or scandalous story, especially in the profitable business of being the first to know. Many times throughout history, the media have acted as a watchdog and a form of check and balance on the government through the knowledge learned through confidential sources. If the information can be confirmed, then they have succeeded in producing social change. If not, then their reputation, as well as the ones of the subjects of the stories, is tarnished indefinitely. Unfortunately, in today’s age of fast-paced technology and the rush of deadline, thorough reporting and fact checking is not as effective as it should be or once was. The only time information should be published from a confidential source is if the information is absolutely vital to the public interest or prevents harm, if the source is in a position to make the claims and to supply the information, and if there is no other way to obtain the information.

While the American public believes the media would be better without confidential sources, Rachel Smolkin’s article reveals that most agree that reporters should be allowed to keep a source confidential. Ironically, Americans endorse the watchdog role of the media in their role in acting within our democratic government. The use of anonymous sources, incidentally, is a journalistic tool that falls in to a very gray area. While they can be useful, they should be used sparingly and vigilantly, as no one can agree on the harms and benefits that come along the way.

 

Local Paper Description – The Miami Herald

            While the newspaper has a large percentage of non-white newsroom staff, the percentage has gone down since previous years. In 2005 the percentage was 43 percent, and in 2004 it was 63 percent. Ironically, the circulation areas have a non-white population of about 70 percent, while the county’s non-white population is about 80 percent, which clearly does not reflect the actual diversity in the newsroom.