Skip to main content
University of Wisconsin–Madison

Author: amlacey

Covering the Paris Attacks: Global Patriotism or Cultural Proximity?

Reporters need to balance emotional impulses with a healthy dose of skepticism. This cautious approach shouldn’t fall by the wayside just because something terrible has happened. In fact, it’s in the coverage of tragedies like the Paris attacks that we need this balance the most. Continue reading

Footage from the scene: Considerations for eye witness video

Unlike a time when visual information was identified, captured and distributed almost exclusively by professionals, the increasing use of content produced by eyewitnesses is unveiling the potential and peril of such footage.

Questions about who is capturing images, who is featured in said images and whether or not consent is involved are only some of the things that Madeleine Bair, program manager of WITNESS Media Lab, said journalists should be considering.

“The question really comes down to how we apply traditional ethical practices to using this modern tool of eyewitness footage,” Bair said. “I think we should treat all eyewitness media with a dose of healthy journalism skepticism.”

In an effort to beginning addressing these questions, WITNESS, a Brooklyn-based international organization that trains and supports people in human rights video documentation, recently announced its Ethical Guidelines in Using Eyewitness Footage for Human Rights. Witness defines eyewitness footage as video taken at the scene of an incident by private people, including bystanders and people involved in the situation.In addition to tangible checklists, a variety of examples and situational commentary, the release of the WITNESS guidelines underscores the rising popularity and importance of eyewitness content.

“The ability for average citizens to document what they are experiencing or what their community is experiencing is really revolutionizing news gathering and human rights documentation,” Bair said. “It allows citizens to document what’s going on in real-time, and that gives a voice to so many more people and so many more places.”

Claire Wardle, co-founder of Eyewitness Media Hub, said not only does eyewitness content give voice to those who produce it, but it also has become an expectation by those who consume it. The organization is a nonprofit dedicated to exploring the ethical, legal and logistical use of user content in news.

“Up until relatively recently, news arrived and then you’d have the aftermath of an event. Now because almost everyone has a very high resolution camera in their pocket in the form of a phone, we’re now getting images of the actual event there and then,” she said.

This perceived demand has led to increased use of eyewitness media, though a 2014 study from Eyewitness Media Hub suggests that increased awareness about the legal and ethical dimensions of using such content has not yet been realized. The study found that photographs and videos featured in online newspaper articles were often presented inaccurately or used without permission.

And even if newsrooms may be making strides in seeking permission to republish, Wardle said, journalists tend to altogether ignore the consent of the individuals featured in the videos.

“In the human rights space, they’ve very strong on thinking about who’s actually in the videos or images,” she said. “Whereas from a journalism perspective, reporters are quicker to ask about who owns the rights to the content. The rights of the people in the videos or images is more of an afterthought.”

Wardle argues that despite the competitive environment of the 24-hour news cycle, obtaining consent of individuals in footage – even those shot by citizen journalists – is important.

“Putting out information that is inaccurate or unethical is not helpful for a newsroom business model,” she said. “I think it’s all about remaining competitive, yes, but also about being right. Even if the reason for abusing eyewitness content is business models, I think newsrooms will still have to start thinking a little bit more critically about how they use this kind of content.”

Wardle also said that just because information is posted publicly online or through social media, journalists should not assume the right to share the information more widely.

“Most people have no idea about what publication means. These platforms are all publishing platforms, but people haven’t thought that through when they’re posting to their 50 friends, they’re not in a million years thinking that it’s going to end up somewhere else,” she said. “I think over time, users will get more sophisticated and newsrooms will recognize that trust is more important to them as a brand.”
Besides taking points from ethical guidelines like those released by WITNESS, Wardle said that honoring the rights of individuals featured in eyewitness footage will really take off with a change in journalist mindsets.

“Journalists should always be thinking as if these eyewitnesses and featured individuals were a member of their family,” she said. “If this happened to a member of your family, how would they feel? And while, yes, journalists have to do their job, there is a way to do it in a way that is both sensitive and informative. It’s not all or nothing.”

Bair said she hopes that the WITNESS guidelines will be just one part of a larger conversation that will begin to address these ethical issues of using and sharing eyewitness content.

“It’s really about raising awareness and starting a discussion about how to put ethical standards into practice in a modern era of documentation,” she said. “That’s what we hope that these guidelines will really do.”

For Wardle, navigating the ethics of eyewitness journalism is simply an extension of the golden rule.

“Ultimately, the ethics of using eyewitness media comes down to how you treat people,” Wardle said. “When eyewitness media gets shared widely, there’s a responsibility, really, to think about the people who are caught up in that story.”

Checklist developed by WITNESS for eye witness footage of events. Used with permission. The guidelines are downloadable as a PDF from WITNESS.

Ethics in the News – Nov. 3

The Kansas City Royals win over the New York Mets last Tuesday not only hit off the 2015 World Series, but ignited a conversation about journalism ethics after media outlets reported the unexpected death of Edinson Volquez’s father during the game and before Volquez himself had been informed.

Confusion ensued after Enrique Rojas of ESPN Deportes reported that Volquez’s father, Daniel, had passed away at the age of 63 earlier that day as a result of heart complications and that Volquez had been informed of it on the way to the ballpark. Shortly after, however, reports trickled in refuting Rojas, saying instead that Volquez did not know of his father’s passing. A Royals’ statement later confirmed that Volquez indeed did not know and had never known at any point during the game.

Some have since condemned breaking the news without Volquez’s knowledge. Besides flooding social media, large outlets like ESPN and the Associated Press and the New York Times reported the death while it was still unclear whether the family had been informed in full. Sports on Earth writer Will Leitch reported said he felt “disgusting” about knowing before Volquez.

Others like Fox Sports chose not to report on the loss until Volquez finished pitching and they were certain Volquez had been told by family. Fox sideline reporter Ken Rosenthal defended the decision explaining that broadcast is a different medium than print or online, and the risk of Volquez hearing the news passively was more likely with the broad reach of television broadcasting.

“These decisions are balancing acts,” Society of Professional Journalists ethics committee chairman Andrew Seaman said in a release. “It comes down to, what is the importance of this information to the public? When in doubt, journalists need to remember that their subjects are human beings deserving of respect.”

In other journalism ethics news this week:

  • New York Times opinion writer Margaret Sullivan addressed an undisclosed conflict of interest in a T Magazine technology article written by Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, wife of Marc Andreessen who happens to be a major investor in one of the companies featured.
  • A National Public Radio music editor resigned after it was discovered that 10 stories filed jointly on the NPR Music and WQXR websites were copied from other sources without attribution.
  • LA Weekly rekindled discussion about ethical funding of journalism in a piece analyzing Exxon’s relationship with the L.A. Times.

Marijuana reviews: Advocating vice?

Dining out at a restaurant, watching a show or buying a book—you can always refer to a review on a local newspaper before making the decision. Now you can do the same thing for getting some weed if you are in Oregon.

The Oregonian, the state’s largest newspaper, is recruiting a marijuana reviewer. Oregon became the fourth state legalizing recreational use of marijuana Oct. 1.

“The candidate should be an experienced cannabis consumer with deep knowledge about the variety of strains and products available on the Oregon market,” the job posting says.

The marijuana review is not brand-new invention, with the Cannabist, a supplement to the Denver Post, as the most prominent precedent. Nor is the ethical controversy over the media coverage about marijuana.

The press needs to be careful about its coverage about marijuana because lobbyists from both sides are willing to provide false information to sway marijuana public policy, said Roy Peter Clark, vice-president of the Poynter Institute for Media Studies in an email.

Serving the public?

The rapid change of media landscape has blurred many traditional borders, but news organizations should make sure that their practices serve the public interest, Clark said. And for him, pot reviews are not necessarily part of this task.

“We don’t do that for cigarettes,” he said. “We don’t do that for pharmaceuticals in general.”

And, he said he doesn’t see how pot is different.

“It’s hard to see the benefit of doing it for marijuana.”

Yet the marijuana critics think they are doing a meaningful job.

Ry Prichard, a marijuana reviewer and reporter at the Cannabist, said he understands the hesitation of the mainstream media writing about recreational use of marijuana. He said the Denver Post publishes reviews separately partly because of ethical concerns.

“But marijuana is everywhere here,” Prichard said. He thinks that journalists are responsible to report the large-scale discussion about marijuana after legalization in Colorado, and to reflect the popularity of recreational consumption in real life.

Prichard considers himself also as an educator when writing reviews, providing the public with necessary knowledge for purchasing marijuana. In a recently published review, Prichard reminded consumers to beware of the mislabeling of marijuana strains.

Organizations advocating more cautious regulations regarding marijuana still worry about mainstream news media like the Oregonian reviewing marijuana.

Kevin Sabot, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana , said in an email that news media are promoting a dangerous lifestyle. The critics are generalizing their own experience of marijuana being harmless to a wide audience, he said.

The reporter covering marijuana issue for the Oregonian and her editor both declined to comment.

Serving the industry?

The media are empowering the pot industry with a free pass, and attenuating the scientific debate about the effects of marijuana, Sabot said.

Sabot also said he thinks the journalists working behind marijuana stories may have their own skewed view and not disclaim their stance to the readers sufficiently.

He used the Huffington Post as an example. Arianna Huffington, the co-founder of Huffington Post, is also an honorary board member of the Drug Policy Alliance, a biggest organization advocating the decriminalization of marijuana use in the US. She has written commentary about the legalization debate for her website.

Prichard, who pays for the marijuana himself, said reviewing adult-only products can be a dicey job. But he does not think wine or beer reviews are more morally justified, either.

Ethics in the News – Oct. 27

The World Health Organization said Monday the scientific link between processed meats and cancer is definitive. In the next breath, the organization said there’s strong evidence that red meat causes cancer.

As this article explains, the WHO put processed meat in the same carcinogenic category as tobacco. That means the strength of the evidence that processed meat causes cancer is firmly established. It doesn’t mean the cancer-causing effect of tobacco is the same as that of processed meat.

But, this TIME article said that ham and arsenic are equally dangerous:

Screen Shot 2015-10-26 at 3.56.28 PM

 

There’s been plenty of bad science journalism this week. And, it’s not just this week. Science 2.0 called out science journalism just last week for failing to cover studies that mitigate the splashy earlier studies that make headlines.

Science journalism is a balance between using exact language and understandable language. And, some organizations are aiming to help improve those efforts.

Deborah Blum and Tom Zellner this week announced plans for “Undark,” a new science journalism magazine. They said a goal is quality science journalism in a new iteration of Knight’s Tracker blog.

Meanwhile, Science Surveyor was announced late last week as a new tool to help science journalists accurately communicate new scientific studies on deadline.

In other journalism ethics news:

 

Ethics in the News – Oct. 20

In the wake of a report about the extent of philanthropic money given to education journalism, ethicists are discussing what the proper relationship between targeted money and journalism should look like.

A new blog looking at education at the The Washington Monthly revealed that the Gates Foundation gave about $7 million per year to news organizations who cover education. Many other organizations give money to nonprofits like NPR and for-profit news like Seattle Times for targeted coverage, the report said.

The blog’s author told Poynter that though Gate’s funding is targeted toward education issues that aren’t covered in everyday news, the issues it supports such as quality teachers aren’t controversial.

Some of the issues of giving for targeted journalism are controversial, though, The Nonprofit Quarterly pointed out. And, while money may not come with stipulations about the perspective of journalism, it certainly could have an influence.

Stephen Ward, former director of The Center for Journalism Ethics, said the ethics of accepting donations to fund journalism are tricky when nonprofit journalism organizations were emerging.

He offered that journalism organizations should have explicit codes for dealing with gifted money for news. He wrote that adherence to the code should available to the public and adherence to the code should be scrutinized by the public.

“Declining public confidence in news media will be extended to these new journalists on the block if nonprofit leaders do not put transparent ethical policies into place,” Ward wrote.

In other news

Center for Journalism Ethics in the News

Ethics of robot journalism: How Automated Insights poses issues for data collection and writing

Algorithm journalism is now available for everyone.

A beta Wordsmith, a program that creates journalism from data, was made available on the parent company’s website Tuesday morning, the company announced.

But, one of the world’s largest news organizations already uses the software to automatically generate some stories – and its standards editor said the ethics of the software has to be carefully considered.

“We want to make sure that we’re doing everything the way we should,” Associated Press standards editor Tom Kent said. “We take our ethics very seriously.”

During the past year, the AP multiplied its publication of earnings reports tenfold. The number of earning reports on a quarterly from the AP increased from 300 stories to nearly 3,000.

The mass quantity of stories that the software can produce has led to the moniker “robot journalism,” but Kent said questions have turned from the capacity of robot journalism to the ethics of this new production tool.

“Robot journalism” is less a C-3PO-like character typing the news, and more automation of data collection using algorithms to produce text news for publication. The process is forcing journalists like Kent to address best practices for gathering data, incorporating news judgment in algorithms and communicating these new efforts to audiences. The AP announced its partnership with Automated Insights, a Durham, North Carolina-based software company that uses algorithms to generate short stories, in June 2014.

Collecting Data

Accuracy is just one concern when it comes to algorithmically gathering data.

According to a January press release from Automated Insights, automated stories contain “far fewer errors than their manual counterparts” because such programs use algorithms to comb data feeds for facts and key trends while combining them with historical data and other contextual information to form narrative sentences.

New York Magazine writer Kevin Roose hypothesized similarly saying, “The information in our stories will be more accurate, since it will come directly from data feeds and not from human copying and pasting, and we’ll have to issue fewer corrections for messing things up.”

When errors do surface, the process for editing is more or less the same as for human writers: review, revise and repeat. Once editors catch algorithmic mishaps, developers make the changes to the code to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

“We spent close to a year putting stories through algorithms and seeing how they came out and making adjustments,” Kent said.

He also adds that a less obvious concern may have less to do with what data is collected and more to do with how it is collected.

“Data itself may be copyrighted,” Kent said. “Just because the information you scrape off the Internet maybe accurate, it doesn’t necessarily mean that you have the right to integrate it into the automated stories that you’re a creating – at least without credit and permission.”

Synthesizing and Structuring Data

Besides collecting data, the way in which algorithms organize information requires additional ethical consideration.

“To make the article sound natural, [the algorithm] has to know the lingo,” BBC reporter Stephen Beckett wrote in a September article. “Each type of story, from finance to sport, has its own vocabulary and style.”

Stylistic techniques like lingo must be programmed into the algorithm at human discretion. For this reason, Kent suggests that robot reporting is not necessarily more objective than content produced by humans and is subject to the same objectivity considerations.

“I think the most pressing ethical concern is teaching algorithms how to assess data and how to organize it for the human eye and the human mind,” Kent said. “If you’re creating a series of financial reports, you might program the algorithm to lead with earnings per share. You might program it to lead with total sales or lead with net income. But all of those decisions are subject – as any journalistic decision is – to criticism.”

Since news judgement and organization are ethical questions that carry over from traditional reporting to robot journalism, Kent’s suggestion is to combat them in the same way.

“Everyone has a different idea about what fair reporting is,” he said. “The important thing is that you devote to your news decisions on automated news the same amount of effort you devote to your ethics and objectivity decisions at any other kind of news.”

Sharing Data

Finally, journalists must make decisions about the extent to which they engage audience members in the process of robot journalism.

University of Wisconsin-Madison journalism Prof. Lucas Graves, whose research focuses on new organizations and practices in the emerging news ecosystem, says disclosure is a must.

“I absolutely think outlets should be disclosing the use of algorithms,” he said. “If they aren’t, then they need to be asking themselves why.”

Kent echoes similar sentiments and goes even further in his Medium piece suggesting that outlets provide a link identifying the source of the data, the company that provides the automation and explain how the process works.

As algorithms develop and become more complicated into the future, Kent also advises that journalists remain diligent in both understanding how algorithms work, as well as how they interact with journalism ethics.

“As complicated as the algorithm gets, you have to document it carefully so that you always understand why it did what it did,” he said. “Just as any journalist who covers a particularly area should periodically reevaluate how she writes about the topic, we should always reevaluate algorithms. There is nothing about automated journalism that makes it less important to pay attention to ethics and fairness.”

Ethics in the News Oct. 13

A journalism ethics summit themed on traumatic event reporting is scheduled for Oct. 27 at the Center for Ethics in Journalism at the University of Arkansas.

The summit, “Take Care of Yourself: an introduction to journalism, trauma and the workplace,” aims at addressing the ethical concerns about the impact of traumatic events both on survivors and journalists.

Stephen Ward wrote about the steps newsrooms can take to ethically care for its journalists who face traumatic situations. He suggested:

      • Media outlets must acknowledge trauma as reality and a concern; not as a career “stopper”
      • They must regard trauma services as part of staff well-being, similar to other programs
      • They need to make information available to journalists and hold information sessions
      • They should offer confidential counseling
      • They should encourage journalists to monitor themselves and their colleagues
      • They need to develop a policy on reporting crises, such as rotating reporters and de-briefing

Journalists are obliged not only to be considerate when interviewing survivors and witnesses, but also to care for themselves Self-estrangement, frequently experienced by war reporters, may cause journalists to become antisocial and unable to emphasize for future reporting. Many institutions, like the Dart Center, have been providing guidance for journalists to report traumatic events.

Another aspect of this ethical issue is the line between objective reporting and active engagement. A CNN report featuring a correspondent providing medical treatment to a baby survivor of the 2010 Haiti earthquake had been criticized for misrepresentation and self-promotion. And media-savvy NGOs feeding journalists with disaster stories further complicate the issue.

Read more about trauma and journalists from the Center for Journalism Ethics here.

In other news this week:

Rezaian Conviction: How to Protect Journos with Dual Citizenship

News editors need to think more carefully — ahead of time — about how they plan to protect these journalists, should their citizenship get them into trouble. Far too often the strategy for handling this persecution is reactive instead of proactive. Continue reading