Skip to main content
University of Wisconsin–Madison

Category: Uncategorized

Why we need a radical new framework for media ethics

Posted on by Leave a reply

In “Radical Media Ethics: A Global Approach” I declare that the only way to rescue media ethics from sinking into oblivion is to think radically.

Let me explain.

We need to rethink the basis of media ethics from the ground up. The tweaking of ideas and re-formulation of rules, as seen in recent revisions of codes of ethics, is a temporary, localized fix. It does not address the larger conceptual swamp in which we find media ethics.

The most serious problem is not irresponsible journalists. The most serious problem is not differences between legacy and citizen journalism. The most serious problem is the sorry state of the framework of ideas we call media ethics.

Framework in a mess

wardbookThis framework, inherited from a non-global, pre-digital journalism, portrays the journalist as a professional gatekeeper who serves the public by informing citizens truthfully, impartially, objectively, and independently. She uses time-consuming verification procedures.

Given this interpretation, we have a means of evaluating practices.

The media revolution undermined the framework.

Principles, such as impartiality, are rejected. Instead of consensus we have a clash of values. Many new practitioners prefer an interpretive, engaged journalism far from the “straight” reporting admired by traditional media ethics. If time-honored principles such as truth-telling are maintained, there are disputes as to their meaning. For instance, what does accuracy mean in an era of instant updating? Where reinterpretations of principles are not available, we are left with a conceptual ‘hole’ in the middle of our ethics.

The result: We lack an agreed-upon framework for evaluating stories. Media ethics is like Humpty Dumpty after his big fall; it’s a mess.

What I’m advocating is a radical rethinking of media ethics for digital, global journalism, a new framework for others to build upon. I look for principles that might re-integrate media ethics. I put forward a code of global digital ethics.

Are you a radical, really?

Some people are puzzled or worried by my use of “radical.”

When I was growing up amid the Cold War, radical was a dangerous, negative word. It referred to Trotskyites and others who would replace capitalism with communism.

I was never a political radical.

My radicalness is one of idea. The first entry for “radical” in The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary says the word means “going to the root or origin … affecting what is fundamental; far-reaching; thorough.”

My radicalness is philosophical, but it is not divorced from the world. I have little patience for those who think philosophy is an abstract activity by elite thinkers detached from life. I follow Dewey and other pragmatic philosophers in defining philosophy as social and reformist.

Philosophy is engagement with the urgent issues of our time by critiquing assumptions and proposing alternatives.

When the winds of change blow, fundamental thinking is needed to overcome old beliefs that have atrophied into what J. S. Mill called “dead dogma,” and stand in the way of progress. In media ethics, the old ideas of news objectivity as just the facts, balance as always giving equal space to all sides, and impartiality as emotional detachment, are dead dogma.

Four imperatives

Photo by Ash Carter on Flickr and used here with Creative Commons license.

A radical attitude can be summarized by four imperatives for thinking, which are developed at length in my book:

Imperative #1: Think big, not only small

This follows from what I have said. Addressing specific dilemmas is important but at least some of us need to spend time thinking big. We need to propose a reinvention of media ethics that integrates the values of many types of journalism and has a chance of gaining the support of many types of practitioners.

Imperative #2: Think public, not personal

The reintegration of media ethics starts with broadening the political philosophy of journalism for digital media. This means rethinking, not abandoning, the public justification for journalism – the formulation of norms that apply across platforms and individuals. If we think of media ethics as only what each individual journalist embraces, no media ethics is possible. Moreover, the public will lose whatever faith they have left in journalism once they learn that journalists, despite their impact on society, think they can make up their own values.

We must never lose sight of the social nature of journalism. Its norms must be justified according to how they contribute to democracy and fulfill public responsibilities. The trouble is that traditional media ethics says too little about how new forms of journalism contribute to the public aims of journalism.

Imperative #3: Think discourse, not fixed principle

Traditional media ethics places a high importance on honoring pre-established content, such as the principles that occur at the start of most codes of ethics. Often such principles are considered to be absolute. Ethics, it is thought, needs unchanging foundations. Disagreement on principle is a sign of a weakness in our ethics.

At a time of media revolution, we should emphasize the process by which we assess media values. Principles are not absolutes but our best attempts to articulate our values for this period in journalism. Media ethics should be an open-ended discourse across platforms and borders. Ethics has always evolved, and we should expect, and welcome, criticism. Ethics is naturally, and rightly, contested.

Imperative 4: Think participation, not exclusion

As media ethics moves beyond professional newsrooms, it becomes ethics for everyone. The maintenance of good journalism is a society-wide responsibility. It requires that the public be part of ethical regulation. For example, the public should be able to participate meaningfully in the revision of codes of journalism ethics.

Applying the imperatives

The radical attitude, then, is one that thinks big and seeks reinvention, thinks of media ethics as evolving discourse without absolute principles, and stresses the public nature of practice in terms of justification and participation.

So, let’s adopt this attitude. What should we do with it?

For one thing, we should use this attitude to develop norms for increasingly prevalent areas of journalism:

  • Ethics of new media ecologies: Future media ethics should guide journalists working in non-traditional environments from nonprofit web sites to investigative centers within academia. Future media ethics should say useful things on the responsible use of new media, and how to deal with integrated newsrooms.
  • Ethics of interpretation and opinion: Interpretive and avocational journalism grows. Ethicists need to fill this gap by distinguishing between better and worse interpretations. They need to provide a specific meaning to such key concepts as “informed commentary,” “insightful analysis,” and “good interpretation.”
  • Ethics of activism: Activist journalism will also proliferate. But, when are activist journalists not propagandists? Rather than simply dismiss activist journalism on the traditional ground of objectivity, how can we develop a more nuanced understanding of this area of journalism?
  • Ethics of global democratic journalism: New thinking in ethics will need to reconstruct the role of journalism in global terms.

My book is only one attempt to start rethinking media ethics from the ground up. May there be other books, other attempts.

Stephen J. A. Ward is an internationally recognized media ethicist, author and educator, living in Madison, WI. He is Distinguished Lecturer in Ethics at the University of British Columbia, Courtesy Professor at the School of journalism and Communication at the University of Oregon, and founding director of the Center for Journalism Ethics at the University of Wisconsin.

This post originally published at MediaShift. Reposted here with permission.

Local news stations contribute to Nevada Attorney General race; posing questions

Posted on by Leave a reply

While allowable by Nevada state law, the $40,000 donation made by Intermountain West Communications and its local affiliates to a Nevada Attorney General candidate raised some ethical eyebrows as it was revealed.

Local NBC affiliates in Reno, Las Vegas and Elko made the contributions to Democratic Attorney General candidate Ross Miller, according to a recent article posted by Nevada Watchdog, a non-profit organization dedicated to covering Nevada state government activity.

“We do not take a position regarding the question of the ethics behind this practice, but we do believe the public should know the donations are being made,” Denise Roth Barber, managing director for the National Institute on Money in State Politics, said in the report.

But according to research conducted by OpenSecrets.org, media money in politics, whether local or national, is nothing new, and the more crucial aspect of the reality is the audience’s reaction to the donation rather than the media organization’s act of donating.

“Journalism is a reputational business,” Tom Rosentiel, director for the Pew Research Project for Excellence in Journalism, said in OpenSecrets’ report. “The appearance of a conflict of interest is the important thing, not necessarily whether or not [the donation] does influence content.”

 

 

 

 

Thought Catalog alleges bias in Washington Post piece

Posted on by Leave a reply

The publisher and members of Thought Catalog, a popular site similar to Buzzfeed and Upworthy, are upset with Washington Post over the question of bias following an article published in the Post.

According to jimromensko.com, the Washington Post article, titled “Inside the contradictory world of Thought Catalog, one of the Internet’s most reviled sites,” is seen by the executive editor of the Post as, “fairly straightforward and expansively reported… [and] anything but inflammatory.”

However, as Romensko’s piece points out, Thought Catalog Publisher Chris Lavergne became aware of the apparent bias of the reporter of the piece, Tim Herrera, following its publication. Lavergne cited Herreras running of a blog titled “Thought Catalog Haters,” a tweet in which Herrera confirmed he ran the blog, and numerous other tweets in which he supposedly “expresses animosity towards Thought Catalog.”

While Thought Catalog publishes some material that may offend or insult many people across the media landscape, there appears to be a conflict of interest with Herrera being the one to write this Post piece, given his known and public disdain towards Thought Catalog.

Email exchanges suggest CNN’s “Chicagoland” producers collaborated with Mayor Rahm Emanuel

Posted on by Leave a reply

According to the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel had an instrumental hand in shaping certain scenes of CNN’s supposedly unscripted documentary “Chicagoland.”

The Tribune reviewed more than 700 emails, which reveal that the producers worked closely with staff from the mayor’s office while filming the weekly episodes. In the emails, the mayor’s office expressed desire to pitch story ideas and even implied that their office had some editing power. In one such exchange between an Emanuel public relations representative and a mayoral aide, the aide wrote back that they would “have edits shortly.”

Still, other email messages were redacted, with the mayor’s office citing an exemption in Illinois open records law that says opinions or exchanges related to policy formulation do not have to be shared, the Tribune wrote. 

Also according to the newspaper, an Emanuel spokeswoman said that the mayor had worked with CNN as it would with any news outlet. The mayor had not provided information different from what he would usually give to reporters, including the Chicago Tribune, the spokeswoman said.

Before making a public records request for the emails, the Tribune ran a story in March questioning the motives behind the Chicagoland series. The story calls Chicagoland a “re-election campaign vehicle” and a way for Emanuel to sell “his heroic narrative.” Emanuel is portrayed as the hero above all the chaos of Chicago, and as the man who never backs down, the Tribune wrote. Although critics of Emanuel are allowed screen time, such criticism is juxtaposed against a “calm, reasonable and above the fray Rahm.”

Media critic Robert Feder, who had written an earlier blog post in favor of the series, later wrote that his “confidence was misplaced.” Feder said he reached out to Konkol, the Pulitzer-Prize winning narrator of the series, and Konkol remains proud of his role, which was to tell the story of real struggles facing Chicago.

It’s ironic that a documentary intended to reveal the political and social problems of Chicago partnered with political leaders. Even if the exchanges between the filmmakers and the mayor’s office wasn’t as collusive as the Tribune says, there are still other ethical warning signs such as the fact that filmmakers with connections to Emanuel’s brother, Ari, directed the series. Implying impropriety in Chicago while possibly exercising impropriety in documentary filmmaking calls into questions the judgment of  how a news network like CNN represented the series to viewers.

Update (5.1.2014)

As the series’ producers point out, this conversation is much bigger than one series.

“It’s about the evolution of journalism and the way authentic stories are told in the 21st century,” said Sarah Sherman of Brick City TV, the company that produced Chicagoland.

Sherman points to some of the several other conversations the series, and the way it came together, have sparked in local Chicago media, including a segment on pubic television station WTTW’s Chicago Tonight program featuring Craig Duff of Northwestern University and Jeffery Spitz of Columbia College.

Mark Levin, executive producer of Chicagoland, speaking on WBEZ-FM, responded to a question as to whether the program was “staged,” responded, “That’s ridiculous.”  Levin went on to explain that the very nature of producing a requires coordination, in this case with city hall.  “That’s… what we do. You don’t just walk into the mayor’s office … and start filming.”

Chicagoland aired eight weekly broadcasts, which premiered in late January and ended in April. Videos from the series can be viewed here.

[Image: CNN]

Journalist charged with hacking says information was legally obtained

Posted on by Leave a reply

Although journalists are sometimes sued for libel, or perhaps failing to disclose sources in an investigation, some now face a much newer accusation: illegal hacking.

Two companies, TerraCom Inc. and YourTel America recently threatened to sue a reporter for illegally downloading information. Isaac Wolf, a reporter for Scripps Howard News Service, said he was researching companies that provide discounted phone services to low income Americans when he stumbled across records containing Social Security number and birth dates.

Wolf subsequently published his findings and wrote a story about the company’s security flaw, which included a state-by-state breakdown of where the most security breaches were occurring.

Scripps Howard claims the records were easily accessible and not password protected, but TerraCom and YourTel American say the company “hacked” into their servers. An Indian company subcontracted by TerraCom and YourTel that processes applications for the phone program had put the personal information online. It is not clear if the Indian company will be involved in future lawsuits.

However, counsel for the two companies cited the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) as grounds for a lawsuit against Scripps Howard because the news service gained unauthorized access into computer files and transferred this information into their servers. Scripps Howard argues they did not violate the CFAA and remain  innocent – all the information was obtained through simple searches accessible to the public.

The CFAA is not without its critics. Prominent computer crime law attorney Tor Ekeland said the CFAA is problematic because of its broadness and the act leaves a lot of parameters like “unauthorized access” open to interpretation. Another critic, Wire magazine, published a story calling the current CFAA vague, redundant, and vulnerable to abuse from prosecution.

Another example of the problems associated with the CFAA is the death of Aaron Schwartz. After computer programmer Aaron Schwartz committed suicide while facing felony charges for computer fraud, Internet activists protested the CFAA for driving the young prodigy to his death.

Although  Schwartz  definitely committed a crime, supporters believe he was treated harshly. Schwartz had recently stolen millions of documents from JSTOR by hacking into the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s network. He was facing 35 years of jail time at the time of his suicide.

In response, several United States Representatives introduced Aaron’s Law this past summer, an amendment to the CFAA that would reduce punishments and eliminate jail time. According to govtrack.us, the bill has an 8 percent chance of being enacted.

Documentaries: Journalism but not necessarily unbiased journalism

Posted on by Leave a reply

In general, documentaries’ have evolved as a distinguished genre and separated themselves from more entertainment-oriented Hollywood movies through a foundation of unbiased, fact-based journalism. 

However, documentaries that advocate for a specific cause do not always present an unbiased narrative.

Blackfish, a 2013 documentary, presents a harrowing narrative of whales in captivity, especially at SeaWorld–focusing on one event at SeaWorld where a whale killed its trainer.

Blackfish clearly presents an objective to engage people in the ongoing animal rights discussion through shocking footage of the trainers’ death and emotional interviews from previous SeaWorld trainers. It has sparked an intense discussion of animal rights and rallied activist groups.

The biased narrative is not the only ethical concern of the documentary that took in $2.1 million at the domestic box office.

Michael Cieply, writing for The New York Times, details another potential problem for Blackfish, which involves potential ethical and professional violations by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) employee who investigated the trainer’s death in 2010.

The SeaWorld complaint said Ms. Padgett provided confidential documents from the safety review and a subsequent mediation to one of the film’s producers, Tim Zimmermann.

Cieply reported that SeaWorld “cited a government ethical code” which ensures that public officials do not endorse “private activity” in response to OSHA employee, Lara Padgett’s, support for the documentary’s public relations blow to SeaWorld via social media.

Padgett’s comments via social media included:

“Wow … take that Sea World!!!! They’ve got to be getting nervous now,” she wrote last July, after linking to a report, “Blackfish on the move in Europe.”

Blackfish’s official website describes the film as “a mesmerizing psychological thriller.” However, Director Gabriela Cowperthwaite described the film as an “80-minute airtight, fact-driven documentary” in an interview with an editorial coordinator at Sundance.

Cowperthwaite continued:

 I wanted it to feel like a detailed, truthful narrative and wanted to “show, not tell” audiences a story. In my opinion, we’re more inspired when we discover something on our own, than we are when we’re told how to think or feel.

Many people agree that Blackfish is bringing attention to a just cause. However, the means in which Blackfish presents a heavily skewed narrative while potentially facing other ethical violations do not reflect the strong journalistic qualities common of the documentary genre.

Olympians have sponsors write social media posts

Posted on by Leave a reply

Multiple reports surfaced last week that sponsors may be writing some of the Olympians social media posts, working with their managers and publicists to craft messages from the athletes’ personal accounts. Reps for figure skating darlings Ashley Wagner and Gracie Gold both reported that the athletes have sponsors compose some of their tweets, as told in a story by U.S. News.

For example, Cover Girl (owned by Procter & Gamble) has been promoting pictures of Wagner on the figure skater’s personal social media accounts. Wagner has retweeted images of the skater modeling for Cover Girl, and posted an Instagram pic promoting red lipstick. Hilton Honors, a reward program for the Hotel chain, has also been mentioned on Wagner’s Twitter.

It’s no secret that the Olympics pull in an enormous amount of advertising revenue, and from countries all over the world. Large corporations that have the money to do so are wise to advertise with the Olympics. But in recent years, it’s become even easier to latch on to the Olympic brand without becoming an official sponsor. Global Language Monitor, a marketing analyst group located in Texas, released a report with Gold, Silver and Bronze medals for companies that have done the best promoting their brand at the Olympics.

Among the top leaders in advertising were Subway, P&G, Samsung, Panasonic, Coca-Cola and Rolex, even though only Coca-Cola, P&G and Samsung are listed as official sponsors under the Olympic Partner Programme. Obviously, some companies are doing well – maybe even so well that they don’t need to pay top dollar to the Olympics Committee.

Olympians aren’t the only ones who let others use their social media accounts for advertising and other promotions. Other athletes and celebrities do this as well. But advertisements from an individual’s social media account could lead to future ethical problems. How do followers know what material is promotional, and what is a truthful endorsement? In the future, how can consumers trust Wagner’s opinions if she is being paid for her answers? Wagner does include a line in her Twitter bio: “Thank You, Mom & Cover Girl,” and it is a verified account – so many Twitter views might actually believe her tweets are coming from her, instead of Cover Girl or Hilton.

Wisconsin public official blurs line between journalist and politician

Posted on by Leave a reply

Dodgeville, Wis. Mayor, Todd Novak, has worked for the local Dodgeville Chronicle for the past 24 years–and now he’s running for the state Assembly.

Chris Rickert, writing for the Wisconsin State Journal, cautioned, if Novak is elected, “his judgment and ability to understand the meaning of ‘conflict of interest'” would extend beyond the small town weekly paper, creating a, “direct impact on 5.7 million Wisconsinites, not just the 4,700 of them who live in Dodgeville.” 

Novak pointed out the Dodgeville Chronicle makes sure he doesn’t cover issues that conflict with his position as Mayor and that the paper would be sure to ‘nail’ him in print for any unethical behavior, like accepting a bribe.

The Center for Journalism Ethics’ director, Robert Drechsel, referencing the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, discussed the ethical implications of Novak’s position as both a journalist and an elected official with Rickert. 

[Drechsel] pointed to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, which says, in part, that journalists should “avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived” and “shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.”

Read the entire article here.

 

Making yourself the Story: American Journalists and the 2014 Olympic games

Posted on by Leave a reply

Although the Olympics are supposed to be all about international sportsmanship, for many journalists, the games often become a critique of the host country’s politics. During Beijing’s 2008 games, journalists wrote about China’s human rights violations. And two years later in Vancouver, they questioned the displacement of Canadians in preparation for the games.

These types of stories appear around every Olympics games.  This year in Sochi, journalists complaining about the conditions in hotel rooms and buildings are making themselves part of the story. Reporters representing numerous publications from the U.S. have taken to Twitter to share comical, yet somewhat critical photos of Sochi. From missing light bulbs to awkward bedroom arrangements, journalists have had no qualms protesting their housing. Someone even created an @Sochiproblems Twitter account, which now has more followers than the official @Sochi2014 handle.

Are their stories true? Most likely. Are their posts funny? Usually, yes. A framed picture of Vladimir Putin in your hotel room isn’t something you see everyday.

But journalists at the Olympics may be making ethical errors for a couple different reasons: the first being the message that their “pampered” tweets are sending to the rest of the world. CBS recently released a story that compiled tweets from people calling out the privileged and whiny nature of the journalists’ tweets. It’s a perspective worth considering. For all the reporters living and working in third world countries, a trip to Sochi right now would be luxurious beyond belief. Even journalists living comfortably in the United States would love to have the chance to go to Sochi, and would happily sleep in a hotel with two toilets per stall if that meant the opportunity to interview the greatest athletes in the world.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, journalists are skewing the focus of their assignment by writing about themselves. The goal of most news organizations is to write about other people and their experiences, and not about the water in their hotel rooms. Most of the reporters in Sochi are employees of a news organization (who is paying for them to be there), and many even have the name of their publication in their Twitter byline. As a result, it’s difficult to imagine that international reporters will not see them as representative of American news, and American-style reporting.

By this point in the games, the chatter about hotel rooms and unfinished projects has died down. It’s old news, and most of the journalists are now excellently reporting the events of Sochi. But in just two more short years, journalists will find something new to complain about, and perhaps even another way to shine the spotlight on themselves.

Publishing classified information leads to search of reporter’s private email account

Posted on by Leave a reply

U.S. authorities used an affidavit as legal means to search a journalist’s private emails after he published classified national defense information. The U.S. state department official who gave the information to the journalist will likely serve a 13-month prison sentence for passing classified information to a journalist.

A story James Rosen, a reporter for Fox News, published about North Korea in June 2009, specifically the detail that North Korean sources informed the CIA that North Korea would conduct new nuclear tests in retaliation of recent UN sanctions, brought the FBI (with affidavit in hand) to Rosen’s private email account, according to an article from BBC News.

The state department intelligence adviser, Stephen Kim, admitted and pleaded guilty to the unapproved disclosure of U.S. national defense intelligence.

David Ingram, writing for Reuters, described the frustration from journalists and freedom of the press proponents regarding the search of Rosen’s private emails, as journalists have generally been able to publish government secrets without being prosecuted. 

In developments last year that drew outcry from advocates for press freedom, the FBI obtained Rosen’s emails as part of its investigation into Kim and described Rosen in a search warrant affidavit as a possible criminal co-conspirator.

Ingram also wrote that Rosen has not been charged and the Justice Department said it will not seek future charges against the Fox News reporter. 

On Obama’s orders, the Justice Department revised its guidelines and said it would not seek search warrants against journalists for carrying out “ordinary news-gathering activities.”

Read the entire Reuters article here.

This recent case is among a total of 8 court cases prosecuting alleged government leaks since Obama became President in 2009, and only the 11th in U.S. history. The most prominent in this series of prosecutions are Army Pvt. Chelsea Manning and former NSA contractor Edward Snowden who each disclosed many thousands of classified government documents in 2013.

While Rosen, the journalist involved in this recent case, was not prosecuted for reporting the classified information, national security, whistle blowers and government secrets continue to be widely contested issues for journalists and media outlets. While the government cites national security for the rise in the prosecution of leaks, a growing concern is that journalists won’t publish classified information for fear of prosecution. 

To engage in this ongoing debate, join the Center for Journalism Ethics’ annual conference Surveillance, Security and Journalism Ethics to discuss the issues facing 21st century journalism in a world of Wikileaks, NSA sweeps, corporate cooperation, whistleblowers and data mining May 2.