The public is as equally accountable as journalists (Newswriting)

Roy Peter Clark, senior scholar and writer for Poynter Online, holds the public partially responsible for bias against journalists. Clark provides several main points in which he gives the public benefit of the doubt, but he also explains how and why the public is accountable.

"But I hold journalists less responsible -- and the public more responsible -- for misperceptions of news media performance," Clark said. "In short, the last two decades have seen unprecedented attacks upon the legitimacy of the news media."

I agree with Clark, and I'm not doing it strictly because I consider myself a journalist, but because I never thought to hold the public just as accountable as journalists.

It's the journalist's duty to remain unbiased and to give the most objective story as possible. I truly believe a journalist wouldn't be in the field if he or she didn't think so as well. True, there are the "bad apples" that smear journalism's credibility, but that is seen in every profession as well.

The public remains solely dependent on media for news, and journalists will go to the most extreme measures in bringing the news to them. There have been record number of journalists killed from being in war-torn areas, and yet all journalists ever hear are the criticisms from the public. Where is the good that comes from journalism? Where the people who appreciate the lives and professions being risked to inform the public?

Clark argues that without "public support and a growing audience," journalists will become unable to accomplish the responsibility to report. Journalists are lacking credibility, and it continues to decline. There has to be trust between both the public and journalists to achieve the most informational news as possible. Where is the support and credibilty going to be in 30 years if this doesn't happen? I see journalists who don't care about the truth, and the public in having finally killed news.

Here's to furthering the distrust in journalism (Ethics)

The New York Times has received over 4,000 questions concerning the article published last week regarding Republican presidential candidate John McCain. Editors and reporters who worked with the story have attempted to answer a substantial amount of questions.

One question, asked by Debbie Collazo from Tucson, AZ, caught my attention: "Why did The New York Times strongly endorse Senator McCain to be the Republican Party nominee in January, if at the same time the paper was well aware of and continuing to investigate what it considered to be front-page, damaging, 'un-presidential' charges?"

Among the several concerns I have, the answer provided by Richard W. Stevenson, The New York Times political editor, caught me off guard.

According to Stevenson, "The short answer is that the news department of The Times and the editorial page are totally separate operations that do not consult or coordinate when it comes to news coverage and endorsements or other expressions of editorial opinion. We in the newsroom did not speak to anyone at the editorial page about the story we were working on about Senator McCain. They did not consult us about their deliberations over endorsements of the presidential candidates."

Stevenson continues on to explain that newspapers should not endorse presidential candidates, and he had not heard The New York Times was supporting candidates until he read about it in the paper.

Excuse me? First, I'm floored at how both sections do not communicated with one another, but this brings up an extremely ethical concern in journalism. According to Professor Steffen, newspapers have always endorsed candidates, but should newspapers be allowed to endorse political candidates?

Stevenson's response left me grappling with the issue of endorsing candidates, which had previously been discussed in class. At one end, I believe newspapers should not endorse presidential candidates. There continues to be distrust in journalism, and this provides another opportunity for citizens to feel as if newspapers are biased. At the other side of the argument, The New York Times published an article publicly and blatantly against a candidate they endorsed.

In all actuality, publishing the article should counteract people's beliefs of newspapers being biased, but The New York Times is viewed as a liberal paper and Senator McCain is Republican. The question raised by Collazo is legitimate in essentially asking, "How can you slam a candidate whom you publicly endorse?" I view endorsing as another word for "supporting," and The New York Times did nothing to "endorse" with this article. Sadly, this will only support the Republican view as The New York Times being public enemy number one. With almost every paper endorsing candidates, how ethical is it to endorse someone while attempting to present information on a factual basis.

With over 4,000 people asking questions, The New York Times is staying busy dressing the wound they shot in their foot.

What did The New York Times really mean?

According to Next Steps on McCain Story: Repeating What You Don't Report on Poynter.org, writer Kelly McBride reports on the issue of how The New York Times wrote For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk. It appears she almost criticizes the information involved with the story and how that paper practically accuses McCain of adultery and less-than-adherence to his personal ethics.

McBride ends her story stating, "The rest of the journalism world bears responsibility for minimizing or magnifying that distortion."

The distortion she refers to is the fact that the story begins and ends with idea that McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman were "close" eight years ago. Other examples of his ethics were given, but adultery is what the reader will be left with.

The New York Times should have gone a different route in examining his moral code. Beginning and ending the story with the relationship between him and Iseman would obviously leave the reader with the impression that adultery occurred although both denied a romantic relationship. How many times have you heard that one before? But that's not the point.

The point is the "distortion" McBride writes about. I read the story, and all I could think about was, "Wow! How many times have I heard a politician denying any sexual relations (Bill Clinton anyone?) and it's proved true."

Was the story truly about McCain's ethical judgment or more about a supposedly close relationship? With the campaign increasing becoming intense, it was not necessary for The Times to release information about him and Iseman. They needed to focus on one issue or the other, or subtly write about the contact between the two. Sadly enough, I found the article extremely well written, but felt it sent a different message than it intended to. Maybe the writer wanted to evaluate McCain's past ethical actions, but the reader is left with a different image and forgets the rest of the story. Or maybe that image is really what The New York Times aimed for.

The Rationality Behind the Kidder Model (Ethics)

Earlier this week, democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama repeated the exact words of a fellow friend and politician during a speech. Now, fellow presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is accusing him of political plagiarism and calling him out on it. According to an article posted on MSNBC.com, Clinton "'said he represented 'change you can Xerox.'"

Is Obama in the wrong for using his friend's speech even though there had been consent? Was it ethical for him to use the words of another during a high profile time in the presidential race? I'm going to use Kidder's Ethical Decision-Making Model as a rational process to decide whether he was or was not ethical by not giving credit to Deval Patrick.

According the checkpoint one, I have recognized the moral dilemma of Obama's choice of words in what can be known as political plagiarism. It's hard to disagree that there was no credit given to his friend because there wasn't. Several aspects of the Kidder Model include deception to the public, deception and misrepresentation by not giving credit to the actual source, and careerism because he had his personal self-interest when repeating his friend's speech and not giving credit.

Checkpoint number two involves recognizing the "actor." Who's moral responsibility is it? Obama is obviously the chosen one in this situation to have said something along the lines of, "These are not my words." The public did not know he was citing someone else until after the speech had been given, and they didn't find out from Obama himself. Consequently, it's left up to journalists, the public, or Hillary Clinton (bad news for Obama).

Gathering relevant facts is checkpoint number three. Obama did not lie, but also did not cite his friend. He also did not tell the public what he did; we told him. Did he have consent? Yes, but that's still as if he knew the author of a book and used passages without citing them for a collegiate level paper.

Checkpoints number four and five involve evaluating other alternatives and the test for right-versus-wrong issues. In my opinion, the best alterative would have been to leave the friend's speech out completely. This is Obama's campaign and no one else's. As for the tests, I'm unsure of the fers test, so I'll consider that one exempt. But as it relates to the front-page test, I'm sure Obama would not have wanted his accusation on the front page. Whether what he did goes against the "grain of his moral principles," I'm also sure he would not the public to think him as an immoral person and candidate. Regarding the molar exemplar test, this should not have been a moral temptation. No credit given equals plagiarism. Now, continue onto checkpoint number six.

The truth versus loyalty is obvious. Truth always wins, but Obama never lied. He didn't deny the accusation of using his friend's speech, so is this one irrelevant? My opinion is yes. With individual verses community, Obama chose himself, the individual. This incident will affect Obama in the long run. Look at what Clinton's doing now. She's attempting to tear him apart, and some people will listen. What is his professional role and purpose? It should be to represent that he can be the next President. He needs to posses the qualities that the majority of voters want and can trust. With Clinton jumping down his throat, he does taint his image at least a little.

Checkpoint number seven is next! With the different philosopher's we've learned in class, I'll focus on Aristotle's Golden Mean is applicable to this situation. When is it all right for a presidential candidate to run for office, use someone else's words, but not technically lie that he did it? Can he be punished for it when he had the consent of the other gentleman? The biggest question is, how much can the public truly blame him?

Finally, the last checkpoints of number eight and nine in the longest blog in history. Here I'm supposed to make a decision, defend it, and then return to my decision and reflect. What's my decision? It was unethical to give the speech. I'm not debating as to whether it should have been given at all (because really I don't), but the fact is that there was no credit given at the beginning, middle, or end of what he said. Even with consent there has to be credit given or else everyone believes you actually thought of it. Should Obama be reprimanded? I think Clinton's doing enough all ready, but the issue remains the same. At the time, the public believed it was his speech.

By using the Kidder Model, it is difficult to argue the unethical persepective by the time you get the end of it. I began this blog thinking, "Who cares? It doesn't matter because Patrick is his friend." But it does matter. Political plagarism is what it is; without giving someone else the credit they desere, it's stealing something that is not yours . Maybe I am a rational person after all.

Since when does the media withhold information? (both)

According Timothy Noah’s article in Slate, The New York Times is not releasing a study evaluating the war in Iraq. In comparison to the Pentagon Papers, which pertained to the Vietnam War, both studies have been conducted by RAND Corporation, yet the 1971 report was released and the current one is not.

Noah states, “The main difference is that while the Pentagon Papers reprinted many secret government documents about the Vietnam war, and therefore were classified top secret, the Iraq war study, which was based on interviews with ‘more than 50 civilian and military officials,’ is unclassified."

He also writes that while The New York Times published this story, they did not published important sections of the report even though they have obtained a copy of the document.

According to the article in the New York Times, “A review of the lengthy report -- a draft of which was obtained by The New York Times -- shows that it identified problems with nearly every organization that had a role in planning the war.”

So, why hasn’t the New York Times published direct evidence of the “identified problems” even though the report is considered unclassified? Something, or someone, may be holding the venerable paper from republishing the report. With the issue of prior restraint, that problem has all ready been dealt with when the Pentagon Papers arose and The New York Times won legal rights to publish their stories. The New York Times had to go through the Supreme Court to publish the Pentagon Papers, and now they're willing to withhold vital information from the public. And, as with the Pentagon Papers, doesn’t the public deserve the right to be better informed?

It seems to me this is exactly how Walter Lippmann would prefer the media to behave — give some information to the general public and only allow the top-dogs to fully understand the situation. With media providing as the “gatekeepers” of information, it appears the press is withholding information that Americans would deem necessary and important to make a better informed decision on the war in Iraq. This information still involves the sons and daughters of our nation.

Press Snooping for the Public? (both)

Since 2002, speculation about a more-than-professional relationship between Detroit Mayer Kwame Kilpatrick and his chief of staff, Christine Beatty, came one step closer to the truth when the Detroit Free Press published a story stating there had been official document containing a secret settlement agreement between Kilpatrick, Beatty, and two officers. Not only was the document recovered, but 14,000 text messages were retrieved from Beatty's "city-issued paging device" that have been shared with the public as well.

For those of you who don't know, two Detroit police officers sued the city for retaliatory firing when they were investigating the mayor's security team, which could have led to discovery of the couple. Under oath, Kilpatrick and Beatty both denied any allegations of sexual relations between each other., and the court settled in the cops favor.

According to Slate writer Bonnie Goldstein, "Kilpatrick filed an appeal, but after Nelthrope and Brown subpoenaed text messages sent between Kilpatrick and Beatty, Kilpatrick changed his mind and quietly settled, even agreeing to give the cops $2 million over the jury award. Inquiring minds wondered: What was in those text messages, anyway?"

Well, those text messages have been recovered and published; Kilpatrick and Beatty's relationship is a secret no more. It is extremely evident there were sexual relations between the two, but what right does the press have to go as far to release the text messages? It seems more like an invasion of privacy.

What I question is whether the press retrieved the text messages for public purposes or curiosity. This is the first time I've ever heard of salvaging text messages, and it adds to the fact that our lives may be becoming more and more like an open book. Former President Bill Clinton faced a similar situation with Monica Lewinsky in the fact that he lied under oath, and later the truth came out. Even though the press had a right to retrieve those text messages, was it an intrusion into their personal lives once published?

Agreeing with Keen on This One (Ethics)

In Jack Shafer's recent Slate article, "Fishermen Beat Rare Dolphin to Death," it appears he chastises several common news site usage of articles. Sites, such as CNN.com, MSNBC.com, and Foxnews.com seem to make use of the most extravagant stories they can find to lure readers. Shafer states, "What the sites really love are sordid stories that can be presented as serials, if not cliffhangers."

I think what Shafer's trying to argue is the ethical issue of what websites, such as the three previously mentioned, post. In Shafer's anaylsis, it appears each site tries to outshine the other. The topics of some of the "top stories" are absolutely outlandish, but they all have one thing in common; they are beginning to have the appearance as that of the National Esquire.

I don't care how a "British teen films herself trying to kill parents." Personally, it's a degrading to find the front pages of these three websites splattered with useless information. The idea of "useless information" brings me to idea of "democratiziation" argued by Andrew Keen, author of The Cult of the Amatuer. Granted, Keen specifically discusses topics such as blogging and using Wikipedia, but what happens when credible news sources report more on entertainment than political issues itself? I'm not a full believer of Keens arguement, but isn't what he's saying related to Shafer's point made in the article? It seems a majority of these outlandish stories appear not in newspapers or journals, but on the internet. News websites are reporting factual stories, but the type Shafer's criticise make for great table talk, not broadening the intellectual scope of the human mind.