Doing Ethics in Media

Companion to "Doing Ethics in Media: Theories and Practical Applications"

Doing Ethics in Media - Companion to "Doing Ethics in Media: Theories and Practical Applications"

Category Archives: Journalism

Fox News says GOP politicians say sequestration is just hype, but fails to notice GOP politicians worried about sequestration

sequestration_FoxFoxNews.com’s top story is a think piece that quotes plenty of GOP folks saying that the Obama administration is making too much out of the impending mandatory cuts to federal spending.
sequestration2_Fox
The headline: “Economic Armageddon? Republicans call sequester warnings hype.” (Or, a sexier hed from the site’s front page: Chicken Little Tactics? GOP
Points to Sequester Fear as Hype.) Note that the headline includes a question mark, the clever way of asking a question that provides its own answer.

The first four paragraphs:

First there was the debt-ceiling crisis. Then the “fiscal cliff.” Now it’s the “sequester.”

While Congress averted the first two crises, it looks like lawmakers do not have a way out of the automatic spending cuts poised to hit Friday — at least not yet.

But are they really as bad as the Obama administration says?

Republican lawmakers, while acknowledging the whole situation is far from ideal, have increasingly come to the conclusion that, no, they’re not.

The story includes:
* A GOP congressman saying it’s no big deal.
*A blind quote from a congressional aide.
*A claim that the Congressional Budget Office saying the cuts will be much less — but no link to the CBO’s math so we can judge for ourselves.
* More quotes from a GOP congressman and senator.

Missing from the story is any response from the issue from any Democrat on this specific question. That’s not surprising, although the story doesn’t say whether anyone asked for Democratic comment.

sequestrationBNews

From the front page of The Birmingham News, Feb. 27

But what is surprising is that, had anyone at Fox done any looking, they would have found lots of Republicans worried about budget cuts. (And you don’t even have to look through regional papers, such as today’s Birmingham News front page.)

Multiple stories from the Republican Governors Association press conference, in which governors blamed Obama even as they worried about the cuts. It’s part of a package about a real or imagined rift between GOP governors and Congress.

In fact, you have to look deep into Fox archives to find any mention from a GOP governor that the cuts will have an effect.

Bad journalism? Or journalism designed to fit a narrative?

How responsible are journalists for catching liars Lance Armstrong, Manti Te’o and others?

Political cartoonist Chip Bok, a Pulitzer finalist, pulls together both recent strings of jock lies.

The world’s most famous cyclist, Lance Armstrong, lied and lied and lied, and even sued a news organization who called out his lies. (He may have even lied while backpedaling for Oprah.)

Notre Dame defensive player Manti Te’o, whether he meant to or not, lied about what turned to be an imaginary girlfriend.

The result is another round of hand-wringing about the “diminished role” of investigative journalism and media who, as National Public Radio wrote, “let its guard down.”

It should be “let their guard down,” because media are plural, dangit. But confusing media as a singular entity helps prove the point of this post, which reminds us that even as lots of journalists failed to catch the lies, eventually a journalist caught the lies.

It’s tough to be a journalist, because lots of people and organizations lie to you (and, by definition, to the public), stonewall with “no comment” or piecemeal answers, provide general “statements” on a topic instead of answering specific questions, or bend their answers so far in their own favor that the truth is broken by most ethical standards.

More than once I heard Randy Henderson, my late city editor at The Birmingham News, say to a caller complaining about a story: “We print lies every day, because people lie to us every day.” Journalists cannot look into the hearts of others. Journalists don’t have subpoena power but must be more exacting than prosecutors, because a prosecutor who loses a criminal case won’t face libel charges.

In the case of Te’o, I’m reminded of this scene from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, in which principal Ed Rooney is right when he doesn’t believe that Sloan Peterson’s grandmother is dead. He calls out Mr. Peterson (that is to say, Ferris) on the phone:

Oh, sure. I’d be happy to release Sloane. You produce a corpse and I’ll release Sloane. I want to see this dead grandmother firsthand. … That’s right. Just roll her old bones all over here and I’ll dig up your daughter. It’s school policy.

A journalist wouldn’t do it that way, of course, and even Principal Rooney was snookered by Bueller, a high-quality liar.

I believe it’s tougher than ever for journalists to move beyond the carefully constructed PR façade of athletics, much less catch liars, in this age when top college athletic departments censor their own athletes, restrict journalists’ access, seek to dictate what can be reported, pressure journalists who oppose the PR line, and bypass media gatekeeping with information delivered to a public that may not distinguish the difference or want to kill the messengers who deliver bad news about their favorite teams. (Feel free to replace the references to athletics with “politicians,” “radio morning-show hosts,” “businesses,” or other liars as you wish.)

This does not excuse bad journalism, of course, and there’s plenty of that to go around. Many journalists don’t ask the right questions, don’t want the truth to impede on a good story, are too busy feeding the never-sated digital beast, or want to believe that people are basically good, or lots of other reasons.

The (sort-of) good news: In the cases of Lance and Te’o and others, remember that journalism eventually did its job:

  • Even as Armstrong lied and lied and sued and lied and intimidated and lied, some journalists continued to pursue the truth.
  • It wasn’t until after the Deadspin story that Notre Dame, which knew about the hoax possibility for weeks, hastily called its press conference and (began to) explain the situation. Meanwhile, Te’o admits that he “tailored” accounts of his story, even after Notre Dame says it had begun its investigation.
  • We can go on, with examples of Olympian-turned-felon Marion Jones and plenty of presidents (Nixon, Clinton, etc.), presidential candidates and many more famous people who invested years lying to journalists.

The world’s ability to lie outstrips journalism’s ability to call out the liars. And in this world of more-and-better liars and fewer journalists, it’s not getting easier.

Do journalists work for readers — or their (bosses’) bosses? A CNET and CBS vs. Dish example

Journalists running afoul of the real-or-imagined business interests of their bosses is nothing new.

As a technology columnist for The Birmingham News and Newhouse Newspapers in the 1990s, I remember being told I couldn’t mention AT&T’s debut of its online, searchable Yellow Pages because they competed for ads with the newspaper. (Seems quaint now, doesn’t it?)

The latest example of journalists not thinking of business interests came at the Consumer Electronics Show, after CNET sent a tweet naming Dish Network’s “Hopper with Sling” product was among its finalists for a “Best of CES” award.

As Buzzfeed explains, there’s a problem: CBS owns CNET, and CBS hates “Hopper” because the new digital video recorder makes it easy for viewers to blow, or at least hop, past commercials. CBS hates it so much that it and Fox have sued Dish, because (as Fox says) the Hopper has “the clear goal of violating copyrights and destroying the fundamental underpinnings of the broadcast television ecosystem.”

CBS executives made sure the product didn’t make the CNET’s final Best of CES list, which concluded with with this caveat:

The Dish Hopper with Sling was removed from consideration due to active litigation involving our parent company CBS Corp. We will no longer be reviewing products manufactured by companies with which we are in litigation with respect to such product.

Dish, of course, is claiming that CBS is evil for “censoring” CNET. (Others might argue that Dish has been known to censor, too, by dropping desirable channels over contract disputes.)

Ultimately, this seems to be a case of journalists not knowing that — whether they like it or not — their top loyalty was not allowed to be with readers.

Jan. 14, 2013: An update: Greg Sandoval of CNET has quit over CBS’ interference, saying that journalists “are supposed to be truth tellers.”

Discuss…

The Chicago Sun-Times shows “The Mirage” series again

If you’re into media ethics history — or just like to see power-chord journalism with a slice of ethical quandries — then take a look at The Chicago Sun-Times online publication of The Mirage series.

In 1977, The Chicago Sun-Times went undercover with the non-profit Better Government Administration and CBS to show rampant corruption among public officials who regulate businesses. Their bar, aptly named “The Mirage,” was chock-full of cameras and other equipment that allowed reporters to surreptitiously capture the full-on glory of graft, bribes and threats.

The series, published in 1978 and later as a book, led to lots of convictions and calls for reform — and a fight over the ethics of deception that continues to rage. Pulitzer judges in the general reporting category gave the series its nod for a win, but Washington Post editor (and Pulitzer board member) Ben Bradlee persuaded others that such deception was not award-worthy.

Since then, there are plenty of examples of deception and undercover work by journalists. But none seems to have received the attention drawn by that bar.

When is it right to break a law for a greater good?

British regulators are starting an inquiry into Sky News, which acknowledged that it  hacked into email accounts in search of information about a canoeist who faked his own death and an alleged pedophile who later died in prison.

As The Independent newspaper reported on April 13:

John Ryley, head of Sky News, told the Leveson Inquiry into press standards that occasions where a journalist would break the law in pursuit of a story would be “very, very rare.”
“Journalism is at times a tough business,” he said. “And we need at times to shed light into wrongdoing. There may be an occasion. It would be very, very rare.”

Several times in Doing Ethics in Media, we discuss that sometimes there’s justification to break a law in order to do a greater good:
* In Chapter 4′s discussion of moral development, we note Kohlberg’s hierarchy that says highly developed people might be willing to break the rules.
* In Chapter 7′s discussion of truth, we note that most journalism ethics codes don’t outright forbid undercover operations (a form of lying) but provide guidelines related to when doing something that might be morally questionable would be appropriate as the best or only way to do that greater good.

Is this one of those cases where the news organization was justified in breaking the law?

The Levenson Inquiry may help decide that, although it’s more focused on legal issues than moral nuances. The Guardian newspaper says British laws against breaking into private communications do not mention “public good” as a defense.

Moreover, some circumstantial evidence may not work in Sky News’ favor, including the fact that:
* Sky News didn’t tell the truth the first time it was asked whether it had intercepted email. Chapter 13 notes that mass communicators should be transparent in their decision-making, both willing and able to defend themselves. (As the “How’s it going to look” question says,”…imagine what your friends and people you respect will think.” about your decision.)
* There are phone hacking issues surrounding News Corp., which owns a partial interest in Sky News. While no one here suggests that the phone hacking that occurred at News Corp. tabloids and the Sky News email hacking are related, some people might make that connection. Either way, the two different sets of questionable actions adds up to people who lump “media” into a single category.
* Sky News planned on turning over what it found to police. (Some might argue that police and journalists ought not to work together.)
* The managing editor who authorized the hacking isn’t with Sky News anymore. Cole says his retirement was planned and not connected to the investigation. But given that the company lied to the government when first asked about the hacking, credibility is already low.

Questions to ask:
* What do you think?
* In what circumstances can journalists break the law for a greater good?
* Should journalists be legally responsible for their actions when they break laws for a greater good?
* How important is accountability/transparency in such situations?
* Is this posting fair in mentioning the News Corp. connection to Sky News?

Some celebrity dietary supplement endorsers won’t talk to Consumer Reports

Consumer Reports is a rarity among magazines: It accepts no advertising and generally buys the products it tests. Its credibility tends to demand the respect of the companies it writes about.

Consider, then, the magazine’s March 2012 story about dietary supplements and the celebrities who endorse them. Noting that the Federal Trade Commission requires that endorsements “must reflect the celebrity’s honest experience or opinion,” it tried to track down some celebrity endorsers. Just two of six responded:

  • NFL quarterback Michael Vick: his PR guys said Vick takes MusclePharm every day.
  • Hockey hero Wayne Gretzky: his agent said Gretzky takes a MYO-T12 pill every day.
  • NFL running back Ray Rice: his PR guy said Rice wasn’t available.
  • Famous for no apparent reason Kim, Khloé and Kourtney Kardashian: their PR person said they weren’t available for an interview about a weight-loss supplement.
  • Jersey Shore’s Ronnie Ortiz-Magro: no response to Consumer Reports’ efforts to contact him about a weight-loss supplement.
  • Former coach/current Fox NFL analyst Jimmy Johnson: no response to Consumer Reports’ efforts to contact him about ExtenZE, a sexual-performance supplement for men.

Some questions for a classroom discussion:

  • How does this make the products and celebrities look in the eyes of readers?
  • Note that Consumer Reports wrote that “multiple efforts to reach”Ortiz-Magro and Johnson “were unsuccessful.” Why does the magazine use passive voice in these instances?
  • Does an endorser have a responsibility to respond to questions about whether they actually use the products they endorse?
  • Why do companies seek celebrities to endorse medical-focused products?
  • What products have you bought (or not bought) because of a celebrity’s endorsement?
  • Consumer Reports noted that dietary supplements can “come to market without proof they’re safe and effective,” because the FDA has few regulations. Should the government require that dietary supplements deliver proof of efficacy?

Don’t want to be called bad names? Then don’t go on entertainment shows, Mrs. Bachmann (or other politicians)

Yes, the Late Night with Jimmy Fallon house band should not have played Fishbone’s Lyin’ Ass Bitch when U.S. representative and GOP presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann came onto the set on November 21. Yes, NBC was right to apologize, even though Bachmann said it should have come from NBC’s president, not a vice president.

She called it a double standard, according to CNN:

“If a Don Imus or someone does something questionable, they’re thrown off the air,” Bachmann said in her interview with KLIF. “But when it’s done to a conservative, it’s just passed off and forgotten.”

She’s referring to CBS, which fired Imus after calling Rutgers women’s basketball players “nappy-headed hos.” (But “fired” media people don’t stay fired very long; Imus quickly went to work for Citadel Media, now owned by Cumulus Media Networks, whose stable includes conservatives such as Mark Levin and former GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.)

For media ethicists, perhaps the bigger question is why politicians go on entertainment shows in the first place.

Politicians have been doing it since Richard Nixon said “Sock it to me” on Rowan & Martin’s Laugh In in 1968, in hopes of improving the image of an uptight man who wore wing tip shoes on the beach. Since then, many candidates go onto entertainment shows to loosen their image — or even to make political announcements, such as Arnold Schwarzenneger announcing on the Tonight Show that he’d run for California governor.

It’s true that reporters often seek to rough up a candidate — or at least pierce the carefully shined image of candidates and show the public who’s behind the PR curtain. Even as some candidates say they want to talk about issues in more than sound bites, another refused an extended interview because it would be taped.

By going on entertainment shows, politicians can stick to their PR persona even as they come off glib. They avoid questions from real journalists even as the audience sees questions asked by media people.

But there’s a trade-off. When Bachmann appeared on an NBC entertainment show, there was a problem. But when she appeared a week earlier on NBC’s Meet the Press, there was no problem.

Solution: When you choose to appear on grown-up shows, you don’t have to worry about entertainment slaps. When you choose to be on funny shows, the joke may be on you.