The Onion's tweet and subsequent apology for one of their writers calling 9-year-old Oscar nominee Quvenzhane Wallis a c--t shows an ethical problem with instant journalism in the digital age. Although tweets can be deleted after their original posting, chances are that someone has seen it and either got a screenshot or remembers the content of the tweet. Numerous times, news organizations or other outlets have faced serious backlash from tweets either out of context, out of taste, or without knowledge. A clothing company, on the day of the Aurora, Colo. shooting, saw that #Aurora was trending, and implored followers to buy their Kim Kardashian-inspired Aurora model dress, with their reportedly UK-based PR team not knowing about the tragedy. When millions of people can see content in a second, it's becoming more and more vital to newsmakers that they keep their material not only accurate, but inoffensive as well. Although The Onion [among many other sites] uses satire and humor regularly, there is an unofficial line that is drawn in the unofficial sand when it comes to the level of language and content that can be used, and they clearly crossed it.
Obviously plagiarism is bad but I never thought about how bad plagiarizing yourself could be. After all, it IS your original thoughts and ideas but once you give it to a news organization it becomes their property and you are unable to send to other places without permission.
In this story about Jonah Lehrer, a man who reused a story in The Wall Street Journal AND The New Yorker (not exactly small hometown newspapers), Lehrer lifted paragraphs verbatim to reprint in the New Yorker. After this gaffe and several others which followed, Lehrer was forced to resign from the New Yorker.
I think the situation would have been different if Lehrer had taken some article he wrote for a small college publication and then tried to pass it off as original than if he wrote for the Wall Street Journal. Obviously they are both not very good decisions but I don't think the former would be a firing offense. I think the New Yorker should have fired Lehrer right away for this. not only because of self-plagiarism but because it was a bone-head thing to think no one was going to notice.
Gawker asks the obvious that Lehrer should have asked himself: "A good rule of thumb for writers who are concerned about whether they're reusing too much old material is to simply ask themselves, "Would my editor be okay if I told him how much of this is reused?" The answer will be "no,".
One recent example of an ethical issue that took me off guard was the National Press Photographers Association’s decision to rescind an award they had given to photographer Tracy Woodward because he had altered photographs he had taken. (Read about it here: https://nppa.org/node/38306)
The photo in question is called “State Champion”, and the version published to the Post’s website features an image of a wrestler cheering with his hands high above his head after winning a match. What’s most surprising about the photo, though, is how little of it was changed. The original photo still shows the wrestler with his hands above his head cheering with his opponent lying on the ground – the only difference is that the photographer erased the image of a referee in the background. (You can check out a comparison of the photos here: http://jimromenesko.com/2013/02/26/wapo-photographers-award-rescinded/tracy_woodward_whnpa/)
To me, this frankly just seems like an overtly stupid move on the part of Woodward. We now have so many ways to detect whether photos have been manipulated, and a person with a good eye can probably detect manipulation pretty easily. For Woodward to try to get away with this when altering photographs is almost universally frowned upon just stumps me. In addition, Woodward’s altering of the photo didn’t change much about the photo to me. I can still see the look of exhaustion and joy on the winning wrestler’s face, and I can see how disappointed the loser is. Yes, the referee is somewhat distracting, but not enough to make the photograph a bad one. There was no need for Woodward to go through the process of manipulating this photo, and he deserves to lose the award as a consequence for his actions.
This article is about Peter King of SI, and his comments during the NFL combine that Manti Te'o is too dumb to be a phony. My takeaway from this piece, however, is the point that Te'o was shown on TV 46 times during the workouts. His story is obviously a big one, but it seems crazy to me that there's still such an intense focus on this guy. A comparison is made within the article between Te'o and Tim Tebow, and I completely agree with it. The media is taking advantage of a story that has more to do with off-field issues than those that are on the field, for the sole purpose of driving ratings and debate. There are many other players participating in the NFL combine, some of whom are going to be very high draft picks (unlike Te'o), and they should be getting more attention than someone who is infamous for a hoax involving a fake girlfriend.
My ethical issue would definitely be the segment "To Catch a Predator" on Dateline NBC.
While Dateline may be providing what some people call a service, they are also committing what I believe is unethical conduct. MSNBC has a page that contains content from previous shows and additional stories.
Here is my main problem with "To Catch a Predator". The reporter is creating a story because this is essentially a police sting operation. They are baiting the person by drawing them in and deceiving them and then capturing the situation on camera. They then inexplicably let them go where they are then tackled and arrested by police officers. This is embarrassing and humiliating and has to be one of the worse moments of their lives and the reporter is turning it into entertainment.
I think it is sick personally and I believe that it violates a number of the ethical standards set forth by the SPJ (Society of Professional Journalists) that these "so-called journalists" purport to subscribe to.
At the Oscars late Sunday night, many stars and fans gathered to witness the presentation of the golden statue Academy Awards. One of these fans was Michelle Obama, who presented the award for Best Film from her home at the White House via satellite. Obama wore a flashy sleeveless dress and presented the award to Ben Affleck’s film, Argo. In Iran, this award presentation did not go over so well. Iran’s Fars News Agency did not approve of Obama’s low neckline and bare shoulders, therefore they doctored her image to add sleeves and a high neck-line to her outfit. This is not the first time that Iran and Photoshop have been in the news. According to iMediaEthics.org, Iran news site Khouz News also doctored a photo of a fighter jet in the air. Although I do not live in Iran and am not well educated on the culture, I do not believe it is ethically correct to edit a photo, no matter what the circumstance is. If Obama’s dress was too scandalous for the Iranian audience, then the Oscars should not be aired in Iran. In addition, Obama’s dress was one of the least flashy of the night. If Fars edited Obama’s dress, I can only imagine that their coverage showed many edited dresses of other celebrities as well. According to iMediaEthics.org, Fars News Agency was asked for more information on why they used Photoshop on the dress, and they are awaiting response.
World Wrestling Entertainment is just that, entertainment. But when a performer's character is overly political, very real controversy con be created. Enter Jack Swagger, real name Jacob Hager, a legitimate two-sport college All-American, who's new gimmick is to be a conservative extremist who punctuates his interviews with "We the People." His character is that of a xenophobic bad guy who despises everything not "purely" American. Fox News decided to blast the WWE for including this character among their menagerie on The Five. Glenn Beck in particular was particularly critical, referencing WWE as “stupid wrestling people” in a segment that aired on TheBlaze TV. The WWE would fight back, first offering Beck a spot on their weekly program "Raw" to let his concerns be known. Beck refused, so the WWE sent a camera crew to Beck's studio to interview him. Again they were refused. Fox has since taken down the clip.
The WWE's in-character response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfHJjS_o0Co
WWE interview request for Glenn Beck: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycn6GDa4PDk
Earlier in this month, former Chicago Bulls guard Jay Williams was featured in a New York Times article that discussed his recovery from a 2003 motorcycle accident that ended his playing career. In the profile piece, Williams alleged that members of the 2002-2003 team would often smoke marijuana before NBA games.
However, the ethical dilemma I'm referencing here is not the reefer-issue itself, but in Deadspin's somewhat comedic coverage of it. As soon as it happened, I remember seeing this Deadspin article popping up on my Facebook News Feed.
While the website is known for its often cheeky presentation of sports news topic, this one kinda raised red flags for me (although it kinda made me laugh as well). Offering no criteria for their rankings and leaving readers to make their own assumptions, they listed their assumed likelihood of each player toking before games.
Both of those articles (and the Chicago Tribune article contained within) note Hoiberg's frustration with the allegations, and the unwanted and frankly unwarranted distraction it has caused him as he prepares his team in the midst of their season. It makes you wonder if that tiny bit of sensationalism, Deadspin's silly weed rankings, would be worth it if someone like Hoiberg decided to sue the website for essentially condemning him with no evidence.
One the ethical issues that stood out to me and I think we discussed it in class was the Atlanta Falcons' cornerback Asante Samuels photograph posted by Atlanta Constitutional Journal last month. The picture was extremely inappropriate because the headline informed the public of his mother's death, however there was a picture of him celebrating after a game. To make matters worse, the caption under the picture explains his joy after getting an interception.
If it was me I would have definitely been more careful of what photo to select. For starters, the photo should match the mood of the story, so maybe a picture of him during a lost or even a picture with his mom would have been more appropriate.
I saw a fellow journalism major post the following video on Facebook with the caption, "confused journalist!? is this allowed?"
See for yourself: http://fox17online.com/2013/02/19/man-slaps-baby-on-a-plane/#axzz2M3hSkSvN
The video is a commentary by FOX 17's Larry Mendte about a man who slapped and cursed at a crying baby on an airplane. Yes, it's a horrible act to commit, but does that give Mendte the right to call him a "misogynistic racist drunk" on air? He could have merely presented the facts, stating the name the man called the baby, and said that he had been drinking on the plane.
Although he could claim to be protected by fair comment, the legal dictionary defines fair comment as, a statement of opinion (no matter how ludicrous) based on facts which are correctly stated, and which does not allege dishonorable motives on the part of the target of the comment. These comments probably cause harm to the man's reputation; therefore, the man could sue for libel. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that even though statements are untrue, they are fair comment unless the victim can prove the opinions were stated maliciously---with hate, dislike, intent and/or desire to harm. I think the way Mendte described the man and the way he juxtaposed the words "misogynist racist drunk" on his picture can be seen as done with hate and dislike.
As a journalist watching, it just did not seem ethically correct. Although it is commentary, Mendte could have done this story in a less harsh manner based on the facts.
Meltwater Group is an organization that provides a "media monitoring" service to its clients (mostly corporations), according to its website. The "search engine", as they call themselves, is being sued by AP and a new band of big name news providers for giving paying customers news produced by their organizations. Other organizations that have joined AP in the lawsuit include New York Times, Gannett, and McClatchy. This group calls Meltwater a news aggregator.
This lawsuit brings about a lot of questions about the legal and ethical differences between a search engine and a news aggregator. If a news aggregator or search engine charges for their services are they infringing on the rights of those that produce the actual content?
Tracy Woodward, a photojournalist for the Washington Post, altered his high school state champion wrestler photo by removing the referee from the frame. Woodward won an award, but it was rescinded by the White House News Photographers Association after the Post notified them of the edit.
Photo edits, including cropping and changing color contrast, are not always unethical. However, if the photo edit misleads a reader or changes how the photo should be read, then the practice of photo editing is unethical. Removing the referee from the frame changes the photo. It shows that the moment of the photo was not immediate (as the official would have been on the mat near the action), but taken shortly thereafter. It doesn't matter if it's a wrestling match or a huge political story, the topic of the coverage is irrelevant. Kudos to the Post to responding to the ordeal in the most ethical way. A reporter doctoring photos may reflect poorly on the newspaper, but what's worse is the newspaper knowing about the edits and not disclosing the information with the appropriate authorities or award associations.
If I took this photo, I never would have tried to cut out the referee. From my very brief experience as a photojournalist, sometimes you have the moment and other times you don't and when the latter happens all you can do is pretty much suck it up and cut your losses. While less of a clean composition, it is still a quality shot without the edits. In any case, there is no excuse for not being completely transparent.
Deanna Martino entry: A few months ago, Anne Hathaway suffered a wardrobe malfunction in which she flashed photographers as she was getting out of a car. Shortly after, Hathaway went on the "Today" show to talk about her role in the upcoming movie Les Miserables. Host Matt Lauer asked her about the incident saying, "seen a lot of you lately." Hathaway replied eloquently, making it clear she was not on the show to talk about her personal life, but rather the movie.
Hathaway said: "One was that I was very sad that we live in an age when someone takes a picture of another person in a vulnerable moment, and rather than delete it and do the decent thing, sells it. And I'm sorry that we live in a culture that commodifies sexuality of unwilling participants, which brings us back to Les Mis..."
It is true we live in a culture that is obsessed with celebrity and learning about their personal lives. But does that mean every news organization must report on it? "Today" is a respectable show and Matt Lauer is a respected journalist, is it really necessary for the two to report on such a story just to get the viewers? Just because a story is popular in the entertainment world, does not mean it is newsworthy and a journalist should not jeopardize their respectability for the sake of getting more viewers or readers.
Phil Bronstein wrote an article named "The Shooter" that was a long feature of the man who killed Osama Bin Laden. The ethical issue in this is that the entire article was written never mentioning the shooters name. Anonymous sources are always a dilemma for journalists because they diminish the article's and writer's credibility. Also, because the topic was such sensitive information, there much of the article could not be backed up with named sources. It is always an ethical dilemma when you are covering a sensitive topic, particularly when it has to deal with national security. It is up to the writer to decide whether publishing the article is worth the scrutiny they will receive.
http://thebea.st/WdTgj9
ReplyDeleteThe Onion's tweet and subsequent apology for one of their writers calling 9-year-old Oscar nominee Quvenzhane Wallis a c--t shows an ethical problem with instant journalism in the digital age. Although tweets can be deleted after their original posting, chances are that someone has seen it and either got a screenshot or remembers the content of the tweet. Numerous times, news organizations or other outlets have faced serious backlash from tweets either out of context, out of taste, or without knowledge. A clothing company, on the day of the Aurora, Colo. shooting, saw that #Aurora was trending, and implored followers to buy their Kim Kardashian-inspired Aurora model dress, with their reportedly UK-based PR team not knowing about the tragedy. When millions of people can see content in a second, it's becoming more and more vital to newsmakers that they keep their material not only accurate, but inoffensive as well. Although The Onion [among many other sites] uses satire and humor regularly, there is an unofficial line that is drawn in the unofficial sand when it comes to the level of language and content that can be used, and they clearly crossed it.
Apology. Is it enough? http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-onion-apologizes,31434/
DeleteObviously plagiarism is bad but I never thought about how bad plagiarizing yourself could be. After all, it IS your original thoughts and ideas but once you give it to a news organization it becomes their property and you are unable to send to other places without permission.
ReplyDeleteIn this story about Jonah Lehrer, a man who reused a story in The Wall Street Journal AND The New Yorker (not exactly small hometown newspapers), Lehrer lifted paragraphs verbatim to reprint in the New Yorker. After this gaffe and several others which followed, Lehrer was forced to resign from the New Yorker.
I think the situation would have been different if Lehrer had taken some article he wrote for a small college publication and then tried to pass it off as original than if he wrote for the Wall Street Journal. Obviously they are both not very good decisions but I don't think the former would be a firing offense. I think the New Yorker should have fired Lehrer right away for this. not only because of self-plagiarism but because it was a bone-head thing to think no one was going to notice.
Here, Gawker makes fun of him:
http://gawker.com/5919601/the-new-yorkers-newest-writer-is-a-big-self+plagiarist?tag=jonahlehrer
Gawker asks the obvious that Lehrer should have asked himself: "A good rule of thumb for writers who are concerned about whether they're reusing too much old material is to simply ask themselves, "Would my editor be okay if I told him how much of this is reused?" The answer will be "no,".
DeleteOne recent example of an ethical issue that took me off guard was the National Press Photographers Association’s decision to rescind an award they had given to photographer Tracy Woodward because he had altered photographs he had taken. (Read about it here: https://nppa.org/node/38306)
ReplyDeleteThe photo in question is called “State Champion”, and the version published to the Post’s website features an image of a wrestler cheering with his hands high above his head after winning a match. What’s most surprising about the photo, though, is how little of it was changed. The original photo still shows the wrestler with his hands above his head cheering with his opponent lying on the ground – the only difference is that the photographer erased the image of a referee in the background. (You can check out a comparison of the photos here: http://jimromenesko.com/2013/02/26/wapo-photographers-award-rescinded/tracy_woodward_whnpa/)
To me, this frankly just seems like an overtly stupid move on the part of Woodward. We now have so many ways to detect whether photos have been manipulated, and a person with a good eye can probably detect manipulation pretty easily. For Woodward to try to get away with this when altering photographs is almost universally frowned upon just stumps me. In addition, Woodward’s altering of the photo didn’t change much about the photo to me. I can still see the look of exhaustion and joy on the winning wrestler’s face, and I can see how disappointed the loser is. Yes, the referee is somewhat distracting, but not enough to make the photograph a bad one. There was no need for Woodward to go through the process of manipulating this photo, and he deserves to lose the award as a consequence for his actions.
In addition to knowing better, whenever Tracy Woodward goes to look for another job a Google search will reveal this to an employer.
Deletehttp://network.yardbarker.com/nfl/article_external/peter_king_thinks_manti_teo_is_too_dumb_to_be_a_phony_maybe/12987979
ReplyDeleteThis article is about Peter King of SI, and his comments during the NFL combine that Manti Te'o is too dumb to be a phony. My takeaway from this piece, however, is the point that Te'o was shown on TV 46 times during the workouts. His story is obviously a big one, but it seems crazy to me that there's still such an intense focus on this guy. A comparison is made within the article between Te'o and Tim Tebow, and I completely agree with it. The media is taking advantage of a story that has more to do with off-field issues than those that are on the field, for the sole purpose of driving ratings and debate. There are many other players participating in the NFL combine, some of whom are going to be very high draft picks (unlike Te'o), and they should be getting more attention than someone who is infamous for a hoax involving a fake girlfriend.
Once something blows up in the media there are very few willing to say "enough." Some one in management thinks the public still can't get enough.
DeleteMy ethical issue would definitely be the segment "To Catch a Predator" on Dateline NBC.
ReplyDeleteWhile Dateline may be providing what some people call a service, they are also committing what I believe is unethical conduct. MSNBC has a page that contains content from previous shows and additional stories.
Here is my main problem with "To Catch a Predator". The reporter is creating a story because this is essentially a police sting operation. They are baiting the person by drawing them in and deceiving them and then capturing the situation on camera. They then inexplicably let them go where they are then tackled and arrested by police officers. This is embarrassing and humiliating and has to be one of the worse moments of their lives and the reporter is turning it into entertainment.
I think it is sick personally and I believe that it violates a number of the ethical standards set forth by the SPJ (Society of Professional Journalists) that these "so-called journalists" purport to subscribe to.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10912603/ns/dateline_nbc-to_catch_a_predator/
DeleteAt the Oscars late Sunday night, many stars and fans gathered to witness the presentation of the golden statue Academy Awards. One of these fans was Michelle Obama, who presented the award for Best Film from her home at the White House via satellite. Obama wore a flashy sleeveless dress and presented the award to Ben Affleck’s film, Argo.
ReplyDeleteIn Iran, this award presentation did not go over so well. Iran’s Fars News Agency did not approve of Obama’s low neckline and bare shoulders, therefore they doctored her image to add sleeves and a high neck-line to her outfit.
This is not the first time that Iran and Photoshop have been in the news. According to iMediaEthics.org, Iran news site Khouz News also doctored a photo of a fighter jet in the air.
Although I do not live in Iran and am not well educated on the culture, I do not believe it is ethically correct to edit a photo, no matter what the circumstance is. If Obama’s dress was too scandalous for the Iranian audience, then the Oscars should not be aired in Iran. In addition, Obama’s dress was one of the least flashy of the night. If Fars edited Obama’s dress, I can only imagine that their coverage showed many edited dresses of other celebrities as well.
According to iMediaEthics.org, Fars News Agency was asked for more information on why they used Photoshop on the dress, and they are awaiting response.
http://www.imediaethics.org/News/3779/First_lady_michelle_obamas_oscar_dress_doctored_by_iranian_news_agency.php
World Wrestling Entertainment is just that, entertainment. But when a performer's character is overly political, very real controversy con be created. Enter Jack Swagger, real name Jacob Hager, a legitimate two-sport college All-American, who's new gimmick is to be a conservative extremist who punctuates his interviews with "We the People." His character is that of a xenophobic bad guy who despises everything not "purely" American. Fox News decided to blast the WWE for including this character among their menagerie on The Five. Glenn Beck in particular was particularly critical, referencing WWE as “stupid wrestling people” in a segment that aired on TheBlaze TV. The WWE would fight back, first offering Beck a spot on their weekly program "Raw" to let his concerns be known. Beck refused, so the WWE sent a camera crew to Beck's studio to interview him. Again they were refused. Fox has since taken down the clip.
ReplyDeleteThe WWE's in-character response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfHJjS_o0Co
WWE interview request for Glenn Beck: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycn6GDa4PDk
Love to see Beck in the ring.
DeleteEarlier in this month, former Chicago Bulls guard Jay Williams was featured in a New York Times article that discussed his recovery from a 2003 motorcycle accident that ended his playing career. In the profile piece, Williams alleged that members of the 2002-2003 team would often smoke marijuana before NBA games.
ReplyDeleteThe comments received immediate attention and backlash from Williams' former teammates.
However, the ethical dilemma I'm referencing here is not the reefer-issue itself, but in Deadspin's somewhat comedic coverage of it. As soon as it happened, I remember seeing this Deadspin article popping up on my Facebook News Feed.
While the website is known for its often cheeky presentation of sports news topic, this one kinda raised red flags for me (although it kinda made me laugh as well). Offering no criteria for their rankings and leaving readers to make their own assumptions, they listed their assumed likelihood of each player toking before games.
It raises concern for many reasons. The #2 most likely player on Deadspin's list, Donyell Marshall, denied this activity and spoke out against Williams.
Deadspin actually reached out for comment from the player they deemed the most likely culprit, Iowa State head basketball coach Fred Hoiberg. He vehemently denied ever using marijuana in his entire life.
Both of those articles (and the Chicago Tribune article contained within) note Hoiberg's frustration with the allegations, and the unwanted and frankly unwarranted distraction it has caused him as he prepares his team in the midst of their season. It makes you wonder if that tiny bit of sensationalism, Deadspin's silly weed rankings, would be worth it if someone like Hoiberg decided to sue the website for essentially condemning him with no evidence.
One the ethical issues that stood out to me and I think we discussed it in class was the Atlanta Falcons' cornerback Asante Samuels photograph posted by Atlanta Constitutional Journal last month. The picture was extremely inappropriate because the headline informed the public of his mother's death, however there was a picture of him celebrating after a game. To make matters worse, the caption under the picture explains his joy after getting an interception.
ReplyDeleteIf it was me I would have definitely been more careful of what photo to select. For starters, the photo should match the mood of the story, so maybe a picture of him during a lost or even a picture with his mom would have been more appropriate.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://deadspin.com/5973268/asante-samuels-mother-died-and-the-atlanta-journal+constitution-used-an-inappropriate-photo
ReplyDeleteI saw a fellow journalism major post the following video on Facebook with the caption, "confused journalist!? is this allowed?"
ReplyDeleteSee for yourself: http://fox17online.com/2013/02/19/man-slaps-baby-on-a-plane/#axzz2M3hSkSvN
The video is a commentary by FOX 17's Larry Mendte about a man who slapped and cursed at a crying baby on an airplane. Yes, it's a horrible act to commit, but does that give Mendte the right to call him a "misogynistic racist drunk" on air? He could have merely presented the facts, stating the name the man called the baby, and said that he had been drinking on the plane.
Although he could claim to be protected by fair comment, the legal dictionary defines fair comment as, a statement of opinion (no matter how ludicrous) based on facts which are correctly stated, and which does not allege dishonorable motives on the part of the target of the comment. These comments probably cause harm to the man's reputation; therefore, the man could sue for libel. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that even though statements are untrue, they are fair comment unless the victim can prove the opinions were stated maliciously---with hate, dislike, intent and/or desire to harm. I think the way Mendte described the man and the way he juxtaposed the words "misogynist racist drunk" on his picture can be seen as done with hate and dislike.
As a journalist watching, it just did not seem ethically correct. Although it is commentary, Mendte could have done this story in a less harsh manner based on the facts.
Controversy has followed Mendte for most of his career.
Deletehttp://www.mediabistro.com/10000words/nyt-gannett-publishers-join-ap-meltwater-suit_b17372
ReplyDeleteMeltwater Group is an organization that provides a "media monitoring" service to its clients (mostly corporations), according to its website. The "search engine", as they call themselves, is being sued by AP and a new band of big name news providers for giving paying customers news produced by their organizations. Other organizations that have joined AP in the lawsuit include New York Times, Gannett, and McClatchy. This group calls Meltwater a news aggregator.
This lawsuit brings about a lot of questions about the legal and ethical differences between a search engine and a news aggregator. If a news aggregator or search engine charges for their services are they infringing on the rights of those that produce the actual content?
I guess we will see as this case progresses.
Tracy Woodward, a photojournalist for the Washington Post, altered his high school state champion wrestler photo by removing the referee from the frame. Woodward won an award, but it was rescinded by the White House News Photographers Association after the Post notified them of the edit.
ReplyDeletePhoto edits, including cropping and changing color contrast, are not always unethical. However, if the photo edit misleads a reader or changes how the photo should be read, then the practice of photo editing is unethical. Removing the referee from the frame changes the photo. It shows that the moment of the photo was not immediate (as the official would have been on the mat near the action), but taken shortly thereafter. It doesn't matter if it's a wrestling match or a huge political story, the topic of the coverage is irrelevant. Kudos to the Post to responding to the ordeal in the most ethical way. A reporter doctoring photos may reflect poorly on the newspaper, but what's worse is the newspaper knowing about the edits and not disclosing the information with the appropriate authorities or award associations.
If I took this photo, I never would have tried to cut out the referee. From my very brief experience as a photojournalist, sometimes you have the moment and other times you don't and when the latter happens all you can do is pretty much suck it up and cut your losses. While less of a clean composition, it is still a quality shot without the edits. In any case, there is no excuse for not being completely transparent.
http://jimromenesko.com/2013/02/26/wapo-photographers-award-rescinded/
Deanna Martino entry:
ReplyDeleteA few months ago, Anne Hathaway suffered a wardrobe malfunction in which she flashed photographers as she was getting out of a car. Shortly after, Hathaway went on the "Today" show to talk about her role in the upcoming movie Les Miserables. Host Matt Lauer asked her about the incident saying, "seen a lot of you lately." Hathaway replied eloquently, making it clear she was not on the show to talk about her personal life, but rather the movie.
Hathaway said: "One was that I was very sad that we live in an age when someone takes a picture of another person in a vulnerable moment, and rather than delete it and do the decent thing, sells it. And I'm sorry that we live in a culture that commodifies sexuality of unwilling participants, which brings us back to Les Mis..."
It is true we live in a culture that is obsessed with celebrity and learning about their personal lives. But does that mean every news organization must report on it? "Today" is a respectable show and Matt Lauer is a respected journalist, is it really necessary for the two to report on such a story just to get the viewers? Just because a story is popular in the entertainment world, does not mean it is newsworthy and a journalist should not jeopardize their respectability for the sake of getting more viewers or readers.
Phil Bronstein wrote an article named "The Shooter" that was a long feature of the man who killed Osama Bin Laden. The ethical issue in this is that the entire article was written never mentioning the shooters name. Anonymous sources are always a dilemma for journalists because they diminish the article's and writer's credibility. Also, because the topic was such sensitive information, there much of the article could not be backed up with named sources. It is always an ethical dilemma when you are covering a sensitive topic, particularly when it has to deal with national security. It is up to the writer to decide whether publishing the article is worth the scrutiny they will receive.
ReplyDelete