#7 // Ethics

The main role of a journalist is to be a watchdog for the community. They covet acting as protectors and guardians of the community against inefficiency and illegal practices. Although there is no philosophical model for this watchdog approach, there is a modern “Code of Ethics” sustained by the Society of Professional Journalists.

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

This code is based on three key journalistic elements: being constitutional, credible and courageous, while upholding the standard to seek the truth. The PBS Frontline Video, the Murdock Scandal, shows the terribly negative effects of dishonoring this code…

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/murdochs-scandal/

News Corporation, established by Rupert Murdock in 1979, is the world’s second largest mass media industry in history. In 2006 the fight began against Murdock’s company for allegedly hacking voice mail-boxes in order to engrave a selling gossip column, The News of the World. Over the next seven years, the spies and lies unfold revealing News Corp to be a substantial offender of SPJ’s Code of Ethics. After this revelation, all ethical notions of this company were lost and countless public relations representatives, editors, and police officials were forced to resign; including police chief Paul Stevenson, special advisor Neil Wallace, editor John Yates, and publishing chief Rebekah Brooks. In the end, Murdock had all the money he could ask for; all the connections he needed; all the power he wanted, but had no ethical creditability, which single handedly choked his most precious tabloid. His two favorite currencies, money and gossip, were not only useless, but now worth not even a dime.

The following article is an interesting one, and although I don't have room to explain it in this post... I'd encourage you to read it on your own time. It details how unethical behavior doesn't just affect the media, but can lead to an entire elitist corruption. 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jul/20/scandal-exposed-scale-elite-corruption

So in the end, being ethical really does conquer all. 

Serves you right, ya liars.

ps... I think this is really funny. 

Why don't we make one? 

#6 // Forty years of government deceit and dishonesty revealed

We debated, err battled, the Snowden case for a bit in class. I've said it before, but I'm a pot stirrer by nature so naturally I loved sitting in and listening (although I didn't have much to say because I was not very well informed on the case). 

If you were like me, and have little understanding of the case - watch these videos: 

(kind of silly, but helps get your barrings) 

To get a little more heated reading about this guy, I just googled, “Edward Snowden, good or bad?”  and found this article that I thoroughly loved. 

http://entertainment.time.com/2013/06/11/hero-or-bad-boyfriend-edward-snowden-and-the-personalization-of-public-debate/

Really. I just want to post the whole article on this blog. Because it’s awesome.

They made some new-fangled points on how the publics are debating this scandal. Instead of looking at the actual problem of NSA Surveillance Techniques being leaked, journalists are trying to pin whether Snowden is a “Villain or Hero.” Why should anyone not personally connected with Snowden give a rats about how good a person he is? Author, James Poneowozikm, said, “As critics of the leak begin attacking the messenger and defenders elevate said messenger as a way of counterattacking. A major public issue becomes another celebrity story, like a Hollywood divorce. The person becomes a proxy for the cause; to admit any flaws (on the one hand) or nobility (on the other) is to give comfort to the enemy, and so he becomes sainted or demonized, depending whose blog you’re reading.” Nobody puts their support for or against the information released in the leakage, but instead they are putting their voices behind this character, Edward Snowden. I know that as journalists, we should be worried about the journalist and whether his actions fall under SPJ’s Code of Ethics. But isn’t there also a part of us that should just be worried about the issue? That if Edward Snowden had the money of Bill Gates or the looks at Tom Cruise it still wouldn’t matter and the problem at hand would remain the same? What I found when researching is that as they seek to please the audience, they write about Snowden. And Snowden alone… why he ran away to Hong Kong & Russia, why what he did was wrong, why he is a total hottie, why he was justified and why he is a bad boyfriend. But in the end, these arguments are stand-ins for the actual issues; they’re not the issues themselves. Shouldn’t we really be thinking, oh shit… Enemy organizations now have a lead on our tactics, or oh well I guess we should decide how much control on privacy the public has. Ya know?  Which is why I think the whole this team/that team thing is so dumb! So silly! You need to have a stance on each issue… not just pick a side and stick with their attitudes. Come’on people! So while it may address the larger privacy-vs.-security issue to argue whether Snowden is a hero, it also says something about people’s inability to frame political issues now through anything other than tribal affiliation.

My side? Snowden was wrong. And he knew it. He is really thought he was doing the public good, he wouldn’t have immediately run into hiding. But we shouldn’t be discussing that. It happened and the privacy info is out – so let’s talk about that. (Maybe I'll even write a part II post) 

But in the end, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say.

And we probably won't know the true story for many years, if at all.  

#5// A Valuable Currency

Who Pays For Journalism?

Advertising. Where is my Staples’ “that was easy” button?  

Okay… Actually I want to talk about the “current & future business models.” Specifically, pay per view. And even more specifically, Netflix. Some people argue that Netflix is “bringing gloom to Hollywood,” (Like in this article: http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/netflix-stock-boom-may-bring-gloom-to-hollywood-1200606326/) while users and reviewers rave about the online streaming service.

Brian Stelter kind of started this ferris-wheel of brain activity for me earlier today when he posted on his twitter account, "Was "Walking Dead" helped by binge-viewing of prior seasons? hard to say, but season three's been up on Netflix for two weeks."

(https://twitter.com/brianstelter)

Netflix really has turned it’s viewers into puppets – as they will watch whatever the company decides to stream. And because Netflix is cheap, many users are canceling subscriptions to Direct Tv, Verizon Fios, TiVo and Cable... and using Netflix as their base entertainment. So naturally, that takes away from who is paying for all broadcast journalism. But think about this: what benefit has Netflix had on documentaries? The other realm of journalism. When googling just, “Netflix and documentaries,” you come up with this: https://www.google.com/#q=netflix+and+documentaries+; pages and pages of previously unknown documentaries made by unknown journalists that are found on Netflix. Thanks to this “media money sucker,” hundreds of documentary journalists are getting their work out in the world for people to see. So before hundreds of newspaper journalists rage on Netflix's latest deal with Virgin Mobile, maybe they should re-evaluate. From one artist to another, do we blame Netflix for taking away “what pays for journalism,” by urging users to cut the chord on tv subscriptions… or do we applaud them for aiding our material in being seen? What is the more valuable currency to "pay for journalism?" Cash money or material views? 

#4 // Information In-corrections

In last week's group presentation about "Responsibilities on Journalists, Citizens, and the Public". Their presentation brought two main questions to my mind as a hopeful future journalist... 

1) What do journalists owe the public? 

And 2) What does the public owe journalism? 

The answer, I believe, it truth. The journalists owe the public truth. And the public owes it to the journalists to seek out that truth. The presenting group mentioned that if there is wrong or incorrect news floating around... then social media can fix it; it can “correct the news,” one class member said. Excuse me if I understood that wrong... but what? If anything at all happens... it's the opposite. Those who search for truth... find truth. Those who lazily look on Facebook and see their filter-bubbled and demassified news feed... find this feared falsified fiction. This, I believe is one of the many fallacies of social media.

Fallacy: a mistaken belief, 

especially one based on unsound argument,

 or a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.

The web-based company, Convince & Convert, is dedicated to the transition to social media. They call themselves the "social & content accelerators." They post tips, tricks, and tales of social media networking (www.convinceandconvert.com). In one of their latest articles, The 6 Dangerous Fallacies of Social Media, they discussed the factual basis of social media. Noting that it is most unintentional news libel, what people put on Facebook is based on the rumor.

The following article shows the oxymoronic nature of Facebook fallacies:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/whos-faking-it-pentagon-cyber-warriors-planting-false-information-on-facebook/5320550

In November of 2012, Los Angeles Times published a piece entitled, “Cyber Corps program trains spies in the digital age.” And then explains how big-wig companies are planting false information on social media through illegal tracking, sorting, and hacking programs. Well, obviously… shortly after this article was published, hundreds on Facebook were claiming to have found these trash-seeking blogs, fabricated Facebook pages, and virus filled twitter feeds. Social Networking users were up in arms… furious at the government (because was does the government have to do with this?), they double-checked their privacy settings and scanned their feed for more information on these “Cyber Implanters”… well… come to find out… none of these “false pages” existed. The rumors claiming that Facebook was full of false-truths… were false. If that doesn't show the inaccuracy of social media… I don’t quite know what does.

Just do us all a favor... and don't listen to what your news feed tells you.

p.s. I don't mean to undermine the groups presentation - because it ruled! 

But I'm a pot-stirrer by nature... Forgive me///