PressEthic

Recent discussion over internet mediums like facebook, myspace and youtube has confirmed that the entire concept of so-called “fifteen minutes of fame” is beginning to fade into history. Most of us have built up an internet legacy by now, whether it be through personal sites, videos, or publicly accessible photo albums. The ability to reach to a wide audience is no longer confined to the small elite of journalists, authors, filmmakers and broadcasters.

As far as the expansion of public rhetoric goes, myspace and facebook are relatively unthreatening concepts; thousands of simple web pages that list each individual’s favorite bands, relationship status and number of friends contribute more into the creation of masses than the discovery of new voices. It is blog sites and youtube, however, that give each of us an opportunity to join the ranks of the media. Instead of gathering programming based on secondhand ratings, youtube is created directly by the viewers themselves. Rather than simply an information box, television is on its way to becoming, literally, a public forum.

Journalists have scored a victory in the passing of a British law that will allow the publication of allegations about public figures if their reporting is in serious public interest.

At its best, the law will allow members of the press the freedom to conduct investigative journalism without the fear of being sued; at its worst, it could further encourage the publication of gossip for the sake of gaining the attention of the public.

The New York Times reported today:

“The ruling, a unanimous judgment by the Law Lords, is a huge shift in British law and significantly improves journalists’ chances of winning libel cases in a court system that until now has been stacked against them.

Although I have managed to avoid a large chunk of the reality TV phenomenon, MTV’s ‘True Life’ has long had a strangely addicting effect on me. Perhaps it’s the fact that the series does not require a weekly viewing—each episode presents an entirely new set of characters with entirely new dilemmas—but whether it deals with plastic surgery or Star Wars-obsessed fathers, the documentary-based show is generally impossible for me to turn off. ‘True Life’ has ideally catered to both my primitive voyeurism and my journalistic interest. Yet, I haven’t always admitted my admiration—after all, MTV is often associated with easily digestible pop culture rather than serious reporting (never mind that its news team has indisputably made a noteworthy contribution to educating young people about issues like the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina).

In this week’s Time Magazine, Michael Kinsley offers his analysis of the newspaper’s survival struggle against the impossibly convenient and accessible internet world. Kinsley’s largest concerns stem from financial troubles in newspaper offices, digital classified ads, and bloggers Kinsley refers to as “wannabes.”

Perhaps the most jarring part of his article is his treatment of the latter category:

“…there is blog terror: people are getting their understanding of the world from random lunatics riffing in their underwear, rather than professional journalists with standards and passports,” he states in his lead paragraph.

Yesterday’s New York Times reported on a proposed bill in Ireland that would help celebrities protect themselves against unflattering and intrusive media coverage. Its most crucial contribution would be a formal definition of “privacy” that could be used in court cases against journalists. The law would also make it illegal to use a person’s “likeness, name or voice” for financial benefit if proper consent was not obtained. Finally, if passed, it would make the issuing of injunctions possible before publication and in a courtroom kept off-limits to the public.

No matter how one feels about sensation journalism, representatives of the press are not likely to be happy about an attempt to legally restrain their professional rights.

News channels are known to take the broken record-approach to intriguing footage. If a shot works, it is shown until it is permanently ingrained in the memories of the TV-watching public and another story takes over with its own, respectively broken record. The most graphic example of the relentless repetition of footage perhaps occurred shortly after September 11. Not surprisingly, many began to eventually complain about having to watch the towers crumple every time they turned on the evening news.

I most recently grew annoyed at the exhaustive use of a single ten-second clip after watching coverage of Bill Clinton’s Fox News interview. Because I did not happen to catch the original airing of the interview, my only clear recollection of the taping is a brief segment I have seen on various news channels and could recite from memory by now:

During a time when the bias of corporate media is raising much public discussion, it is bloggers who emerge as the full-blooded watchdogs of the 21st century. The most recent example of the altered dynamics of electronic news caught my eye this morning, when CNN aired a segment on recently declined oil prices. According to CNN, bloggers are suspecting republicans to be responsible for the drop to below $60 per barrel. After all, a positive change in oil prices would provide republicans a convenient advantage in the upcoming midterm elections. According to a USA Today poll, much of the nation appears to share the bloggers’ suspicions: 42% of about 1000 participants believed the Bush administration to have “deliberately manipulated the price of gasoline so that it would decrease before this fall’s elections.”

The currently raging controversy about the detention of Bilal Hussein, AP’s photographer in Iraq, is causing extra challenges for the newsreader. Since the Associated Press is front and center in the conflict, objective reporting becomes nearly impossible. Yet, many have grown to place much trust on the largest news organization in the world, and may find it increasingly difficult to formulate a personal opinion about Hussein’s situation.

Thus far, the rants of conservative bloggers, who have happily announced AP’s photographers in Iraq to be collaborating with local terrorist organizations, have seemed outwardly silly and unapproachable. Yet, for the first time, I logged on to their websites to consider the other side. Ironically enough, I did so thanks to the help of the Associated Press.

Continuing news covergage of the Hewlett-Packard controversy illustrates the collision of ethics and law.

'A Hole in the City's Heart' (New York Times, 9/11/06) sheds light to the complex grieving process of our nation, one that is often oversimplified by other 9/11 commemoratives.

Whether it be Lindsay Lohan or Valerie Plame, our nation's most chased-after celebrity names have found public refuge in an almost amusingly ironical way--not by escaping the cameras and gossip into their hillside mansions, but by making an appearance in a Vanity Fair photo shoot. For a fleeting moment, an overexposed celebrity exists in a conscious state of harmony with the press: With every exclusive cover story, Vanity Fair maintains its status as the crown jewel of celebrity magazines, while its subjects are given both a chance to explain themselves to the public and showcase the intimidating extent of their stardom. After all, a Vanity Fair story may be the most important difference between B-list exposure and A-list glamour.