PressEthic

Unlike many newspapers today, who are reporting favorably about the Iraq Study Group, the New York Post has a picture of the two chairman of the Iraq Study Group on the cover of the paper with their heads plastered atop pictures of chimpanzees. The caption reads, "Surrender Monkeys: Iraq Panel Urges U.S. to Give Up." The article is dripping with bias.

Arianna Huffington created HuffingtonPost.com, "a political website for celebrity bloggers," about 18 months ago. With the growing popularity of the site and major investment from venture capitalists, Huffington has decided to take the next step.

The recent advent of fat-cat billionaires taking interest in struggling newspapers (if by struggling you mean, profit margins still greater than those of Fortune 500 companies) leaves me to wonder whether private ownership is a good thing for journalists in the newsroom. Would we rather toil under the faceless control of a massive corporation, who's only priority is the profit margin? Or would we rather be under private ownership, running the risk of the owner attempting to meddle in or influence the editorial aspect of the paper?

To follow up from my previous post on ethical guidelines for when, if at all, it is appropriate for a news organization to 'out' somebody, the Poynter Institute's "Ethics" column covers a recent situation in the news involving a rumor that a Republican senator from Idaho was homosexual. Mike Rogers, a self-titled "journo-activist," posted on his blog that Craig had sex with four men, all of whom were anonymous sources of Rogers. The blog posting isn't really the issue here - there is no proof offered, Rogers will not reveal his sources, and Craig has publicly denied that the statement is true. Where it gets interesting, and relevant for us as journalists is what newspapers decided to do when presented with this story. Do we run it, or kill it? Is it true? Is it newsworthy?

An insightful and thought-provoking article was posted on the Poynter Institute's Romenesko, column that reports on media industry news. At the Boston Phoenix, Adam Reilly makes the case for a standard of ethics when it comes to "outing" or discussing the sexual orientation of public figures in the news.

Barbara Walters hit a new low tonight with "30 Mistakes in 30 Years," a "Barbara Walters Special" about her lessons learned from thirty years of interviewing celebrities on her segments. Not suprisingly, the "lessons" were anything but educational. But it made me think of a larger issue, one that we have touched on in class: can talk show hosts and tv anchors be considered "journalists"?

An article in Editor and Publisher today reported that The O.C. Register in California has joined up with iMedia, a network that sells "interactive national advertising." The Register will include CD-ROMs in the paper on the last Sunday of every month. On the CDs will be entertainment and music news, interviews, and music/movie previews. iMedia is paid by national and local advertisers for ad space on those CD-Roms. The Register will contribute by adding music and movie updates from iMedia itself on the newspaper's website. Has the integration of media gone too far?

As I was glued to the news stations on Tuesday night watching election coverage, I detected some liberal bias showing through from many of the stations reporting the results. I wasn't watching Fox News, obviously.

This morning as I watched "Imus in the Morning" a confrontation between Chris Wallace of MSNBC's 'Hardball' and Joe Scarborough was discussed, in which Scarborough was accused of media bias. The story was blogged about on NewsBusters, a media ethics website dedicated to "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias." The blog relays the content of the Matthews-Scarborough exchange while also criticizing Matthews' attack against Scarborough. But are discussions of politics inevitably going to be partisan? Can political pundits really claim to be fair and balanced?

In an article by Editor and Publisher yesterday, AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll gave an interview about the fact that an AP photographer, Bilal Hussein, is being detained by the U.S. military in Iraq and has been for six months. Apparently, Hussein has not been charged for any crime, but the Pentagon says vaguely that he is not being held for his work as a journalist, but rather because he poses as a threat. The Pentagon spokesman does not explain who Hussein might be a threat to and how or why. Hussein's detainment could represent the government and military's attempt to limit freedom of the press. However, Carroll's "call to arms" may not be entirely ethical.

With the advent of budget and staff cuts at newspapers and magazines in America as well as across the Atlantic, British papers are taking a novel and, some say, radical approach to journalism.

The book The Cheating Culture that we read in class has made me pay more and more attention to the presence of cheating in our society. What with Enron, Abramoff, and countless other scandals with political ties, more and more people are doubting our leaders -- in government, business, media -- to be honest, ethical decision-makers. Is that so wrong? Or is an increased awareness to cheating leading to more people getting caught...and does that act as a deterrent?

An article in Slate.com today reported and commented on two Supreme Court judges' recent criticism of the media, or more specifically, court reporters. Apparently, Justices Anthony Scalia and Samuel Alito made the sweeping generalization at a judicial independence discussion that journalists will never be able to cover Supreme Court decisions accurately.

In The New York Times yesterday, an article entitled, “Expunged Criminal Records Live to Tell Tales,” discussed yet another way that the Internet is affecting lives—sometimes bringing positive changes, and sometimes giving out just plain too much information. This article is an example of the latter.