*When you read a news story or see it on TV, What do you expect of the station/newspaper/journalist/photographer? Is it reliable? Truthful? Set up?
- I expect there to be a certain professionalism in the reporting of the story, if someone was shot the reporters aren't giggling or treating it as a joke.
- The stories should be honest, have a firm ground in fact and should not be exaggerated or set up.
- If a story is treated as good gossip it should not be repeated over and over, e.g. Tiger Woods
- I expect the source to be reliable
How do you know?
There are a few things which (if relevant) may help to prove the authenticity of a story
- Video or Pictures
- Statistics
- Eye witness accounts
- Police reports
- On scene reporting
What about the right to privacy? What is the balance between the public 'right to know' and an individuals 'right to privacy'?
It is a humans basic right to have privacy. Quite often in today's magazines and newspapers people's privacy is invaded. A few examples of invaded privacy are:
- Jenifer Aniston was called a home wrecker because a married woman saw how confident and independent she was single and divorced her husband.
- Tiger Woods was constantly hounded for having multiple affairs. While the public like to know about that stuff, it is none of our business.
The reason I think that these are good examples are because the first one is completely slanderous. It is absolutely not her fault, yet she is called a home wrecker. This is not reliable or truthful. The reason I thought Tiger Woods was a good example is because while people may consider it their 'right to know' about his dishonourable favour, the way they would not leave him alone for weeks was overstepping the boundaries.
A few examples of the public right to know are:
- A missing person
- Rapist on the loose
- Jail break
- Murder
- Kidnapping attempt
The reason I think that these come under the public right to know are because it may affect or cause harm to innocent individuals if they are ignorant of the issue. For example; If a serial murderer breaks out of prison, an ignorant person seeing them in the street may offer them assistance, such as picking up a hijacker but an informed person may recognize them and call the police. The difference between knowing and not knowing can be the difference between life and death for another.
*Find out about the NZ Press Council and the EPMU Code of Ethics. Read some of the decisions made and why they were made. Answer some of these questions.
What is the role of the NZ Press Council?
The role of the NZPC is to ensure that the press maintains balance, accuracy, fairness and public interest by the standards that they set.
Why are they necessary?
Because otherwise it is possible to create a completely falsified tale and report on it. This could create unnecessary panic and it is just plain wrong.
Why are the code of ethics important?
The reason that ethics are particularly important in this profession is because of the nature of the job. The job is based on morality, honesty and trust. As Oscar Wilde once said 'Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace' Without a code of ethics, journalism would not exist as it does today.
What is the freedom of the press?
The freedom of the press means that the press can say almost anything they want
How is this guaranteed in NZ?
*Try to contact a journalist and ask them what s/he thinks about journalism ethics. You can use email, phone, etc to do this. You could ring Salient at Victoria University, or any of the community papers (The Wellingtonian, Capital Times, etc.) Ask your teacher to help you contact someone.
Who might think journalism ethics are not that important?
Greedy, desperate, little people who just want to make a quick buck off a false 'interesting' story rather than putting in the effort of finding a real story.
Can you find examples where the code of ethics doesn't seem to have been followed?
Stephen Glass falsifies a large amount of his articles. Making up sources, events, and places. People begin to doubt facts in his story and when questioned he claims that he was fooled by his sources. Glass is put on a two-year suspension and when his boss Lane goes through his articles it is discovered that he made up all or part of twenty seven out of his forty one articles.
In what way(s) has the code of ethics not been followed? Why?
The code of ethics state that journalism is about being balanced, honest and fair. He was not honest because a lot of what he said was false or untruthful. He was unbalanced in the fact that if he was balanced he would look at both sides of a story and decide what slant to put on the story, because there was no actual story he was only able to put his own view on the story therefore there was no balance. He was unfair in convincing, or attempting to convince the public of a false story.
Should it have been? Why?
Yes, it should have been. The reason there is a code in the first place is because, we as a public tend to rely on reporters to uphold their code of ethics so that we can get a fair and balanced view of the world.
Rent and view Shattered Glass. How/why is this relevant to journalism ethics?
Finally -
What do you think? How ethical are journalists?
I would love to believe that the all reporters follow a strict code of ethics and are completely honest with their reporting but unfortunately I know that this is probably not always the case. Commercialism can have an impact on impartialism. The necessity to sell newspapers can tempt journalists to make stories more elaborate and attractive to the reader.
How ethical should they be?
I believe that journalists should be completely ethical with their reporting however I do not believe that this is even close to being realistic. Honesty is idealistic and while everyone strives for it not many people will achieve complete honesty in their lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment