Ethics With News of Mass Importance

Al-Jazeera continued to cement itself as a reliable and growingly powerful network after breaking the news of Moammar Gaddafi's death last week. Yet, before Al-Jazeera broke the story, they were faced with many key ethical questions to answer.

After keeping their media presence in Libya when other media did not, Al-Jazeera was the first news agency to receive a video captured by cell phone showing people storming around Gaddafi's dead and bloodied body. This led them to ask: what do we do with this video?

The most pressing issue was to confirm that it was Gaddafi's body in the video. People within the network agreed it was him, and they also had sources confirm Gaddafi's death before they ever received the video. Although they weren't 100%, there was enough credibility to run with the story and feel confident ethically to confirm the news.

Next, Al-Jazeera needed to decide how to post the video. Many media outlets are uncomfortable with showing dead bodies due to ethical concern and a lack of 'need-to-see' form the audience. This scenario was different, however, as this story had tremendous impact. Had the video been of some random civilian, in no way should a news agency publish it. But, this wasn't a random civilian, and the story carried a lot of weight.

Al-Jazeera published the video online with a disclaimer to its viewers claiming the content of the video was gruesome. Many other media outlets that posted this video followed suit. This was a very critical move for media agencies looking to publish the video, because it warned the audience and followed ethical codes with matters of this nature.

This whole scenario created a huge risk for Al-Jazeera as well as other media agencies reporting after the news broke. There is a risk of offending the audience by publishing a video showing people dragging a dead body, and there is a larger risk of confirming the wrong death: what if it had not of been Gaddafi?

Ultimately, most news agencies handled this the right way. Considering the importance of this story, the media could not turn its back on it just because of ethics. The video needed to be posted so people could see for themselves and have confirmation, even if that meant disturbing a few viewers who were not prepared to see such content. It is important to understand that for other cases involving deaths, guidelines should be different.

But, for a story this big and that greatly affected many people in the region, Al-Jazeera handled their coverage in an appropriate manner and solidified themselves as being a strong player in the world of media. This case is a reminder that for such strong stories, it is important to verify and follow ethical procedures even if they are slightly altered considering the stories' impact.

The Dangers of Photo Manipulation

A June 19^th edition of The Economist had exactly the right type of visual that would undoubtedly capture the eyes of the readers, showing President Obama in a grief-stricken pose alone with oil rigs behind him after the oil spill.

 As it turns out, the picture wasn’t telling the whole truth. The image was doctored and The New York Times eventually called the publication out for manipulating the photo.

 The real photo showed Obama standing next to two people as he bent over to listen to them. The original photo also showed ground, not just solely the ocean. After cropping the photograph and using Photo Shop skills, the cover showed Obama alone in a much darker background.

 The two photos aren’t entirely different; it’s not like they used Photo Shop to place a beer in Obama’s hand or anything of that nature. So, is there an issue here with the simple manipulations made to this image? Yes, there are substantial issues.

 The Economist stated that they cropped a woman out of the photo without the intent of making a political impact, but rather to avoid confusion by having a woman the common public wouldn’t understand on the cover. Nice try, but that’s no way out of this jam.

 There’s a very large danger in using digital image processing because it is essentially passing off a fake image as a real one to an unsuspecting audience. The code of ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists’ states that visuals must not misrepresent, and content must not be distorted. Image enhancement is acceptable, but anything beyond that is walking a thin line between entertainment and misleading its audience with deception.

 In this case, The Economist certainly broke the SPJ’s code of ethics and misled its audience. Their doctored image made Obama to appear to be incredibly distressed and aside himself. Instead, he was just leaning over to listen to someone speak and was next to a group of people. This significantly altered the meaning and content of the image.

 When it comes to visuals and such, it is important to remember that altering an image any further than just image enhancement could re-shape the photo’s image and deceive an audience. Therefore, if any significant photo altering does take place, it is important to label the image as a photo illustration.

The Boston Globe Risks a Life to Satisfy Public Interest

Editors at The Boston Globe stood behind their decision to release the name of a woman who tipped off the FBI about a fugitive gangster, which led to his arrest. Anna Bjornsdottir was named in a front-page story as the person whose anonymous tip led to the capture of James “Whitey” Bulgar.

Their decision to release the woman’s name is drawing criticism from many, including the Boston Herald, which ran a counter-story that said their rival paper put the woman’s life in jeopardy by releasing her name.

The editors at The Boston Globe said that they debated for a significant time over whether to release her name or not, but ultimately decided to go with the latter. The reason for releasing her name was based upon the fact that the public interest of the story out-weighed the chance of putting her at risk.

This is a faulty argument. When editors say that they did something out of “public interest”, they are walking a slippery slope. Public interest is never a valid excuse to trample on somebody’s privacy, or in this case, put someone’s life in danger.

In order to make a decision that risks invading privacy or endangering an individual, their needs to be substantially more than just public interest present. Instead of a public ‘want-to-know’, editors must be assured they have a public ‘need-to-know’ when making such bold decisions.

If releasing this woman’s name would make the people in Boston more safe or better off, then maybe it would be acceptable to release her name. But, knowing her name does nothing to improve the lives of those people, it may just merely satisfy their curiosity. In no way is that an acceptable reason to put someone’s life at risk.

Media Adds Shock Value to Williams Jr.'s Comments

After ESPN decided to pull Hank Williams Jr.'s "Are You Ready?" Monday Night Football theme song last Monday following his remarks on President Obama golfing with House Speaker John Boehner, the media had a field day and produced some very bold titles that over-simplified his statement for the purpose of shock value. You can find that here, here, here and here.

Many headlines each included an over-simplified idea that Williams directly compared President Obama to Adolf Hitler. What person wouldn't be curious to click on a link if the title compared America's president to the most evil human that ever lived? These headlines were chosen on purpose with the intention of making it appear as if Williams had said something much bolder, more direct and more preposterous.

But, this wasn't the case. Williams, who has political ambitions, simply implied that Obama golfing with Boehner was like Hitler golfing with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Is that as an extreme comparison? Yes. But, it wasn't nearly as extreme as the way the media presented it.

One story from CNN never even stated what Williams said, and only mentioned that he compared Obama to Hitler. The story included quotes from others that made it appear as if Williams directly implied Obama was Hitler. How can you claim to have a fair, honest report when you don't even include what Williams said? In this case, the actual story was biased, not just the title.

Yahoo!News produced the worst title of them all with "Are you ready from some Hitler?" - which is a spin-off of the 'are you ready for some football" lyric. Puns and jokes don't belong in news titles. Also, if Williams is accused of offending the Holocaust survivors by his analogy, how well do you think the title "Are you ready for some Hitler?" sits with them?

Most of the media produced headlines such as the aforementioned ones, but then explained directly what Williams said in the body of the story. While the body may have been accurate, the title was completely over-dramatized.

A better option would have been to use the term analogy in the title, or better yet, too simply say that ESPN pulled Williams' song over political statements. I think it is fair that this ordeal wound up in the news, but the way it was presented, specifically in titles, was completely unethical based on it being blown out of proportion for shock value.

Associated Press Defends Transcription of Obama Speech

The Associated Press' reporter Mark Smith is defending the way he transcribed President Barack Obama's speech at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's annual award dinner on Saturday. Yet, many beleive racism played a role in his transcript of the speech.

Smith dropped G's in the transcript, quoting Obama as saying the words "complainin", "grumblin" and "cryin". This action has many people angry with Smith's decision. Author Karen Hunter called the AP's decision to do this "inherently racist".

It's very hard to decipher whether this is actually racist, becasue Obama did appear to be speaking in the fashion Smith depicted in the transcript. Yet, it does raise some flags in the world of ethics.

It is common for journalists to clean up quotes and fix such sayings that Smith did not. Fixing those mistakes is not lying nor is not being accurate - it's just journalistic practice. It is okay to clean up quotes as long as it does not disrupt or alter the speaker's message. So, when Smith decides to suddenly ignore that practice, it does create certain issues with ethics that would allow someone to say racism played a role.

Smith needs to be consistent with the way he transcribes. He can't clean up other quotes to follow journalistic practice, and then decide that this speech should not be cleaned up. That lacks consistency and makes his thought process questionable when he transcribes in a different manner for different sources.