I suppose I'm guilty of taking journalistic ethics for granted because I've long expected journalists to be...ethical. Don't get me wrong: I've seen the stories of those who lie or manipulate when it comes to reporting, but it's not so often that I think we're in trouble with our news.
What I enjoyed with this collection of articles was that it covered the gamut: from journalists' use of Twitter (how odd and interesting, those findings), to manipulated photos, to checking media ethics, to fake news, to what so-called responsible journalism actually looks like (i.e. here's how we're doing it wrong, and here's how to do it right). My thoughts after reading them all: this is not your mother's reporting process. And also: maybe there's a little right in all the wrong presented herein.
Let me explain.
1.) In Lee's paper about reporters' use of Twitter, I was most surprised by the finding that journalists "remain unaware of audiences." What, I thought?!? How the heck?!? How's that a little right? Well, they're obviously interacting with each other, going after stories and sources. I can't imagine they're not engaging in other ways, so if they don't use Twitter, necessarily, to do that, who am I to judge? The point is, reporters are still engaging in "new media" (speed journalism for the win...sort of) and taking advantage of other ways in which to pursue the story.
2.) The photo editing, ah. So where's the right in that? Well, granted, there's not a lot. If you're adding/subtracting components for the sack of drama, I'm not going to offer you much sympathy at the loss of your job and reputation. But is lightening or darkening okay? Sharpening? What about the fair point that, really, editing has been happening for many, many years in some form or another. "It's accepted within the industry that you can follow some techniques from the darkroom. The problem is that the technology is there and it's so alluring to go in and take it one step further." In the digital age, it's simply a heck of a lot easier to say gotcha. Where's the strict line between right and wrong? I offer this timely story (and its hilarious aftermath) for consideration:
http://petapixel.com/2016/01/29/nikon-awards-prize-to-badly-shopped-photo-hilarity-ensues/.
3.) The Washington Post story about Horner/Bansky (I'd never heard of him before reading this) is my kind of article (as a huge fan of the movie Idiocracy, I connect with this guy.) "My stories always have a point," he says several times. Reflecting on a report he was marrying his dog..."It was just to make fun of the fact that super anti-gay people are like -- 'what's next? A toaster?" The right here (for me) is that without this kind of satire, well, I think we ARE taking ourselves at bit too seriously. Let's step away from this and become human beings again, please and thank you.
Separately, I'm vexed by virtual reality news op-ed. --> "Our stories can't be virtually true. They must be fully real." There were some thoughtful observations here, about the use of B-roll footage and staged photographs that accompany news stories, though. I look forward to discussing this piece in class, because I'm not entirely sure what virtual reality news is all about, and reading the op-ed didn't provide a lot of insight.
No comments:
Post a Comment