Everyone is considered a journalist nowadays
Many believe that the old rules of journalism have changed; however, they haven't; the media has. In a world of technological advancement, journalism has become easier to indulge in. Everyone who has a phone or computer can now take part in journalism, but are also held responsible for what they say. The lines only seem to be blurred because of the amount of information being put out by multiple sources. With so many sources of information the definition of journalist is expanded.With the onset of social networking, anything you say can be considered defamatory as long as it is published. According to the New York Times, about 10,000 Twitter users are facing legal action as they linked a former French Conservative party official with the sexual abuse of a child. Alistair McAlpine is looking to sue for libel simply because of comments made about him over the social network. The comments that were made were false information, which caused the issue. If the tweets would have been opinionated towards the official's political stance then these tweeters may have been off the hook. This goes to show you that even if you are retweeting information or post a tweet on Twitter, you are held within the same regards of a journalist.
Unethical journalists are needed to give information that we would never receive
As far as "blocking" journalists from doing anything that calls for impartiality, I believe that should be the writer's decision at the time of submission. To block a journalist from publishing something would sacrifice their first amendment. The problem is journalists forget that although they have a freedom of press, they also have other laws that can be enforced against them regardless of what the Constitution states. Ethics are what defines the decisions being made by these journalist, and the public needs both ethical and unethical journalists in order to receive all sorts of information. If all journalists were ethical then we may not know many things that we do today. These are the writers that the extra step and snoop around even if it puts them in danger of being sued. They value the story that they produce more than anything, and whether the public wants to agree or not; they are a huge reason why we are so informed on a lot of ethically questioned topics today.
To relate this to a real life issue, the Vatican scandal recently was brought to the public by journalists and a site called Vatileaks. The leaked information was said to have been stolen by the butler and shared with the media. Here the site had to take into question whether or not they were willing to risk trouble for the greater good of knowledge within the public. They chose to release the documents, and although the butler was the only one arrested, the site still took the risk of posting the secret documents. It has been said that the pope has resigned because of the scandal, but it still hasn't been proved.
The media organization is responsible for its journalists
Although the journalist is the one who publishes the story, the media company that hires the writer has their named attached to the story and supplies the journalist. The organization is what is known by the public, not the writer. For example, in the Times v. Sullivan case, the New York Times included an advertisement in their paper about how Montgomery Alabama police brutally treated civil rights protesters. A lot of the information was exaggerated for the emphasis of the story. The Montgomery Public Safety commissioner took offense to the ad and sued the paper, not the writer or company that had the ad placed. It is the media organization's responsibility to hire reporters they can trust to carry on their company's name ethically within the public eye.
I really liked how you outlined the roles of everyone involved in the production and consumption of media. You emphasized the responsibilities of journalists, media organizations, and the general public. The example of the Montgomery Alabama Public Safety commissioner suing the New York Times as opposed to the author of the controversial article reinforced your point that there are many people who are responsible for ethical practices in journalism. Additionally, the example of Alistair McAlpine suing twitter users cemented the idea that we are all responsible for behaving ethically and responsibly. The standards that apply to professional journalists actually apply universally and many people forget that.
ReplyDeleteThe formatting of this post was very good. The title was explanatory, the picture is embedded and appropriately sized, and the links are relevant. My one comment would be that the video placement is a bit awkward and would be better suited next to text where it wouldn’t be blocking off a whole chunk of the post. I liked that your subheads gave enough information to engage the reader without being too long. I also enjoyed that you took a journalists perspective and explained the motivations behind certain unethical behavior.
This was a very interesting post, I especially like how you highlight the fact that nowadays everyone can be considered a journalist due to the invention of social networking. I think defamation is a great term to consider when it comes to journalism. Highlighting the difference between giving an opinion and straight up criticizing someone or something is crucial. It can often times be very beneficial for companies or people to receive others opinions on certain matters. These opinions can be utilized to improve the target of said criticism. On the other hand, criticizing or even spreading false information can bring heavy negative effects on an organization. It all comes down to ethics with everything in life not just journalism. Spreading information that makes people look bad is a very immoral and unethical thing to do. People are not reading your work to gather lies and other defamation. They read journalists work because they trust them to relay the truth. Spicing stories up with falsehoods is not the way to go about selling your work, although in the 21st century people do anything to make a buck.
ReplyDeleteJourdyn's post was very informative concerning the new wave of social media and how it affects the journalism profession. The post was formatted very well, with good placement of the picture as well as a video near the bottom of the post to keep interest. The headings were concise and contained good information about the upcoming information.
ReplyDeleteI agree with some content of the post. With the new social media sites and popularity, basically anyone in the world can post an opinion and be heard. Jourdyn makes the point that the people who hire the writers are the ones responsible for the content that is written, giving an example of the New York Times being sued instead of the writer. A question I have is, who is responsible for content that is posted on Twitter or Facebook? Do users sign the terms and agreements that absolve the social media entities of any wrongdoing? It would be interesting to find out.
While I agree with that point, I disagree that we need unethical journalists to find out important information. Ethics are a standard that I believe should be kept for every person living on this Earth, and the world would be a better place if we all maintain ethical behavior. With that said, Jourdyn's post was well-written, informative, and thought-provoking.
Jourdyn's post was extremely well structured and presented very valid view points on this media journalism age in time. I appreciate how Jourdyn started the articles by stating clear facts referencing the law of fair comment establishing write away in the article what a journalist is and isn't allowed to do. The title is way to wordy and I would have liked to have seen a much more simplistic one along the lines of "Media Organizations Taking Responsibility for Actions."
ReplyDeleteIn her article Jourdyn also referenced the New York Times incident, how they are responsible for it's writers however I find it hard to believe that the writer has little or no responsibility for his or her actions if the company is being accused of inaccurate or false information. Expanding on the article I feel as though reporters have an ethical responsibility. Journalists need to inform their audiences with accurate information and at no time should unethical behavior be tolerated however I appreciate your attempt in taking the other viewpoint. Overall, very strong and well structured posting.