Ethics and information

What was that she said in lecture about information having a "shelf life"?

Jeff Fisher questions Ch. 5's ethics on 'exclusive' report | tennessean.com | The Tennessean

When I discuss ethics, I often try to frame it in terms of the forces that move us to make bad decisions. I'm going to come right out and say it: using file footage from an unrelated interview question in this way was a bad decision. What kinds of forces would have made the reporter and producer do this?

Accuracy, speed and corrections

Social media lit up a bit this week when Howard Kurtz from the Washington Post included a line in a column, referring to Kenya as President Obama's "native country."
As you probably already know, some fringe folks known as the "birthers" question the legitimacy of the Obama presidency, claiming he was not born in the U.S. and thus is constitutionally barred from serving as president. When a reader pointed it out, Kurtz immediately said it was a slip and he meant, "ancestral homeland."
The Post has now appended a correction but many questioned how long it took them to do that (about three days, by my count).
What are organizations' responsibilities when it comes to accuracy? How fast should they correct errors? How does the social media sphere both exacerbate errors (such as the birthers linking to the story) and ferret them out (such as the reader who noted the problem)?

Fired for funny

A TV reporter this week paid with his job for altering a video (he says to make it funny) and posting it to YouTube.
What do you think of this? What is the line in cyberspace between your job and you life? Could I get in the same trouble? Would this have been different if he had been a journalism professor instead of a journalist? What if he were a basketball player? What, if any, professional standards were violated? What do you think of the result?
In other vein, what was the Huffington Post's responsibility here? Revisit my exchange this week with Jay Rosen and others about accuracy in citizen journalism. How did accuracy matter here? Could this case be an argument for the participatory nature of online media? A spoof made it to a larger audience as a reality, but ultimately the audience verified that it was inaccurate. How did the pressures of speed and competition play into this case?

Accuracy and citizen journalism

"Citizen journalism" is generally viewed as news that is gathered and disseminated by those outside traditional or mainstream news organizations. Some laud it as the future of journalism
[change to original: I shouldn't have linked to Rosen post on these words, as he doesn't call it "future of journalism."]
a way to ensure a watchdog function as mainstream news budgets slide and former business models dissolve.
But it's not without controversy. Check out this case when a citizen journalism report got it completely wrong and affected the stock of a major corporation. It's not just a question for journalism. The SEC even got involved on this one.
So what's your response? Is there a place for "non-professionals" to be doing reporting? What are the dangers? How do we ensure values like accuracy and fairness when people are operating outside of the realms where professional norms are learned and reinforced?

Ads and Accuracy

The two presidential campaigns got into multiple kerfuffles last fall over the accuracy of campaign advertising. It's a pretty common development.
Here's just one example.
But now that we have the benefit of time and distance, did it matter? In what ways does campaign advertising sway the electorate? Should we expect it to be "accurate"? How is that accuracy determined in the arena of politics? Isn't one man's misinterpretation another man's firm conviction? Are these ethics questions only or should we think about legal ramifications?

Accuracy

Great tidbit in a blog post today. LZ Granderson, a writer for ESPN the Magazine, offers this response to a question:

Q: Moreso now than possibly ever, when news happens, columnists and bloggers and TV talking heads want to weigh in immediately, even if all the facts have yet to trickle out, or before the court case is finished. From the Mitchell Report to Duke Lacrosse to Sean Taylor, any ideas on how everyone can handle these situations in the future? Do we even need a solution?

When I was a cub reporter I did this news brief about this head-on car accident that left one person dead. I wasn’t careful in my reporting and falsely blamed the victim for the cause of the accident. The next day I found out I made the mistake and I just wanted to vomit. My boss, John Barnes, made my drive almost an hour south to apologize face-to-face to the victim’s family. They were hurt and tearful but still very kind to me. On the way back I pulled over and cried for about 10 minutes. From that day on, I knew the most important thing in this business it to be right. Not first. Not loudest. But right. That’s not to say I don’t make mistakes, but obviously that experience had a profound affect on my reporting and writing habits. So to answer your question, as an industry I believe we have to get back to putting the priority on accuracy above all else.

Apart from mixing up "effect" and "affect," he's spot-on.

Check out the whole interview, including Granderson's take on being an openly gay sportswriter and why "The Wire" isn't a hit.

Accuracy in Advertising

A local example of how inaccuracy can bite you. Those ads cost a pretty penny to make and to run, yet their effectiveness has been significantly diminished by the simplest of errors. Media coverage of the mistake has outstripped the attention the spots may have earned on their own.
Makes a 10-point deduction for fact errors in J202 look like chump change. You've asked me repeatedly if we had a "10 Commandments of Media Ethics," what would be the first one. I'm nothing if not consistent: in news and strat comm, above all things, get it right.