Blog Post 10

I can directly relate to this chapters observation on moral development because of my role as an older sister. I have watched my younger brother who is 4 years younger than myself, progress through almost all of Piaget’s moral development stages. It is extremely interesting to read through these as an accepted norm and I’m sure growing up it would’ve been helpful to know (or at least would’ve prevented some pretty silly sibling fights). I think the biggest takeaway from Piaget’s stages was the third stage of development, that of understanding the reasoning behind rules and therefore feeling better in justifying breaking them. This is a question that I think defines ethics for me. The quiz at the beginning of the semester placed me as a hard realist, so I am in large support of fully accepting this stage of development. A universal moral code seems absurd to me, it is the reasoning that one acquires at this stage of development that I think defines one as ethical vs. unethical.

This ties in a bit with Kohlberg’s theories as well. His sixth stage of so-called ‘universal ethical principles’ seems impossible, but perhaps that’s because I probably operate on a more conventional moral basis. I fully support his concept of social systems as a moral incentive. When I think of this I think of my mother. She is a moral person by most standards but she would constantly stress certain things to my brother and I because they were “the right thing to do”. The right thing to do though was never what immediately struck my brother and I to do naturally. It was something we were supposed to do based off of widely accepted social systems and norms. I think this level of ethical behavior is questionable but understandable. Without anyone being able to be truly, purely ethical (save for the few handfuls of people Kohlberg brought up) it makes sense that ethics should be measured on a scale that defines what modern day ethical behavior is motivated by.

I was a much bigger fan of Gilligan’s notions of moral development. The idea of fusing two different moral languages fits the way in which I approach ethical decision making a lot better. While I may not always behave or act morally, I would consider myself as completing moral development in Gilligan’s model.

After completing the chapter I was left with one final thought: I definitely don’t think I would make a good journalist. I would like to think that I am generally ethical but I certainly don’t hold myself to the moral standards it appears the average journalist does. I think I’ll leave that to the professionals!

Blog Post 9

I was surprised to read a chapter in the book based off of art and ethics. In all things media, art has always struck me as being the last frontier for freedom of speech. Art to me has always been strictly unapologetic and deeply personal. I don’t agree with Tolstoy’s point at all, sure art can be esoteric but that doesn’t degrade its value. I actually think the opposite. When art is misunderstood by its audience, I think that connotes a complexity and depth by the artist. Good art isn’t simply taken at face value and understood, I feel good art invokes thought and questioning.

This also goes along with the concept of censorship. Censoring art over ethical concerns involving the public being offended seems like a feckless and counter intuitive practice. Art is expression and personal expression rarely follows the rules and preferences of others, nor should it. I’ve always been a strong opponent of censorship in general but with art it seems especially egregious. In the context of ethics I think censorship is babying the public. If a painting or a movie has cuss words or nudity, I don’t see that as inherently harmful to others. It benefit’s others because it breeds culture and appreciation of expression. Censorship seems unethical. It doesn’t directly benefit anyone and harms those that are being censored. As an artist having someone tell you that your work cannot be executed according to your vision is like neutering their self expression and inherently harmful to them.

The author’s discussion over the mix of art and journalism in documentaries was very intriguing. I love watching documentaries but I think the book brings up a very important point in explaining their subjectivity. I’d venture to say the majority of people see documentaries as information, they watch them in an attempt to acquire and better understand certain issues, whatever they may be. Therein lies the danger and the ethical dilemma for filmmakers. These films all too often go unquestioned by the majority of viewers and are taken as fact, giving those behind the film a lot of power and influence. Ethically, my question is do the filmmakers truly have a responsibility to viewers or is it the responsibility of viewers to understand what they’re watching? Personally I think every time someone watches a documentary they should do so with a grain of salt. Filmmakers don’t have an ethical obligation to viewers to be objective because in my mind, documentaries are foremost a film and only secondarily a source of information. Those watching should always keep this in mind.

Something that I do feel is unethical is business of entertainment through ‘reality’ or the exploitation of others. Take for example the books case on the radio host Van Lansing. When he is making money off of being out rightly racist, sexist and generally hurtful to others, I think a line should be drawn. It is not about self expression because I am not advocating preventing him from having these opinions, just financially benefitting off of them and pushing them onto the public as “entertainment”.

Blog Post 8

 Oh did this chapter scream relevancy at me this week. While doing my reading I came upon the section of the chapter aimed at interviews and how journalists could deceive or trick their audience by using them. At first I chuckled. What a strange point, I had never seen interviews as anything less than standard journalism. How could they have been so incendiary in the past? As if the universe heard me, my question was soon answered, specifically by this interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNK-e6nnFGY

I was floored by the media ethics exhibited in this interview of activist Suey Park by Josh Zepp for Huffington Post. Zepp is questioning Suey on her recent efforts to raise awareness on the #cancelcolbert hastag in response to a racially charged tweet. Zepp manipulates Park into looking emotional and illogical. He frames his questions condescendingly and jeers at her answers, even at one point explicitly calling her opinion “stupid”. Soon the public was on board, calling Park foolish and overly sensitive. Those that get their news specifically from sites like HuffPo and the like took to the Internet to bash Park and I formed another connection with the book. The importance of where we get our news is completely exacerbated by things like this.

Another point that I’ve experience in my everyday life lately is that of citizen journalists. One of my close friends from high school consistently posts his ‘articles’ the he writes for the online magazine Vice. He has yet to graduate from college but touts himself as a journalist writing on the social media injustices of today. His work is published by the company and passed off as newsworthy. While Vice may not be the shining paragon of journalism it is still a pretty high profile company with a solid following. What they publish is taken at face value a majority of the time. What scares me is their recent foray into actual ‘hard hitting news’ with the beginning of a segment called (creatively) Vice News. In my opinion, I find it hard to take the articles and videos posted by Vice News as legitimate when I see people like my 19-year-old, pot head high school classmates also legally associated with them as well.

Don’t get me wrong I think citizen journalism can be an incredibly important and valuable tool to society but it straddles a dangerous line. Those that follow news sources that utilize it have to worry about things like story legitimacy (dealing with sourcing issues as mentioned in the reading) as well as things like the ethics and what should be the “objectivity” behind it. Without following several legitimate news sources that follow traditional journalism tenets and employ traditionally trained journalists, the public risks losing touch with what is really going on.

Blog Post 7

This weeks reading hit especially close to home for me. I've studied photography for over 8 years so the ethics of photography as a tool of reporting have been hammered into my head. I was extremely interested in the pictures and individual cases that were going to accompany the chapter. 

One of the most powerful for me was the case focusing on Marinovich in Soweto. I had seen both pictures before in different online chat rooms but never truly knew the story. It brought me back to one of the very first classes we had in which we all discussed the role of ethics in deciding to publish certain pictures. In my opinion I would've published these photos. They may ruin someone’s breakfast but they are the truth and paint a somber picture that I think the public should've known. As we discussed in class, perhaps it may be more tactful to put the picture on a page a bit farther from the front but they should still be showcased. I feel like too much of the U.S. population didn't find the war in Iraq and Afghanistan relevant to them because they felt extremely disconnected form it. This disjointedness comes from the paucity of real time coverage (especially images) that truly demonstrates the atrocities abroad.

I think something about the Soweto case that stuck out to me specifically, was the discussion of the ethics of the photographer. A lot of the time focus is placed on the editors and their ethics, see: should we publish this or not. Yet the ethics behind the person taking the actual picture are judged as well. I found myself having a bit of a mental conflict in this regard. As a photographer I think if you find something powerful to shoot that makes a once in a lifetime shot, then by all means shoot it. But this isn’t ethically sound, as the book discusses. The question of ‘to shoot or not to shoot’ is one based intensely upon how a certain individuals ethical map looks. As a realist I see no problem shooting something as it’s happening but many might argue this as wrong. I think back to an extremely startling photo I saw a couple of months ago. A man lay on the ground, hands bound with hundreds of knives sticking out of him, the gore was off the Richter. It was one of the most powerful photos I’d ever seen. I immediately researched its origins. Apparently the man stabbed was a rapist abroad, killed after the entire village decided to take action against him. The photo is jarring but an interesting statement.

There was a lot of criticism towards the photographer for taking pictures in place of helping the man being stabbed, but how much can he be expected to do? If he had intervened might he also become a victim? That’s not to say if you can stop something that you shouldn’t but it seems as if in this situation that might be more dangerous than staying out of it. I also think ethically it’s impossible to hold all photographers to the same standard. Perhaps I’m biased but conclusively I feel the editors should shoulder more of the responsibility in these situations. Running the picture to thousands of readers is a lot different than taking one in the heat of the moment.

Blog Post 6

Hyper competition in the news industry is something that I wanted to touch on first for this week. I think anyone that keeps up with the news at all can testify that the competition has both a huge positive side as well as a negative. I began to think about the way that the New York Times works. Seeing as almost all media sources are channeled online, I began to check their website for my news. The first time I was there though after seeing just a couple of articles, they required a login. Looking further into what it took to create an account, the biggest thing that stuck out to me was the fact that you had to pay to read more. I was perplexed. On one hand, it made sense, you have to pay for a hard copy of the paper so why shouldn't you also have to pay for the online version? But at the same time there are so many other free sources of news online that it almost seemed too easy to just blow off the NYTimes and look elsewhere. I understand that they have a very loyal readership but I'd be very interested to see how much money they were making.

For readers this hyper competition can mean one of two things. Either one readers are getting extremely comprehensive and good coverage of events based on one newspaper wanting to have more information that is more accurate or two it could be the opposite. Newspapers so focused on making a profit may go out of their way to stretch and bend the truth to sound like the best read.

As the book explains focusing so much on the brand of a newspaper causes some journalists lose sight of the “balanced, objective and ethical” demands of their job. I definitely think that a journalist’s primary loyalty should be to their readers but I’m kind of conflicted. I feel like those going into journalism understand that they need to keep the public informed, that’s their job, but they also have to look out for themselves. Following the stockholder theory then that would mean to do exactly what stockholders are asking you to do – increase share prices. But does that get in the way of what has been seen as the primary responsibility of journalists in the past? Where should the line be drawn? We want to expect honest and fair news but how much are we willing to pay for it? I certainly am more wiling to pay for my news instead of looking towards an unreliable source but I don’t know if the majority of people feel that way. I’ve thought about this a lot and I’m just as conflicted as when I began. I’m not sure if there really is a right way. Being honest and transparent feels right but it also seems a bit implausible to expect that all the time from every newspaper when there is so much competition.