In the video, there are examples of digital manipulation in photos and videos. When, if ever, is it ethical to alter a photograph or video that accompanies your news reporting?
After watching the video, I honestly don't think it is ever ethical to alter a photo or video that accompanies your news reporting. I feel that editing out swear words or nudity or others is ethical at times, but to actually change reality for the purpose of your news is absolutely unethical. It is not fair if the public relies on you for the news, and you and whatever corporation you are working for to take matters into your own hands and simply "alter" reality, essentially lying to the public. Even if it is as simple as cropping and pasting a black person's face onto a pamphlet to show diversity, this diversity is false and it is not fair to portray that to the public.
The video shows examples of "hype"-filled headlines and alarmist reporting. In many cases, this is due to the fact that such reporting tends to get the attention of audiences. Should the news media adjust their news reporting strategies based on reader demand and/or interest?
In a sense it seems they almost have to. If their headlines are boring, or not what the public is interested in then they will have no readership or audience. While I don't think they should focus or strive for alarmist reporting, it is not fair to request that of a news reporting firm or whoever while other places are doing so. However, I don't think it is fair of any news media outlet to abuse the power they have on "hype" filled headlines. For example, totally exaggerating the idea of the "summer of the shark" was totally unfair to the public. I am sure many that summer avoided the public beaches for that very reason when there in fact was no more reported shark attacks than any other year. Also, with the example given of road rage, it is good to raise awareness of dangerous issues to the public but unfair to dramatize them and strike fear when it is not totally true or necessary. It is not fair for news media outlets to take advantage of the public with their power to alter news information and create fear so they will get more attention or viewers.
Several publications and media outlets accept "freebies" and "junkets" from PR firms and lobbyists. Under what circumstances, does this present a conflict of interest for the journalists?
This presents a conflict of interest because they are almost obligated in a sense to report highly of the company that has just paid for their trip. It is nice for the journalist becase often times they would have never been able to afford the trip on their own, but it is unfair because they are trying to buy the favor of the journalism for their product. The journalists also know that if they give a bad review they would never be invited on such trips again. I understand that many journalists can not afford such lavish trips, but it is unethical for them to give potentially faulty reports to the public so they can go on nice trips. If the company the journalist worked for paid for them to go on the trips would be one thing, but for the company who is under review to pay for the journalist is an entirely different story.
Why do you think so many media outlets were fooled by the "Fat Squad" and other fake news stories? Do you think that the Internet news media is more or less likely to fall for such pranks?
I am not sure why media outlets were fooled by the "Fat Squad." The movie seemed a little dated, but it seems that research into the "Fat Squad" was probably not done as thoroughly as it should have been. The idea of hired humans to follow you around all idea seems totally humorous and unrealistic. As for the other fake news stories, the idea seems rare but you still see them happening. Remember that family who said their little boy went missing in that aircraft/balloon thing from their garage? And the boy got so nervous on tv he threw up? And it turns out his parents had told him to go hide or something ridiculous? I think false stories could almost be punishable, and reporting them could be an honest mistake but it definitely needs deep research. I think internet media is probably more likely because they can go in and change or delete things at anytime they want.
No comments:
Post a Comment