The ethical decision

Journalism ethics have come into question in recent years--to say the least. There was the New York Times Jayson Blair scandal as recent as 2003, with Blair fabricating and plagiarizing his way to the top of the journalistic world before humiliating the Times in his downfall. Before that was the Stephen Glass and Dateline NBC debacles, doing major damage to their credibility with their audiences. After all, these weren't cases of irresponsible ethical behavior at the local, nickel-an-inch newspaper level--these happened at some of the most respected newspapers and news programs in American history! It's like if it was found out that it was bypass surgery and not Subway sandwiches that led to Jared losing all that weight, or if Rocky really used steroids to beat Ivan Drago.

The public deserves to question the media's validity, especially in today's world of corporate consolidation and big businesses that buy up family run papers. It's our duty as the next generation of journalists to exercise responsible ethical principles and adhere to those standards. As flag bearers of BYU and the Church, we need to apply the Savior's teaching of the golden rule: 

Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets. (3 Nephi 14:12).

We can't afford to plagiarize or act dishonestly. Much of this can be prevented by simply putting ourselves in others' shoes. How will this effect this company? This family? Is this objective and fair to all parties? 

Following a high standard of journalistic ethics is the only way to win credibility back. How to define ethics can be complicated for some. As members of the Church, it shouldn't be for us.      

The George Will Devotional

College students aren't expected to know much about or participate in politics. We've been branded with the stereotype that we're too busy partying and eating pizza to spend time waiting in line to vote. I don't know how accurate this description is--it could very well be right according voter statistics, but the overall disenchantment of all American citizens with the political process is unsettling. At least, for me it is.

That's why I thoroughly enjoyed George Will's forum address to BYU students on Tuesday. It shined a floodlight on the chaos stemming from a government that claims to "knows everything," from the correct price in exchange for pressing pants to the exact wage an immigrant should be making in 2014.

Speaking on "the political argument today," Will masterfully laid out the problems America faces today and in the near future. Whereas America had once borrowed money for the future, the ever expanding government has resorted to borrowing money from the future--funding billion dollar programs like Obamacare and immigration reform on the bill of our grandchildren. Watching with my friends, I felt validity for the similar personal opinions I had recently expressed to them. Now I had more than just Fox News to back me up.

Will later went on to explain the dangers of a government too involved in American's lives by relating the details of an event during the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The National Recovery Administration was a chief governmental program of the New Deal. It's goal was to eliminate competition in the market place, with the government setting the "correct" price for goods and services. The program went so far as to prosecute one New York businessman who charged 35 cents for pants pressing, when the NRA believed the service was worth 40 cents. The man was fined $100 and faced three months in jail.

Finishing his lecture, Will emphasized what he called the most crucial verb in the Deceleration of Independence, the word "secure." Government, he said, was to secure the rights naturally endued upon men by their creator. It is not to grant or revoke these God given rights. Unlike Vice President Joe Biden's statement that every achievement within the past decade was in part due to the government, an individual's ability and right to achieve success is granted without the consent or necessity of government.      
----------
This is for extra credit in comms211 and comms239         

What Washington didn't want you to know about Vietnam

People a good secret. They jump at the chance to receive confidential information--even more so when the content are controversial. It's why "insiders" and big news breaking journalists get paid the big bucks.

But what if revealing secretive information poses a threat to national security? Should it be published regardless? And what if revealing secretive information is said to be a threat to national security, just to hide an ugly truth from the people?

In 1971 Daniel Ellsberg, an insider with knowledge of U.S. affairs and in the recent Vietnam war, leaked secret documents to the New York Time--later to be known as "the Pentagon Papers." Ellsberg, who became opposed to the U.S.'s involvement in Vietnam, leaked papers revealing controversial military tactics, as well as Washington's decision to give military aid to France. He later  faced up to 115 years in prison for treason, only to have charged dropped after it was discovered that the government had been illegally tapping his conversations.

While Ellsberg managed to wriggle off the hook of governmental wrath, an infamous present day  leaker faces major charges for exposing top secret documents. In June 2013, former NSA contractor Edward Snowden disclosed information of the NSA surveillance tactics to The Guardian newspaper. The leak reignited controversy in the debate that goes all the way back to the famous John Peter Zenger trial in 1734. Should journalists have free reign to publish any information they see as truth, or do possible national security threats trump freedom of press rights?

When lives are at stake, lines should be drawn. Both the leaker and the one publishing should refrain from putting out any information that could possibly harm U.S. citizens. But where information expose governmental abuse, such as the NSA collecting phone calls and emails of ordinary U.S. citizens, that information deserves to be published, no matter how embarrassing it may be for the government.

In today's age of hackers and leakers, the government can't risk hiding illegal agencies and abuses. If they would be embarrassed by making their actions public, it's a good indication they should not be doing what they're doing. They can admit to and disband their abusive behavior, or wait long enough for a leaker to do it himself. Either way, the people will know.        

Journalistic Independence

I learned a new meaning for "journalistic independence." More than just objectivity, this independence refers to the loyalty of journalists to their audience. It makes sense--above the pressures of the advertisers, the PR, or the editors should be the priority for quality journalistic reporting.

But that isn't the business model for most news organizations these days.

In 2005, The Los Angeles Times entered into a deal with PR representatives seeking to hype the opening of the Staples Center. The Times published a special Sunday edition magazine entirely devoted to the new arena, in agreement to later split the profits from advertising. Controversy ensued with the deal's discovery, and publisher Katheryn Downing was reprimanded.

The problem with this "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" ideology is that it not only deceives the audience, it calls into question the integrity of the entire company. Are they there to report the news or to try and push their product? Corporate consolidation further complicates a company's independence.  

If I suddenly magically became the owner of a news company--either newspaper, TV, or radio--the model I would instill would be a #1 loyalty to the audience. If we report the news with complete transparency with the people, they will read or tune in to our news first. Don't cut corners by taking easy money from advertisers seeking to pump up their product. Honest, straightforward journalism will, in the long run, win the trust of our audience and profits will rise.    

Which, admittedly is easy to say having just magically become the owner of the company. But still.

J.B. Haws spoke on LDS public perception Thursday in the second part of the Raymond E. and Ida Lee Beckham Lecture in Communication series. Assistant professor in the Department of Church History and Doctrine, Haws presented BYU students with a timeline of critical events that have shaped the way outsiders view Mormons—in both positive and negative respects.

Haws’ interest in the Church’s public perception can be traced back to his elementary school days in the small town of Hooper, Utah. As a 10 year old 2^nd grader, Haws vividly remembers the experience of President Ronald Reagan visiting the LDS cannery in Ogden, as well as the glowing remarks the Commander in Chief related of his experience.

“There was something very affirming about the President of our nation speaking well of our church,” Haws said.

Since 1957, the Church Information Service has continued to evolve in its involvement in public relations and affairs. Haws pointed to the Church’s involvement in the 1964-65 New York World Fair as a key moment in exposing Mormonism to the public. Of the six million visitors who passed the Mormon’s designated pavilion, one million requested follow up calls from the missionaries.

But it wasn’t always clear sailing for the Church’s growing public image, as the rise of Republican presidential hopeful George Romney shined a light on the Church’s controversial policy of withholding the Priesthood from African American males. Haws went on to describe other troubles in the 1980’s, as a rising tide of anti-Mormon sediment stemmed from Evangelical targeting.

“During the 1980’s, we witnessed something of a philosophical (search) for LDS public relations,” Haws said. “In these years the department was finding its identity in some way after it’s marketing side was transferred to the missionary department.”

            Despite the controversy that surrounded most of the 80’s and 90’s, Haws pointed to the recent positive experiences the Church has had in the public eye, including the 2002 Olympics and recent presidential candidacy of George Romney’s son, Mitt Romney. Innovations in social media also has contributed to a growth in understanding the doctrine and values of the LDS church.

            “I see LDS public affairs as constantly being with the mission of its parents organization rather than in anyway compromising that mission.”   

**This post is for extra credit in comms 239 and 211