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

The Mind of a Journalist

Objectivity is the golden standard within the journalism world. Which is a great, trendy cliche that the cable news likes to throw around a lot. But is it really realistic? Can someone be passionate about covering the news and at the same time remain a detached, unbiased observer? 

We can find the answer by turning to Major League Baseball. Unlike the NFL, which televises every game nationally, MLB games are usually only broadcasted through local television stations. Every club has their own TV announcers travel with the team to call games, and  unfortunately, many of them seem to be packing their pom-poms and fan jerseys in an effort to root on the home team.

 A recent WSJ study confirms the bias. After watching game broadcasts of all 30 teams, they proceeded to rank the commentators in an "announcer bias index." Of the 30 teams, 25 broadcasts included at least one remark favoring the home team, while the Blue Jays, Yankees, Red Sox, Mets and Dodgers remained objective.

But the bias goes even deeper. Take for example Ken "the Hawk" Harrelson, play-by-play television commentator for the Chicago White Sox. Infamous for his unbridled homerism, fanatic home run calls, and lack of excitement at opposing teams' success, Harrelson's broadcast had an astounding 104 biased comments--by far the most of any team. Here are two of the Hawk's actual home run calls, the first a Conor Gillaspie shot in the seventh inning to take the lead against the Rangers:

"That ball hit high and deep…stretch--STRETCH! Get on back there…they look up—you caaaannn PUT IT ON THE BOOOOOOAAAAAARRRRRDDDDD! YEEEEEEESSSS! YEEEEEEESSSS! Number three for Gillaspie, and the Sox lead it three to two!"

...and this one, a Nick Swisher blast that put the Indians up a run against the White Sox:

 "And the payoff…it is a nine-eight…Indian lead…four runs here in the top of the ninth inning..."

Although objectivity is dying out in baseball, there is still a flicker of hope. Vin Sculley, the voice of the Dodgers since the team was stationed in Brooklyn, remains one of the greatest broadcasters of all time. He never refers to the Dodgers as "we," "us," or "our," doesn't create pet names for players, never gets too high or too low. He has the calling of critical plays down to an art form; showing appropriate excitement without getting carried away in the moment. (Notice that after calling Kirk Gibson's home run, he remains silent for an entire minute and seven seconds, letting the listener soak in the reaction of the crowd. Not many can do it the way Vin does it). 

Baseball doesn't need TV announcers screaming at fans whenever a home run is hit for "their" team. Any glorified fan with a microphone can do that. The magic of the game deserves a higher plane of analysis and commentating.

Like the magic that emulates as Vin Sculley calls a game. 

          

How JFK's assasination changed the media

Rarely does a news story reach the echelon of "I'll-always-remember-where-I-was-and-what-I- was-doing-when-I saw-that" moment. To date, I can think of only five within my lifetime:

•  O.J. Simpson's Ford Bronco slow-speed car chase down the I-405 freeway
• September 11th
• The finding of Elizabeth Smart
• The news report that Osama Bin Laden was captured and killed
• The Boston Marathon bombings 

It's these types of stories that make "watching the news" transcend to "living the news." People become glued to television screens, constantly check their phones, and patiently await any new information. You could drop into a restaurant in Boise, Idaho and overhear the same discussions that people are having in a Boston pub. 

Although it happened fifty years ago, the drama of the JFK assassination still ranks right up at the top of memorable media coverage. In fact, many of the techniques the media now uses to cover big news stories were developed in the wake of the presidential shooting.      

The image of of the infamous event, with the oblivious spectators, confused passengers, and sudden car acceleration has been burned into the minds of those who witnessed the breaking story. That's in a large part due to the networks' use of instant replay, a first for that time. For an unprecedented four days of continuous coverage, people all over the country watched and waited for answers, which were slow to come by. Television cemented itself as one of the top sources for breaking news, and TV news networks reaped the profits of a steady popularity growth. 

The standard of covering big breaking news stories was set by the coverage of the JFK assassination. We never know when the next transcendent news story will hit us. But we know that when it does, we'll all be watching.