Should NBC have aired the video diatribe that Virginia Tech's gunman sent in?
Personally, I think yes & no..but ultimately, I think the video should not have been aired.
First of all, it was ethical in a sense that it informs the public, students and other Universities, and those that were affected by it. It explains why he did what he did and what he was probably doing during those two hours. The video sort of completed the puzzle in a way. Everyone discovered what his intentions were, what he had against others..it answered all the questions people were probably wondering about since it had happened. It was also ethical in a sense that it would make everyone become more aware of their surroundings.
However, with that said, even though the public were given these answers, it might've shocked a lot of viewers especially those that were his classmates or those that knew him. It's something that was unexpected and it can't be undone. It also might've scared some viewers. Since this was on a news channel, assuming that families sometimes watch the news together, it is likely that even young children caught glimpses of the video and I don't think that's a good picture to have.
I was in the middle of eating dinner when I first saw the video on the news. And when I did see it, I lost all my appetite. All I could think about was the video and that night I had a hard time falling asleep because I was shocked and afraid. I felt like these sort of things can happen anywhere, not necessarily on college campuses. (In fact last night I heard in the news that someone opened fire in a crowded mall!) It made me feel unsafe but it also made me be aware of how I might treat others.
That brings me to another thing as to why I don't think it was a good idea to air the whole video because it could've influenced other people (not necessarily students, but anyone) who have an extremely high temper to do the same thing. I hate to say or even think this but it might be possible that other angry people who may not have a care in the world might think "oh i could do better than that" and then act upon it.
How can we be sure that showing the VT video diatribe will prevent similar events from happening again?
I wonder... what were the processes that the NBC people went through and what their thoughts were when they were deciding whether or not to air the video?
If it were me that had to make that sort of decision, it would be to have talked about it but only to a certain extent that doesn't include the stuff that might scare or influence others. It's just too much, especially for the victims and their families. The video provided answers..although some of it was unnecessary, the important matter now is the security issues. If this is what the gunman had been doing during those 2 hours between the first and second shootings, he could have been stopped. I was surprised that no one caught him because 2 hours just seems like a long time...
Monday, April 30, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
News accuracy of immediate response
I think someone might've also mentioned this in class before. When I found out about yesterday's tragic incident in Virginia Tech, I searched for reports of it online and gathered a number of reports. As I was reading through some of them, the number of people killed were different. One news ogrganization reported 33, another reported 32, another reported 31 and others reported 23. I understand that because this was big news and news organizations relied on timeliness, needing to get the information out to the public, reporters wrote what they probably just heard. But I wonder where exactly do these news organizations (especially those out of the Virginia state/area) get their information from? Moreover, if other news ogranizations get it from the same news wire, how do such numbers get distorted and which report should readers & viewers mostly believe?
When this kind of tragic event happens, I think such accuracy isn't much of a matter on journalism ethics since it is more important to get the word out as quick as you can. Also, when people are just finding out about the news, they are most likely to search online or watch TV to get the details. It is until the next day when the bigger story/report is printed in the newspaper itself, which I think should have a better and more accurate information than what was first displayed online.
I'm just wondering..Is it normally okay to report information that might not be true later? If that is the case and the more formal and bigger reports are printed later with more accurate information, do journalists or the news organization usually make a note of error or something similar to that after they do get all of the details (or most of it) cleared and get the real truth?
This also reminds me of one of the readings we had about lying/speaking the truth. The article by Rickaby (1918) mentions:
I think it's important to determine the definition of a lie so that everyone could follow the same rule/guidelines. Also, is inaccuracy in journalism considered the same as speaking what might not be true? What if someone read something that was inaccurate, believed it, and that piece of information turns out not to be true, would reporters be accounted for producing inaccurate information or information that was false? Is there a difference? What are the ethical guidelines behind that?
I'm not saying that everything that was reported yesterday was not true. The reports of the number of people killed differed and also some reports had more details than others and some had different information about the gunman himself. I don't think that it was the reporters' intention to report any false information. I think they were just doing their job and taking responsibility to get the news out there and I assume they just reported the information that was given to them.. But this kind of stuff makes me wonder where do they get the information from and if all the reporters get it from the same source or news wire, how do the numbers end up differing from each other? And is that okay in situations like these.. and are there any processes they have to go through to clear things up saying "this is what you should read, not this" or something like that?
These were just some of the questions that were running through my mind as I came across the articles online yesterday. What do you guys think?
When this kind of tragic event happens, I think such accuracy isn't much of a matter on journalism ethics since it is more important to get the word out as quick as you can. Also, when people are just finding out about the news, they are most likely to search online or watch TV to get the details. It is until the next day when the bigger story/report is printed in the newspaper itself, which I think should have a better and more accurate information than what was first displayed online.
I'm just wondering..Is it normally okay to report information that might not be true later? If that is the case and the more formal and bigger reports are printed later with more accurate information, do journalists or the news organization usually make a note of error or something similar to that after they do get all of the details (or most of it) cleared and get the real truth?
This also reminds me of one of the readings we had about lying/speaking the truth. The article by Rickaby (1918) mentions:
"If a person says what is not true, but what he takes to be the truth, he tells indeed a material lie, but at the same time he puts forth no human act of lying. If on the other hand he says what he believes to be false, though it turns out true, he tells a formal lie, though not a material one, and moreover, he does a human act of lying. But human acts are the subject-matter of morality."
I think it's important to determine the definition of a lie so that everyone could follow the same rule/guidelines. Also, is inaccuracy in journalism considered the same as speaking what might not be true? What if someone read something that was inaccurate, believed it, and that piece of information turns out not to be true, would reporters be accounted for producing inaccurate information or information that was false? Is there a difference? What are the ethical guidelines behind that?
I'm not saying that everything that was reported yesterday was not true. The reports of the number of people killed differed and also some reports had more details than others and some had different information about the gunman himself. I don't think that it was the reporters' intention to report any false information. I think they were just doing their job and taking responsibility to get the news out there and I assume they just reported the information that was given to them.. But this kind of stuff makes me wonder where do they get the information from and if all the reporters get it from the same source or news wire, how do the numbers end up differing from each other? And is that okay in situations like these.. and are there any processes they have to go through to clear things up saying "this is what you should read, not this" or something like that?
These were just some of the questions that were running through my mind as I came across the articles online yesterday. What do you guys think?
Monday, April 16, 2007
"Blood Diamond"
My cousins brought over this movie yesterday and I got to see parts of it (I didn't get to see all of it) but there were parts of the movie that I thought was interesting, from a journalism perspective. I found it interesting because we discussed investigative/undercover reporting in class and this movie portrayed a little bit of that when Jennifer Connolly's role as an American journalist wanted to write an investigative story about the conflict diamonds and wanted to know the truth behind the illegal trade. There was a scene also when she mentioned something about getting people to go on-the-record to Leonardo DiCaprio's character and how she just wants to write a good story. They also showed her taking lots of pictures even in dreadful scenes which I thought were telling.
I didn't get to see all of the movie but when I noticed Connolly's role it just stuck me to see the dangers journalists face and what they do to get the story.
I didn't get to see all of the movie but when I noticed Connolly's role it just stuck me to see the dangers journalists face and what they do to get the story.
Interviewing celebrities
I was reading Whitney's blog entry about interviewing the actor from O.C. And while I was commenting her entry, an ethical question came to my mind...
What are the ethics, if any, behind interviewing celebrities..especially celebrities that you might look up to? Say for example a journalist, who is like any other person, has a celebrity or idol that they admire and been wanting to meet their whole life.. and then fortunately, comes the opportunity to interview that celebrity for their job.. this journalist is excited about it and starts setting up questions for the interview.. would it be right to ask the celebrity questions that the person (a fan of the celebrity) has always wanted to know.. or to just stick to what a journalist would want to know?? Or is there any diffence at all?
I don't know how I would handle interviewing my idols and I wonder if there are journalists who feel that way sometimes too and if so, how do they go about their interviews?
What are the ethics, if any, behind interviewing celebrities..especially celebrities that you might look up to? Say for example a journalist, who is like any other person, has a celebrity or idol that they admire and been wanting to meet their whole life.. and then fortunately, comes the opportunity to interview that celebrity for their job.. this journalist is excited about it and starts setting up questions for the interview.. would it be right to ask the celebrity questions that the person (a fan of the celebrity) has always wanted to know.. or to just stick to what a journalist would want to know?? Or is there any diffence at all?
I don't know how I would handle interviewing my idols and I wonder if there are journalists who feel that way sometimes too and if so, how do they go about their interviews?
Monday, April 2, 2007
Questions for Susan Sward
- What is the difference between investigative reporting and the work done by police and other investigators that are not journalists?
- How do you know when a subject is telling the truth or not? And if they are presenting you with false, inaccurate information, how do you carry on to get the information you need?
- We have had a lot of class discussions about objectivity and privacy. What standards or ethical guidelines do you follow regarding objectivity and privacy while doing investigative reporting?
- Has there ever been a time when you've become emotionally involved while covering a certain story? If so, how did you cope through the process? If not, how would you handle it if you were in that situation?
- What would you say are the journalistic purposes for identifying subjects/victims? When is the right time to identify victims (publish names) or do you think that they should not be identified at all?
- Where do you draw the line between publishing undercover stories for public interest and protecting the sources or victims in the story?
- How do you first approach a subject and how do you get them to keep talking?
- How do you know when a subject is telling the truth or not? And if they are presenting you with false, inaccurate information, how do you carry on to get the information you need?
- We have had a lot of class discussions about objectivity and privacy. What standards or ethical guidelines do you follow regarding objectivity and privacy while doing investigative reporting?
- Has there ever been a time when you've become emotionally involved while covering a certain story? If so, how did you cope through the process? If not, how would you handle it if you were in that situation?
- What would you say are the journalistic purposes for identifying subjects/victims? When is the right time to identify victims (publish names) or do you think that they should not be identified at all?
- Where do you draw the line between publishing undercover stories for public interest and protecting the sources or victims in the story?
- How do you first approach a subject and how do you get them to keep talking?
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
My personal experience regarding the free stuff
In light of our discussion about whether or not it is ethical to take free offers, I just remembered about an experience I had..
This past summer I worked for a news/local entertainment TV station in Hawaii. I mostly worked behind the scenes with the camera crew. One event we covered is called the "Taste of Honolulu" where a lot of the top-rated cuisines gather and set up booths for food or beverage tasting. Similar to carnivals/state fairs, people needed to purchase a book of scripts in order to taste the samples from the different booths.
Because this was my first job in the field, I did not know what to expect.. When I went to the site that day, I did not expect that my boss would hand me free scripts. He told me that basically whenever we weren't on air, I could get whatever I wanted. It felt kinda neat to have such benefits working with them but at the same time I didn't think it was right for me to accept the scripts and use them freely knowing that I was there on a job, even though we were allowed to use the scripts during our breaks. So keeping in mind that I was there to work, I didn't use the scripts. Then later I felt bad because I didn't want them to go to waste.. so I called some of my family and friends to come to the event and I gave them the scripts my boss gave to me.. even then, I still felt awkward when they came to pick up the scripts from me while I was working..
There was also another live event we covered which was the Miss Hawaii pageant and it was held at the Hilton resort. During the days of rehearsal and actual live show, our crew was offerred free meals from the hotel and the TV station.. I was not used to such treatment and it took me awhile to get used to it.
As Dr. Robertson mentioned, the codes of ethics varies with the company you work with.. this may not have been an ethical issue in my job because everyone that worked at these events received the same treatment as well. When I was hired, however, no one really discussed any such ethical codes with me. But at that time, I wasn't thinking about the ethical aspect of my job... I just needed the experience. Though now that I think about it...when I was offerred these free stuff, ethics was actually running through my mind (for example, i didn't think it was right for me to use the scripts) but I didnt realize the ethical aspect of it at that time. I just thought it was interesting and I'm glad that I'm learning all the stuff that we're learning in class as it helps me be aware of such ethical issues...
This past summer I worked for a news/local entertainment TV station in Hawaii. I mostly worked behind the scenes with the camera crew. One event we covered is called the "Taste of Honolulu" where a lot of the top-rated cuisines gather and set up booths for food or beverage tasting. Similar to carnivals/state fairs, people needed to purchase a book of scripts in order to taste the samples from the different booths.
Because this was my first job in the field, I did not know what to expect.. When I went to the site that day, I did not expect that my boss would hand me free scripts. He told me that basically whenever we weren't on air, I could get whatever I wanted. It felt kinda neat to have such benefits working with them but at the same time I didn't think it was right for me to accept the scripts and use them freely knowing that I was there on a job, even though we were allowed to use the scripts during our breaks. So keeping in mind that I was there to work, I didn't use the scripts. Then later I felt bad because I didn't want them to go to waste.. so I called some of my family and friends to come to the event and I gave them the scripts my boss gave to me.. even then, I still felt awkward when they came to pick up the scripts from me while I was working..
There was also another live event we covered which was the Miss Hawaii pageant and it was held at the Hilton resort. During the days of rehearsal and actual live show, our crew was offerred free meals from the hotel and the TV station.. I was not used to such treatment and it took me awhile to get used to it.
As Dr. Robertson mentioned, the codes of ethics varies with the company you work with.. this may not have been an ethical issue in my job because everyone that worked at these events received the same treatment as well. When I was hired, however, no one really discussed any such ethical codes with me. But at that time, I wasn't thinking about the ethical aspect of my job... I just needed the experience. Though now that I think about it...when I was offerred these free stuff, ethics was actually running through my mind (for example, i didn't think it was right for me to use the scripts) but I didnt realize the ethical aspect of it at that time. I just thought it was interesting and I'm glad that I'm learning all the stuff that we're learning in class as it helps me be aware of such ethical issues...
Thursday, February 8, 2007
bloggers and journalists
Thinking about the difference between bloggers and journalists, I came across an article online, which you can also read here: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2077969,00.asp
In the article, it mentioned how bloggers who write about Microsoft received gifts of laptops through the courtesy of Microsoft hoping that these bloggers would be impressed enough to write good reviews about them.
The author of the article, John Pallatto, also mentioned that product reviewers of print and online publishers have corporations lend them stuff to test latest software, but with the understanding that the products needed to be returned unless they have a reason to keep it, they would pay for it. However, the bloggers had no such obligation but have to know that they are compromising their objectivity and honesty. Pallatto also said that "bloggers as well as journalists have an obligation either to refuse such handouts, or if they do accept them to disclose it to readers so that they can judge whether or not their articles are objective enough to be believed."
I've also heard somewhere that journalists, in general, should refuse gifts and money...
How ethical do you think this is? Also, do you think bloggers should learn about journalism ethics?
Personally, I don't think it's right for independent bloggers to accept such gifts with no obligation to return it because I would think that their reviews about the products would be good considering they got them for free. However, I'm still not sure about the difference between bloggers and journalists and if bloggers would be accounted for unethical acts.
In the article, it mentioned how bloggers who write about Microsoft received gifts of laptops through the courtesy of Microsoft hoping that these bloggers would be impressed enough to write good reviews about them.
The author of the article, John Pallatto, also mentioned that product reviewers of print and online publishers have corporations lend them stuff to test latest software, but with the understanding that the products needed to be returned unless they have a reason to keep it, they would pay for it. However, the bloggers had no such obligation but have to know that they are compromising their objectivity and honesty. Pallatto also said that "bloggers as well as journalists have an obligation either to refuse such handouts, or if they do accept them to disclose it to readers so that they can judge whether or not their articles are objective enough to be believed."
I've also heard somewhere that journalists, in general, should refuse gifts and money...
How ethical do you think this is? Also, do you think bloggers should learn about journalism ethics?
Personally, I don't think it's right for independent bloggers to accept such gifts with no obligation to return it because I would think that their reviews about the products would be good considering they got them for free. However, I'm still not sure about the difference between bloggers and journalists and if bloggers would be accounted for unethical acts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)