Number of cases = 4
Each set of questions = 10 points
-Read the cases and questions carefully.
-You must answer all the questions listed at the end of each case. You will be graded for: specificity, clarity, ability to analyze the subject area, use of examples, knowledge of the subject matter, writing quality, and style. You will also be graded on your use of class materials and discussions.
– This is an open book exam. You are allowed to use: class readings, dictionaries, and all handouts from the class.
-You should submit the answers as a word document.
-Length of each case-study should not exceed more than typed one-page single-spaced. Ideal length is two to three paragraphs comprised of 7-8 sentences in each paragraph.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Case #1
CBS’s Walter Cronkite said no; CNN’s Bernard Kalb said no; NPR’s Daniel Schoor said no. But David Brinkley, formerly of NBC and ABC, said yes! The question put to each of these journalists was whether they would be willing to endorse a product in a commercial message.
David Brinkley had a brilliant journalistic career, one that spanned 50 years. Before his death he was probably best known for his Sunday ABC morning program This Week with David Brinkley which began in 1981. Prior to that, he was part of NBC’s Huntley-Brinkley evening news team. His face was recognized by millions, and he was easily one of the most respected journalists of his era. Shortly after his retirement from ABC in October 1999, Brinkley agreed to appear in several commercials for Archer Daniel Midland (ADM), an Illinois-based food processing company. ADM was one of the sponsors of Brinkley’s Sunday morning ABC program. In 1996, ADM paid $100 million in price-fixing fines and had, at the time, charges pending against two company executives for trying to fix the world market in lysine, a food additive. Three company executives were later convicted on price-fixing charges, each facing up to three years in prison.
Criticism of Brinkley’s actions came quickly. His appearance in the commercials, some critics said, “created the possibility that the audience might think he still worked on the former program.” Joan Konner, former Dean of Columbia School of Journalism, felt the switch in roles was improper. “I think it’s awful,” she said, “Lines should be distinct and they are not distinct in this case.”
Brinkley was not alone in his role as reporter-turned-pitchman. Linda Ellerbe, formerly of NBC, did an ad for Maxwell House coffee. Former CBS morning host Kathleen Sullivan appeared on behalf of Weight Watchers. Even Chet Huntley, Brinkley’s old evening news partner, was a spokesperson for American Airlines after retiring from NBC. Still, Brinkley is viewed as something of a role model, a dedicated journalist with over a half-century of faithful reporting.
Not everyone is bothered by Brinkley’s actions. Marshall Leob, then editor of the Columbia Journalism Review, noted that there was a significant difference between an active and a retired journalist, and that he was not bothered by Brinkley’s actions since Brinkley took the role of the pitchman only after his retirement. Other critics, however, charged that, on hindsight, Brinkley’s reporting career is in suspect. They say that on one hand journalists like Brinkley appear to be models of journalistic integrity and independence, yet pocket “hefty fees for friendly lectures to corporate lobby groups.”
While Brinkley has since passed away, the question remains for journalists moving forward. Should they accept roles as pitchmen/women?
Questions: Since Brinkley was retired and was no longer a practicing journalist, was it really unethical for him to earn a little extra money by appearing on behalf of an advertiser? Are all reporters, retired or not, ethically bound to disclose their connections to those individuals or organizations on which they report? Is it possible for a media employee, journalist or not, to avoid unethical practices in an industry so dominated by economic concerns?
Case #2
Overton’s (Ohio) local popular news website, Overton Digger, had decided to investigate the proliferation of online pornography among local high school students. Jeff Sanders, a reporter, had been assigned to write about the story by the editor. Sanders began by talking to parents of high school children many of whom complained about various ‘free’ pornographic websites their children had easy access to. Sanders decided to browse through the content of some of these sites and came across a poorly produced piece of video entitled, Beast of Love. The female star of the film was listed as Monique Maguire. He knew her as Stephanie Hawkins.
Stephanie Hawkins was the daughter of a prominent and affluent local family (his father had been the previous mayor of Overton). However, during her teen years, her parents began to detect some disturbing changes in their daughter’s behavior. She began running with the wrong crowd, experimenting with drugs, and skipping school. Her parents, in a desperate attempt to reach their daughter, scheduled her for psychiatric evaluation but this seemed to magnify her resentment. Finally, at 16, Stephanie dropped out of school entirely and ran away from home.
Sanders first learnt of Stephanie when Donald and Martha Hawkins contacted the local police department and asked for help in finding their daughter. Now, three years later, Stephanie Hawkins has been found and had appeared in at least one pornographic movie. Despite the makeup and some significant changes in the star’s appearance, Sanders was convinced that Stephanie Hawkins and Monique Maguire were the same. Sanders compared her image to the photograph that her parents had given the police at the time of her disappearance and it left no doubt in anyone’s mind that Monique was Stephanie.
Sanders immediately contacted the parents and told them he had a lead on their daughter. He also asked the parents whether he could get some background information on their daughter for the story he was preparing for the Overton Digger regarding the proliferation of online pornography. When Sanders told Hawkins of his suspicions (that Monique was indeed his daughter, Stephanie) Donald Hawkins asked Sanders not to reveal the real identity of the film star.
Sanders recognized the conflict between privacy considerations and matters of public interest. On the other hand, news is about the “unusual”, and the fact that Monique Maguire was from a local family was certainly an interesting angle to add to a story about the rise of online pornography. Was the family more concerned about privacy or mere embarrassment? Sanders wondered if he would be hesitating if Hawkins had come from the “wrong side of the tracks” rather than the affluent area where she had been born? Was total privacy really possible under the circumstances? One could argue Stephanie Hawkins herself “relinquished” her right to privacy (especially since she is no longer a juvenile) by appearing in a pornographic movie. But if Hawkins is identified in the article, her parents’ privacy will invariably be invaded. As the star of this film, Monique Maguire herself would probably have little news value, but the fact that a local run-away has been identified in a pornographic film which is available to local teenagers on a free website is a matter of public interest. Should the family’s privacy override this consideration?
Question: Assume the role of Sanders and make a decision on this matter (whether to reveal or not Hawkins identity in your news story). Ethically justify your decision.
Case #3
Chris Jones, a reporter with a large, metropolitan newspaper, is told by a source that a computer software corporation is considering his city as a plant site. Jones calls to confirm the tip, and the corporation’s PR representative reads him a statement:
“Our corporation is interested in purchasing the two block area between Third and Maple Streets on Washington Avenue. The corporation believes the site would be to its advantage, with easy access from the interstate and the airport and adequate parking space. The plant would produce software material and offer 88 new jobs to trained applicants. We are preparing to make an offer to the landowner, Joe Sullivan. The corporation hopes to begin production on the plant in three months from now, in March.”
Jones notes in his story that the proposed site, commonly known as skid row, houses several run-down hotels, bars, and a homeless shelter. Jone’s city editor makes a photo assignment, asking for shots of the homeless people who live in the two blocks. The city editor, Molife Asante, and the reporter (Jones) tell veteran photographer, Steve Stone, he needs strong, emotional photographs to run with the story about how the homeless shelter cannot afford to move to another location.
Stone spends the entire day walking up and down Washington Avenue, trying to get close enough to the people sleeping and eating on the streets. Yet they either cover their faces, walk away, or plead him not to photograph them. Under deadline pressure, Stone calls some of his friends the next day and asks them to pose for him as homeless people. He takes his friends, dresses them in torn clothes, and tries to duplicate the positions in which he saw how some of the homeless live in the area. He makes sure that the subject of the photo remains unidentifiable. Stone turns the created photographs to the editor minutes before the deadline.
The editor and reporter are so impressed that they run the photograph in the paper’s front page next day (this is Stone’s neighbor’s son who is a college student — he is neither poor, nor homeless – simply volunteered for the photograph on his father’s behest).
Questions: Should Stone have told his editor and reporter that he was having problems getting the right photographs before he set up the shots? After letting the editor see the photographs, should Stone have told them how he took the photographs? What do you see as the difference between asking a friend to help you fake the photo and directing a cooperative homeless person to pose for you? Is one any more truthful than the other? Does the photographer create a pseudo-event just by showing up with his camera?
Case #4
The wonders of technology in the 21st century are less wonderful when looking into the eyes of a dead body on your handheld screen. Gruesome images can serve as a powerful journalistic tool to influence the emotions of viewers and inspire action, but they can also be disturbing for many viewers. Some argue that such shocking images shouldn’t be used to increase attention to a story. Others claim only shocking images can be used to illustrate the intensity of an event, a vital part of moving and educating the public.
Some of the most controversial imagery in the contemporary media comes from school massacres. While the mass shooting at Columbine High School in 1999 is certainly an unforgettable moment in our nation’s history, current students continue their battle against what they see as the causes of such tragedies. As part of the #MyLastShot online campaign, high school and college students are encouraged to place a sticker on the back of their driver’s license that indicates their desire to have photos of their bodies published in the event they are killed by gun violence, in a way similar to the marks indicating organ donor status. Campaign founder and Columbine alum Kaylee Tyner said, “It’s about bringing awareness to the actual violence, and to start conversations.” She also referenced the impact the viral video of students hiding under their desks during the school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School had on her: “I remember seeing people on Twitter saying it was so horrible… but what I was thinking was, no, that’s the reality of a mass shooting.” While such school shootings are comparatively rare, they are clearly horrible. The #MyLastShot campaign represents an attempt to get individuals to agree in advance to use shocking imagery of their death to showcase these horrors to others. If one is killed, the hope is that the image of their dead body might bring about a better understanding of the problem of school shootings, and perhaps move readers to action. Even if one is not killed in a school shooting, agreeing to the conditions of the #MyLastShot campaign still illustrates a willingness to do something that many perceive as shocking, and thereby functions as a plea for heightened attention to issues such as school shootings and gun control measures. Determining when this “need to see” is applicable, however, is the difficult part of death photography. When can images of death be used in a way that respects the deceased and contributes to a potentially laudatory social goal of the journalist conveying this information?
Questions: Under what conditions, if any, is it acceptable to photograph the dead for news purposes? Would you, as an editor, publish a photograph of a high school student killed in a mass shooting as part of a news story even if s/he had consented via #MyLastShot? Explain your decision using the deontological or teleological theory of ethics.
0 comments