 |
Creative Commons photo by Denise KrebsWelcome to Waldsmith's Dispatch, a blog I will use throughout the semester to post additional thoughts, links to stories and video, etc. to stimulate additional discussion or to reinforce concepts we are reviewing in Journalism class.Because we are so very fortunate to live in an open society we are able to enjoy the five freedoms that the First Amendment provides all American citizens. Two of the five protections guaranteed by the First Amendment -- freedom of speech and freedom of the press -- help ensure that we provide citizens with a "marketplace of ideas" free from censorship. |
But these same freedoms also lead to ethical questions, particularly for journalists. Here is a link to ta story from The New York Times that covers the story we discussed in class this week.
This article from an editor explains why Al Jazeera, an arabic language news network, will only use the term "refugee" when referring to those fleeing Syria. Word choice, especially in times of crisis and conflict, is an important consideration for the ethical and responsible journalist.s This article looks at a global issue, but in reality, even student journalists encounter such ethical dilemmas. Read this article to learn how student editors at the Playwickian voted not to use the term "redskins".
Please share your thoughts on any of these three ethical issues.
The article about using the word "refugees" and not "migrants" was very important, in my opinion. I agree that the Middle Easterners fleeing their homes in fear of war are degraded and made to seem less like people in need when they are referred to as migrants. The article declares that newspapers are downplaying their situation and the way they describe these refugees from war-torn countries affects how we perceive them as individuals losing their lives. I am pleased to see this article taking a stand against these insensitive newspaper practices.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ana regarding the importance of standing up against these unethical actions. Referring to the first article, I totally agreed with their take on why posting the video was wrong. By posting the video, the news stations not only presented inhumane content, but also feed to the injustice of this story by giving the murder his wanted attention.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the first article. There are many words/phrases the media would never use in their articles, however they still use an offensive term for struggling refugees. I'm glad to see a newspaper taking a strong stand against this. I agree with the students from the journalism class as well. They are not only learning to stand up for their beliefs, but also to do what is right, no matter who is against you.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the first article, I agreed with both NBC and CBS. NBC decided not to show the video because they knew that the sensationalism and spreading of the murder would be what he wanted. Because most murderers want to become recognized for their killings, it would only help others realize that their actions could produce such chaos, too. As for CBS, they chose to show images from the video to illustrate the planning that went into the killing. I also agree with this reasoning, which shows that people shouldn't be sheltered from the reality of shootings. As for the article about refugees, I believe that the journalist did a very nice job of adding a dramatic and emotional edge to the article. By adding the harsh facts and by asking people to imagine being a refugee in the Mediterranean, it made the story much more impactful.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the first article from The New York Times, I agree with the people who criticized The Daily News and The New York Post. I think the headline that The Daily News used was disrespectful to the victims and their families. I also dislike how the paper published three stills showing the gun pointed at Ms. Parker and then the gun opening fire. The Boston Globe on the other hand took a different, more respectful approach and chose to not use a still picture from the gunman's video in their news story, but one from Mr. Ward. I think CBS made the right choice as well to stop the video after 23 seconds, which was just before Mr. Flanagan started shooting. However, it seemed as though each news source had a legitimate reason for showing the pictures and videos that they did.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Megan regarding the first article about the video and the decision NBC and CBS made to not publicly televise the video. I think this is the right choice because the shooter wanted the fame and wanted everyone to see the video and by showing it to everyone we are giving him exactly what he wants, and we should not be encouraging this kind of violence. By showing the video this also encourages other people to try and get there five seconds of fame by killing. The programs that are airing the video are possibly just showing it for sensationalism, which takes away from the seriousness of this issue.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article written by Barry Malone, I agree with my fellow classmates that the refugees are not given the respect that they deserve and other countries need to recognize the severity of what they are going through. "Migrant" is such a hyperbolical word compared to what the Mediterranean refugees are actually going through. Journalists nation wide need to recognize the hardships these people deal with daily, and realize that they cannot continue to downplay the situation. Journalists face many ethical debates when writing articles, but they need to be aware of how their decisions affect others.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article by the New York Times i came to the conclusion that i agree with ABC’s “World News Tonight” and CNN to not publish the video or photos. Although as human beings we have the natural curiousity to watch the video, by watching the video one is rewarding the gunman the attention he is thirsting for. Not only does publishing the video grant the gunman with his desired 5 seconds of fame, it also can be disrespectful to the 2 victims and their families. It is necessary for journalist to go agaisnt the urge to senzationalize the story and remember to be respectful of the privacy of others.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Olivia. Broadcasting the video of this tragedy satisfied the cold hearted killer, he got what he wanted. He wanted their death to be publicized, he was out for revenge. In addition, this video invaded the privacy of the families. I would not want a video of my loved ones death shown nationally. It is a journalists right to report the story and use certain pictures, but the full video, took it a step too far. The families most likely didn't give their consent. It would be horrible to ck tenure to witness this tragedy for them, over and over.
ReplyDeleteI also read the article about the student newspaper, and I think that the suspension of the editor and their advisor is completely ridiculous! It's absurd. The students did nothing wrong. The world "redskins" was absolutely not used in a racial manner, the schools mascot itself was the Redskins. Change the mascot if you believe it's racist. As for the teacher, more investigation should be planned to find out the reason why she left, it's not like she was engaging in illegal activities! This article angered me a little bit. It's a student newspaper, not a national TV station. They did not intend to offend anyone. The superintendent wrongfully punished the student and teacher, and I were them, I would sue the school for wrongful punishment over nothing.
ReplyDeleteAs for the refugees, I agree with Ana and Lara. The media is being quite biased when they report on the refugees. They do "downplay" the situation, they even referred to the refugees as "migrants". That is absolutely not accurate. They FLED their war torn countries in fear for their lives. In safer areas, they still are homeless and in need of aid. This newspaper did a wonderful job reporting the true circumstances of these refugees. Their living conditions should be known, and shrugged off just because we are much better off.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article about the improper describing of the struggling refugees, I support the newspaper for standing up for these people who deserve to be treated better. Along with agreeing about the first article I also believe it was a great thing that the kids in the Journalism class did what they thought and believed was right. They are showing that they have a voice.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the students choice to no use the word redskin was a good choice for them. I feel that their principal shouldn't force the school's newspaper to publish something the students aren't comfortable with. The refugee article was also a good idea for using a term that better fits the situation. If a person is fleeing a horrific scene, why should they be called a migrant if it was not their choice. As for the shooting, I feel not showing the actual attack would be a good idea, as no one really knows who is watching the news. To show only stills might be good, but probably not in the long run. Also, more gun control isn't going to solve everything, as many people rely on guns as a source for acquiring food or as a sport. So I'm indifferent to the last article.
DeleteAfter reading the article regarding the refugees in the Middle East, I feel that migrant does not accurately describe these people. Describing them as migrant makes their journey sound unimportant, when in reality they have suffered through so much. Refugee more accurately depicts their situation. I also think that the editors on the student paper should be able to ban the word Redskin if it makes them feel uncomfortable. The word Redskin is often used in a derogatory and insulting way and even though it is the name of the mascot, the It is fair that the students should be able to make that decision.
ReplyDelete