Week 9: Chequebook Journalism

Beaconsfield miners, Lleyton and Bec's wedding and baby photos, party brat Corey Worthington, Simone Warne, Bob and Blanche and the list goes on and on and on....

Chequebook journalism is the act of journalists paying for information. Although not necessarily condemned, it is frowned upon and questioned as an unethical practice in journalism. The Media Entertainment Arts Alliance AJA Code of Ethics does not state that this should not be performed, but incidences of when it does happen should be disclosed.

So where does this stigma of unethical behaviour stem from? It is seen as devaluing the journalism profession to a contest about who has the deepest pockets. It defies the the grand (and perhaps mythical)perception of a journalist digging deep to access a hot lead through hard work and sheer determination to provide truth and justice for the public. Media organisations risk losing rtheir reputation by employing what is viewed as a dishonourable newsroom tactic.

One argument in favour of chequebook journalism surrounds the capitalist natue of the media; if people want to tell their story, the media is often willing to buy it. Similarly without chequebook journalism, in the modern day, many potential stories may be lost where journalists do not have the time or resources to dig deep for a story. In this sense chequebook journalism may be encouraging greater disclosure to the public.

This is not to say chequebook journalism is an honorable practice. One of the concerns with it is that paid persons may feel obliged to inflate or dramatise their story to ensure news outlets are getting bang for their buck.

Without question, it crosses the line when media corporations use their power to impede on other areas, particularly the law. Rumours have been rife that 60 Minutes was footing the bill for Schapelle Corby's trial for things like forensic tersting and expert witnesses. In 2005, Mediawatch reported that Channel Nine has avoided reporting stories unfavourable to Corby: "ACA and 60 Minutes have deliberately steered away from any anti Corby stories They don't want to do anything that will blow their access ...it's embarrassing." When journalists meddle in the legal system (i.e. forensic tests/expert witnesses) perhaps there is a conflict of interest. Journlaists are supposed to strive for objectivity in reporting, not actually contribute to events unfolding. When they develop a financial interest in the ways the news pans out chequebook journalism becomes an immensely unethical practice.

Week 8: Objectivity in Journalism

Objectivity is fundamentally reporting of the truth. Personally I do not feel total objectivity of a journalist or the function of journalism is possible. This is not to suggest that journalists consciously skew news stories in a way that is consistent with their personal set of values or beliefs (although this may occur occasionally), or that there are conniving and deceptive institutionalised agendas to sway public opinion in a certain direction. It is merely suggested that there are a number of factors that subconsciously affect the objectivity of the news. It is impossible for a journalist to divorce themselves totally from the news that they report, and they will essentially impose their own personal voice on the events in some way. Arguably journalists are incorporating their own personal views in dictating the social agenda.

Likewise the function of journalism involves selection. Individual journalists and newsrooms are forced to choose which events are deemed newsworthy and which aren’t. Some happenings will be overlooked for dissemination to the public merely because the limited scope of resources of newsrooms to report on events. The subjective rational e of choosing which of these events receives coverage implicitly impacts upon the objectivity of the news function. The nature of media organisations like Fairfax or News Limited as corporate entities also means that the reporting of news will often be consistent with organisational values. For example there is a widespread perception of Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited’s news coverage as being slightly favourable to right-wing politics.

Media framing is also an important issue relating to subjective reporting. Often journalists have a tendency to phrase words and sentences in such a way to reinforce a particular political agenda. Perhaps the most well-known example of is the consistent and unthinking use of the phrase “War on Terror” by the Western media. This phrase seemingly justifies the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq by Western Governments (particularly the USA’s former Bush administration.) I am not suggesting engaging in conflict with Middle Eastern nations should or shouldn’t have happened; however news coverage of this by the media has seemingly had the effect of swaying the views of some people in a particular way.

Arguably the commercial nature of newsrooms means objectivity is not valued as an important tool in journalism because it does not score high readership or viewer ratings. Opinion-based shows get high ratings because they are entertaining. This is particularly evident in the USA where opinionated talk-show hosts like the conservative, right-wing  Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck and the left-wing, politically liberal Keith Olbermann reign supreme. High ratings mean more money for these networks, so there's little incentive for networks like FOX or MSNBC to change their formats.

One hundred per cent objectivity in the newsroom is not an achievable goal. As BBC journalist, Sigrun Rottman states, “objectivity in journalism is an illusion" (Appiah-Dolphyne 2009.) The most desirable outcome for journalists is instead striving towards fairness and balance in their reporting.

 References-

Appiah-Dolphyne, J. 2009,  "Objectivity in journalism is an illusion,” International Institute of Journalism, 31 July, viewed 22 September 2010, <http://inwent-iij-lab.org/Weblog/2009/07/31/objectivity-in-journalism-is-an-illusion/>.

Week 7: The Media and Ethical Nature of Privacy

Are public figures like celebrities and politicians In the Australian democratic system, a dichotomous position exists regarding the right people have to privacy. As a collective society, strong value is placed on the expectation that citizens are entitled to privacy from the public disclosure of personal information. However a founding feature of the Australian media is the notion of “the freedom of the press” in order to heighten the citizenry’s awareness of the events impacting upon their own lives.

In terms of the current legal framework there is no Privacy Act protecting against invasions of personal privacy. Specific clauses exist in both the 1995 and 1999 Journalist Codes of Ethics. There are some areas legally requiring the protection of privacy, namely in court proceedings including prohibiting the naming of victims of sexual assault and children. Apart from these specified circumstances there is a firm presumption in favour of the press in reporting on private information.

The capitalist nature of news organisations means the media will inevitable print news items that make money. This process involves reporting the stories that audiences and readers find most appealing. I suppose that in the increasingly "info-tainment" focused contemporary media, it is unfortunate that what audiences deem as newsworthy has the potential to encrociate upon the private lives of celebrities and public figures.The general public is seemingly intrigued by the pitfalls and the trials and tribulations of public figures.

However does this justify journalistic practice merely because the public wishes to know things? This discussion reverts to the old "public interest" verses "things that interest the public" argument. There's no doubt that if a politician is neglectful in performing their parliamentary responsibilities because of some allegation in their personal life, it is fair and just for reporters to disseminate this information. For example in 2009, then NSW Health Minister's extra-marital affair was made public after he failed to fulfil his ministerial duty by pending time with his mistress, rather than attend the opening of a hospital. Alternatively, what about the 2010 gay sex club allegations exposed by the media about former NSW Transport Minister, David Campbell?

Personally I am unsure whether this should have been reported in the media. There is the old argument of "a man who is unfaithful to his wife will be unfaithful to his country." Similar to this, critics argue that his exposed private life was contrary to the "family man" ideals Campbell campaigned for in his electorate. Although unsure about the ethical nature of journalists in reporting on the event, I personally would reject the idea that Campbell is not a family man, and merely because he was unfaithful to his wife. One hidden aspect of his private life does not defy the political views Campbell held when he ran for office. Although I'm unsure about this news from an ethical standpoint, I can say that as a consumer of news i was intrigued and interested about the allegation.

Week 6: Journalism and Social Media

With the onset of social media, news organisations no longer have a monopoly on the type of news the public receives or the way news is packaged to a particular audience.Simply making information available is not enough for today's public. Today’s audiences expect to be able to choose what they read, and most believe they should be able to contribute content and opinions, too (Harper 2010.)

Personally I do not use Twitter so I am in no real position to comment on the value of its contribution to the journalism industry. No doubt it seems useful, especially in disseminating news on a large scale at an incredibly fast rate. It may also be said that Twitter is enhancing the processes of democracy by providing the typical "consumer" to perpetuate their version of the truth/opinion etc without being impeded by some political or institutional barrier. This was seen in Iran this year where protesting Iranians were able to inform international audiences of the unfair election process, which was not being reported in the mainstream media. Twitter was also credited with breaking the news of the earthquake in Haiti in January 2010.

 

However are their negative ramifications of social network tools and resulting independent journalism? Obviously social media as a news tool comes with no guarantee of objectivity. It seems a widely accepted view that the work of traditional journalists is affected by the institutional bias of a newsroom they are employed by. However the fact that bloggers or journalists employing social media do not have these corporate prejudices does not mean objectivity will shine through. If anything the opposite conclusion that is to be drawn. Here the function of mainstream media newsrooms is to provide checks and balances to ensure truthful and democratic reporting. This is unlike the online world where there are no such checks and balances, meaning it is incredibly easy for anyone to post any "information."For example, who will determine or assess (other than the university tutors of course) the truth of what I am writing right now? A blog, like this one provides a perfect example of an online tool that does not rely on a desperate need for truth or objectivity.

In fact a myriad of situations have occur ed which can only be described as social media hoaxes. More often than not, a large number of people have fallen victim to the false information. For example, this year it was falsely reported online that actor Johnny Depp had died in a car crash, which led to widespread dissemination of this information through Twitter. In August, veteran Washington Post sports journalist found himself in hot water after falsely tweeting on his Twitter account that Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, who has been accused of sexually assaulting a Georgia college student, would receive a five-game suspension (Commagreens 2010.) According to Wise, he did this to prove a point about the readiness of the media to run stories without verifying information. Ironically, Wise now finds himself suspended from The Washington Post. However what this story does tell us is the incredible ease with which people can perpetuate information into the media sphere without any credibility or truth whatsoever. Herein lies the biggest question surrounding the usefulness of social media as a journalistic tool.

References-

Commagreens, D. 2010, 'Twitter Hoax Lands Columnist Suspension,' Weekly World News, 31 August, viewed 9 September 2010, <http://weeklyworldnews.com/sports/21713/twitter-hoax-lands-columnist-suspension/>. 

Harper, R. 2010, "The Social Media Revolution: Exploring the Impact on Journalism and News Media Organizations," Student Pulse Online Academic Journal, 11 March, viewed 6 September 2010, http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/202/the-social-media-revolution-exploring-the-impact-on-journalism-and-news-media-organizations.