Importance of Media Training in Post-Conflict Revolutions

With the recent upheaval of authoritarian regimes during the Arab Spring, the need for ethical media training is hugely important in these areas. In countries where for decades the media has been largely controlled by the State it has been extremely hard for journalists to behave ethically as they did not have the independence that ethical journalism requires. Now is the time for these countries to forge a new ethical media system in order to help maintain the free and democratic societies that these revolutionaries were fought for.

Shahira Amin, the Egyptian state television anchor stated in a recent interview with the Guardian that the journalists left in Egypt are not used to going out in the field to gather news. Under the previous regime, they were fed press releases by the Government which they would then turn into stories without witnessing the events for themselves. According to Amin, these people ‘aren’t real journalists – they just want to get paid.’

However, there are positive signs. Many new independent newspapers and news channels have become established since the revolution. Also, a large number of activists have become so-called ‘Twitter celebrities’ with thousands of people globally following their news updates. If these people are trained to report in an ethical and independent manner, they can potentially lead Egypt into a new age of ethical, democratic news reporting.

Source: The Guardian

Shocking People the Wrong Way

ESPN the Magazine recently ran an article titled “What if Michael Vick Were White?” This article basically describes the life Vick would have had if he had been born white and whether his career would have been affected.

While this article has created great debate about race and the role it plays, more debate has begun about the ethics behind the article. Hank Koebler, sports writer, even goes as far as to call it “distastefully bad journalism” that was only created as a means to shock people.

While this may be true, you can be the judge and let us know your opinion about the article.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hank-koebler/espns-whiteface-vick-is-d_b_938930.html

The ethical issue that is Norway versus Amy Winehouse

The ethical issue that is Norway versus Amy Winehouse
During the time of the terror attacks in Norway and Amy Winehouse death, there was a strong debate going on in the social networking sphere, who is deemed more “deserving” of news coverage. It opened up a discussion of which news stories are more significant than others. But in fact it was also a question aimed at the nature of media houses what they deemed more “sellable” and more viewer attraction. Here we have two stories that are both tragic and controversial, but the need for a moral ethical judgement of media executives to decide the best course of action is crucial at times like this. It’s an uncomfortable feeling as no one death is more inferior, but it does raise the important issue of media ethics and the hierarchy of death. Below is a perceptive article that allows us to ask that question.

Where the author Roy Greenslade observes that the death of Amy Winehouse is a life story that we have followed from the beginning and were we are able to identify and become familiar with the deceased person. We didn’t have that luxury with those that died in the Norway massacre, they were anonymous victims to and harder to identify with. So maybe this begs the question that even after death there is still subjectivity?

Source: Guardian

Who's To Blame?

With the recent scandal that has erupted in the world of journalism, and caught everyone’s attention, it begs the question “who’s to blame” for the lack of ethical thinking. It could be the journalists who write the articles and are therefore responsible for how the material is retrieved. On the other hand, journalists wouldn’t have to keep finding new ways to gather information if people didn’t keep reading the articles.

The first to be blamed is usually those in charge of the reporting, the journalists and editors themselves. They are the ones who get caught allegedly hacking phones or trying to break into sealed records in order to find the truth. Those that are not thought about are the readers who are interested in information that is true and interesting but in recent years have become more interested in tabloid like articles. This is where the information may not necessarily be true but it is interesting and controversial. It captures the readers’ attention and gets them to buy the papers.

To better understand how journalists and readers affect one another, check out J-Ethinomics. This is a combination of ethics, journalism and economics that was created to try and build trust in the news through the use of ethics. Training in J-Ethinomics can lead to more honest reporting, a renewed trust in the news and a better consumer relationship.

This information begs the question: will readers respond to ethical reporting or sensationalism? You be the judge.


Source: http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/08/07/3287542.htm

BBC fabricated tribal TV series

After the BBC’s tribal TV series was exposed to be fabricated and edited to such an extreme that most of it was staged for the public entertainment and ridiculed everything that the Matsigenka tribe stood for. It impelled the Survival international organization to establish practical ethical guidelines for filmmakers to follow. The code of conduct stresses the importance of the filmmakers to establish an unprejudiced and impartial view of tribe’s people. But it also highlights that the moral conduct extends to more than just the usual communities of blacks, Jewish or gay. By endorsing the ethical guidelines of Survival international there is now a clearer view for filmmakers that they possibly can’t ignore.

Questions to be asked is whether exploitation is also taking place in circumstances likes this, and whether people know what they bargaining themselves for. Perhaps they do and the choices they make are largely on themselves as well. Anthropologists, who deal with the tribe studies on a professional basis, whereby they emerge themselves completely in their way of life, have a rigid ethical code to follow. Break those and you will be ostracised and lose credibility in the professional community. TV and its images is a far reaching medium and the implications of distorting the truth is magnitude as its able to change and form public opinion, which makes it only more essential to take on the same no nonsense attitude that anthropologists have towards ethical breaches.

Stephen Corry allows us to further question the ethical effects of the media when he said that “If tribal peoples are portrayed as ‘savage’ or ‘Stone Age,’ the public will believe this to be true. This can lead to the theft of tribal lands and resources by governments and corporations. Negative portrayals feed negative stereotypes which can underpin systematic and gross violations of human rights”.

Source: Survival International

Do you really know what public interest means?

http://www.bjr.org.uk/data/2007/no2_moore

A great article about the responsibility of journalists to inform, analyse and educate their audiences. Too often the idea of impartiality is bandied about, sometimes to the detriment of what people should know, and what people want to know.

How can we tell what is public relations churnalism or government propaganda? Are their ever times where journalists should work with these bodies? Martin Moore in the British Journalism Review may not have all the answers, but he knows what he's talking about.

Daily Mail Guilty of Sensationalism?

The Daily Mail has been accused by the Guardian of sensationalism over the front page of their paper on the 15th August. The headline of the story was ‘Shame of Riot Rapist’s Family’ and it spoke of how a teenage boy raped a thirteen-year-old girl ‘at the height of last week’s riots in Woolwich, London.’ It showed a picture of Woolwich engulfed in flames to further underline its point.

The horrific incident did not happen at the ‘height of last week’s riots’, it happened the day after. Woolwich was not engulfed in flames at the time but all of the fires had already been extinguished and order had, on the whole, been restored.

A story about a 15-year-old mugging and then raping a 13-year-old is horrific enough without trying to sensationalize it by exaggerating the circumstances under which it took place. This is a clear example of the media ‘bending the truth’ in order to make the story more colourful. All journalists are guilty of this but usual in far less harmful ways. By describing this incident in this manner, they are trying to maximise the sense of outrage using the 13-year-old rape victim as a pawn in this game. Journalists should report crime stories how they actually occurred and not place them within a scenario that would create a more ‘interesting’ story.

Source: The Guardian

Rape reporting: over and under estimation

This is a very insightful article which points out the problems of reporting rape during war and peace time. How can journalists avoid estimations and guess work - is it possible to accurately report rape? The source points to outlets such as the BBC reporting ludicrous figures. Where do they come from?

How can we tackle this problem without distorting the facts and consquently efforts to stop rape and other war crimes?


Source: Rape reporting during war

Prejudice and conjecture over Norway

I followed the terrible events in Norway on 22/7 as they unfolded, rooted to aftenposten.no and constantly refreshing a Twitter search for #oslo. As a city that used to be my home, and a community I was a part of, I was deeply upset by the atrocity inflicted on such a peaceful, trusting country. The thought that it could have been a jihadist group filled me with fear and anger, and until about 6pm (UK time), it was assumed that it was indeed a jihadist group that was behind the attack. No other possibility was considered by the BBC, Sky, and any of the American news networks. Even when a gun man was identified as a blond Norwegian speaker, the first reaction by these news agencies was 'he must be a convert to Islam'.

If Brevik had indeed been Muslim, he would still be being referred to as a terrorist by the media. Instead, he is an 'assailant', 'attacker' (Reuters), 'gunman' (BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera). Is 'terrorist' a term reserved just for Muslims?

The US Department of State called the tragedy an 'act of violence', not an 'act of terrorism'.

This article from British columnist Charlie Brooker tellingly exposes the hypocrisy and prejudice with which that awful day's events were reported:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/24/charlie-brooker-norway-mass-killings