Media Portrayal of Women in Politics

The events of last week have again drawn people’s attention to the way in which the media portrays powerful women. On January 26, this year’s Australia Day celebrations were met with anger protests by Aboriginal rights groups directed towards the leader of the opposition, Tony Abbott for comments he had made about their ‘Invasion Day’ protests. This event probably would have gone unnoticed across the world had it not been for the photos of Australia’s Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, being protected by the security guard and losing one of her shoes in the ensuing melee.

These pictures showed Gillard looking fragile with her security guard shielding her from danger. This footage has drawn more coverage across the world than any recent stories about Australia. In some places, the only coverage Ms Gillard will receive and by extension, the only way in which she will be known in some country is as the woman cowering from a threat, being protected by a man. The widespread coverage shows that many aspects of the media are not comfortable with the idea of powerful women.

Many female politicians (as the below article shows) are portrayed in this way, a way in which male politicians are not. When they show any sort of emotion, the media leaps on to it in order to show, arguably, that the women adhere to traditional stereotypes of being highly emotional and prone to showing vulnerability. This is an example of the male orientated media environment that is currently prevalent.

There are no pictures of Mr Abbott being escorted away from the protest that was essentially directed at him. Why is this? Is it because that would not provide such a perfect image of vulnerability as the little lady cowering in the arms of the big burly man? Or were there simply no pictures of Mr Abbott doing the same?

Source: The Guardian

The state of journalism ethics in Hungary

The current climate in Hungary is spicy and the independence and pluralism of the media are claimed to be threatened. Under pressure journalists might forget the ethical considerations and many claims that fabrication, copy-pasting and falsifying information are common practises today in Hungary.

Some journalists even went on hunger strike protesting against the political pressure after „the image of the former chief justice was blurred in a December TV news show because previously he had expressed criticism toward the government”.

The case of Klubrádió, considered to be the only opposition radio in the country, has also raised international concerns. The radio was a talk and news channel but its frequency was given to another station offering a higher price and more music. The case is highly disputed claiming that the government wanted to take control of the media while they deny this.

Several international organisations expressed their concern against the questionable state of the Hungarian media and other regulations of the government and negotiations are in the process. The disputed Media Act accepted in December 2010 had sections, among others, on limitation of the protection of sources, restrictions of content considered „insulting” and used expressions vaguely interpretable. Some of these were already cancelled thanks to the Constitutional Court but there are still parts that would need further revision.

In the meanwhile, journalists, editors and news agencies need to practise ethics themselves. We are welcoming the initiative of the Editors’ Forum in Hungary for a common code of ethics for the Hungarian media.

As discussed one year ago in January 2011 at the CIME Forum in Hungary, media self-regulation should be an agreement among journalists and the state should stay away from discussion of free individuals. CIME believes that journalists together have the power to formulate and enforce a tacit code of ethics as a status quo of their profession.

Source: Committee to Protect Journalists

Ohio News Station Covers High Profile Trial with Puppets

Anderson Cooper, on Monday night, pokes fun at the satirical “Sesame Street” -like take of the real life courtroom drama surrounding Jimmy Dimora.

Making the “Ridiculist” on Anderson Cooper 360° was the Akron federal trial of ex-Cuyahoga County Commissioner Jimmy Dimora, who pleaded not guilty to bribery and racketeering. It was the portrayal of the case with puppets, however, that caused many news gatherers to question the ethics or, at least, the journalistic integrity of the trial coverage.

“I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again,” proclaims Anderson Cooper, “Puppets and journalism do not mix. Never! Not under any circumstances, whatsoever.”

Since the judge has barred cameras from the courtroom, it seems that many news media has shifted to capturing testimonies and other trial details through unconventional ways. At least that’s the case of news station WOIO and its sister station, WUAB.

The charges against Dimora are found in a 36-count, 148-page federal indictment, alleging that he used his county commissioner's office as the base to run a criminal enterprise. WOIO news director, Dan Salamone, said in an interview with the Associated Press that the puppets are “satirical” and meant to lampoon the sometimes-steamy testimony which includes details of a topless hot tub excursion in Las Vegas and taped phone calls with off-color and often unprintable comments.

Salamone goes on to say that the puppetry is “appropriately placed at the end of the newscast.”

This story sheds light on the ethics of how much entertainment value should be allowed in newscast. Does using puppets to portray serious issues go too far in journalism? What entertainment value, if any, do you use in your reporting? Pitch in a hand and comment below, as we would love to hear your thoughts on the subject.

Fabricating exclusive interviews

When the singer Beyonce gave birth to her much anticipated baby with rapper husband Jay Z, it became headline news all around the world. With much hype the baby’s birth was announced and with this much fanfare the exclusive right to interview the happy couple seemed to be on. However when the UK Star magazine announced that the secretive couple gave their exclusive first interview with their magazine, it seemed quite impressive. The article divulges on the birth of their first baby, the celebrity dad’s responsibilities, their joy and quotes credited to the pop star appear to address the issue of heavy security at the hospital where she gave birth to Blue Ivy Carter on 14 January.

It seemed like any other exclusive interview with a demanded celebrity, that’s until it turned out to be a complete fake interview.

Beyonce spokesperson called the interview “completely made up”, despite this the Star Magazine's editor has denied the claim.

"It is not made up or fictitious at all," Anna Pointer said.

"We bought the interview from a reporter in the US, who conducted the interview with Beyonce before the birth.

"The reporter then obtained the 'top-up' info after the birth, which we believe to have been signed off by a girl on her LSM team," she told US TV show Access Hollywood.

The claim arises in the wake of when several celebrity magazine editors appeared before the Leveson inquiry into press standards.

Several questions in the inquiry dealt with the issue of misleading headlines on front covers.

This issue has certainly highlighted that when such purposely misleading articles come from such high circulating magazines, this becomes even more detrimental to the public’s view of the ethical standards of the media, which is already on shaky grounds after the Murdock media scandal.

Source: BBC

„The first casualty of war is always the truth”

Risking their lives to show the truth to the world is no easy task. War journalists constantly work in danger and not without point. News about wars are the most read and viewed around the world and the most popular subject of public interest. War journalists do really work for the public interest.

The catch phrase of the ’5 Days of War’ movie trailer says „The first casualty of war is always the truth”. This film present the Russian-Georgian war from 2008 from the point of view of American war correspondents. Contradicting our previous statement that war is the most read type of news, in the movie they struggle to get their footage about the starting war into the news as the Olympic games are on. However, it is a decision for the editor-in-chief to make what is more important to broadcast: suffering of other people or entertaining games. What serves more/better the public interest?

From the journalists’ side on the ground, we could argue whether their involvement with the happenings and interference to save locals were strictly along the lines of objective reporting practices. In case of disasters and conflicts, it is always disputed if journalists should or should not interfere. As a human yes; as an objective reporter probably no. In case of involvement, omitting those parts/people from the footage could save the objectivity of the report.

Nevertheless, the movie is worth to watch and it gives a fair idea to the public how those war reports they see comfortably from their canape at home are made and might think differently of journalists.

Profit or quality?

The ethical standards of journalism have fallen, the best proof was the failure of the British news giant in 2011. News companies can easily lose their readers due to lack of trust among other reasons and they can hardly afford paying enough for well-sourced, fact-checked stories or to conduct indepth investigations. Hence, badly paid reporters are not striving to present excellent work ethics. It seems to be an endless circle.

However, a new trend recently has appeared that might be the actual future of journalism, and a good quality one. Non-profit news agencies are established in developed countries, such as the USA and UK. Foundations and other donors are willing to support these news agencies to provide accurate and reliable reporting services.

As a non-profit news agency, there are no dividends for shareholders and all the income goes to support investigation, salaries of ethically working journalists and other operational costs. Journos working here might not suffer from poor wages and therefore are less tempted to get into corruption or neglect fact checking, source protection etc. Sounds like a paradise, isn’t it?

But how long would it take to the current profit oriented system to transfer into a reliable media pattern where the public is well informed, the journalists follow ethical practices at work and everyone is happy? Comments are welcome!

Source: New Model Journalism

The Tweeting of a Brothel Raid – Who Benefits?

Nick Kristof, the multi-award winning New York Times journalist, recently live tweeted a raid on a Cambodian brothel. This has raised a large number of ethical issues regarding the benefits of this type of reporting. It is essential that good media reporting is of benefit to society and this is why the media can be so important. So who benefited from this?

The women in the brothel. It is unlikely that these women benefitted. It is hoped that this raid would have taken place with or without Kristof’s live tweeting of the situation. However, there is an argument to say that the Cambodian officials may have acted more professionally with the eyes of an American reporter watching. It was the observing of the raid rather than the reporting of it on Twitter that may have indirectly benefited the girls but this is only a slight benefit, if any.

Other women in other brothels in Cambodia. It is extremely unlikely to be of benefit to these women. One of the most powerful uses of investigative reporting should be to give those who are in a similar position the knowledge that they are not alone in their suffering and to empower them to escape their damaging situations. Only around 0.5% of Cambodians can be described as regular internet users, according to the CIA World Factbook and it is extremely unlikely that any of these women in brothels are followers of Nick Kristof on Twitter! These people do not benefit from this type of reporting and neither does anyone else within Cambodia as it is, simply, not accessed by them.

The Wider Community. In-depth reporting of the incident that Mr Kristof described, if written intelligently and with a certain degree of perspective, could help to educate the wider community both in Cambodia and in the rest of the world. By raising awareness amongst everyone of these practices in a balanced and sensitive manner, everyone can benefit. However, live tweeting does not do this. The best case scenario is that someone on Twitter will read these tweets and this will spark an interest leading them to read more widely on the subject. Just reading tweets that say things like ‘Girls are rescued, but still very scared. Youngest looks about 13, trafficked from Vietnam’ does not add enough to people’s knowledge of the situation for it to be beneficial.

The Reporter. The increased twitter following and the rewarding pat on the back for doing something that seems to many at first glance as a positive thing will only increase the author’s reputation with no thought for the damaging effect or lack of effect that this reporting may have.

Is this an unfair portrayal of the situation? Who do you think benefits from this type of reporting?

Source: Storify

Leveson Inquiry: More than just phone hacking

The Leveson inquiry, born out of the ashes of the phone hacking scandal has put the spotlight on many other aspects of media ethics. One of the most prominent of these has been the poor reporting of violence against women in light of the submission’s put before the enquiry by End Violence Against Women (EVAW), Equality Now, Object and the rape charity Eaves.

One report by the Daily Mail of the rape of two under-aged girls described the incident as an ‘orgy’ and described the girls as ‘lolitas’ before describing in graphic detail what occurred during the incident. The question must be asked: who is this type of newspaper report serving? Does it help to draw public attention towards a troubling incident and lead society to analyse why this event occurred and how similar events can be avoided on the future? Or is it instead designed to provide illicit titillation to Daily Mail readers who like to see themselves as the moral barometer of the UK while consuming these types of story every day?

EVAW also argued that reports such as the one provided in the Daily Telegraph (see the link below) do not treat violence against women in an ethical manner. By focusing the story on the alleged reason for the perpetrator’s actions, it is almost giving a reason as to why the perpetrator acted in the way that he did rather than focusing on the horrific nature of the attack and the consequences of this. This runs dangerously close to the ‘she asked for it’ attitudes that it was hoped had been removed, at least from the mainstream British media.

These submissions have drawn attention to the fact that the media must be extremely careful when reporting any violent crime in order to; one, ensure that those who have suffered as a consequence of this violence are not re-victimised by the subsequent reports; two, that editors do not use these reports to focus on the explicit details that could provide titillation in order sell more papers from a story that should not be treated in a light-hearted manner and finally; to ensure that society’s reaction to this type of story is not in direct contrast to the manner with which such matters should be treated i.e. humorous titillation vs. disgust at the suffering of others. It will be interesting to see what occurs as a result of these issues being brought to public attention.

Link: The Daily Telegraph