The Hostile Media Effect

Imagine a scenario where two people are watching the exact same news segment. One of the individuals in question is on the Liberal-Left side of the spectrum, while the other sides with the Conservative-Right. Now imagine that at the end of the segment, both individuals angrily decree that the news piece is biased against them. This is actually such a common scenario that there is a term for it: the hostile media effect. The HME refers to partisans of opposing views holding that neutral media coverage is biased against them.

The HME is a relatively newly coined term, stemming back from a study at Stanford University in 1985. Both pro-Israeli and Pro-Arab students were shown footage of the tragic 1982 Sabra and Shatila Massacre, whereupon Palestinian civilians were killed in Lebanese refugee camps while Israeli soldiers idly stood by. In the footage, the culpability of the Israelis is debated. Both pro-Arab students and pro-Israeli students felt the coverage was siding against them. Since the official identification of this phenomenon in 1985, it has surfaced countless times in practically every culture and setting, proving just how difficult the job can be for journalists.

Further research revealed several more things. The brand has a severe impact for example —when test participants were shown a news story labeled with the CNN logo, they reacted differently than when the identical story was shown with the Al Jazeera logo. Studies also have shown that individuals who self-categorize are the most likely to feel defensive and victimized by the press. The more emotionally invested in leftwing politics one might be, the more likely said person will suspect rightwing bias in the media, and vice versa. News stories concerning other countries are also less likely to provoke the audience, as they generally instill patriotism and cohesion among citizens.

What does this mean for journalists? Many new principles of ethical journalism are manifest by HME, as well as the reinforcement of several old principles. Journalists need to make it clear that they have no political preference (even if they actually do) so as to gain the public’s trust. Journalists should be mindful of how they frame stories, taking special care to cater to the broader group and not specific subgroups.  The journalist also needs to be relatable to the audience. A quick way to earn the public’s trust is to show you are one of them. Overall the driving emphasis is simply this: avoid bias at all costs. As HME shows, journalists are at a terminus a quo disadvantage, because the public is inclined to blame the media no matter how neutral the story may be. In this context, any additional bias is sure to incite the already dubious audience.  Lastly, if you as the journalist catch an occasional bit of grief — remember that it is an inevitable part of the job— do not let it negatively affect your reporting. Keep your eye on the ethics behind the profession. 

Source: NiemanJournalismLab

How Journalists Should Remain Ethical on Social Media

The relationship between journalists and social media continues to be delicate. An article on Pointer summed up seven major points in relation to journalists and how to remain ethical on social media. It is important not to relate these tips only to social networking, since they reflect many broader, fundamental journalism values.

1. It is important for journalists to keep their audience´s trust in mind when publishing a piece or adding friends. Inadequate information or friendships can make a reporter to be taken as impartial.

2. The editor should be consulted before making potentially controversial decisions, such as “friending” or “following” a politician.

3. Never forget impartiality. This is an important basic value to keep in mind, especially when posting a political comment. If you are to friend a politician you should also friend his political opponent, in order to be able to prove that you are not biased.

4. Try to keep your contacts list under control. Make sure it does not appear one-sided. Also take into account that the public may not understand that your “online friends” are not the same as in real life.

5. Avoid interacting with politicians on Facebook. Having them as “friends” could be useful in a professional way in order to be quickly informed, but having a public conversation will not help you get valuable information, which you could achieve by a personal interview.

6. Be careful while “liking” pages of activist movements or radical political groups. The word “like” could be understood as a support to the ideas or actions this group could be planning, leaving you as a reporter in an inadequate position. Using Facebook lists might help avoiding these issues.

7. Remember that there is no privacy on Facebook. This means that all information posted on it represents you, and the organization for which you work. Choosing the wrong information or friends could put your credibility as a journalist into question.

As previously stated, these points are strongly related to each other and based on important journalistic values such as impartiality and professionalism, in order to have the audiences' trust. These values must be taken into account for both on and offline relationships. Have you ever run into any problematic situations related to this matter? Let us know your experiences in the comments.

Source: Pointer

Fine, Putin, Fine. But Read the Small Print!

Mark Adomanis offers a refreshingly positive view concerning the bleak imposition of fines in Russia. The fines are the result of prolonged protest following the start of Putin’s third term as president. As they can reach up to a year’s wages, they seem an effective option at censoring the Russian people’s right to free speech.

Adomanis, however, has trawled through the official document and it's arduous technical terms and spied a ray of hope. This takes the form of Article 8, a clause which commits to providing specific areas reserved for protest and demonstration. Though Adomanis deems Article 8 a mere ploy, to allow officials to “pretend to keep a straight face when they tell foreign journalists that the bill is not about punishing dissent but rather “strengthening democracy”, he also sees its potential. Comparing it to the Helsinki Accords, which spurred opposition against the Soviet Union, Adomanis sees Article 8 as a hook for Russian protesters to hold on to. It sets a precedent for pursuing freedom of speech and unifies the opposition’s pressure on to a weak chink in Putin’s armor, his international image.

The channels of communication that interlink the opposition in Russia will be vital to preserving hope among the protesters. Responsibility may fall to correspondents like Adomanis who maintain the variety of views that characterize a society with free speech. The movement against Putin requires individuals who will read the small print, locate the implications historically and direct the offence. Read the rest of Adomanis’s article and offer your support and comments.


Source: Forbes

Are Documentaries: “The Lie That Makes Us Realize the Truth?”

When it comes to documentaries, filmmakers find themselves in a unique situation. They have a responsibility to portray truth as accurately as possible, but they have a wide array of constraints that may not allow it to be done so seamlessly. They have an allegiance to their audience, but they also have a duty to protect their subjects. Countless more ethical dilemmas present themselves, and the documentary maker winds up in an elaborate juggling act trying to maintain balance while still producing a successful film. Unlike traditional journalism which is widely regulated, documentaries are almost always independent or freelance work. This in turn makes the filmmakers essentially their own bosses, and the ethical dilemmas that ensue are often up to their discretion. Here is a brief examination of some of the many problems that documentary filmmakers face:

The Excitement Burden: the blatantly obvious pressure that filmmakers’ feel whereupon the success of their film will largely rely upon how dramatic it is. If filmmakers are stuck with unexciting interviews or events, they might feel inclined to substitute them for seemingly interchangeable ones, despite the compromise of truth.

Protecting the Subject vs. Protecting Truth: oftentimes during interviews subjects will confess certain things and reveal potentially damaging information. Even names and addresses can be revealing enough to cause significant damage. Filmmakers are then faced with another dilemma: the information could contribute significantly to the mission of the documentary, but could be bordering on defamation. What clips they decide to include and omit are up to them, but they are in responsibility tug-of-war so to speak, with no clear-cut guidelines of what to do.

The Final Say:

An extension of the last point, some filmmakers feel the need to share their film with the subjects they interviewed before the documentary is released. In this way subjects would be able to hone in on biases or parts they might want omitted or included. This would seem only fair to the interviewees, but it surrenders control of the film in a way. The subjects are usually not professional filmmakers and do not fully understand the mission of the film, if they have final say in the movie it could alter the film's intent. If the interviewees do not have any say on the other hand, then it is oftentimes seen as an abuse of power by the filmmaker.

Budget:

In some cases, filmmakers have to pay subjects for granting them permission to be interviewed or providing other materials. Unlike journalism where paying to obtain interviews is usually forbidden or frowned upon, in documentaries it seems to vary. Many cultures for example differ in terms of payment etiquette—whether to accept payment or be offended by the very notion of it. For filmmakers it can be much easier to wave ample amounts of money around as it gets the attention of participants more quickly. When the motivation becomes financial, however, the question remains: was the information obtained ethically? 

Subjectivity:

In the end filmmakers are going to portray a situation literally through their own lens. All of the choices they make including participants, staging, lighting, editing, and countless others will serve to capture reality a specific way.  Independent filmmaker Steven Ascher said:

You could argue that cutaways in a scene filmed with one camera are a distortion—you cut from a person talking to a reaction shot, condensing or reshuffling dialogue before you cut back to the person. But those kinds of distortions are often necessary to tell the story or to compress ideas that would otherwise take too long. Jump cuts might be more “honest” about the rearranging going on but might be unwatchable. Dialogue editing and reaction shots are necessary tools of documentary, and while sometimes manipulative, often fall under Picasso’s idea of art as the lie that makes us realize the truth.

Are documentaries really “the lie that makes us realize the truth?” It is difficult to say without reducing the genre to a mere label, but the fact remains that the ethical standards for documentaries are sketchy at best. Without an international dialogue taking place regarding the ethical dilemmas surrounding documentaries, there is little hope for signs of improvement or change. 

Source: CenterForSocialMedia

The Media & Aid Agencies: A Dream-Team Amidst an Ethics Crisis

Aid agencies play a vital role in many developing countries. Thanks to the support of governments, multilateral donors, companies, and countless volunteers, different types of humanitarian and development aid may be offered to individuals, groups and countries. What is not always taken into account is the additional support that the media can provide. A good communication campaign can help aid agencies to raise more funds and generate public awareness of the cause for which the organization works. Even governments have sometimes shaped their public policies related to a social and health problems due to the popularity achieved thanks to the presence in the media.

Recent news has brought to light Mae Azango, a reporter who played a main role in the fight for human rights in Liberia by reporting about a terrible problem in her native country: female genital cutting. Thanks to her, this problem has been discussed internationally, and many have learned about the risks of this practice. The government has publicly announced its determination to give female genital cutting an end.

The mentioned article is critical about the aid agencies' decision not to fund media. As stated at the beginning of this article, media can increase and intensify the results of the aid that is being offered, through public awareness and raising funds. This is beyond any question. Collaboration between journalists and those who work on humanitarian and development aid is indispensable. The role reporters play in this matter is very important, and they should not be stopped by lack of funding. Aid agencies should support them if possible, but the funding could also be provided by media groups or other sources. After all, it is our responsibility, too. 

Source: The Guardian

Tweet First; Think Later

New York based model Melissa Stetten. Source: Twitter

Recently, actor Brian Presley flirted with model Melissa Stetten on a flight. This presumably common celebrity exchange got interesting as Stetten invited someone else into the conversation —social media platform Twitter.

Stetten’s series of witty tweets insinuate that married and self-professedly sober Presley is a drunken, womanising hypocrite. Brian loses a substantial amount of credibility somewhere inbetween her update that "Brian is now talking about how he is an artist and believes everything happens for a reason, like how we're brought together on this flight," and the later "Holy shit. He's had 3 Heinekens and is wasted. Sober? Hardly." Stetten appears justified to ask in her finale: "did I just ruin Brian Presley's life via Twitter?"

Is this question revelatory, laced with remorse, or is she giving herself a catty slap on the back? As Alex Clark of the Guardian points out, without tone, body language and acquaintance with the speaker, it is hard to guess. This highlights a problem with social media platforms: they broadcast the personal publically. Intimate information is taken out of context and offered as entertainment to thousands of people. Playground politics take on a global form, and the character building becomes destructive.

Yet Stetten is probably not a bully, just as Presley is probably not a fool. They are both just people, whose fleeting, inconsiderate impressions have been solidified and preserved by social media. Twitter allows the cutting, instantly regretted, just-before-you-slam-the-door statement to be broadcasted to a mass audience. Social media bypasses the stages of regulation that mediate normal media yet has similarly irrevocable consequences. The responsibility falls to the individual to regulate themselves and consider first: “do I want to risk ruining Brian Presley’s life via Twitter?”

Source: The Guardian

Conversation for Media Ethics Opens Up in Pakistan

News from Pakistan recently has been unsettling to many, including the U.S. and India among others. With drone-strikes, poisonings, and the word "war" being thrown around by the U.S. Secretary of Defense himself, it seems as though trouble continues to stir in the Middle East.

On a more positive note, this past Thursday, the Arts Council of Pakistan held an international conference focused on journalism and media ethics. The conference, which lasted three days, was divided into two parts including one part on breaking news and the other whose emphasis was on a code of ethics in the media.

Several very prominent people spoke out including Senior Reporter, Fahim Siddiqui, who believes Pakistan to have a promising future. Having many hopeful, driven youth, Siddiqui believes, Yellow journalism will soon come to end in Pakistan. On the topic of yellow journalism, he also added it “not only destroys a society but is also against the ethics of journalism.”

Also at the conference, Hussain Naqi, senior journalist and human rights activist, said that:

“Journalists are very much in favour of the code of ethics. Media houses and journalists will be given credibility in the society, if they follow the code of ethics.”

Over 10 more established political analysts, media researchers, anchorpersons, columnists, editors, reporters, and journalists gave their views. Several topics were discussed and integrated into the ethical journalism conversation including print media vs electronic, (and the dynamic nature of journalism), plagiarism, and reliance on advertising.

In turbulent times it is relieving to hear some encouraging news. Ideally this conference will have a lasting effect and help bolster the international conversation for ethical journalism —which would be right in line with CIME’s mission —that journalists together have the power to formulate and enforce a tacit code of ethics as a status quo of their profession.

Source: DailyTimes