Recently in class we have been discussing the need for truth in journalism. Journalists need to be sure that what they are reporting is the honest truth. I believe that this a very important thing for journalists to be aware of, but I do not think they are the only writers who need to be aware of it. Even authors of books need to be held accountable for what they write, specifically if they are writing what they label a memoir, or non-fiction story.
It was recently discovered that Misha Defonseca's book, "Misha: A Memoire of the Holocaust Year" is not what she had claimed it to be. Claims made my Defonseca in the book included things like "she found herself trapped in the Warsaw ghetto, killed a Nazi soldier in self-defense and was adopted by a pack of wolves that protected her." Her book became very popular in Belgium, even having a feature film created in France about it.
It seems like plagiarism and faulty "memoirs" are happening a little more frequently these days. I am sure a story about a lady reflecting on her travels across Europe with wolves during World War II would be very interesting, but don't we deserve the truth. So many people bought in to her story and she just kept on living the lie. So many people were negatively impacted by that war that it seems wrong to record such a drastic story as the truth. Another memoir turned falsification that occurred recently was that of "A Million Little Pieces" by author James Frey. His book was on Oprah's book club list before it was found out to have false information in it. I think that if these people really wanted to write non-fiction or memoirs, then they need to make sure they stick to the truth. They may have great stories, but by not sticking to them their book shifts to fiction. Even if it seems like the right decision at the time, they have to remember that somebody, someday will find out what they did.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Bans-
United Arab Emirates (UAE) recently discussed placing bans on social networking websites such as Facebook and MySpace. They would not ban the entire website, but would focus mainly on the part involving relationship statuses. "Sections of social networking websites including Facebook and Myspace, which encouraged dating would be banned under the new policy." Members of the UAE feel that these parts of the website go against their moral values.
This seems unusual to me just because it seems like such extreme censorship. Obviously things are different between here and the Middle East, but it is still hard to understand how a government can enforce these types of regulations.
This seems unusual to me just because it seems like such extreme censorship. Obviously things are different between here and the Middle East, but it is still hard to understand how a government can enforce these types of regulations.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Advertising- when the line is crossed
A recent article in Advertising Age discussed the Super Bowl and the many ads surrounding it. The ads play a large role in the Super Bowl every year. People look forward to seeing what advertisers have come up with and advertisers spend lots of time and money to impress their viewers.
A Bridgestone ad this year has received some extra attention. In this ad, a driver is twisting down a dark road. He is able to avoid a couple of obstacles like a deer and Alice Cooper. His last obstacle was Richard Simmons. Initially the driver acts as though he is going to speed up and hit Simmons, but swerves at the last second. Many found this commercial humorous, but there were others who felt it was sending a negative message.
Critics of this commercial believed it had a homophobic message. By displaying Simmons as a potential target for a car, they felt the commercial had the underlying message that annoying, flambouyant hyperactive men should be taken out.
I really did not see anything wrong with this ad. I saw it and laughed. I find Simmons to be very annoying and ridiculous. I had never associated him with being a homosexual though. I was very surprised to hear these accusations.
Since the Super Bowl, the ad has been pulled, being cited as being too offensive. I personally do not think that Bridgestone meant to be offensive in any way. I could see if critics were upset about the fact that a car sped up when it saw a person, but tying in the homophobic message to it is maybe reading into it a little too much. Advertisers have an extremely difficult job in trying to reach such a vast audience. As one website pointed out, Simmons did this ad out of his own free will. Maybe some critics need to remember that and calm down about the 'underlying' messages in commercials.
A Bridgestone ad this year has received some extra attention. In this ad, a driver is twisting down a dark road. He is able to avoid a couple of obstacles like a deer and Alice Cooper. His last obstacle was Richard Simmons. Initially the driver acts as though he is going to speed up and hit Simmons, but swerves at the last second. Many found this commercial humorous, but there were others who felt it was sending a negative message.
Critics of this commercial believed it had a homophobic message. By displaying Simmons as a potential target for a car, they felt the commercial had the underlying message that annoying, flambouyant hyperactive men should be taken out.
I really did not see anything wrong with this ad. I saw it and laughed. I find Simmons to be very annoying and ridiculous. I had never associated him with being a homosexual though. I was very surprised to hear these accusations.
Since the Super Bowl, the ad has been pulled, being cited as being too offensive. I personally do not think that Bridgestone meant to be offensive in any way. I could see if critics were upset about the fact that a car sped up when it saw a person, but tying in the homophobic message to it is maybe reading into it a little too much. Advertisers have an extremely difficult job in trying to reach such a vast audience. As one website pointed out, Simmons did this ad out of his own free will. Maybe some critics need to remember that and calm down about the 'underlying' messages in commercials.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
"Upgrading" to Online
A recent news story from Madison, WI told of a 90-year-old newspaper. Capital Times has been in print for 90 years and currently has a circulation of around 17,000. This all sounds good, right? Well, so far, yes, but there is more to the story. After its many years of service to the community, Capital Times is suspending the daily printing of their newspaper.
On Thursday, newspaper publisher Clayton Frink said, "The paper will end its six-day a week publication and instead offer readers a tabloid-style insert in the Wisconsin State Journal twice weekly." Along with this, the newspaper hopes to focus more on "internet operations." This should be a very interesting switch for the newspaper, but unfortunately it will affect more than just the subscribers. The newspaper is predicting many layoffs and cuts in the staff. The number of needed employees will decrease through the process of changing from print to online versions of the newspaper.
To me, this is a very sad story. There is something special about getting a newspaper delivered to your home everyday. I am not a fan of the ink that comes off on my hands, but you can't give up the feel of the newspaper in your hands. Everything is laid out for you, all you have to do is flip through and choose which stories you want to read. I can carry the newspaper with me and cut out anything I might want to show to others.
I would love to talk to Keen about this topic. I am sure there are more newspapers than Capital Times who are struggling with this exact same issue. I am guessing that Keen would blame the Web 2.0 era for this event. For the first time, I might actually agree with him on something. People are turning to online sources for their news over the physical papers.
So, what is the ethical issue here? I think people need to be aware of what they are doing when they start switching to online versions of papers. Not only are the people at the actual newspaper being put out of a job. Think about all the delivery people. Moving deeper into the company, think about the people who repaired the press, ordered and delivered the supplies to keep the company running, and even the people who will no longer be receiving their daily papers. What if they do not have a computer (as shocking as it may be, I know people who still do not own a computer)? I am sure many newspapers will be dealing with situations like this in the next several decades. It will be interesting to see what they all choose to do.
On Thursday, newspaper publisher Clayton Frink said, "The paper will end its six-day a week publication and instead offer readers a tabloid-style insert in the Wisconsin State Journal twice weekly." Along with this, the newspaper hopes to focus more on "internet operations." This should be a very interesting switch for the newspaper, but unfortunately it will affect more than just the subscribers. The newspaper is predicting many layoffs and cuts in the staff. The number of needed employees will decrease through the process of changing from print to online versions of the newspaper.
To me, this is a very sad story. There is something special about getting a newspaper delivered to your home everyday. I am not a fan of the ink that comes off on my hands, but you can't give up the feel of the newspaper in your hands. Everything is laid out for you, all you have to do is flip through and choose which stories you want to read. I can carry the newspaper with me and cut out anything I might want to show to others.
I would love to talk to Keen about this topic. I am sure there are more newspapers than Capital Times who are struggling with this exact same issue. I am guessing that Keen would blame the Web 2.0 era for this event. For the first time, I might actually agree with him on something. People are turning to online sources for their news over the physical papers.
So, what is the ethical issue here? I think people need to be aware of what they are doing when they start switching to online versions of papers. Not only are the people at the actual newspaper being put out of a job. Think about all the delivery people. Moving deeper into the company, think about the people who repaired the press, ordered and delivered the supplies to keep the company running, and even the people who will no longer be receiving their daily papers. What if they do not have a computer (as shocking as it may be, I know people who still do not own a computer)? I am sure many newspapers will be dealing with situations like this in the next several decades. It will be interesting to see what they all choose to do.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Writers- please come back!
FOX Broadcasting Company has recently come up with a new show called The Moment of Truth. In this show, contestants are asked a series of questions before the show while they are hooked up to a polygraph machiene. The big thrill of the show comes when they are asked the same questions in front their spouses, family and friends. Their results are revealed. The questions get more personal and difficult to answer the further into the show they go. At any time the contestant can choose to stop and take the money they have earned so far but if they go through the entire series of questions, they win $500,000.
To me this show proves that networks are getting desperate for the writers stirke to end and have the writers return to work. I cannot believe that sharing very personal information about yourself on TV for money sounds like a good idea to anyone. I also cannot believe that the network promotes this type of a show. Aren't they afraid of a lawsuit? I am sure they have covered their butts and have the contestants sign all sorts of documents. To me the whole show just doesn't even seem ethical. Making a show out of people's very personal lives seems to be pushing the envelope. In Lippman's article he discusses two distince selves: the public and regal self (private and human). Are these people who are willingly going on this show following in the footsteps of Lippman, not really. Revealing your most personal secrets on national television is not keeping your private life seperate from your public life.
To me this show proves that networks are getting desperate for the writers stirke to end and have the writers return to work. I cannot believe that sharing very personal information about yourself on TV for money sounds like a good idea to anyone. I also cannot believe that the network promotes this type of a show. Aren't they afraid of a lawsuit? I am sure they have covered their butts and have the contestants sign all sorts of documents. To me the whole show just doesn't even seem ethical. Making a show out of people's very personal lives seems to be pushing the envelope. In Lippman's article he discusses two distince selves: the public and regal self (private and human). Are these people who are willingly going on this show following in the footsteps of Lippman, not really. Revealing your most personal secrets on national television is not keeping your private life seperate from your public life.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Privacy of the people
A recent story on CNN told of Circuit Judge John B. Hagler of Cleveland, Tennessee and his recent resignation. His resignation took place after an audiotape on which the judge recorded graphic personal fantasies was found. The tape was handed over to investigators by a past secretary. On the background of the tape the listerner can hear sounds from a person who sounds as though they are being tormented. The press have heard about the tape and are now asking that a copy be released to them. As the article states "the newspaper, The Associated Press and other news organizations had asked that the tape be released, but Hamilton County Chancery Court Judge Frank Brown ruled Thursday that it is not a public record and should be returned to Hagler. The judge justified this ruling by saying "private documents do not become public just because someone provides them to a law enforcement official."
The thing that gets me here is that the media thinks they need a copy of the tape. What would they do with it? I'm sure they would print stories about what was on the tape, stories that would be extremely embarrassing for the past judge. Would it be right for them to do this? I really do not think so. As Judge Brown said, the tape is a private thing. Judge Hagler did not record it for anything dealing with work. No matter how disturbing it may be, it does not necessarily mean that the press needs to report on it. What if they had at some point written a steamy novel on their laptop and it was later found and someone wanted to write a story about that? I wonder if they would feel the same way about private and personal property at that point. I understand it would all make a good newstory, but I don't know that it would be ethical to print it.
The thing that gets me here is that the media thinks they need a copy of the tape. What would they do with it? I'm sure they would print stories about what was on the tape, stories that would be extremely embarrassing for the past judge. Would it be right for them to do this? I really do not think so. As Judge Brown said, the tape is a private thing. Judge Hagler did not record it for anything dealing with work. No matter how disturbing it may be, it does not necessarily mean that the press needs to report on it. What if they had at some point written a steamy novel on their laptop and it was later found and someone wanted to write a story about that? I wonder if they would feel the same way about private and personal property at that point. I understand it would all make a good newstory, but I don't know that it would be ethical to print it.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Drama of the Spears
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Music/01/08/britney.drphil.ap/index.html
Many of us are well aware of the drama that has been unfolding in the lives of the Spears family. 16 year-old JamieLynn is pregnant and Britney recently had a breakdown unlike any other Hollywood breakdown we have seen in the last several years. Britney was strapped up and hauled off to a hospital. Whether we really care about this drama or not, it is hitting the top of the news stories. In case this was not enough, Dr. Phil decided to step in and offer his two cents worth to the Spears family, specifically to Britney. As the article above shows, Dr. Phil was highly criticized for showing up at the hospital. Obviously we do not know all of the details surrounding his visit, but he does mention that he hoped to get some video and an interview which he then hoped to show on his weekday show, Dr. Phil.
There are so many issues going on with this ordeal, but one in particular deals with ethical issues. I am not talking about whether or not Dr. Phil should have gone to visit Britney. The ethical part of it goes beyond that. What if Dr. Phil had gotten an interview with Britney? What if he took those tapes and made a show out of them? As we all just witnessed, Britney is not very stable right now. I don't know that someone who is locking themselves in rooms with their children is the best person to do an interview with. I am sure that if Dr. Phil got the interview and did the show that he would see it as a great way to help others. But as the article also showed, not many people are in the same situation as Britney. Even if Britney had agreed to the interview, I think it would have been highly unethical for Dr. Phil to air the interview. When someone is that unstable I do not feel that they would be able to make a conscious decision to agree to being taped. Many people approve of Dr. Phil and take his shows very seriously. He has a huge responsibility to his audience to show them material that is apporpriate.
Many of us are well aware of the drama that has been unfolding in the lives of the Spears family. 16 year-old JamieLynn is pregnant and Britney recently had a breakdown unlike any other Hollywood breakdown we have seen in the last several years. Britney was strapped up and hauled off to a hospital. Whether we really care about this drama or not, it is hitting the top of the news stories. In case this was not enough, Dr. Phil decided to step in and offer his two cents worth to the Spears family, specifically to Britney. As the article above shows, Dr. Phil was highly criticized for showing up at the hospital. Obviously we do not know all of the details surrounding his visit, but he does mention that he hoped to get some video and an interview which he then hoped to show on his weekday show, Dr. Phil.
There are so many issues going on with this ordeal, but one in particular deals with ethical issues. I am not talking about whether or not Dr. Phil should have gone to visit Britney. The ethical part of it goes beyond that. What if Dr. Phil had gotten an interview with Britney? What if he took those tapes and made a show out of them? As we all just witnessed, Britney is not very stable right now. I don't know that someone who is locking themselves in rooms with their children is the best person to do an interview with. I am sure that if Dr. Phil got the interview and did the show that he would see it as a great way to help others. But as the article also showed, not many people are in the same situation as Britney. Even if Britney had agreed to the interview, I think it would have been highly unethical for Dr. Phil to air the interview. When someone is that unstable I do not feel that they would be able to make a conscious decision to agree to being taped. Many people approve of Dr. Phil and take his shows very seriously. He has a huge responsibility to his audience to show them material that is apporpriate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)