Questionable advertising

There are few people who have not seen a political advertisement this year.  Way beyond a year in advance, presidential candidates started running ads to boost their popularity.  Some of these ads are basic and just show the candidate's stances on major issues.  As you approach the November elections, the purpose of the ads change.  Many of them become attack ads on other candidates in the same party.  A recent article on Poynter discussed a new form of these advertisements.  Barack Obama bought space on newspaper sites in the Ohio and Texas areas.  Some of those sites included Akron Beacon Journal and the Houston Chronicle.  The ads on these sites dropped down when you opened the newspaper's site.  The Poynter article asks questions about why the newspaper chose to run these ads.  Would it run ads like this on the front page of the newspaper? 

Personally, I am getting a little tired of all the political ads, as are many others.  We have been overwhelmed by these ads for too long and I have really just started tuning them out.  At this point I can't imagine a political ad makes that much of a difference.   

Misleading Headlines

Even though many of us are on spring break, I am sure we have heard about the latest The New York Times story. We have moved on from John McCain to a new politician- Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer, who is currently serving as governor of New York, has been accused of being involved in a prostitution ring. Kelly McBride, Ethics Group Leader of Poynter.org, looks at this story in a different angle than most. Instead of trying to find the best source or digging up more details, McBride focuses on the headline. "The "prostitution ring" headline is misleading. The reporting so far suggests that Spitzer hired a prostitute who worked for an organized ring. No one is suggesting that Spitzer is somehow involved in running the ring or protecting it. A more precise headline would be more accurate," stated McBride. She worries that people will not look beyond the headline and therefore not understand what is actually occurring.

I agree with McBride. Journalists need to make sure what they are writing is not misleading. I understand that headlines can really grab a person's attention, but I think that is the main reason why journalists need to be so careful of what their headlines state. A very recent example of this is the John McCain story, also done by The New York Times. A misleading headline and poorly edited story lead to much confusion over what has happened. McBride also states the need for sources. Many of the reports had statements from 'anonymous sources.' When I see this I tend to question who this person really is, or if they even exist. After seeing so many journalists, writers, reporters, etc. getting caught up in plagiarising, it is hard to instantly believe a story that does not have actual named sources.

The Truth?

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.