Ethical issues in journalism

Hay guise,

I have to write a 10-page research paper on an ethical issue in journalism - the way the media covers a certain topic, something like that. I'm graduating next week, burnt out and coming up blank. Any ideas??

maybe fluffy but because i've been reading about it: film reviewers breaking press embargoes, e.g. lately w/ variety reviewing lovely bones and a number of other oscar contenders before they're "supposed" to

totally random example from last year: http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2008/11/every_time_i_th.html

'exposing' of 'health risks' cf the MMR vaccine thing which was broken by a journalist whom I am doing work experience w/

he has learnt his lesson but the issue remains: report it now before the 'problem' gets worse or wait for it to be verified?

how 'bout the ways the federal election commission and federal trade commission have proposed cracking down on bloggers? (i think the fec gave it up, but the ftc is not.)

gets you into dealing with the differences between traditional media and new media, the ethical obligations of bloggers to disclose their political or commercial ties, why or how they should or shouldn't be different than those of traditional media. all that stuff.

The coverage of climate change in the media.
In journalism, the rules have always been that you give each side in a debate equal time. When it comes to climate change, there are far more legitimate scientists that believe climate change is a big problem, compared to the relative few that don't. Is it a good/responsible thing that both sides of this "debate" are represented as equally valid and given the same number of column inches? By doing this, has the media created an issue (in the public's mind, at least), where scientifically there is none?

^^^i dispute the way this is presented, but there is a lot of meat on the climate change in the media debate. soya meat if you're not careful. anyway, it's not so much a battle between believers and non-believers as a battle between different sorts of climate-change reportage, different spokespeople, different proposed actions. that climate change is a thing is beyond reasonable doubt and the haters should be given approximately the same stage as fred phelps

thanks people. some interesting ideas here so far...

If you were filming at a demonstration where two people were killed, and the police show up demanding your tapes, should you give it to them?

You're a freelance photographer and you snap the Spanish secretary of state getting a blowjob from a woman not his wife. The secretary of state's chief of staff phones you up and says that they will buy the photo from you for $500,000. Do you accept? (NB this happens all the time.)

(Though not to the Spanish secretary of state, to my knowledge)

you are giving a blowjob to the spanish secretary of state's wife and she demands $500,000. do you give it to her?

you fend her off imo

Yeah my pronouns aren't really helping me out here

A woman has finally killed her alcoholic and abusive husband and taken her two children with her into hiding. You find out where she is but she says she won't talk to you unless you give her $10,000. Do you do it?

you are in a field

it is dark now

you sleep

it is day

you take out your notepad

on it, you find a picture of your face

the notepad, you realize, is a mirror

you write a note

it is night

you are sleepy

you look at the notepad

you fall into the notepad

into the notepad

in front you, you see your wife

your child is in your arms

your face is covered with blood

you write on your notepad

you are a journalist

you have taken LSD and the report is due in tomorrow morning. do you call in sick or do you stay in the field?

this is going off the deep end, i assume intentionally, but it should be a real issue i can research coverage of, not a hypothetical.

"Hunter Thompson, Classic or Dud?"

Whitey the issue of people buying a photo they don't want the public to see is a real one and happens all the time. Ditto "checkbook journalism". Ditto the police asking for information. These aren't my own dream topics but just the standard sort of questions that seem to interest journalism professors.

Like LJ says, exposing of (or giving weight to made up) alleged health risks - one could argue that the MMR scare/hoax for example was extremely unethical on the newspapers' side as it's caused real harm. As always, Ben Goldacre has a lot to say on it at www.badscience.net

does journalism have an obligation to society? if so, what is it? and is it sufficient to simply pass along the information transmitted to one by this or that source, or does the journalist have an obligation to thoroughly investigate & understand what he or she reports, and to place it in a meaningful context?

lol@you are in a field monologue

well it seems you'd want to pick one major news story of the moment and analyse lots of reports on that one topic. is this like a thesis or just an essay? you could pick something to do with murdoch wanting to charge for online content and look at how public service or "free" news sources dealt with this?

that's just a thought but ideally I'd say you want to have a really tiny point to make and a huge amount of analysis/reading/quotation to make it with.

in my first par I meant to end "vs how commercial papers did."

this is just a research paper, not a thesis. i'm leaning toward doing coverage of Polanski or Amanda Knox, but the flu vaccine health scare is intriguing too

Chris Brown.

A woman has finally killed her alcoholic and abusive husband and taken her two children with her into hiding. You find out where she is but she says she won't talk to you unless you give her $10,000. Do you do it?

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:29 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

isn't this, by legal definition, aiding and abetting?

valerie plame?

Whitey what are the actual ethical issues in reporting on Foxy Knoxy? Or on Polanski?

I mean maybe I'm being unimaginative but I can't think of a single one. Polanski was extradited.. the case continues.. blah blah. Or: Knoxy found guilty. Will appeal. And?

FOX NEWS EXISTING

And actually, the MMR thing seems pretty open and shut. It's like relying on a single source for a big WMD story.

Good comparison stuff in the ethics of freebies: US hacks have this horror of accepting a glass of water from a subject, but British hacks will cheerfully drink their subjects dry.

(Motoring press is great example of this: Brit car writing is fiercely independent and critical of manufacturers and cars, yet all the writers get a free new car delivered every Tuesday morning and euro junkets every few weeks.)

MMR's a great example and there's tons of material online. Like kate78 it speaks to that policy of false balance, where the scientist representing 98% of opinion is given equal weight to the guy representing 2%, which confuses the hell out of readers/listeners/viewers and makes them think there's no smoke without fire. Also, most journalists want to get a scoop like the classic Sunday Times thalidomide investigation so will pounce too quickly on any hint of medical scandal.

knox would be a good comparative case. the american media have been completely ridiculous about it. idk if it's "unethical" exactly. maybe compare with coverage of that italian trial of the CIA snatch-squad?

you guys, I've decided to be boring/lazy and write about 9/11's effect on mainstream journalism :/

huh?

Discuss: http://whnt.com/2012/11/12/undercover-investigation-panhandling-in-huntsville/