Sunday, October 31

Unethical Hidden Camera/Microphone Tactics in Local TV

A REAL WORLD LESSON IN ETHICS
I’m posting my reaction to Ian Durham’s weblog entry from October 28, 2004. Ian is an intern at WKBN-TV and it's important for you to read his entry as a framing document for my reaction. So click here to read his entry and then come back to read my response.

My Response to the "I'm Working Undercover..." Weblog Entry
When I read Ian's blog entry, he seemed proud and excited. I don’t want to diminish his experience, but I want him to grow from it and for all my students to understand clearly this is a lesson in journalism ethics you can never get from a classroom or from a text. Ian has first hand experience with these issues and I hope he and his fellow students can learn from it.

When I read his blog I was alarmed. I didn’t sense any ethical worries or any moral concerns raised in the entry. I must stress I never saw the story so I am assessing the events based on the blog entry. I do not blame him as he’s young and impressionable and was eager to please his mentors at WKBN. However, I find it disturbing that these mentors failed to inform him of the ethical quicksand they were stepping into and so I offer my ranting and raving for your consideration.

I think this young intern was sold on the sex appeal of this undercover expose. I think he was told that this story would blow the lid off of the Republican campaign and the only way to reveal this injustice was through hidden camera and microphone strategies. However, the ends here do not justify the means.

Bob Steel rallies against sloppy, unethical reporting and stresses we should never rush to use hidden cameras without applying a threshold test. In this case at WKBN, the ends never even came close to justifying the means. Steel, a veteran broadcast journalist who now directs the journalism ethics program at the Poynter Institute, responds to hidden camera and microphone tactics by taking a stand that they should be used a tool of last resort. The ethical use of the hidden cameras comes only when there is no other way to get the story and it is of utmost importance to the public.

“To justify deception we must be pursuing exceptionally important information. It must be of vital public interest, such as preventing profound harm to individuals or revealing great system failure.” Bob Steele, Hidden Cameras/Hidden Microphones: At the Crossroads of Journalism, Ethics and Law," a 1998 publication from the Radio-Television News Directors Foundation (RTNDF) from The Poynter Institute’s Online Resources.

I wonder if all possibilities were exhausted before Ian was recruited to go undercover. And was this story so important that lies and misrepresentation and invading privacy justified the story WKBN uncovered? Did the producer or the newsroom management even bother discussing these issues with my student?

BEWARE GOTCHA JOURNALISM! BEWARE HIDDEN CAMERAS/MICS!

From where I stand Ian was used as a pawn in ethically bankrupt journalism.

Were there any other ways-- HONEST WAYS-- to get this story-- if there was a story?

Remember, concealment is a form of lying. Sending someone into a story to misrepresent himself while wired with a hidden microphone (thus violating what the unsuspecting parties assume is a private converstatin) is unethical.

How hard would it be to walk in and identify yourself and be forthright? Could you get the story by asking the Republican organizers to show/provide examples of Democrats getting tickets to the Bush visit? How hard would it have been to do a consenting, legitimate, one to one interview about the allegations?

Did the means justify the ends? Did the station prove anything from the tactics it used?

It looks like the station didn't prove anything. In the end I think the station loses credibility for taking the cheap and dirty approach to this story. It was an attempt at sensationalism and gotcha journalism. They wanted to catch the Republicans red-handed and they didn’t.

If they cannot produce any verifiable examples or contacts then do you have the beginnings of a story? I don’t think so. I wonder "WHO CARES" anyway.

Do we really think the people watching TV news are so stupid that they can't figure out these appearances are filled with Republican "plants" and supporters. There's no big secret in that.

Was it fair and balanced?

Why is the so called tipster who made the allegation not going on air? It's put up or shut up time? There's a severe credibility issue here. What are this person’s motives?

When you think about it, isn't the station obligated to TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH. Should the report go beyond trying to prove one person's allegation? Is there an obligation to seek out the same story when it comes to the Democrats with a Kerry appearance.

A Lesson in Journalism Ethics

This was unscrupulous and irresponsible reporting. It was stupid and useless and yielded no valuable information for the viewers. I blame the so-called grown ups at WKBN who lacked the professionalism to see ethical dimensions of this undercover report and for manipulating an intern into carrying out their dirty work. Wiring an intern with secret microphones was sneaky and underhanded and clearly wrong.


RTNDA Code of Ethics


My attempt with this blog entry is to engage in a discussion about journalism ethics. I want my students and those reading to take a hard look at what's wrong with the situation and how young people getting into broadcasting are easily caught up in the excitement of a story and will let the thrill cloud their minds to what is right and what is wrong.

I'm posting a link here to the RTNDA Code of Ethics as a resource and reference to my posting about the hidden camera/microphone tactics used by WKBN-TV and for the way one of our capstone students was manipulated and drawn into the matter. I ask the question, can the "producer" defend the tactics 100%? Was there any other way to get this story and be forthright, fair and credible?

Journalists have an obligation to the truth and to fairness. I believe the way the station went after the alleged "Republicans Refuse Democrat Tickets" violated the obligation to truth and fairness. Again to frame this discussion better you need to review Ian Durham's weblog entry about the events by clicking on to his capstone blog.

From the RTNDA Code of Ethics at www.rtnda.org

TRUTH:

Professional electronic journalists should pursue truth aggressively and present the news accurately, in context, and as completely as possible.
Professional electronic journalists should:

  • Continuously seek the truth.
  • Resist distortions that obscure the importance of events.
  • Clearly disclose the origin of information and label all material provided by outsiders.

Professional electronic journalists should not:

  • Report anything known to be false.
  • Manipulate images or sounds in any way that is misleading.
  • Plagiarize.
  • Present images or sounds that are reenacted without informing the public.

FAIRNESS:

Professional electronic journalists should present the news fairly and impartially, placing primary value on significance and relevance.

Professional electronic journalists should:

  • Treat all subjects of news coverage with respect and dignity, showing particular compassion to victims of crime or tragedy.
  • Exercise special care when children are involved in a story and give children greater privacy protection than adults.
  • Seek to understand the diversity of their community and inform the public without bias or stereotype.
  • Present a diversity of expressions, opinions, and ideas in context.
  • Present analytical reporting based on professional perspective, not personal bias.

Saturday, October 30

Weblog Requirements -Rehashing the feedback/comment requirement

Look What I Dug Up in the Syllabus
Weblogs- 250 points possible
Blog Entry Deadline: Every Friday, by 12 noon (regardless of class schedule)
Each week members of BC 601/602 update their weblogs with specific information which includes:
a summary of "what I did in broadcasting for the current week" including updates on senior projects, presentations and other course work.
updates on developing career objectives, career placement planning, etc.
a brief summary/review of an on-line article (with an active hyperlink) about some topical event/issue in electronic media that clearly connects with the student's interests and/or career goals.

Students will also be encouraged to comment on postings of their fellow capstone bloggers’ pages and invite guests to visit the blogs and offer feedback.

You will update your blog each week by the Friday noon deadline. Missing a deadline will result in a loss of points for that week. Each entry will receive 10 points with a possible 160 points for the next 16 week. You can receive up to 20 points for recruiting visitors to the Capstone blog page who offer constructive feedback to you, the instructor or a fellow capstone student.
You can also receive up to 20 points for offering your constructive feedback or comments to a fellow capstone blogger.

Thursday, October 28

DÍA DE LOS MUERTOS, HALLOWEEN & SENIOR PROJECTS

The calendar shows that October is almost gone. HALLOWEEN, ALL SAINTS DAY/HOLY DAY or DÍA DE LOS MUERTOS should frighten you if you haven't made progress on your senior project. These days signal time is running out and we'll be well into November.

I’d like to read more specifics about your senior projects. Some students have provided information on what’s happening, others elude to it and still others kind of skip over it. Please make sure you give some specific information what’s going on with your projects. It clearly goes to “What I did in broadcasting this week…”

Last Call for Comments


I think I’ll make this my final appeal for Capstone students to actively engage in commenting on each others blog entries. So far this semester the feedback has been scattered and inconsistent across the board. While I’m pleased with the level of effort on the blogs, my goal of establishing a dynamic enterprise here seems to have peaked. The feedback component does factor into the grade for blogs, however, it appears that requirement continues to be overlooked.

Friday, October 15

We Welcome Your Comments (and for BC Students it's Required)

Hello, BC Capstone Bloggers!

It’s been a while since I presented an entry. I’ve been so engaged in reading yours and adding comments here and there. But I’m back…

Speaking of comments and feedback, I think most of you should revisit the course syllabus on the “Weblog Requirements” and how you should be actively engaged in feedback on the blog entries.

According to the syllabus: You can receive up to 20 points for offering your constructive feedback or comments to a fellow capstone blogger.

However, you won’t receive any points in this area unless you’re adding your feedback on a regular basis. I don’t require you to reach out and comment on every blog entry for every student every week. But some kind of constructive input each week would be appropriate. So be aware, in addition to my reviewing your blog entries, I’m also noting who’s offering feedback and who’s not.