Presenting Melissa DePaul

Melissa DePaul put herself out there for the Westminster community, friends and family to inspect as she made her senior presentation on Tuesday afternoon. Her confidence and experience should serve her well going into the job market She's updated her blog with an account of how things went. Check it out!

Melissa is a great example of the student who is prepared to cope with a crisis. In addition to having her portfolio samples on DVD, she had a VHS tape as backup and she also pulled stories from PC sources and the web.

Unfortunately, the audio quality on the DVD and VHS were low and somewhat distorted. We're still trying to determine exactly what the problem was. Melissa did test both out in another classroom since the lecture hall was locked the night before. However, nothing will ever replace testing out the equipment in the room you will use and the importance of rehearsing in the venue where you present. You can identify problems well in advance and you have time to resolve these issues.

The BC Capstone Weblog "PIC" of the week...

Chris Zinkham wins the "capstone photo of the week" nod as he's added one to his profile. If you're a creative type looking for a gig in advertising, it's definitely one way to get attention. BTW...check out the profiles on each other's blog. You'll definitely learn something about your peers.

Take the BC CAPSTONE WEBLOG PROFILE QUIZ:

Which capstone student has a thing for Wuthering Heights and Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs?

Who's blogging habits mean doubling up on the blog workload this semester?

Which BC blogger sleeps with the remote contol?

Identify the capstone student with more than a casual curiosity with something called the Kingdom of Loathing?

Name the blogger who's a Scorpio with a favorite read featuring a Native American girl left alone for 18 years on an island.

What's this guy's connection with a capstone blog?

Melissa DePaul's Senior Presentation

You're Invited to Melissa DePaul's BC Capstone Presentation at 2:00 on the afternoon of Tuesday, October 25. She'll present in HSC G-12/Phillips Lecture Hall in Hoyt.

You can also check out Melissa's Capstone Weblog at
http://melissadepaul.blogspot.com/

HIDDEN CAMERA as part of a Network News Social Experiment?

PART 1 of 4
A few weeks ago I was channel surfing and came across ABC’s 20/20 featuring a twist on the “hidden camera” investigation that I found to be as equally as unethical as any other use of hidden cameras.

ABC News hired actors Nate and Sarah to act out a scenario in which a couple gets into a heated, almost violent, argument in public. This report was dressed up as 20/20 series about ethical dilemmas to determine if people do the right thing.

The irony of this series is in the fact the reporter and producers forgot to consider the ethics of their own behavior in using deception as a tactic in this hidden camera experiment. It was so over the top and clearly unethical from a social science point of view (informed consent of the participants-- they became participants against their will) as well as from the journalism POV.

In fact the Poynter Institute has some strong guidelines about using hidden cameras in journalism and 20/20 failed to meet the burden (just as the network did with the infamous Primetime Live case with Food Lion in the 1990s).

20/20 also attempted to present this story as a social experiment and framed it as an academic exercise to probe society. I suspect most Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) at universities would refuse to allow such tactics because hidden cameras are clear violations of informed consent.

From my read of most credible social science approaches to research interviewing and participant observation, getting permission from people after the fact violates the spirit of the informed consent on so many levels (continued in next entry).

HIDDEN CAMERA as part of a Network News Social Experiment?

Part 2 of 4
As a journalist and an college instructor using social science methodology, I also take issue with 20/20's arrogance at framing these reports as "social experiments." The producers and reporter failed to follow any of the practices or conventions of social science research when they ignored issues of confidentiality and informed consent.

Furthermore, they put the subjects and "actors" in this test at risk. I watched and wondered whether any of the subjects on camera would use violence with the actor playing the abuser.

I was also surprised that academics/researchers were interviewed and played along with ABC’s tactics and reviewed the hidden camera video to offer feedback. That just underscores that it's okay to do the wrong thing if your intentions are dressed up as research (and it also can get you on TV).

The reporter included interviews with Professor Richard Gelles, an expert on domestic violence and dean of the University of Pennsylvania's School of Social Policy & Practice.

The 20/20 report showed what appeared to be Gelles viewing the hidden tapes with what I assume were students. However, it’s very possible his interview was recorded under false pretenses and taken out of context. This type of program essentially conducted experiments to see how people would react (a variation on Candid Camera or Scare Tactics) and hoped people would be willing to sign the consent form afterward (continued in next weblog entry).

HIDDEN CAMERA as part of a Network News Social Experiment?

Part 3 of 4
Hidden cameras are used routinely in television news. 20/20's "social experiment" use of hidden cameras is clearly a move in broadcast journalism to do something with hidden cameras that generates compelling video. However, it would seem that while ABC's legal team okayed the story because consent was given (even if it was after the fact) the tactics were viable. Once again the race to win viewers is greater than the potential harm or moral responsibility.


In my reading of academic approaches to social science research, I recall how some researchers have employed deception to gain access to subjects and to observe (the researcher who served as a lookout in public restrooms for married men engaged in public sex, secretly identified them and hunted them down for interviews about the behavior).

However, most social scientists denounce those approaches. Steinar Kvale's 1996 book InterViews : An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing maps out the ethical issues in the seven stages of academic research (the realm ABC's 20/20 attempted to frame this hidden camera con job). Kvale's work and research clearly shows the academic community holds "INFORMED CONSENT" as paramount in any kind of social research, interview or experiment.

I guess the question is do the ends ever justify the means? I would suggest maybe we should reflect on how our peers and the public might see our actions once full disclosure is made. Will transparency help justify your actions?

I know new laws and proposed legislation in California are trying to tighten invasion of privacy issues to prevent entertainment shows from this kind of unethical behavior. But broadcast journalism gets First Amendment protection (continued in next blog entry).

HIDDEN CAMERA as part of a Network News Social Experiment? continued

Part 4 of 4

ABC News Should Stick with NEWS & JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS & ETHIC
ABC & 20/20 clearly will never accept the standard protocols of the academic/research community in conducting "social experiments," therefore these so-called producers & journalists should stick to news.

Once again there are standards, practices and ethics of of a profession to follow, and ABC News is not above those standards and these hidden camera reports are in violation of such standards. Here’s the link and info from the Poynter Institute that I use for my classes. I don’t see how this story meets these criteria.

Justifying Deception/Misrepresentation/Hidden Cameras in Newsgathering? (FROM THE POYNTER INSTITUTE)
(You Must Fulfill All of the Criteria to Justify Your Actions.)

• When the information obtained is of profound importance.
• It must be of vital public interest, such as revealing great "system failure"
• At the top levels, or it must prevent profound harm to individuals.
• When all other alternatives for obtaining the same information have been exhausted.
• When the journalists involved are willing to disclose the nature of the deception and the reason for it.
• When the individuals involved and their news organization apply excellence, through outstanding craftsmanship as well as the commitment of time and funding needed to pursue the story fully.
• When the harm prevented by the information revealed through deception outweighs any harm caused by the act of deception.
• When the journalists involved have conducted a meaningful, collaborative, and deliberative decision-making process on the ethical and legal issues.