More Questionable Ethics of Bloggers

Matt Ortega questions the ethics of blogger, Nathan Tabor, in his article, "Duncan Hunter's Blogger Ethics Problem."

Apparently, Tabor has a couple of questionable practices. First, Tabor has been hired to be Director of Internet Outreach for Duncan Hunter's 2008 presidential campaign. The problem is he doesn't disclose this information in his columns he writes critizing Hunter's opponents.

Secondly, he has written some pretty inflamatory stuff. Ortega writes:

In previous columns, Tabor uncovered Planned Parenthood's secret plan to
brainwash little children with their "SmokeBusters" anti-smoking campaign. He
claimed that since there are 777 streets named after Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr., most of which are in the South, racism just isn't what it used to be -- so
get over it and that 1960s mentality. Also, this timeless conservative
classic -- "It's cold outside! That Al Gore is full of shit!"

Ya know, before this class I had no experience with blogs at all. The more I read them, and more importantly read about them, my eyes have been opened to a very disturbing world. I can't fathom how regular people would find the time to read news online and validate it themselves, or have to continue to come back to it to see if there were any updates with evidence from others to disprove the original information.

In my opinion, it's one more vote for journalists. We need them to help sort through the lies, facts, absurdity, and just plain craziness!

Blogger's Ethics

Bloggers' ethics are put under the spotlight in the July/August issue of Mother Jones magazine.

The article by Daniel Shulman begins with the story of Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, the creator of Daily Kos , a popular blog site for liberals, who sent an email request to a group of 300 bloggers, journalists and activists requesting that they not blog in response to a posting that brought into question a connection between Moulitsas, his business partner, Jerome Armstrong, and their consulting work with Howard Dean in the 2004 presidential campaign in hopes that the story would die quickly. The group was told not to quote or distribute the email.

One person, Jason Zengerle of The New Republic's, did blog about the email. Moulitsas' "The Kos" urged its readers to cancel subscription to The New Republic, which they did in large numbers.

Shulman points to the irony that Moulitsas' reaction is the same controlling philosophy that bloggers deplore.

Other examples of questionable ethics in the article focus on transparency and disclosure. It states that many politicians reach out to top bloggers to gain support. Many bloggers are signed on to campaigns as payrolled employees. The problem is that not all hired bloggers disclose that information on their sites and then slam their employer's competition. Armstrong claims they shouldn't have to and that the problem is journalists wrongly apply their own ethical standards to nonjournalists.

As we talked in class, blogging is part of the new frontier of news and information. The comments of Armstong and the actions of Moulitsas and others really bring to the forefront the problems citizens have in their pursuit of truth.

Without some guidelines such as disclosure, how will we ever be able to trust the information that is going out into the internet world?

Secondly, if powerful bloggers can now control the information we receive, will we know what we're missing? Sounds pretty controlling and a bit like Hobbes to me.

Project Destiny Cliffhanger

A story on the KCCI TV news tonight was related to the Project Destiny Sales Tax. During the news, the reporter interviewed people in Des Moines on how they felt about the sales tax and showed preliminary results of an on-line poll where the question asked was, "Do you support Project Destiny--1-cent sales tax program in which funds raised would go to property tax relief and attractions in Warren, Dallas and Polk counties?"

One of the main points of the story was that many people didn't know about the vote in July or did not feel knowledgable of the details related to where the money would be used. The poll results at that time showed the overwhelming percent of respondents were voting no. The reporter mentioned that many were voting no because they wanted details of where the money would be used prior to voting.

(Interestingly enough, I checked the online article. It doesn't mention people's lack of knowledge on the issue nor does it provide any details to how the tax will be used.)

I found myself frustrated that the report focused more on the poll and what isn't known instead of providing me with some of those missing details mentioned in the story. They could have at least mentioned they're trying to get more details. I know nothing more than I knew before the piece other then the day to vote is July 10th.

One of citizens' bill of rights states, "We have a right to expect journalists to be aware of our basic dilemma as citizens; that we have a need for timely and deep knowledge of important issues and trends in our community..."

At the moment I feel robbed of that deep knowledge I need to make an informed decision.

There's still some time between now and July 10th. Maybe tonight was just a teaser for better journalism yet to come. I hope they don't make us wait until the 9th to get the rest of the story.

Hindsight on Truth - One Journalist's story

John Rember provides insight into a journalist's challenges in reporting the truth in his article, The Truth and Other Howlers. In it, he reviews a reporting assignment he had in 1990 over the controversial issue of reintroducing wolves into the wild.

In 1990, Rember worked for the Wildlife Conservation Magazine. His editor had asked for a balanced view of the huge battle that took place between Montana ranchers, environmentalists, law makers and lawyers in a public law conference.

This new article provides hindsight into Rember's pursuit of truth and insight to all of us on the challenges of independence from faction. Rember reveals that he knew the readers of Wildlife Conservation Magazine had stong ideas about wildlife. Looking back he's admits that understanding those ideas, stopped him from reporting the entire truth.

The article also shares with us the challenges of accuracy and bias. "190 separate truths" was written on Rembers notepad he used during the law conference, representing the 190 different entities represented. He goes on to say that many people were willing to lie to further their interests.

Rember's advice today is, "The people you're interviewing are never your friends, and to the extent you doubt that, you risk your adherence to the unbiased truth. And if you risk your adherence to unbiased truth, turn in your reporter's notebook. You can make more money as a lawyer."

Gay Bomb - Truth or PR?

What would you think if I told you that the military branch of our government considered at one time the creation of a chemical bomb that would render enemy soldiers gay and more interested in sex with each other rather than fight with us?

I think Machiavelli would be proud of our military brain trust for this one!

This article appeared on the CBS 5 website on June 8th. It states that a Berkely watchdog organization found this proposal in a document from the Air Force's Wright Laboratory in Dayton, OH.

The fact that the Air Force, even for a moment, followed this train-of-thought shocks me. But, it really overshadows another issue. The article quotes the Pentagon as saying this idea was first made in 1994. So, why report the story now? Could it be because Gay Pride week is just kicking off across the country?

Now, I truly am a supporter of gay and lesbian rights and I know there are plenty of their issues that need meaningful discussion in our society. I just can't help but wonder if the timing of this report would have been more meaningful if it were written at a different time. Reporting this story now when the Pentagon was noodling this idea in 1994 feels like a way to add some extra publicity for Gay Pride week when it could have been used to address the military and gay issues in a more serious forum.

In The Elements of Journalism, we read about truth and journalistic objectivity. The book says that journalistic truth is "a sorting-out process that takes place between the initial story and the interaction amoung the public, newsmakers, and journalists." It feels like this story's truth is in question not because of the facts but the timing of the information.

Outsourcing Has Gone Too Far

I have to admit, it took a few minutes for me to pick myself up off the floor after reading this article by Gene Weingarten from the Washington Post. We have all heard plenty of stories about corporations who decided to take their business offshore, but having journalists from India write about city council meetings in Pasedena?

Weingarten's article was a sarcastic response to the original article, which was published on May 11th. Although Weingarten's response is somewhat exagerated, I agree with his reaction. How could the publisher have thought that outsourcing local news half way around the world is a good decision?

During the evaluation stage of The Pasadena Now's ethical process, it's clear that the cost/benefit model was used in a very literal sense. According to the publisher, James Macpherson, "A lot of the routine sutff we do can be done by really talented people in another time zone at much lower wages."

But what of other values? Can a journalist from a completely different culture accurately and fairly report the news? Do they have the same value system as the people in Pasadena who will read their articles?

Locke's philosophy was that knowledge is derived from our experiences. Kant said that we impose certain features on all our experiences because of our perceptions. I believe the life experiences of someone from India are very different from someone in Pasadena. If Locke and Kant are correct, then a journalist from India watching the city council meeting and a journalist in Pasadena watching the same meeting will have different truths. For the people of Pasadena, the reporting by a local journalist on city council meetings is the better choice for accurate reporting.

The Pasadena Now saves a buck and the citizens of Pasadena lose.

Ethical Decision Making in Pakistan

Television stations in Pakistan are under pressure these days to stop their live coverage of rallies opposing the suspension of Pakistan's chief judge by President General Pervez Musharraf. You can click on the title to link to the full article, "As TV Coverage Feeds Protests, Musharraf Reacts,"

In Witte's article, we learn that live coverage of protests showing lawyers being beaten by police and conflict between pro-Musharraf and demonstrators are stirring more people to action then ever before.

Television stations, such as AAJ and ARY, have come under intense pressure from the Musharraf government to shut down their broadcasts. ARY chose to shut down a polital call-in program.

Conversely, AAJ has continued to cover the story even though they were in the middle of a demonstration where protesters attacked their office and although the police were called no one came to help. That day more than 40 people were killed in the city. In addition, the government has blocked AAJ's transmission to much of the country.

Witte reports, "...several of the channels have toned down their coverage of the crisis, and there is widespread speculation that they made deals with the government in order to continue broadcasting."

Questions that need to be considered:
Does a station choose to stop broadcasting under government pressure?
What happens if the government blocks transmission as punishment for continuing to broadcast?
Should a station continue broadcasting no matter what or does the amount of unrest and loss of lives need to be considered?

This article is a good depiction of how different decisions can be made on the same ethical issue when using an ethical decision making process. Some stations chose to pull programming or tone down their reports while others continue even under government threats of being shut down.

Friday night, June 1st, a new reality TV show called, "The Big Donor Show," was scheduled to air for the first time in the Netherlands on its station, BNN. According to an article on ABCNews.com, the contestants all needed a kidney transplant and the judge was a dying woman who wanted to choose who should get her kidney. The donor and the audience would choose the winning contestant, who would receive the donor's kidney when she died.

At the time the initial news broke, there was much discussion questioning the station's values.
The Dutch Education and Culture Minister was quoted in a Reuters article as saying,

"The intention of the program to get more attention for organ donation may
be applaudable," said Dutch Education and Culture Minister Ronald
Plasterk. "However based on the information I now have, the program
appears to me to be inappropriate and unethical because it is a
competition."

Friday before the show aired, BNN announced that the show was a hoax. Its purpose was to bring attention to the organ donor shortage in the Netherlands where the average waiting time for an organ is 4 years.

I wonder, had BNN always planned the show as a hoax or did they change plans after hearing and reading about people questioning their ethics?

Does it make a difference ethically if they really had planned on airing the show?

Either way, it appears that BNN's ethical stand would be on the principal of utility. BNN has stated that they hoped this show would bring the issue of the organ donor shortage to the forefront and start the dialog that can bring change. BNN also had a more personal reason to take this issue on. The station founder, Bart de Graaf, died 5 years ago of waiting for a kidney transplant.

Without being a part of any meetings the producers at the station had, it's hard to know for sure how their discussions went. Based on what has been reported, it appears that BNN met the criteria to consider their actions ethical.