What is Newsworthy

Chapter 5 of Controversies in Media Ethics talks about influences in media content. So I took it from a journalistic standpoint. This way it is more applicable to my profession. When I look at it like that, I think of things that might make a news story worthy of going on air or in print or what would make it unworthy. From our very first journalism class we are taught the basic things to follow that make news worthy. They are in no particular order: prominence, proximity, strangeness, impact, conflict and timeliness. But are there other factors a journalist must look at ethically speaking?

Accuracy is one big point. As moral journalists it is important not to publish something that is untrue. One of my teachers always talks about double checking facts. It is important that journalists check the facts that they got in an interview or from a press release, just to cover their backs and to be ethical. 

Unbiased reporting is another key. Journalists must read over their work or better yet have someone else read it over, to make sure the article presents an unbiased opinion. As Merrill says in the textbook, being inaccurate and unbiased is not only unethical, but is also a sign of lazy and poor reporting. 

It is important to note that it is not just the journalists who manipulate the content of the media. Companies that release information may not release the bad with the good. That is why it is an ethical responsibility of journalists to check the facts and to dig deep when covering a press release. Lawyers and politicians who release information can also manipulate their content. This raises the point of weather it is not only the journalists job, but these people have to look at their ethical standards when releasing information. 

This article in the NY Times shows what can happen when media content is manipulated

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth

Journalists have a responsibility to tell the truth in their stories. Ethical problems arise in this when varying versions of the truth exist. Journalists are faced with questions like is it necessary to tell both sides? Is one side more credible? What is my responsibility to the audience? What is legal? What is ethical?

There is a lot to take into account when writing a story and trying to get all the facts. I believe, if it is true and relevant to the story, it should be in the story. Gordon says this is a time when not to publish every aspect of the truth. He gives a real life example a politician who is running for office and something embarrassing happened to him, there is no need to publish it if it has no connectivity to the rest of the story, even if it is true. 

I believe our responsibility as journalists to the audience has a big impact on what to and what to not publish. We know that the audience expects the truth and all the facts of a story, so we try to deliver that. This can make for a lot of work trying to find the facts digging through the two sides of the story. But it is what the audience expects us to do, and is our duty as journalists to tell the truth. 

There are also legal issues that can dictate what we publish. Journalists do not want to publish a false statement, so they do research to make sure they have the truth. This is a good way to keep journalists in check. But it can create fear in a journalist thinking that they will be sued for every little wrong sentence they write, so they just avoid writing those sentences or doing the research. 

It is important to inform citizens about what is going on around them, and journalists have their duty to dig deep and find all the relevant and credible facts. This website contains a definition about libel from the standpoint of the media. It is a good idea for journalists to know what consists of libel so they do not get sued. 

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/press/press08.htm