I love google. I love it much more than I love yahoo. Google gives me anything I want in a clear format-- it's simple and straight forward. I also love google images because if I want to see something, it's so easy to see it.
Yesterday, I was talking to the girl I babysat and we started talking about the pre-teen obsession "High School Musical" staring Zach Effron and Venessa Hudgens. In recent news, Hudgens as been in the limelight for some not so becoming pictures of herself... digital pictures that she took of herself in the nude. Okay so whatever, that's fine... an 18 year old girl wanted to send her boyfriend (co-star Zach Effron) some "sexy" pics. Well, the issue is the 9 year old girl I babysit was able to check out the pics when she simply googled them! And it's pretty easy to do, there are no pop-ups or anything asking the Internet surfer for proof of age, etc.
Okay... so, here is a 9 year old googling nude images out of curiosity. These days it's easy to take advantage of the Internet putting everything at your fingertips in that amazing kind of way. But what about when the Internet brings too much to the finger tips of little ones?
I'm beginning to think the Internet is the media and visa versa, they cannot exist without one another. So what seems to be happening is, a pre-teen is standing in line at the grocery store and sees an US Weekly or People with a headline about this star, they've been watching over and over again, getting naked for the camera. And all this pre-teen has to do is go home and google it? Or, when the news was breaking, turn on the TV at the right time or watch a news program with Mom and Pops? What is this media/Internet world coming too? I remember when the Internet first got big and the only real way online was AOL and there were all these precautions on how to protect the little ones... but today, the rules have changed. Can we censor google? Or is the Internet becoming more and more difficult to censor? Or, simply is this the so-called beauty of the Internet?
Censorship is awful for adults, for journalists, for the democracy of America however I'm thinking censorship okay-- ethically sound-- for the ones that aren't mature yet. There needs to be a way to protect the children of tomorrow when they have access to everything at their finger tips. In some cases, too much information for the wee ones isn't good. Are little girls, following Hudgen's path going to start taking pics of themselves? I know that this brings up the non-ethics/ stupidity of the Disney star, who serves as a role model for lots of little ones, but this information would just be hear-say if the images couldn't simply be googled. I mean sure, confirm the story is true, but seriously, do we--young and old-- need to see them?
Maybe the kids of tomorrow are bound to learn that this world isn't peachy and maybe they're going to learn it via the Internet and new-media. But maybe I'm just shocked because, as my cab driver suggested last night, I'm seeing the world through rose colored glasses.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Thursday, October 4, 2007
i'm sorry. it's not ethical--well, maybe it is
I'm sorry, but I just cannot bring myself to respect the NY Yankees in anyway. not only do they cheat. but they also steal. check out this week's Hayer score in the SF Foghorn for more thoughts on the corrupt A.Rod. Are there ethics in baseball? Damn right there are. Maybe there are even more ethics in baseball (think buying, stealing, cheating, and drug endoseing) than probably in any sport. I could even Potter Box it (Robertson... is there a potential mid-term question?)... maybe, the ethical issues surrounding the tactics of baseball. Now, if I were a pro-baseballer and I'm going to get tagged out while attempting to run to 2nd base.... I could either slap away the ball like an unethical coward OR I could "take it like a man" and hold my head high. I think the Red Sox stand for the unity that our government tries to strongly impose unpon us post 9/11. We are a Red Sox Nation! A Red Sox World! We are unified by one team, regardless of individual color or race or political belief. Interesting how a team, or even a sport, can do that... similar to soccer and the rest of the world. Is Baseball America's soccer? Nonetheless, regardless of the playoff's outcomes, I support two teams: The Red Sox and who ever beats the Yankees.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Are we beating this over the head?
Okay, so two reporters wrote about the practice of slaughtering horses just beyond the boarder. Is it fair to compare this to the infamous “Rocky Mountain Collegian” editorial that is rocking the nation? Both are sparking a lot of commentaries and heated debate—well sort of. It still may be too early to say that the horse article could be as big as the Collegian editorial but you never know. For some reason though, I doubt it. Why? Well, The Collegian told the President to f*ck [edited] off and well, the Express News reporters called for change on an inhumane practice. I mean clearly we know that the American people are obviously going to care about the horses way more than they care about the opinion of a college newspaper—right?
I mean I only hope that the horse slaughtering issue is going to spark as much controversy as the editorial—after all, isn’t that the whole point of journalism? Well, at least one point: to stir up a little controversy—to ignite change. Essentially, if you look closely, these stories are very similar because they both wanted to achieve the same goal: change. So why, at the end of the day, will the Collegian’s editorial be beat by a stick over and over in every news outlet across the country where as the horse slaughtering issue will probably pass under the radar? I think this is essentially stating something about where our American values lay. Black Beauty is slaughtered in the thousands and there is a disgruntled burp about the graphic photographs. But It appears that our government isn’t confident with themselves and when, God forbid, someone tells the President to f*ck off everyone just gets really hyper sensitive about the issue. This is what revolution is! This is what my parents’ generation did all the time and they didn’t get $30,000 worth of advertising ripped from newspaper funding and over 1,000 responses on their blog.
I work for a college newspaper and I value the idea that so many people are paying attention to an editorial… in a sense it’s flattering. Nonetheless, I’m tired of it—enough already—so a group of college students don’t like Bush (surprise?) and some adults/ military kids don’t like their opinion. We know this already! So can’t we move on to more pressing issues or at least look at the center of the argument: massive groups of people do not agree with our President.
Maybe San Francisco has desensitized my political tolerance.
I mean I only hope that the horse slaughtering issue is going to spark as much controversy as the editorial—after all, isn’t that the whole point of journalism? Well, at least one point: to stir up a little controversy—to ignite change. Essentially, if you look closely, these stories are very similar because they both wanted to achieve the same goal: change. So why, at the end of the day, will the Collegian’s editorial be beat by a stick over and over in every news outlet across the country where as the horse slaughtering issue will probably pass under the radar? I think this is essentially stating something about where our American values lay. Black Beauty is slaughtered in the thousands and there is a disgruntled burp about the graphic photographs. But It appears that our government isn’t confident with themselves and when, God forbid, someone tells the President to f*ck off everyone just gets really hyper sensitive about the issue. This is what revolution is! This is what my parents’ generation did all the time and they didn’t get $30,000 worth of advertising ripped from newspaper funding and over 1,000 responses on their blog.
I work for a college newspaper and I value the idea that so many people are paying attention to an editorial… in a sense it’s flattering. Nonetheless, I’m tired of it—enough already—so a group of college students don’t like Bush (surprise?) and some adults/ military kids don’t like their opinion. We know this already! So can’t we move on to more pressing issues or at least look at the center of the argument: massive groups of people do not agree with our President.
Maybe San Francisco has desensitized my political tolerance.
Graphically Too Far?
How far is too far?
Lisa Sandberg and Jerry Lara might have taken a gamble last week when the San Antonio Express-News ran their article, “Horse Slaughters Taking Place on the Border.” The story was about the slaughtering of horses, who are shipped over the Mexican boarder from the U.S.A on truckloads. Sandberg and Lara reported on the practice of slaughtering horses in detail—the photos were extremely graphic—and the story ran on the front page of the Express News.
There are many arguments to whether horses should or shouldn’t be slaughtered, but that’s not at the center of the ethical argument. What is at the center is, can a graphic article like this be effective, as the editors may have opened by running it on the front page.
The reporters took a gamble because the content of the article was not only graphic but there is concern it might not achieve the ultimate goal that the reporter and photographer were looking to achieve: spark the Congress to pass the “Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.” The important thing to note is that the editors placed a lot emphasis on the issue of horse slaughtering by placing the article on the front page. This says a lot about the power that journalism can have; here is an issue that many might not be aware of (I wasn’t aware of the extent at least) and the editors decided action needs to take place. This is, as argued by our founding fathers, is the piece that is at the center of journalism.
My only concern, even though I’m all for photography and graphic photography that gets the world concerned, I think people could be turned off by the photos. Sometimes the readers have to see a disturbing image or read something drastic in order to spark change however, there is an equal number of readers who could easily be very turned off by the article and throw away the paper or not dare read it. You know what though, people need a wake up call. After all, weren’t the photographs of Eddie Adam’s and Nick Ut’s that fueled revolution against the Vietnam War? And just because something isn’t easy to look at doesn’t mean you should look away.
Lisa Sandberg and Jerry Lara might have taken a gamble last week when the San Antonio Express-News ran their article, “Horse Slaughters Taking Place on the Border.” The story was about the slaughtering of horses, who are shipped over the Mexican boarder from the U.S.A on truckloads. Sandberg and Lara reported on the practice of slaughtering horses in detail—the photos were extremely graphic—and the story ran on the front page of the Express News.
There are many arguments to whether horses should or shouldn’t be slaughtered, but that’s not at the center of the ethical argument. What is at the center is, can a graphic article like this be effective, as the editors may have opened by running it on the front page.
The reporters took a gamble because the content of the article was not only graphic but there is concern it might not achieve the ultimate goal that the reporter and photographer were looking to achieve: spark the Congress to pass the “Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.” The important thing to note is that the editors placed a lot emphasis on the issue of horse slaughtering by placing the article on the front page. This says a lot about the power that journalism can have; here is an issue that many might not be aware of (I wasn’t aware of the extent at least) and the editors decided action needs to take place. This is, as argued by our founding fathers, is the piece that is at the center of journalism.
My only concern, even though I’m all for photography and graphic photography that gets the world concerned, I think people could be turned off by the photos. Sometimes the readers have to see a disturbing image or read something drastic in order to spark change however, there is an equal number of readers who could easily be very turned off by the article and throw away the paper or not dare read it. You know what though, people need a wake up call. After all, weren’t the photographs of Eddie Adam’s and Nick Ut’s that fueled revolution against the Vietnam War? And just because something isn’t easy to look at doesn’t mean you should look away.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Friday, September 14, 2007
Too Harsh or Not Harsh Enough?
The University of Virginia’s newspaper, the “Cavalier Daily,” might have shot themselves in the foot after the editor in chief okay-ed the publication of a cartoon that is currently being called a racists cartoon. The cartoon, drawn by senior Grant Woolard, depicted, according to the “Washington Post,” “nine darkened figured with bald, enlarged heads, dressed only in loincloths, fighting each other over a tree branch, pillow, chair, boot and stool. The caption for the melee: ‘Ethiopian Food Fight.’” Woolard was fired immediately however the editor in chief, Herb Ladley, still remains at the head of command even though he has been pressured to step down.
Should he? Did Ladley or Woolard do the wrong thing? And, is it ethical to punish the cartoonist AND the editor in chief? Would the editor in chief of the “Foghorn” have okay-ed the cartoon? Well, first of all, I think it is appropriate for the cartoonist to have stepped down; I am simply perplexed about what went through his mind when he drew the cartoon. Perhaps it would have been understandable if he was a freshman—he’d be young and naïve—but Woolard was a senior! He’s endured four (well three) long years of college—an establishment that is supposed to mature an individual. At what point did he think it would be okay and appropriate? He would have a valid argument to say that controversy needs to be in the media—without it, we are lost to the bigger powers that run the media. But there are hundreds of ways to depict the famine in Ethiopia that would spark intelligent discussions. Now, people are up in rage about the image rather than looking at it’s stark reality.
Now, the difficult part: should the editor in chief step down? Well, there are two arguments, but I cannot argue the no because well, I think he should. Ladley admitted that the cartoon came across his desk at 12:30am—he was tired and even though he was tired, it still registered in his brain that this cartoon was offensive (he was quotes in the "Post"). Well then Ladley, duh! I think it is widely inappropriate for his tired brain, and or lack of articles in the newspaper to have allowed for such a cartoon to be published. Furthermore, cartoonist Woolard, was infamous for rather offensive cartoons. He should have then sat down with Woolard and said, “okay, you have to clean up your cartoons a bit if you want them to run in the paper.” There in lines the problem of the First Amendment—freedom of speech—however, if you’re the boss you can control this, and I say this only because it was an area that can weed out the inappropriate content and the appropriate connent. Furthmore, he can hold the cartoon until discussion with other editors because it would offend too many people not to do that (case in point). Fine if Woolard chose to publish it elsewhere, but just don’t publish it in a place like a university—too many individuals from a diverse background are there—the audience is wide. Had the cartoon been run in another publication, such as an independent “zine” then there is a smaller audience who might be more liberal and agree, “yea, the situation in Ethiopia is a bad one and something needs to be done.” The ethical thing would have been to hold the cartoon, discuss it with the rest of your staff and see what happens. It seems to me that Ladley was pressed for time and space with the paper and he needed to run it, regardless of what controversy would ignite.
Furthermore, Ladley put the reputation of his university’s paper on the line—he jeopardized his co-worker’s reputation and he technically got his co-worker fired because he allowed for such a cartoon to be published. I work at a paper, I know that everyone is like a family and I also know that the editor in chief has the final say. At the “Foghorn” we take utmost pride in being the newspaper for the students, by the students, and we try (very hard) to make it a respectable news source. Thus, I can confidentially conclude that our editor in chief would not have published the cartoon, regardless of the time or lack of articles.
Should he? Did Ladley or Woolard do the wrong thing? And, is it ethical to punish the cartoonist AND the editor in chief? Would the editor in chief of the “Foghorn” have okay-ed the cartoon? Well, first of all, I think it is appropriate for the cartoonist to have stepped down; I am simply perplexed about what went through his mind when he drew the cartoon. Perhaps it would have been understandable if he was a freshman—he’d be young and naïve—but Woolard was a senior! He’s endured four (well three) long years of college—an establishment that is supposed to mature an individual. At what point did he think it would be okay and appropriate? He would have a valid argument to say that controversy needs to be in the media—without it, we are lost to the bigger powers that run the media. But there are hundreds of ways to depict the famine in Ethiopia that would spark intelligent discussions. Now, people are up in rage about the image rather than looking at it’s stark reality.
Now, the difficult part: should the editor in chief step down? Well, there are two arguments, but I cannot argue the no because well, I think he should. Ladley admitted that the cartoon came across his desk at 12:30am—he was tired and even though he was tired, it still registered in his brain that this cartoon was offensive (he was quotes in the "Post"). Well then Ladley, duh! I think it is widely inappropriate for his tired brain, and or lack of articles in the newspaper to have allowed for such a cartoon to be published. Furthermore, cartoonist Woolard, was infamous for rather offensive cartoons. He should have then sat down with Woolard and said, “okay, you have to clean up your cartoons a bit if you want them to run in the paper.” There in lines the problem of the First Amendment—freedom of speech—however, if you’re the boss you can control this, and I say this only because it was an area that can weed out the inappropriate content and the appropriate connent. Furthmore, he can hold the cartoon until discussion with other editors because it would offend too many people not to do that (case in point). Fine if Woolard chose to publish it elsewhere, but just don’t publish it in a place like a university—too many individuals from a diverse background are there—the audience is wide. Had the cartoon been run in another publication, such as an independent “zine” then there is a smaller audience who might be more liberal and agree, “yea, the situation in Ethiopia is a bad one and something needs to be done.” The ethical thing would have been to hold the cartoon, discuss it with the rest of your staff and see what happens. It seems to me that Ladley was pressed for time and space with the paper and he needed to run it, regardless of what controversy would ignite.
Furthermore, Ladley put the reputation of his university’s paper on the line—he jeopardized his co-worker’s reputation and he technically got his co-worker fired because he allowed for such a cartoon to be published. I work at a paper, I know that everyone is like a family and I also know that the editor in chief has the final say. At the “Foghorn” we take utmost pride in being the newspaper for the students, by the students, and we try (very hard) to make it a respectable news source. Thus, I can confidentially conclude that our editor in chief would not have published the cartoon, regardless of the time or lack of articles.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Advertising War?
In Monday's New York Times there was a full page advertisement from the group Moveon.org that showed a picture of U.S. General Petraeus with the headline: "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" Moveon.org is a political website/ organization that is focused on pro-active politics-- bringing the citizens back into the fight for justice. Needless to say, Moveon.org liberal organization.
Today, Tuesday, there is another full page advertisement in the International section of the NYTimes. This time however, the advertisement is from the political group: Freedoms Watch. Their slogan: "We are fighting a Gobal War Against Terrorism: Surrender to terrorists is not an option." And their ideals? Actually very similar: promoting the rights of the American individual; however, they are calling for a fight keep and protect American's rights-- and sometimes you have to go to war to protect them. Obviously, this organization is more conservative.
So where is the ethical issue? Well, there is one and then there isn't. What I am most intrigued is that a news service like the New York Times-- an establishment filled with journalists-- would choose to publish partisan advertisement. From working at the Foghorn, I understand that as long as they are objective with their advertisements and are willing to publish an ad promoting the other side of the story, then it's okay. But still, people are really "hung up" on the idea that Moveon.org decided to publish an advertisement (especially one that is quite blunt about the man who was testifying before lawmakers that day). Those same people seem as though they might hardly bat an eye for the company that is clearly pro-war. It seems as though advertisements like these only destroy the reputation of the newspaper.
In my understanding of what newspapers should be and what the role of journalists should be, is that they have the role to provide the facts to the readers; in turn, the readers make intelligent decisions. I know that the Times has been criticized in the past for being too liberal-- and for 24 hours, until the second advertisement was published-- this was all too true. On Monday, there was no objective advertising and now hundreds of thousands of right wing conservatives are up in arms.
I feel as though advertising, at least in mainstream media, should not be partisan to a particular movement or idea. First of all, an ad like in a newspaper immediately destroys the Potter Box because it immediately reveals loyalties and values. Furthermore, it seems to then contradict this idea that journalists, as far as the public is concerned, do not have political opinions. Thus, I feel as though that unless the two advertisements are run the same day and are given an equal weight then it is unethical for a newspaper to run a politically charged advertisement.
PS. Then, there is also the question of money and how much money dictates the newspaper-- a full page political ad in the New York Times costs $1,442. So then it does seem quite clear, at least to me, where the true allegiance lies. Money is money, even if it in turn contradicts the idea of opinion free journalism.
Today, Tuesday, there is another full page advertisement in the International section of the NYTimes. This time however, the advertisement is from the political group: Freedoms Watch. Their slogan: "We are fighting a Gobal War Against Terrorism: Surrender to terrorists is not an option." And their ideals? Actually very similar: promoting the rights of the American individual; however, they are calling for a fight keep and protect American's rights-- and sometimes you have to go to war to protect them. Obviously, this organization is more conservative.
So where is the ethical issue? Well, there is one and then there isn't. What I am most intrigued is that a news service like the New York Times-- an establishment filled with journalists-- would choose to publish partisan advertisement. From working at the Foghorn, I understand that as long as they are objective with their advertisements and are willing to publish an ad promoting the other side of the story, then it's okay. But still, people are really "hung up" on the idea that Moveon.org decided to publish an advertisement (especially one that is quite blunt about the man who was testifying before lawmakers that day). Those same people seem as though they might hardly bat an eye for the company that is clearly pro-war. It seems as though advertisements like these only destroy the reputation of the newspaper.
In my understanding of what newspapers should be and what the role of journalists should be, is that they have the role to provide the facts to the readers; in turn, the readers make intelligent decisions. I know that the Times has been criticized in the past for being too liberal-- and for 24 hours, until the second advertisement was published-- this was all too true. On Monday, there was no objective advertising and now hundreds of thousands of right wing conservatives are up in arms.
I feel as though advertising, at least in mainstream media, should not be partisan to a particular movement or idea. First of all, an ad like in a newspaper immediately destroys the Potter Box because it immediately reveals loyalties and values. Furthermore, it seems to then contradict this idea that journalists, as far as the public is concerned, do not have political opinions. Thus, I feel as though that unless the two advertisements are run the same day and are given an equal weight then it is unethical for a newspaper to run a politically charged advertisement.
PS. Then, there is also the question of money and how much money dictates the newspaper-- a full page political ad in the New York Times costs $1,442. So then it does seem quite clear, at least to me, where the true allegiance lies. Money is money, even if it in turn contradicts the idea of opinion free journalism.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Words on the First Amendment
The First Amendment can make a lot of things messy—especially because people destroy the integrity of the First Amendment by going “too far” in their notions of expression. For instance, individuals or groups may want to fly a Confederate flag at their house, well this is disrespectful to the majority of the U.S. population, however, these individuals have a wonderful tendency to say “freedom of speech.” Technically speaking, they’re correct, however ethically speaking and in regards to respecting thy neighbors they’re completely wrong.
I think some of the biggest ethical issues we face in regards to contemporary journalism are along the privacy lines. Today, tabloids are more popular than ever—the public loves to know about everyone famous; sometimes this can go too far. I think that “journalists” or magazines may exploit the First Amendment by arguing that they have every right to interviewed Brittany Spear’s nanny or photograph Jennifer Anniston sunbathing at her home. But do they? Absolutely not. Thus, freedom of press has gone too far in some regard. Who deserves to have their lives kept private and who deserves to know about others’ lives… just because someone makes millions in Hollywood doesn’t necessarily make them the target of an exploited First Amendment.
I think often we lose touch of why the First Amendment was created—to prevent the government from limiting what the public should know. However, when the law was created, the government wasn’t necessarily thinking that in 2007, we’d be chasing down celebrities or asking outlandish questions to the President (MTV reporter asking Pres. Clinton: “Boxers or Briefs”).
I think some of the biggest ethical issues we face in regards to contemporary journalism are along the privacy lines. Today, tabloids are more popular than ever—the public loves to know about everyone famous; sometimes this can go too far. I think that “journalists” or magazines may exploit the First Amendment by arguing that they have every right to interviewed Brittany Spear’s nanny or photograph Jennifer Anniston sunbathing at her home. But do they? Absolutely not. Thus, freedom of press has gone too far in some regard. Who deserves to have their lives kept private and who deserves to know about others’ lives… just because someone makes millions in Hollywood doesn’t necessarily make them the target of an exploited First Amendment.
I think often we lose touch of why the First Amendment was created—to prevent the government from limiting what the public should know. However, when the law was created, the government wasn’t necessarily thinking that in 2007, we’d be chasing down celebrities or asking outlandish questions to the President (MTV reporter asking Pres. Clinton: “Boxers or Briefs”).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
