link

So I found the image (well sort of) to the cartoon I talked about in my last blog. It's also a facebook group and Woolard posted his apology to it. Still, I dunno, he deserved to be fired, as does the Editor.

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.

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.

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”).