When a journalist starts to recieve freebies, they are on the edge of a very slippery slope. It could certainly be nothing, but it could also end like the case of conservative comentator Armstrong Williams. Williams admited to reciving “$241,000 to help promote President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law on the air, an arrangement that Williams acknowledged yesterday involved “bad judgment” on his part.” (Kurtz) While I don’t think every journalist is going to sell themselves to the highest bidder like Williams did, I do think it is something to be concerned about in relation to “freebies.”
“Opponents of freebies argue that reporters who accept freebies are opening themselves to the possibility of having newsmakers shape their stories in subtle ways. ” (390) This is what happened outright in Williams’ case–he was bought to say good things about No Child Left Behind. With something a little more subtle, how much would a sponser expcet in return for the “freebies” they gave out? This influence is an incredibly powerful tool for any sponser to have; having direct access to a “fair” media outlet which has a predisposition to your company will only server them well in the long run. Why wouldn’t they want to partake in such things when profits could be the only real answer?
“Although it is rarely stated in codes of ethics, many journalists avoid freebies and other financial relationships with people in power because of a fear of looking like a hypocrites.” (389) Williams, in this case, was responsible for not only looking like a hypocrite but also for spreading government propoganda. While this story has aged since it was published, what kind of precident will this set for other media professionals? Can any commentator or writer be bought by the highest bidder? I certainly hope not.
“In a separate letter, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) asked the president to recover the money paid to Williams. “We believe that the act of bribing journalists to bias their news in favor of government policies undermines the integrity of our democracy,” they wrote.”
This should serve as a reminder to any journalist who wishes to simply accept a few “freebies”. “Opponents of freebies argue that reporters woh accept freebies are opening htemselves to the possibility of having newsmakers shape their stories in subtle ways.”(390) That dinner might not have reached the level of bribery given to Williams, but it could very well influence the way the journalist writes, which is wrong. They should always try to remain objective. Accepting any form of gift, be it bribe or “freebie” is inexcusable.
Referenced:
Groping for Ethics in Journalism by Ron F. Smith
Kurtz, Howard http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56330-2005Jan7.html
In Chapter 2 of The Language of New Media, Manovich discusses how we use old cultural ideas to interface with computers. While the chapter is outdated, the ideas behind it are still very current. I’ve found that the language metaphor is useful to describe how technology is evolving. While gaming interfaces used to be large and clunky, contemporary players are able to understand games that feature very minimalist interfaces. One solid example of a minimalist interface is that of
The game, Gene Pool 6, is an evolution simulator. While you have the option of playing god (you can cause genetic mutations, kill and clone the “swimmers”), it is perfectly capable of running itself. The swimmers will find food, scope out attractive possible mates, mate, and continue this cycle without any need of interaction from the player. While the game focuses on evolution, it is also an evolution in terms of AI progression. But how does a game like Gene Pool fit into New Media?
This game is incredibly difficult for a new player. I found this out the hard way when my precious swimmers were incapable of feeding themselves or mating without my intervention. I wanted to help them, which was how I was used to playing games. However, the player needs to learn and see what is most efficient (in my case, letting the game run while writing this) and adapt to how the game wants you to play. “Interactive media asks us to identify with someone else’s mental structure.” (61) We must get into the mindset of the programmer, and see how he sees it to really understand how to play the game. This is the largest downfall of this game and in a sense New Media—we must think like the creators think to truly appreciate the program in the way it was intended to. I don’t think this is a good thing but I believe we lack the coding capabilities to really let programs adapt to the users in such a manner. While our technology is advanced, we are still limited by thought processes like this.