No Bribery Left Behind April 27, 2009

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

To Catch a Predator: Ethical Undercover Journalism or Sensationalist TV? April 27, 2009

Child predators have been in the news, often in cases of horrible violence. So what does NBC opt to do? Set up sting operations with various police departments and a bunch of vigilantes called Perverted-Justice. “Although some hidden-camera reporting can serve a public service, many worry that the technique is often only used for the hype.” (Smith, 283) To Catch a Predator does the public some good–these men are arrested. But this screams spectacle, as the men are “interviewed” and sometimes dramatically captured on camera. “Online, he told a decoy pretending to be a 13-year-old, “I carry a gun everywhere I go.” So as soon as he arrives, officers take him down. Then he’s brought in for questioning.” (Hansen) They are forced to stand and face what they have done in front of millions of people in humiliation. I don’t agree with what it is these men had intended to do. But I think that these police stings should be handled off camera. This should be police work, not media sensationalism.

“Without adequate research before the undercover project begins, reporters cannot provide enough background. The public has no way of knowing whether the story has uncovered a few bad apples or a widespread, ongoing problem.” (286) I think Smith has hit the nail on the head with To Catch a Predator. Yes, there are other pedophiles that are involved in very high profile cases. But even after watching an episode of this show, and seeing the news, I am still unsure if this is just a few cases or if this is more widespread. I feel that if they were being more thorough, I would at least be aware of this information. It would also lend some credibility to these programs, as they seem to just be in it for the shock and spectacle.

“…as Russ W. Baker wrote in Columbia Journalism Review, PrimeTime may have fallen “into a typical trap–focusing in on a villain when the problem is systemic”" (286) These programs are there to make these men look horrible (and they are). But it is not just these men that they have impact on. “There were spouses and children that were devastated when they learned of this development.  And, their lives were turned upside down.” (Hansen) How can Dateline be alright with this public humiliation when it not only affects the men, but also their families and places of work? This is a whole web of people that they humiliate over and over again to the tune of 12 different locations.

This is a modern day witchhunt, with all of the glitz of reality TV. They show these men to the public, who must feel reassured that these evil men are captured! I feel that NBC had other ways to handle the issue of child predators, such as showing what goes into an investigation and other methods used by law enforcement. Something that might have even been more useful to their audience, like including preventative measures for parents and teens to take. Something that would have been more ethical.

Shame on NBC for hyping this,  shame on the men who showed up.

Referenced:

Hansen, Chris http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15066391//

Groping for Ethics in Journalism by Ron F. Smith

Compassion in the Media: Profit Machine? March 16, 2009

Article Here

I’m not one to follow popular culture and gossip mongering, but with the focus of the reading for this week I found myself drawn to it. The reason: Rihanna, a young pop star, was recently beaten by her boyfriend. This has spawned numerous articles on both sides of the compassion fence, as well as an Oprah episode and plugs for many domestic violence services. “They believe that compassion makes for better reporting.” (299) I feel that this works in many news situations, but this isn’t a news situation. This is a profit making machine.

While I was reading on the subject, it seemed many of the articles were sympathetic towards the 21 year old singer. But the last article I chose had a much different perspective. “When the story broke, I felt sorrow for Rihanna. But if she has gone back to him and agreed to this dangerous gambling game with a potential $10 million payoff, she doesn’t deserve sympathy.” (Wilson). I found myself agreeing with Wilson’s opinion on this, especially when I realized the sheer volume of  “news” on the subject. That is not to say that what happened to Rihanna was not horrible–I do not condone domestic violence. I just think that at this point she and the gossip outlets are making a pretty penny on this.

One of the reasons for this flurry of activity is this photo (warning:  graphic!).  Smith has something to say on the subject of graphic photos: “…Shocking pictures can also prompt many people to accuse the media of sensationalism, insensitivity and exploitation.” (314) I feel that this photo is being spread simply to make a buck (note the giant watermark?) for TMZ and less about reporting about the abuse that the poor girl suffered. This is violence porn, in its worst sense.

“Ah, there’s nothing like true love — of money. If this is true, not only is Rihanna showing herself to have monumentally poor judgment, she’s a creep as well — a greedy one.” (Wilson) Money is the No. 1 value in the media these days it seems, and even the thought of capatalizing on her own abuse is deplorable. The cult of celebrity has ensured that this will sell, all she has to do is act the victim. This is a huge issue I have with the mainstream media–if it’ll make a buck, they’ll sell it until it can’t turn a profit anymore. But this profit has shown that the media can have some good to it too.

Each of the articles I read as background for this have encouraged those who are being abused to go and seek help. “My heart goes out to anyone who has suffered from physical or emotional abuse. But victims also must help themselves by escaping from the danger and not looking back. Help is out there, but you have to be smart enough to reach out and grab the lifeline.” (Wilson) This is also touched on in the Smith Text, where a journalist and a photographer follow a support group. “[About AIDS Support Groups]. It is also about how support groups help people cope with probably the most stressful time of their lives.” (300) I feel that many people who might have been afraid to seek help will now, and get help through whatever abuse they suffer, because of the publicity given to this. The cult of celebrity has so much sway over people that they might finally feel like they should get help, because they empathise with Rihanna.

This, I’m afraid, is the only silver lining to this cloud of profits. It’s depressing to think of the book deals, the possible duets, and the other nonsense because a poor girl suffered. But now at least she’ll be a rich one.

Also referenced: Groping for Ethics in Journalism by Ron F. Smith

The Evolving Language of Game Interfaces March 9, 2009

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 Linear RPG by Sophie Houlden. When I found this game, I was able to pick up on it very quickly while I feel others may not be able to.

“Users are able to acquire new cultural languages, whether cinema a hundred years ago, or cultural interfaces today, because these languages are based on previous and already familiar cultural forms.” (79) I like to think that I am highly computer literate, and I feel that my gaming “language” abilities are what allowed me to so quickly understand Linear RPG. I think that games like this allow us to make the next step in this evolution–we are leaving the old cultural interfaces behind, because we are building on the interfaces that were built originally on the old cultural ideals (the middle generation). We have hit the next level, so to speak, in a gaming “language” and higher levels of comprehension are required to understand. It is a tricky language, often requiring one to have a history with games, to understand what other games have done and how they have done it. Many of my generation have grasped this new language (which is not solely restricted to games, but to all forms of computerized media), while I see that many of my grandparent’s generation cannot understand it. I feel that they are missing the history and the fluency of the middle generation, which allows a player to understand the current generation of gaming interfaces.

However, there is one area where both of these generations speak the same language: the Nintendo Wii. “And, more than any medium before it, HCI is like a chameleon that keeps changing its appearance, responding to how computers are used in any given period.” (89) This is an incredible example of how people interface with a computer–by using a sensitive Wiimote, the player has a great deal of influence over the screen; more so than a mouse could allow.  Because this is an easily accessible area of the current generation of game interfaces, many people can understand it quickly. It doesn’t require the player to be completely fluent with the language of gaming, but instead requires fluency in a small, easy to pick up part of the language. Another reason for the quick comprehension–it requires the player to move. The Wii has become akin to the virtual reality that Manovich discusses. “[VR] establishes a radically new type of relationship between the body of the viewer and the image. In contrast to cinema, where the mobile camera moves independently of hte immobile spectator, now the spectator actually has to move in physical space in order to experience movement in virtual space.” (109) Because the player moves, it references something that an older generation understands: not being glued to a screen.

Interface, regardless of the fluency level of the player, is an integral part of a game. It is “The window into a fictional world of a cinematic narrative has become a window in a datascape” (86) Without this, a game would be a movie or strings of code. It allows our entire culture to relate back to something that is easy to understand (Cinema), and apply it to something that might be more complex, a game. The design of interface is incredibly important because of this–the language needs to be clear to be understood. Noisy interfaces, or overly minimilstic ones like that of Linear RPG can make the language incredibly difficult to read. I feel that game designers need to be clear and concise with their interface language to ensure that the target demographic is able to fully understand their intentions and enjoy the game.

Also referenced:  The Language of New Media, Lev Manovich

Gene Pool and the Language of New Media (Entry 6) February 23, 2009

Gene Pool Version 6

I found that this first chapter by Manovich led itself more towards the analysis of AI in a game than any variety of article. Since I can’t quote the game, I’ll be using screenshots to back up my point. The game is also free if you would like to try it, though it isn’t very “game-y”.

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?

First, it can be easily described formally. The “DNA” of each of the swimmers is a string of numbers, which will influence how the swimmer both appears and propels itself. “A new media object can be described formally (mathematically). For instance, an image can be described using a mathematical function.” (27) This is very much the case in Gene Pool, which is a simple .exe intended for the PC platform. It is also very programmable; each player can tweak the “DNA” of the swimmers to whatever they enjoy and they can also share these numbers with other players, so that they may recreate their superior genetic swimmers.

Manovich discusses on page 34. “Computers can pretend to be intelligent only by tricking us into using a very small part of who we are when we communicate with them.” I feel that this is very true in terms of the AI in Gene Pool. I could never have a conversation with something that only wants to evolve. It also has hiccups, where the swimmers are constantly trying to get past the edge of the screen. While the AI has flaws (it likes to swim into walls), it is incredibly advanced.

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.

I feel that games are really where AI is allowed to grow.  “…the average computer user encountered AI in the 1990s was not, however, the human-computer interface, but computer games.” (33) Even 10 years ago, the best examples of AI were in games while other areas were lacking. Now there are games like Gene Pool, where the AI is intelligent enough to simulate evolution. I feel that games will continue to be an incredibly important part of the new media because of things like AI and the constant effort to allow a game to adapt itself to the player. While it is far from perfect, I feel that we are taking a step in the right direction.

Also referenced:  The Language of New Media, Lev Manovich

(The first picture I took when I started to write this, the last was the one I took when I finished to show the change the swimmers had undergone on their own!)

Journal Entry #2 February 1, 2009

Gannett to explore dividend cut to conserve cash

In Smith’s chapter on The Business of News, he discusses how many large companies own large quantities of newspapers. During these tough economic times, not even the large publishing company Gannett is safe. “Gannett Co. said Friday that its board would explore a dividend cut next month as the nation’s largest newspaper publisher looks to conserve cash.” This desperate attempt to conserve cash for basic operations shows not only what a horrible economy we are in but also how bad the newspaper industry has become. Smith talked about how “These institutional investors owned more than half the shares in media companies such as Gannett…many of these investors had no interest in whether the newspapers were performing their public-service responsibilities. They were interested only in profits” (334) If these companies were so profit focused, how could they have lost money?

Quality of the news being covered could be a large factor—if they are suffering enough that they had to “laid off thousands of employees late last year and imposed a one-week unpaid furlough during the current quarter.” I doubt that the quality of their papers is what it used to be. If Gannett was not producing quality news, why would anyone wish to purchase their papers? This seems like a dangerous cycle to be in; cut funding, quality suffers, papers don’t sell, which in turn starts the cycle all over again. “In understaffed newsrooms, news desks may struggle to fill the paper by deadline and may trade ethical concerns for expediency.” (346) With compromised ethics and an obvious rush to fill a newspaper using less money and fewer staff, how much longer will the print journalism industry survive?

Gannett is not the only publisher suffering, as “Other newspaper publishers already have slashed their dividend rates in recent months.” I feel that this is the last straw for the newspaper industry. I doubt it will survive another 5 years at this rate. I know that my parents have canceled their subscription to The Burlington Free Press because the quality has gone down, and it seems like its all advertising and AP stories, with little local content. I have little doubt that other Gannett owned newspapers are faring any better than The Burlington Free Press.

Also referenced: Groping for Ethics in Journalism by Ron F. Smith

Government Lapdogs and Spin Control January 25, 2009

The Bush Administration has undoubtedly had a lot of spin control to do over the past 8 years; they’ve certainly had enough to cover to have gotten a lot of practice. The article that I found, however, is an all new level of spin. It deals with the “Shoe Incident”, where an Iraqi journalist threw a shoe at the former president during a press conference on 15 December. This specific article is a wonderful realization of what Smith discusses on page 253. “Today, image-making and spin control are instruments of government strategy.” The article discusses how the former First Lady describes the incident as a show of freedom. Because the Iraqis are so fortunate to have us as their occupiers, the journalist involved will not be executed; though I doubt he’ll get away without any punishment. What a wonderful world we live in! Thank you, former Administration, for telling us how free and liberated the country is! Perhaps if we had actually given them anything close to freedom, the man wouldn’t have to give Bush such a wonderful farewell gift.

The article continues to describe the freedom that Afghani women have, with the “option” of wearing a burqa. Even though it “worries” her that many women choose to wear it because they are scared. I’m surprised that in such an obvious PR recovery attempt, they would even bother mentioning something negative. And not only did she cover such topical issues as Afghanistan and Iraq, but also went on to decry the way that Katrina was covered by the media.

This “article” reads more like an article suited for a women’s magazine; the content is so light and the intentions are obvious. If this was edited by any at Fox News, they should be ashamed at not covering their tracks better. While this is far from “real news”, even a fluff piece shouldn’t be so blatant. It’s an exercise in a lapdog media, instead of a watchdog media. Everything about this piece is sucking up to the former First Lady, along with a delightful dash of anti-feminism.

What really struck me was how the death count for Katrina was not nearly as high as reported, but instead “An estimated 1,800 people died in the storm and the flood.” It seems to me that this is an acceptable number to the Bush Administration, which disgusts me. How many people have to die for it to really count? The way the article handles seems to be part of a massive spin control amount.

I feel like this article was written for those who already cared about the Bushes, as it was available on the Fox News website (who obviously cater to conservative Republicans). It was a good enough spin to console that audience, while I was only disgusted and not in the least bit comforted. The Bush Administration has used the media to spin itself into being something other than the horror that it was. It’s amazing how cooperative the media was in all of this, especially in the build up to the Iraq war and after 9/11.

The entire article feels like a much less dangerous example of what Eisenhower did in relation to the spy plane incident in Russia. Now that we have a new administration, the news reports often on how horrible Afghanistan has become; I doubt that in the month that has passed since this article was written that any woman outside of Kabul doesn’t wear a burqa.

The Fox News article can be found here

Also Referenced: Groping for Ethics in Journalism, 5th Edition by Ron E. Smith