ASKING THE TOUGH QUESTIONS: JASON MATTERA

After writing our paper on the ethics of interviewing, I believe that I am slightly more attuned to the ways in which journalists approach and question people.  Jason Mattera, has recently made headlines with his aggressive and upfront methods of interviewing public officials- in one incident he frankly asked a congressman, "why are you such a disgrace?" In the video below, he's seen questioning Vice President Joe Biden about using a "rape reference" to push President Obama's employment initiative.  By asking a series of very direct questions, Mattera manages to aggravate Biden into barking, "don't screw with me".

How aggressive is too aggressive when it comes to asking those tough questions?  I don't think that Mattera did anything wrong by asking Biden to confirm or deny his statements.  Though Mattera was assertive, he was also calm at the same time.  I don't believe that he was ill-mannered in his behavior, unless asking a major politician and public leader uncomfortable (but necessary) questions is considered rude.

What do you guys think? Did Jason Mattera cross a line when questioning Joe Biden? Was his behavior inappropriate or unethical?

GADHAFI CORPSE PHOTOS: EXPLICIT OR JUST UNNECESSARY?

When news broke Thursday that former Libyan Leader, Muammar Gadhafi,  had been killed, the celebratory headlines were quickly followed by the release of multiple gruesome photos of his dead body.  There were photos of his body being shoved into an ambulance, lying lifeless on the floor of the ambulance [including close-ups of his blood-stained and battered face], and later photos of his corpse being displayed at a private home.  There were even photos of his deceased son's body lying on the ground, with dozens of reporters/bystanders hoovering over it, snapping pictures with their cellphones.  


While I certainly understand the enormity of Gadhafi's death and the liberating effect it will have on the country of Libya, there may be a point were some type of privacy should be respected.  As a journalist, I fully support the free-flow of information, the exposure of any and all truths, and the presentation of relevant evidence.  I also think that visual proof is often key to public understanding, but the extremely graphic pictures may not be entirely necessary. I'm somewhat torn on this issue, unable to decide whether or not I believe that news organizations should have released such explicit images of the dead dictator.  


James Poniewozik of Time wrote an interesting article on the issue.  Here's a little of what he had to say...

A photo of a corpse is something more than just a data point. As a human being, I’d like to think that we’re disturbed by pictures of the dead–even evil tyrants–for good reason, because we recognize something sacred about life. (Which is a separate consideration from whether someone deserves to die.) Sometimes the news should, sparingly and with consideration, show dead bodies–because news is also about conveying the enormity of events, the fact that wars and disasters are not abstract and bloodless.

What do you think? These are clearly powerful images, with some level of news worthy value, but was it ethical for news organizations to show photos of Gadhafi's corpse? 

THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION: WHY DO YOU WRITE?

This week, I'd like to talk about something slightly different.  I don't have an example of a current event - a journalistic ethical dilemma that begs to be dissected or a reporting decision waiting to be scrutinized.  Rather, I have but one simple question: Why do you write?

It's a basic question that lies at the core of all journalistic efforts.  And it requires an answer that can help us understand what it means to be a journalist - what it means to be 'good' at this profession.  Today, the New York Times posted an article entitled, "Why I Write: Q. and A. With Seven Times Journalists".  It includes the responses to a number of questions relating to the field of journalism. But the responses that I found most striking were those answering the question, "why I write".

Here are some of what I thought to be the most interesting responses:

"I write because I believe in sharing information. I’m a journalist, so it’s my responsibility to inform others." - Simone S. Oliver, Senior Producer, Styles

"Writing will always be the connective tissue of a story, no matter what format it ultimately takes. And that’s what I’ve always wanted to be — a storyteller." - Jeffery Delviscio, Senior Producer, Foreign

"It’s a pleasure and a privilege to get to contribute to the public discourse and to be involved in the world of ideas." - Maraglit Fox, Reporter, Obituaries

"...through my writing, I was giving dignity to people’s lives. I liked that and still do today. A lot of times that is what we are doing as journalists, capturing people’s lives and giving them dignity, whether they are people in some far off land, or here at home. That is why I write." - Michael Luo, Domestic Correspondent, Investigative

"I write because I love to tell stories that make people see things they never saw." - Fernanda Santos, Reporter, Education

"I write because I think it’s a fascinating window into the world." - Pete Thamel, Reporter, Sports

The notions of contributing to a world of ideas, of further sharing information and spreading compelling stories, seem to be a common belief among these reporters.  It would seem that as journalists, they take pride and pleasure in informing the public. While this view may be a cliché, it is nonetheless worth discussing.  Is it the primary ethical responsibility of a journalist to inform the public, and nothing more?

What are you thoughts? Why do YOU write?

SMITHSONIAN PROTEST: REPORTER OR REACTIONARY?

At times of political protest and social uprising, it seems it may be difficult to draw the line between being a reporter and a reactionary.  On Saturday, a group of people held a protest in Washington D.C., and attempted to march into the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum.  The event made news on its own, but received further attention when a reporter from the American Spectator published an article admitting that he had attended the protest as an "agent provocateur". 

Patrick Howley wrote that he had participated in the march not as a supporter, but rather in order to discredit, mock, and undermine it.  He claims that he the protesters lacked nerve and courage in the face of authority.  He also said that he rushed past museum guards in an effort to further escalate the protest.

Howley has been widely criticized for attempting to incite a riot, engaging in criminal activity, and breaching journalistic integrity.  It appears as though he abandoned his duties as a reporter, and chose to behave in a manner that would provoke illegal activity.  

In a Guardian article, Charlie Grapski, a fellow journalist, disagreed with the way Howley participated in the protest.  He said this:

"It is not journalism. This goes against every tenet of ethical journalism. Howley was doing it in order to 'mock and undermine'. His actions shows that the protesters were not out to disrupt, but that chaos and disruption followed his actions. Not only has he distorted the story to discredit others, he has engaged in criminal acts."

Do you believe that Howley's actions were unethical?  Is the idea of acting as an "agent provocateur" fundamentally at odds with the principles of ethical journalism?  Does the act of provoking the public (as a journalist) alter the reality of which you are supposed to report? 

THE FRONT PAGE: AMANDA KNOX

I've always found it particularly interesting to see which photos are chosen for front page new stories - whether it is for a print newspaper, magazine, or online content.  Today, I was reminded of this issue when the media seemed to erupt in coverage of the Amanda Knox trial.  Just a few hours ago, the public received word that an Italian court had overturned Knox's 2009 murder conviction.  Knox, accused of killing her roomate, Meredith Kucher, in 2007, is now free after spending four years in jail.

I certainly haven't followed the details of the case well enough to make any judgements on the outcome of this trial.  I did however, find it somewhat compelling how the media chose to cover the news of Knox's acquittal.  As pointed out by an article on Poynter, photos of Amanda Knox seemed to pop up on the home page of every major online news source almost instantaneously.  Here are a few screen shots that they grabbed from earlier today...

In these three sources, the editors have chosen very different photos of Knox, all of which portray her in very different ways.  The one that most stands out to me, is the photo from the Seattle Times - this zoomed-in shot of her eyes is to some extent disturbing and sinister.  Just from first glance, it seems to me, to characterize Knox as an emotionless, cold-hearted killer.  Meanwhile, the CBS photo appears to do the exact opposite.  

I suppose my questions here are: What are the ethical standards for choosing front page photos? Which photos should the newsroom choose to present to the public? Should Amanda Knox be presented in a neutral light? 

Perhaps most importantly: Can one photo skew the objectivity of an entire news article?