Here's another chance for you to: (1) get some more practice posting comments to the blog; or (2) make your first successful post to the blog. For today, I asked you to read the part on ethics in Chapter 2. In class, I want you to read the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists and react to a story that's in the news today.
The Code of Ethics gives four basic principles -- which I summarize as tell the truth, minimize harm, be accountable to your readers (and not somebody else) and clean up your messes -- and lists any number of factual instances where the priniciples might apply.
The story is about a Washington, D.C., blogger who "outs" homosexual lawmakers and policy makers. He says what he does is ethical because they vote against gay causes. Others, including some of the people he's outed, would disagree.
Here's the question: According to your interpretation of the SPJ Code of Ethics, is it right for somebody writing a political newsletter to "out" congressmen over a public issue of this nature? Or should their right of privacy be respected? Please note: I am not asking whether you think homosexuality, politics and/or Congress are moral. The issues I'm interested in are journalistic ethics and the right to privacy. In analyzing the question, it will help you to make a list on scrap paper of which specific parts of the SPJ Code are involved in this story. You may get different parts of the code telling you different things -- i.e. don't publish because ..., do publish because ... and so on -- because that's the way it often happens in the real world.
If you're not sure how to post, ask me. I'll be glad to help you.
A weblog for Pete Ellertsen's mass communications students at Benedictine University Springfield.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(136)
-
▼
September
(23)
- COMM 150, 207, 337, 393, etc. --sportswriting
- COMM 150: Gatekeepers, cellphones in Mynamar
- COMM 207: Assignment for Tuesday (Oct. 2)
- COMM 150: Entertained or informed?
- COMM 207 -- copyediting and proof reading symbols
- COMM 150: Class, 'marketplace of ideas'
- COMM 150: TV, print, pictures and 'The War'
- COMM 150, 337: Writing, print, TV, "hot" and "cool...
- COMM 337, 207: Cat story
- COMM 150: Bread, TV and circuses
- COMM 207: Exciting news! A typeface's birthday
- COMM 150: News, paper, books, newspapers and TV
- COMM 207, 337: Student press furor
- COMM 207: An "Outfit" you don't wear in Chicago
- COMM 207: New extra credit
- COMM 207: Trademarks (in-class assignment)
- COMM 150: Social responsbility of press
- COMM 207: Extra credit for Thursday
- COMM 207: AP Stylebook, the parts to know
- COMM 207: Extra credit question(s)
- COMM 207, 337: Newspapers, news and the internet
- COMM 207: Read, post, discuss (2nd chance)
- COM 150, 207, 337: Career advice for journalism st...
-
▼
September
(23)
About Me
- Pete
- Springfield (Ill.), United States
- I'm a retired English, journalism and cultural studies teacher at Springfield College in Illinois (acquired by Benedictine University and subsequently closed). I coordinate jam sessions for the "Clayville Pioneer Academy of Music" at Clayville Historic Site and the Prairieland Strings dulcimer club, and I sing in the choir and the contemporary praise team at Peace Lutheran Church in Springfield. On Hogfiddle I post links and video clips for our sessions and workshops on the mountain dulcimer (a.k.a. "hog fiddle"), as well as research notes on folklore and cultural studies, hymnody and traditional Anglo-Celtic and Scandinavian music. I also posted assignments and readings in my interdisciplinary humanities classes. The Mackerel Wrapper (now on hiatus), carried assignments and readings for my mass comm. students. I started teaching b/log when I chaired SCI-Benedictine's assessment committee, and reopened it as the privatization of public schools grew increasingly troubling and closer to home.
12 comments:
Vargas said "I write about closeted people whose records are anti-gay," he says. "If you're a closeted Democrat or Republican and you don't bash gays or vote against gay rights to gain political points, I won't out you."
I think Vargas states his purpose very clearly. I don't think he is crossing any line and he is exercising his right to speak freely. The only concern I have with Vargas outing people is that he consistently and thoroughly investigates these individuals before he outs them. I also hope that Vargas has some concern for the family members of the "soon to be outed" homosexuals.
This person seems to think he is a journalistic liberator. He is pretty hardcore and goes to some pretty extreme measures to "out" people, and according to the article he is feared. In one sense, he is being fair, for freedom of speech, and he is trying to liberate hypocrisy of gay politicians bashing gay people and/or rights. However, on the other hand, it is incredibly embarrassing the way he does it, especially having a "hit list" type of blog. I think he feels that since he is gay he has a stance about gay issues, and so should gay members in politics. He feels that they shouldn’t be closeted gays, and then openly bash other gays. Rogers wants them to pick a side and not be a hypocrite, because is targeting those hypocrites, but keeping closeted gays identity safe if they do not gay bash. Out of the people he goes after, they are mainly Republicans. Two lines that stood out to me looked at both sides, in terms of pro and con, respectively…
"He's a sort of a muckraker, and he's sharing good information that other people don't," says Matt Stoller, the liberal blogger who heads BlogPac.
Critics, though, say he's a "pariah" who's hurting the gay community more than he's helping it."
At the end, Roger's tries to justify his hit list by saying, “When those private lives are in direct conflict with the public policy that these officials espouse, I think it's fair game that their private lives be brought into this. And I have to blog to do that with. Here's the question: What community is expected to protect its own enemies? Don't beat up the gay community, and then expect us to protect your secrets and your double life. It's just not right."
I do agree with him in some sense, but perhaps he can do it in a more ethical sense, but I am on the fence on this one. However, in the code of ethics, it does say journalists should minimize harm. By outing people like this, he is damaging people’s reputation beyond repair and most are resigning. To me, it is not minimizing harm; it is destroying someone’s professional and personal life.
I go back and forth on the issue of outing a congressmen in a newspaper. I feel they are just like everyday people but with power so they deserve some sort of privacy as the rest of us, but then again if they are voting against homosexual rights just so people do not know they are gay they deserve to be ousted. But because of the view of society has to homosexual activity it is hard for congressmen and women to be open about their sexual orientation. In the code of ethics it states, “— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.” I think stating someone’s sexual orientation in the newspaper kind of goes against the code of ethics.
"I write about closeted people whose records are anti-gay," he says. "If you're a closeted Democrat or Republican and you don't bash gays or vote against gay rights to gain political points, I won't out you." said Vargas. This issue is a hard one to take sides. I agree with — Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status, from the code of ethics. But these are the people making the decisions that effect gay people, or not gay people. If they're hiding something then people wont trust him. The writer wants people to know the truth, but there still has to be a respect of privacy.
I think the article in the Washington Post was very well written. The author received both sides of the story and did not give his personal opinion on the issue. As for Rogers, I think he is unethical by "outing" these lawmakers. I understand his frustration with the senator, and I think he has talked himself into believing that it is his duty to report the truth to the public. However, Rogers did not worry about the harm he might be creating for each of these lawmakers. Before writing his blog, he did not give Senator Craig a chance to tell his side of the story. Rogers only focused on one ethical code: telling the truth to the public. He completely disregarded the other rules in the SPJ Code of ethics; he simply chose the code that would benefit his own beliefs.
From what I see in this article, Vargas is following all four of the codes presented. He's seeking the truth about policitians double standards and lives, he's acting independently in researching and pursuing these matters, he's takes full responsibility for what he's doing, and as far as minimizing harm, well he's trying to protect gays and the harm being done to them via corrupted political officials.
Though it is interfering with these "outted" men's personal lives, let's remember that they are in the public eye and therefore, can be subject to negative scrutiny.
If they'd stop lying their asses off about every little thing, I doubt it would ever be this big of a deal. So keep "outting" these guys Vargas.
According to the SPJ Rogers follows the rules he seeks the truth and reports it. He doen't get 1 tip and then writes about it. "He investigates his tips by working the phones; on rare occasions, he flies around the country to meet with sources."
He calls the alleged gay congressional members and had asked them "Are you gay?" A former member Rogers outed said that it was like "a call from Satan himself." I did not read about him exposing his sources which is him protecting them. He said that he even met with a man that claims that he had a(n) encounter(s) with a senator from Idaho. Rogers went into the story before the news media got a hold of it. A big problem is that one of the sections in the SPJ is Minimize Harm. Rogers is outting one person,but humiliating his family also. There very well could be children involved and they had nothing to do with it. Rogers also seems to want to get back at people. He states that if a senator votes against gay rights and are gay that he will out them and if they vote for gay rights then they will not be outed. I feel as if he is like a child and the approach he takes is an eye for an eye. I do think that any cingressional member is just plain wrong if they are leading a double life. One quote that got me was from the former field director of the Republican National Committee-"What was I supposed to do?" Gurley says in an interview. He adds: "Who does Rogers think he is? God? What gives him the right to bully people around and tell us what to think or how to conduct our lives?" That's what most of the people Rogers has outed do for a living. They make decisions on rights for the gay community that Rogers tries to defend. I hope that he truly digs as deep as he can to find if the accusations are truthful before he ruins someone's reputation. I do think that what do they men and women he outs do when the resign as far as a job goes. This reminds me of the senetors and other high ranking officilas in the civil rights movement that did everything under the sun to blacks,but some had affairs and even babies by black women.
I really like these comments (and the ones you emailed to me are just as good)! You're separating out the lifestyle issue(s) from the journalistic ethics issues and (correctly, I think) coming down somewhere in the middle on the ethical issues. Sort of a yes, he's got a right to do what he does (seek the truth), but yes, he needs to be careful about how he does it (minimize harm).
Extra credit question(s). Now that you've read Chapter 3 in our textbook, how much editing do editors do?
Were you surprised to learn that?
Do you consider this a trick question?
Add to extra credit question instructions. Email me your answers.
Also: I noticed this when I was posting the comment above. When Blogger asks you to put your "user name" and password in the fields, they're really asking for a full email address instead of what I consider a user name. They want the "at" sign and address after the name.
Larry Craig is not minimizing harm he is maximizing it. He is not respecting anybody's privacy and he is not "showing compassion for those who are afflicted by his outings". But he is doing what he believes is right and he believes that he is in his opinion "seeking the truth and reprting it". He believes that the gay politicians that he is outing deserve to be outed if they are openly speaking against gay people and voting against laws to better their lives. He is doing what he can to stop hypocrisy and so in that aspect I believe he is following a good code of ethics. He is just serving justice and trying to make a positive difference for the people of the gay community.
I understand why Rogers does what he does, but I don’t think it follows the SPJ code of ethics. (Whether or not his blog should be subject to such a code is another matter altogether.)
First a side note about the whole hypocrite argument. He slaps the label “hypocrite” on these closeted gays who don’t vote pro-gay. Hypothetically speaking, if these individuals (mostly conservative, the article says) were elected because they promised to vote conservatively, and then they voted conservatively despite their personal orientation they would actually be remaining true to their word.
I am concerned that Rogers may not give “a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues,” as the SPJ outlines. The major red-flag I noted was that many of his sources are anonymous. SPJ says to “identify sources when possible” and “question sources’ motives before providing anonymity”.
I could pick this thing apart, but I’ve got another class. I’m not knocking his right to free speech, but the way Rogers goes about his business seems shady to me.
One very interesting part of the article was how he preferred to look at republicans and then go on to say that he is a Bipartisan.
"In the coming months, he plans to post the names of "a few more" closeted Congress members on his blog, he says, all of them Republicans. There are 33 names on his published list, most of them men, 30 from the GOP. That fact reveals more about the Republicans, he says, than about him. Although a registered Democrat, he says he is bipartisan."
"I write about closeted people whose records are anti-gay," he says. "If you're a closeted Democrat or Republican and you don't bash gays or vote against gay rights to gain political points, I won't out you."
* * *
I feel that this was a very interesting article with many key points. Many key points that dont just reflect on someone being judged on being gay or not. The key issues I feel are and should be letting indivuals be who they are and want to be!! We cannot go on living ourlives through other people and the sooner we realize this the sooner we will all be better off. One must be very careful when putting a lable like "homosexual" on someone. The type of damage that this will cause to ones image could be career ending. Use your damn head folks!!!
Post a Comment