Week 7 Abstracts
Laura Wright
TIMES ISSUES ETHICS GUIDELINES FOR REPORTERS, EDITORS
It really surprises (and almost disturbs) me that it took The Los Angeles Times so long to provide a typewritten, comprehensive set of guidelines for its reporters and editos. A detailed ethics codes should be the foundation of every major newspaper, and every paper should have an updated version easily available to each staff member. More importantly, this ethics code should sit right alongside the reporter’s AP Stylebook, dictionary and calculator. Memos and staff meetings aren’t enough when it comes to communicating ethical standards that have the potential to make or destroy the newspaper’s reputation. At nine pages, the Times’s ethics code is definitely shorter than some other newspaper’s, some of which look more like encyclopedias than concise pamphlets of information. I think it’s important that the Times spent more than a year discussing the ethical guidelines to incorporate into the ethics code. Setting the tone for your newspaper’s ethical practices is a big job, and you want to make sure you cover all the bases and possible ethical dilemmas that could arise.
I found it interesting that one of the guideline’s main no-no’s was sportswriters voting for awards and rankings. I usually think of ethics codes in terms of straight, general-assignment reporting, but it does make sense that there be a solid ethical foundation for journalists who cover sports, where it is easy to get caught up in the tit-for-tat, freebie atmosphere. I do agree somewhat with Sports Editor Bill Dwyre when he discusses the risk of just having coaches and fans do the voting. Sportswriters usually have a great deal of experiencing covering and analyzing the game (whatever it is) from every possible angle, so it almost makes me wonder why they shouldn’t be allowed to vote for whomever they think is the best quarterback/pitcher/etc.? I also agree with Carroll that it should be up to the committee who gives out the particular award to ensure that the voting is fair and accurately reflects who the sports world believes is the most deserving of that trophy or Hall of Fame spot.
I find the Times’s policy on anonymous sources a little vague. The standards say that anonymous sources can still be used, but only as a “last resort” to convey important information that cannot be delivered by other means. This isn’t much of a decree on the use of confidential sources. I think it should provided some more “for instance” situations where a reporter might be justified in using an anonymous source as well as those occasions where it should be mandatory to have someone go on the record. I realize that it is hard to come up with a black-and-white way of looking at journalistic ethics, but I do think the Times should have been a bit more detailed when describing one of the trickiest topics in the business.
I do like the fact that the Times included guidelines for clear, concise writing in its ethics code. This is one of the most underemphasized areas of journalism. I think every newspaper should follow suit with frowning upon the use of superlatives. Nowadays, stories are chock full of words like “biggest” and “worst” as adjectives, but if these can’t be backed up, they’re useless and a waste of newsprint.
WHAT THE F-K ARE THEY DRIVING AT?
I really enjoyed reading the CJR’s take on expletives in print stories. I’m with the school of thought that by omitting words like “fuck” from quotes for the sake of not offending “family-oriented” readers, you water down the feeling behind a quote, and as Gal Beckerman explains, whittle down rage into mere exasperation. I’m actually quite surprised that The New York Times chose to omit “fucking” from General Franks’s quote, “I have to deal with the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth almost every day.” This is a fairly safe move from a newspaper that’s gained considerable prestige for taking risks and taking a noticeably liberal tack toward the Iraq war. There mere fact that the Times altered Franks’s quote without letting readers know is in itself problematic. Some may argue that the overall point behind Frank’s quote (that he doesn’t particularly like Feith) is made pretty clear even with “fucking” taken out, but I believe that instead of shying away from words that are widely used in the English language (much to the dismay of conservatives and linguistic elitists), we should portray people truthfully as they present themselves in an interview. Just as Beckerman notes, leaving the word in would have shown just how unafraid Franks was in letting his hatred for Feith be made public. Our job as journalists is to be truth-tellers. We shouldn’t let political correctness water down our stories and ruin the context of a quote. Omission is just a big a sin in journalism as inaccuracy. If the argument is that children might get a hold of a story with a curse word, let’s be honest with ourselves. The few (if any) young children picking up a newspaper are merely shuffling through to the comics and sports sections.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF THE WEB LINK
I enjoyed reading this piece because I wasn’t even aware of the hotbed of controversy surrounding deep-linking. I really didn’t even know there was a term for the sort of hypertext roadmap that many sites lay out for readers. The main argument against deep linking is of course a financial one. Bypassing the homepage means missing out on a slew of ads and pop-ups, the lifeblood of most media. While I can understand the reasoning here, I feel it wouldn’t be as big of a debate if the newspaper industry wasn’t in so much financial trouble and didn’t have such a dependent relationship with its advertisers. I don’t think that newspapers should outright prohibit deep linking to their content, like The Dallas Morning News has done. People using the Web do so in the spirit of receiving a variety of content in a free and open exchange. To try to limit the vast universe that is the Internet is an ill-conceived notion and threatening to the online culture that so many newspapers are trying to embrace in an effort to keep up with their demographic. I agree that banning deep-linking to newspaper stories is interfering with readers’ rights to look at whatever content interests them, and, as other critics claim, is like telling newspaper readers that they can’t read the sports section if they haven’t read the front page first. I don’t think that just because a reader bypasses a newspaper’s home page means that they’re completely lost to the paper’s advertisers. It’s highly likely that once readers are done reading a story on a particular page that they might poke around on the site other content and, of course, advertising.
STORY IDEA
As we’re approaching the the end of February, students are most likely finalizing their Spring Break plans. Often, this includes booking all-inclusive trips to exotic locales like Aruba or Cancun. However, there are almost always “hidden fees” added to these trip packages and according to a UMass study, students may pay up to 40 percent more than the advertised trip price on fliers or in newspaper ads. In addition to the advertised price, such travel companies may require students to pay international, credit card and late-booking fees – sometimes even a $30 fuel surcharge to offset rising gas prices.
The credit card fee can range from $15-25 and may deter students from using the payment method that offers the most protection in legal disputes. Agencies such as Springbreaktravel.com require students to cancel trip arrangements at least 60 days in advance for a full refund, an option not feasible for most students.
I would propose a story on the prevalence of students being taken in by these vacation packages, which are almost always too good to be true. I would take a look at some of the biggest names in Spring Break travel companies and see what lies in the fine print. Sources would be one or two students who’ve been scammed or misled by Spring Break trip companies, a travel expert from UF’s STA Travel office and maybe an attorney. Online story could have forum where readers could share their experiences with travel companies; links to the Better Business Bureau and Federal Trade Commission; a box with tips on how to choose the right travel agency; and a chart comparing advertised prices for popular Spring Break packages to the actual costs.
