March 25 Readings

The Code of Electronic Journalists is virtually identical to the code of ethics provided by the SPJ. Electronic journalists appear to be wordier. and feel the need to offer more subcategories in their noble code, but overall their message is entirely redundant. Journalists everywhere are supposed to seek the truth, strive to report information in an unbiased form, turn their backs to bribes, and earn the trust of their audience. Personally, I feel their is no need to distinguish between electronic journalists and print journalists. This additional code of ethics is unneccessary.

If only the guidelines for ethical visual and audio editing were actually followed by evening news shows. To be fair, these programs usually tend to rigorously follow the first three sets of guidelines. Very few positive things can be said about the way guideline number four is handled by newscasters. News teases are loaded with bias, falsehoods and the purposeful omission of certain facts. These teases often contain somber, haunting music. This music definitely manipulates an audience members perception of the story. These dark sounds undoubtedly introduce some bias into a news snippet and will certainly influence a viewer's opinion of the given information. Omission of information is cleverly used to draw readers into a story. There is little doubt that this technique is effective and engaging. The problem is this technique also skews the message of particular stories. This tool is sometimes used as a despicable scare tactic to freak out viewers, so in turn, they stay up and watch the 11 pm news. "What you don't know may kill you." "It could happen in your neighborhood next, more news at 11" These would make fantastic horror movie tag lines, but I don't think they should hold any respectable place in a news room.

Unlike the electronic journalists code of ethics, I felt the photojournalism ethics were worthwhile and a sensible addition to the long list of journalistic guidelines. I wholeheartedly agree that new technology can be a reader's best friend. With new programs limitations in photographs can be practically snuffed out. Glares and poor lighting can be fixed in order to save a majestic picture from the chop block and enhance an audience's reading experience. On the other hand, this new technology can also deceive readers and distort the truth. Wrinkles disappear from faces, entire objects are removed from images, dull colors unnaturally brighten, and women lose their identities as overzealous airbrushers make their human flesh look like shiny plastic. These tactics are used daily, and this is horrendous journalism. News organizations betray their readers with these seemingly minor touches or brush-ups. It's nice to see that Fred Showker took the time to expose some of these problems, and mark the differences between suitable edits and shameful manipulations in photojournalism.

I'm glad to see that other newspapers follow Showker's line of thinking, especially the Herald Tribune in Florida, which vigorously emphasized its position on the despicable nature of unjust photo treatments. I'm quite pleased to read that the Times-Union newspaper in Rochester has strongly deterred its reporters from recreating scenes to photograph. I have an awful little newspaper back home that stages shots, and asks for story subjects to recreate moments and poses. Most of all I'm happy to know that many of these newspapers have banned pictures of dead bodies from appearing in their publication. This is always a weighty, messy issue, and was covered extensively in my journalism ethics class last year. Casual readers gain virtually nothing from the image of a lifeless corpse, and family members only gain a lot of grief. In most cases there are far better ways to represent a story than with the image of a dead person.