Seeing ≠ Believing

In this digital age, we have to question everything, even our eyes. In Chapter 5 of “The New Ethics of journalism,” Kenny Irby explains the monumental changes in the world of photojournalism. Photo manipulation, which used to be a timely process, can now be done easily with Adobe’s Photoshop, or image filters provided by social media.

source: PBS

In the image above, the solider, a British solider seems to be gesturing to a Iraqi civilians to get cover. It drew a positive light on the Western forces who had invaded Iraq. It looked like the soldier were genuinely concerned about the residents of the nation they had invaded. However, the Los Angeles discovered that Brian Walski, who had taken the photo, had actually stitched together two photographs to create the image that was shown on front pages around the nation. In one image, the man who is holding a child seem to be walking towards the solider, who wasn’t sticking out his hand. In the other picture, the solider was lifting up his hand but the man with the child in his arms was looking away from the solider. Walski was fired and lowered the credibility of not only the Los Angeles Times, but of other Western media covering the Iraqi invasion. Now, any image would face increased scrutiny as audience members would doubt whether it had been altered to justify the invasion. Many could easily point to the image above as proof that he United States government also creates propaganda.

source: KPCC

TIME magazine gained strong criticism for its cover of O.J. Simpson in the 1990s. Using filters, Simpson, who was accused of murdering his girlfriend, had his face darkened. Many saw this as TIME already branding Simpson as guilty. It was also perceived as racist. By altering the mug shot, TIME helped further divide opinion on the already controversial trial of the ex-football player. More people would try to figure out which paper favored which decsion regarding Simpson (whether he was guilty of innocent), and thus losing their trust in the media to be objective.

Both these examples show how manipulated issues can undermine the public’s trust in the media. Images that showed dramatized but didn’t tell the truth only isolated papers from their readers and raised questioned marks even when nothing had been changed. Whenever we publish a image, no matter how insignificant it may seem, we always have to check it has journalistic integrity.

Errors in Journalism

Journalists are always expected to be right. And yet, errors are common to come by. Why all the mistakes? Several factors are behind it though I will focus here on two: not knowing the community and understaffed newsrooms.

Not Knowing the Community-In many papers, the reporters covering the day to day occurrences are non-locals, many having just moved there for the job. In many American towns, even though that are right next to each other, there are notable differences that reporters may overlook. The procedures of one town council may be different than its neighbor(s). Ironically, as Ron Smith pointed in his book, “Ethics in Journalism,” a reason for journalists’ lack of knowledge about a town may be down to avoiding conflicts of interest. Yet, if one is to avoid forming bonds with the schools or churches or libraries, focal greeting places of the community, there may be a strong disconnect with the audience. People, particularly in local news, want to feel that their local papers and anchors are locals who understand their problems and lifestyles. The problem is commonly even more extreme when one covers news from another country. Even if the reporter has lived there for a while, and try to immerse themselves as much as possible in the culture, there is surely a disconnect with the locals. If its a war zone in a nation other than their own, the reporter has the luxury of knowing he will likely go back to his native country, and not have to worry as much about the carnage of warfare.

Understaffed Newsrooms-Newsrooms have faced severe cuts in staffing over the last few decades, with editors among the most likely to get the booth. As Smith wrote in “Ethics,” most papers had two editors, an assignment editor and a copy editor. Even in small papers, everything would be checked at least once before it was published. Now, however, with competition from the internet, traditional media is expected to do more with less. The reduction in editors have made editors have less time to look at papers individually and thus more prone to miss errors. While many editors sole focus was on checking for mistakes, many now also have to lay out the pages and create headlines. This makes it impossible for many to check for ethical concerns or other issues that would take more than a few minutes to revise. With the speed of Twitter and other social media, traditional media is ever more rushed to be the first to announce breaking news, lowering the probability of something being checked. In this digital age, all journalists have to set up to assure that accuracy isn’t compromised.

While perfection is impossible, as professional journalists, we all to do our part to reduce errors to a minimum. Gaining a wider worldview and being more alert of ethical dilemnas as we write will help us maintain or improve the trust the audience places in us.

Truth is Scarcity

With the rise of the internet, we now live in a post-truth world, one where there is virtually no consensus on anything deeper than “a cat in on the mat” (Shirky 19). As journalists, we know have the responsibility to decide whether something is relevant by mentioning it in publications or by ignoring it. However, there are many cases where an argument gains a large following even if the people or person pushing it presents no evidence. Conspiracies are passed on from You-tubers to politicians, so would should get attention in the media? Clay Shirky also talks about journalists having personal biases, saying how many see birthers as bad and atheists groups as good despite both using similar tactics.

U.S. governmental and intelligence agencies are almost always seen as authoritive sources that shouldn’t be questioned. However, in past stories, such as in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon was repeatedly pushing information supporting the government of Saddam Hussein pursuing WMDs, which proved to be false. In recent stories, however, usually involving President Trump, the view of intelligence officers, as well as Robert Mueller’s team has been portrayed as factual by the mainstream press like the New York Times and the Washington Post. When it was reported that senior members of U.S. intelligence had contradicted Trump on several areas of focus in his foreign policies (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/us/politics/kim-jong-trump.html), the Times and others painted it as if the intelligence was automatically correct while not doing any investigation on their own.

When Buzzfeed’s story on Trump directing Michael Cohen to lie to Congress was denied by Mueller’s office (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/buzzfeeds-stumble-fuels-doubts-about-the-press-even-if-a-few-details-are-missing/2019/01/19/b509ed32-1b93-11e9-88fe-f9f77a3bcb6c_story.html?utm_term=.4c3b0580ec95), the press acted like Buzzfeed’s piece should be discredited. However, by doing this, the press is acting as if what mueller’s office says is fact. While the press has good reason to take the words of top U.S. intelligence or Mueller’s office, they can’t just portray them as automatically being truthful because of their position.

Of course, some institutions and people have been shown as more truthful than others, but with the internet, we all have to acknowledge at least the existence of people who think outside the mainstream and perhaps not sensontaioal them but let others know why they have the certain beliefs they do. Past actions, such as the Iraq War, gives people many reasons to not trust the government, and the press has the responsibility to scrutinize even the most respected voices.