If you want to continue the discussion, especially if you didn't get a chance to speak in class today, please do so here. To get things started, there seemed to be a few dominant threads: Feel free to comment on these or start your own.
a. Old School vs. New School?Does what Kyle showed us today, at least the softer stories, qualify as journalism? Is it the future or is it disturbing?
b. Where do you come down when it comes to ethics? Are there some time-tested journalistic standards and values that should be applied across all mediums? Or is the web a new frontier that requires more modern, more-situational ethics, based on personal preference. Are such standards outdated and old fashioned or do they still have merit in the digital age?
c.Finally, What do you think of the way the station handled the case of the 14-year-old whose identity was disclosed but removed when it was learned she had been raped? Responsible journalism or a real gaff?
-Scott Powell,
A. I believe journalism can only benefit from stories like the ones Kyle covered and presented to our class. He's providing his community readers with the attractions nearby. Not every story needs to be up for the Pulitzer. As long as it sparks interest and draws in readers, I think its great.
That being said, there does need to be a line drawn where product placement is implemented within the stories. The media needs to be careful with advirtising one product over another if it doesn't take away from the prominence of the story.
I agree that product placement in news stories is an issue. The segment that included Tru Vodka was absurd. As a viewer, I could barely focus on the oddity of the Thanksgiving cocktails - Tru Vodka was thrown in the viewer's face.
However, I generally think that the types of stories Reyes works on are great and they could potentially peak interest in a news station. This isn't to say that feature stories should trump hard news such as shootings or fires, but the features offer viewers a change of pace from all of the usual gloom and doom of the news.
I have to agree that it isn't out of the question to expand journalism past the AP style, and to focus on human interest stories that localize national problems. People do get sick of the dry hard news stories of the NY Times, and they would rather read something with some personal style in it.
However, I thought that Reyes' flair for a new look at journalism would have been stronger if I hadn't felt like he was walking a thin line between journalism, and something else (though I'm not really sure what it was).
We described a few of his pieces as if they were meant for the Food Network, but is that channel "journalism"? I don't think so. Just as I don't think doing a blog makes someone a journalist, there's no credibility/accountability there. Sure, it's the future, but it needs some structure, or it comes off as a copyright-infringing, commercialized, and somewhat tainted.
I think journalism is a public service to the community, and Reyes genuinely believed he was fulfilling that role. However, what Reyes did in the drink & diner pieces was not helping the community, it was just trying to be flashy production to get himself noticed, and to differ from competing networks for ratings, while steering people to spend money in certain ways. That kind of sounds like advertising doesn't it? Couldn't he have shown a local park, or something public that's free? Maybe if what he showed were events like a local concert or food festival, it would have changed my opinion, but he was making news of businesses.
Personally, I found so many things to be disturbing about this presentation. The Tru Vodka brand in the drink segment was blatant advertising that could easily have been taken out of the segment. It seems bizarre that the people in charge of filming just didn't ask him to stop specifying the brand of alcohol used. It was also exceptionally disturbing to hear that Kyle himself found the turkey gravy drink to taste awful and similar to that of "hot dogs." If this drink is so unsavory, why is he suggesting it to his viewers?
The discussion on the ethics behind the release of the rape victims name also bothered me a great deal. The station gave the name and picture of a young girl who had been held hostage by a sick man. I feel as though the paper must have had the common sense to tell that there was a strong possibility of sexual abuse in the case prior to their decision to release her information. If the paper felt strongly enough about their decision to go ahead and print her information, knowing that sexual assault was possible, then they should have stood behind their own decision later on when it was confirmed.
I agree with Alyssa, the ethics discussion on the rape victim was a bit disappointing. They never should have run the girl's name or photo, even if they didn't believe the sexual abuse allegations. If the thought exists that maybe there was sexual abuse, it is best to let the truth come out and then make a decision whether to run the name and photo. Running both of these is a hard thing to retract, so the decision must be made delicately and professionally. Reyes and the news station "dropped the ball" in my opinion.
That Tru Vodka clip came off as a PR video news release. You shouldn't identify a brand unless it is important to the story (like "Borders is going out of business"). You wouldn't identify a person's sex, ethnicity, religion or height unless it was pertinent to the story.
As far as running the girl's name, you shouldn't run a person's name just because your competitors are. In the short term, you may trail in the ratings. But in the long run you won't alienate viewers. Plus, there is the larger issue of treating the potential victim with decency and dignity.
I believe that journalism is journalism, no matter the media through which it is transmitted. It is true that our profession is currently in a state of transition, but I don't believe that applies to ethics. I think the internet definitely has different rules as far as writing stories is concerned, but it should not change our ethics. There is a reason why journalism has developed it's ethical standards, and now more than ever they need to be upheld.
I think that the whole idea of a "transition" in the field pertains to the lightning-fast speed, accessibility, and freedom from page-space restrictions that comes along with online publishing.
I think that what Reyes is doing is irresponsible in some respects in an ethical sense, yes; however we have to consider his honest-hearted try at public advocacy (albeit in dining and entertainment) and recognize that the clips he showed were published on the internet where there was surely enough digital storage available for NBC-30 to tackle and publish more weighty stories (and, hopefully, display them with more prominence).
Here's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned: internet publishing should allow for the slick, glossy "Food-Channelesque" clips that Reyes exhibited, so long as it is not to the EXCLUSION of coverage of politics, law, business, consumer concerns, etc. In many ways he is riding an ethical razor's-edge; however, he is young, relatively inexperienced, and untrained in journalism ethics. I suspect he will develop a keen understanding of the issues his work presents with time. The organic alcohol product placement aside, I feel that Reyes is not working in a haphazard, unprofessional manner at all. Pardon my lack of brevity :)