Monday, December 3, 2012

Ethical Dilemmas Arise on the Effects of Censorship in the Media and the Practice of Self-Censorhip by News Organizatoins

Despite journalistic values and ethical issues that arise, censorship in the media omits information from the public audience and it includes the practice of self-censorship by news and media organizations.

Many news and media companies practice self-censorship by picking and choosing certain news stories to share with the public due to motives of self-interest or fear of hurting the company or a supporting advertiser. Sometimes censorship is used to protect the public or youth from explicit or shocking material and so the question arises: Is it ever okay to censor the news? Disagreements arise on the ethics of omitting information and censoring stories and pictures from the audience. In addition, the opposite side of spectrum can also be harmful to the audience: over-coverage of sensational news isn't accurate and can be followed by "copycat" crimes.


Many news organizations and journalists practice self-censorship and decide what news to share with the audience.  
There are many reasons for doing this, some of which interfere with some people's view of journalistic ethics. Some news companies won't report on a story if it will hurt the news organization or one of its supporters. For example, if there was some sort of scandal with a company that supported a news station, that station would most likely not report on the scandal for fear of losing support or giving the station a bad image. Losing a supporter or investor would lead to negative economic consequences. In fact, according to a survey of about 300 journalists and news executives by the Pew Research Center and the Columbia Journalism Review, 35% of journalists say that a news story that would hurt the financial interests of a news organization often goes unreported and 29% of stories are overlooked that would have a negative affect on advertisers. 

Some media organizations choose to omit information to avoid being accused of oppressing a certain group such as a specific race or gender. 
 Yet Deborah Nelson, a Senior Lecturer for the University of Maryland Phillip Merrill College of Journalism, says that this type of information is important to share along with the news story. She says that despite the media's attempt to "protect the public from themselves", journalists have the obligation to give a complete and accurate presentation of a news story. Most journalists share the value that news organizations should not practice self-censorship to fulfill their own motives. Although organizations may believe they are remaining neutral in a story or benefiting the public by withholding information, it is important to remember that delivering a story with the whole truth and a complete account is essential. This same idea can be applied to controversial content such as violent or explicit material. Many people feel that exposure to this kind of content creates a negative effect, but this information cannot be excluded if it is needed to accurately depict a news story.


Over-coverage of a story can turn into sensational news that negatively affects the public and can cause "copycat" crimes.
On the other side of censorship, over-coverage of a story can be just as negative as not covering the entire story. When a sensational incident occurs, Nelson explains how media organizations have a tendency to report on the same incident over and over. This leads to an extreme focus on the same story. Nelson describes sensationalizing a story as irresponsible and inaccurate. The copycat crimes that occur after the heavy focus on a particular news story are a result of giving facts and details about the crime that do not solely exist to benefit the the story with truth, but rather serve to feed public interest and entertainment.

  Debates and cases still exist that bring up the question: Should media be restricted and censored?

One example is the court case Reno v. ACLU. The case determined that the Internet (an increasingly popular form of media) was a free speech zone with no restrictions. This means that any information can be posted or downloaded onto the internet and it cannot be regulated. Yet some organizations are still trying to restrict content and censor the media. For example, COPA (Child Online Protection Act) continues to try to get the Supreme Court to review its act restricting youth from accessing certian materials on the internet. This case exemplifies how controversial the issue of censorship still is today. 

While self-censorship is practiced by news organizations for their own personal gains (such as economic or advertising motives) or in their attempt to remain neutral and unbiased with the public, journalists need to remember that their duty to their audience is to give truthful and accurate accounts of every news story published. Informing the public is a first priority for media organizations. Yet the media also needs to remember that too much reporting on the same story leads to sensationalism and this can have negative effects on the audience such as copycat crimes. Although journalistic values tend to be against the use of restrictions and censorship, controversy continues to exist as groups try to restrict our more recent forms of media.

 High school student Michael M. shares his opinion on self-censorship in the media. As a member of the audience receiving the news, he doesn't oppose censorship if it is used appropriately. He feels that if a news story gets its message across to the public, it can spare the violent details.

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Michael's Opinion on Censorship

 Michael Minter shares his opinion and knowledge on censorship in the media. He shares his view on bias in the news and times when it is and isn't acceptable.
listen to ‘"Person on the Street" view on Censorship’ on Audioboo

Monday, November 19, 2012

Censorship in Today's Media: Why it Exists and its Effects

Censorship in the media is a much debated topic in the media due to the question of ethics and how it affects the news presented to the audience. Many news and media companies practice self-censorship by picking and choosing certain news stories to share with the public due to motives of self-interest or fear of hurting the company or a supporting advertiser. Sometimes censorship is used to protect the public or youth from explicit or shocking material and so the question arises: Is it ever okay to censor the news? Disagreements arise on the ethics of omitting information and censoring stories and pictures from the audience. In addition, one has to wonder if people were less inclined to participate in activities that are often censored today (such as violent or sexual activities) before TV and media became so integral to our society.

Self-censorship
Many news organizations and journalists practice self-censorship, where they decide what news to share with the audience. There are many reasons for doing this, some of which interfere with some people's view of journalistic ethics. Some news companies won't report on a story if it will hurt the news organization or one of its supporters. For example, if there was some sort of scandal with a company that supported a news station, that station would most likely not report on the scandal for fear of losing support or giving the station a bad image. Losing a supporter or investor would lead to negative economic consequences. In fact, according to a survey of about 300 journalists and news executives by the Pew Research Center and the Columbia Journalism Review, 35% of journalists say that a news story that would hurt the financial interests of a news organization often goes unreported and 29% of stories are overlooked that would have a negative affect on advertisers. 
 
Does Censored News have an Effect on the Audience?
Often censorship is used to block content from youth audiences or to shield the public from sexually explicit or violent content. While many people feel that exposure to violent or sexually explicit behavior in the media (such as through movies or video games) leads to the increase of these actions in real life. The opposing view questions, would people really be less inclined to participate in these activities without the influence of the media?

Debates in the Real World
 The court case Reno v. ACLU decided that the Internet (increasingly popular form of media) was a free speech zone with no restrictions. Yet some organizations are still trying to restrict content and censor the media. For example, COPA (Child Online Protection Act) continues to try to get the Supreme Court to review its act restricting youth from accessing certian materials on the internet. 
 

Why I chose censorship for my research project

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Student opinions on technology in the classroom and using iPads

University of Maryland students share their opinions on why they want an iPad and why they wouldn't favor blending class meetings with technology.

listen to ‘Wanting an iPad’ on Audioboo

Friday, October 26, 2012

Events in Syria provide for various article objectives: direct and informative vs. detailed with shock value



The conflict and gunfire in Syria has been covered heavily in the news for weeks by countries all over the world and has repeatedly appeared on U.S. headlines as new turmoil occurs. The latest news was centered around the four-day Muslim holiday Eid al-Adha. Recognizing the importance of religion in the country and among the people, the rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the President Bashar al-Assad and his government agreed to a ceasefire in Syria. Both cnn.com (United States) and Al Jazeera.com (published from the country Qatar, which lies near the Persian Gulf) covered the truce as well as its failure. Gunfire, protests, and car bombs erupted as early as this morning (October 26), just as Eid al-Adha started. 

Coverage by CNN is informational, but gets its facts secondhand.
Ceasefire is violated in Syria after fighting erupted Friday morning.(RT.com)

CNN’s news article entitled “Is this a truce? Within hours, bullets again flying in Syria” gives the latest information on what is going on in Syria although it lacks quotes from witnesses or government officials in the area and direct information. Though some quotes are present, they are often paraphrased and could have been inserted from another previous article. Because of the lack of this inside information, CNN set up its article less as a breaking news story and more in my opinion as an in depth article of the events that occurred with more details that create shock value and human interest. Throughout the story, CNN uses citations such as “Syrian media reported….”, “rebel fighters told Al Jazeera news agency that…”, and “CNN can’t confirm reports of violence…” This could be due to the lack of time available to the writers to gather information before releasing the story and the restricted access to the Syrian government for an American journalist. So the article created several bullet points to highlight the irony of what has happened after the truce including “At least 30 people were reportedly killed across Syria Friday.” With the shocking details on the death toll and conflicts that arose today as well as the beginning of the story including information on a car bomb in Damascus that killed several people, most of whom were children, exemplifies CNN’s attempt to capture the audience using human interest and tragedy. This will most likely be effective as the audience continues to check back in for more information and to find out more about the people of Syria. 

 

Al Jazeera gives the information on Syria’s events quickly and efficiently.

Protesters chant against the government. (guardian.co.uk)

The Al Jazeera article, “Syria clashes ‘violate’ Eid ceasefire”, describes the fighting that broke out between the Syrian government and the rebels this morning and gives coverage to the protesters chanting against President Bashar al-Assad and the government. The article explains how the group Al-Nusra Front, whose members had already stated that they would not follow the truce, was included in the rebel fighters that began conflict around a military base this morning. In response, the government’s army bombed the neighboring village Deir Sharqi. In addition to providing a couple direct quotes, Al Jazeera also makes sure to mention the effects of ceasefire all over Syria: “’The ceasefire has collapsed in several regions of Syria but there is still less violence and fewer victims than usual,’ Rami Abdel Rahman… told the AFP news agency on Friday.” While CNN mostly centered its article on the destruction and fighting that occurred despite the ceasefire, Al Jazeera mentions that despite the several violations of ceasefire, some regions of Syria are actually experiencing more peace than usual due to the holiday. The story also includes information on the protesters and their anti-regime chants in Deraa and the capitol Damascus.

 

The same Syrian events inspire two different forms of coverage.

 It seems that Al Jazeera was able to acquire more information about what is going in Syria than CNN, possibly due to its closer proximity. As a result, the article is shorter and to the point. The information is very factual and informative. Like CNN, it seems as though the article was written with the mindset of acquiring more information as more becomes available because of a few loose ends and alleged comments. While the articles are about the same topic and do include a lot of the same or similar information, CNN seems to focus more on the ceasefire and the horrid events that violated it while Al Jazeera wrote a more straight-forward and informative story. Neither CNN’s article nor Al Jazeera’s story seemed to contain bias or focus on the writer’s opinion and both articles seem to have received their information through reliable sources (despite the fact that CNN often used a secondhand source). This leads me to trust both articles although each has a different objective in relaying the story. In the future I will probably use Al Jazeera’s articles to find more direct and inside information on the very latest news from Syria and use CNN for details and analysis.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

The digital divide in the U.S. and how the mobile phone problem trends highlight the divide



While opening an internet page may be as second nature to some of us as walking, many people in the United States still do not have regular access to the internet or even a computer in their homes. The main groups of people with this problem are "disproportionately underemployed, less educated, and Black or Hispanic (U.S. Census, 2009b)" according to Kevin Guirdy's research. The division is evident not only in people's homes but also in college institutions. And the division is quite clear when some citizens use a mobile device, library, or school for their main connection to the web while others surround themselves with the latest Apple technology and use multiple devices in addition to a personal computer or laptop. The socioeconomic divide among American citizens extends to their use of the internet and personal computers. Many people cannot afford their own computer or cannot afford multiple devices and so decide to combine their primary internet source with their mobile device to save money. An article from the American Medical Informatics Association states “The 2000 Census found that although about half of all United States homes had computers, households with lower incomes were much less likely to own computers than were higher income households.”

The trend in mobile device problems doesn’t change the digital divide, but more shows the effects of the divide. 

 Often those without access to personal computers and internet in their homes will invest in a smartphone and use that device as their primary source of web connection. This correlates with the Pew Research Center's findings that Hispanics and Blacks experience more of the mobile phone problems including dropped calls, unwanted sales calls, unwanted texts, and slow download speeds. Because the people without regular access to the internet at home are most likely Black or Hispanic, they are more likely to rely on a smartphone for internet connection in place of a personal computer. Statistics show that non-white cell owners are more likely to experience mobile phone problems on a weekly basis such as 53% of Hispanics experiencing slow download times frequently and only 44% of Whites experiencing slow download times frequently. I don’t think that the statistics shown for these mobile trends affect the digital divide, but they highlight the issues and different experiences of mobile devices that lower class people and minorities experience. 

However, perhaps the shift to smartphones will put most people on the same mobile device level in the future.
Smartphones are blatantly on the rise in the U.S. society with over fifty percent of Americans using and owning a smartphone. Though I do not have a smartphone, I feel that if I owned one, I would replace time on my laptop with time accessing the internet on my phone. There is a definite shift in using smartphones for internet access due to accessibility and mobility, so maybe in the future, even those in higher classes who do own a personal computer and have internet access in their homes will use their smartphones for the majority of their web surfing like the lower socioeconomic classes who rely on their cells for internet.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Facebook Can Harm or Help You


      Like most Facebook users, I’ve managed to compile a much larger list of online friends than people that I actually interact with on a daily or weekly basis. The social network makes it easy to become “friends” with people as it only takes a click of a button on both users’ parts. This can be sparked through a mutual interest such as both people attending the same school or being on the same basketball team, whether the two Facebook users spend time with one another in the non-digital world or not. For me, I usually accept a friend request if I know who the person is, even if I don’t regularly interact with them or consider them a friend or close friend. This makes up a majority of my Facebook friends since I definitely do not text, converse, or hang out with 590 “friends” on a regular basis. When I need to contact someone who fits under this category (or vice versa), it is usually not very often or for more formal reasons such as questions about a school assignment or information about an upcoming event. The only Facebook friends I regularly contact or who contact me are usually friends that I see often or family members and this number probably comes to somewhere around 40 or 50 people.
      With today’s easy access to technology and the expansion of social networks, many employers look at their possible employee’s Facebook or Twitter accounts. If an employer was looking at my friend Mandy’s* Facebook, she would most likely be considered eligible for hiring. Her information and statuses don’t contain any profanity or inappropriate topics and her “likes” simply include her favorite music artists, TV shows and movies. But pictures are the factors that often keep employers from hiring. Luckily for Mandy, the majority of her pictures are of her smiling with friends, playing soccer, attending prom, and going on vacation. Her profile shows her as an active member of the community, a social girl who spends time with family and friends, and a participator in school activities such as the soccer team or the National Honor Society. There are a few goofy pictures that don’t put Mandy in the most sophisticated light, but depending on the business, these would probably be acceptable. In addition, Mandy’s Facebook information shows that she is friend with many relatives including her mother and grandmother. So an employer would know that Mandy is aware of who is looking at her Facebook and so her patterns in social network activity are not going to change. Although my friend’s Facebook uplifts her image rather than destroys it, many young adults are not careful with what they allow on their social networks and are ignorant of the harm it can bring them. I’ve seen peers put pictures on Facebook with illegal substances or presenting themselves in a way that a parent, relative, or teacher would not approve of.  It is highly probable that an employer would not want these people representing the company or tainting its reputation. While I would hire Mandy after checking out her Facebook page, I cannot say the same for other profiles I’ve viewed.