reporters

Ethics Quiz: The Braless, Blogging Reporter

/ Jack Marshall / 44 Comments
Too much information?

Too much information?

Shea Allen, an investigative reporter for WAAY-TV, a Huntsville, Alabama, ABC affiliate,  was fired from her job despite what had been considered sterling work because of a post she made on her personal blog.

Titled “Confessions of a Red Headed Reporter,” it was a light-hearted list of, she thought, minor quirks and trivial transgressions.

The fateful list:

1. I’ve gone bra-less during a live broadcast and no one was the wiser.
2. My best sources are the ones who secretly have a crush on me.
3. I am better live when I have no script and no idea what I’m talking about.
4. I’ve mastered the ability to contort my body into a position that makes me appear much skinner in front of the camera than I actually am.
5. I hate the right side of my face.
6. I’m frightened of old people and I refuse to do stories involving them or the places they reside.
7. Happy, fluffy, rainbow stories about good things make me depressed.
8. I’ve taken naps in the news car.
9. If you ramble and I deem you unnecessary for my story, I’ll stop recording but let you think otherwise.
10. I’ve stolen mail and then put it back. (maybe)

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz:

Was it fair for the station to fire her? Continue reading →

The New York Times Asks: “Should We Be Truth Vigilantes?” Ethics Alarms Answers: “No, Because You Can’t Be Trusted.”

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Should Times reporters be like Wonder Woman's lasso of truth?

In an appeal to New York Times readers that is at once alarming, naive, arrogant and ominous, Arthur Brisbane, the Times’ “public editor” (Translation: ombudsman) asks whether the paper’s reporters should be “truth vigilante(s)… should challenge ‘facts’ that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.”

The answer is no, no, no, and for the obvious reasons. Times reporters are biased, and not inclined to challenge dubious statements they agree with or that come from political figures they like, and are inclined to find statements “non-factual” because of their own preferences and biases. Helpfully, the two examples cited by Brisbane are exactly the kinds of statements the Times, and most of the press, are completely incapable of handling fairly. Here’s the first: Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Follow Up and Clarification On The Hiroshima Apology Cable: I Was Wrong, I Apologize…and More”

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Rick Jones, whose blog is a constant source of information, provocation and thoughtfulness, generously contributes his analysis to the botched Hiroshima apology story in this Comment of the Day.  To summarize: here and elsewhere, a Wikileaks-released diplomatic cable from 2009  prompted a stampede of mostly conservative news sources to report that President Obama had suggested the possibility of apologizing for the atom bombing of Hiroshima in World War II.  I encountered the story, tracked it in several sources that have proven reliable in the past, and commented on it, critically. About 24 hours later, a friend with impeccable diplomatic credentials and inside information properly chastised me for taking the bait, and offered conclusive evidence that the cable had been misinterpreted. You might want to read my post of last night apologizing to readers and the President that also raises the issues that Rick addresses in his Comment of the Day. I have a follow-up comment at the end:

“While I admire your acceptance of responsibility for what appears to have been a misinterpretation, your commentary raises other issues. Continue reading →

NBC Tries a Hit on Trump, and Exposes Its Own Incompetence

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

“Trump Fumbles Abortion Question” trumpeted “The Daily Beast” under the label “Confused”. It caused my heart to leap: could The Donald have stuck his foot in his mouth with an obnoxious-presidential-campaign-flirtation-destroying gaffe so soon?  Callooh! Callay!

I rushed to the link, which was on the NBC News site, only to have my hopes dashed. Trump hadn’t made a gaffe at all. Some biased, ignorant NBC reporter, who has decided that it is her life’s assignment to show the American public just who is and who isn’t qualified to run for President of the United States, tried a deceitful and unfair trick question on Trump, who promptly identified it as such. Then, completely mistaken about her assumption that his answer was disqualifying at all, she smugly sat back while her colleagues in the media attempt to present the exchange as a “gotcha.” In  other words, Trump is going to get the Sarah Palin treatment, and this was the first, jaw-droppingly stupid attempt at it. Phooey! It’s bad enough that I keep having to stand up for Palin; now I have to stand up for—ughhh!–-Donald Trump!

Here is part of NBC’s Vaughn Ververs’ account of the exchange between NBC’s Savannah Guthrie and Trump: Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: Find The Tell-Tale Mistake!

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Unfortunately, James O'Keefe is no Nellie Bly

Kansas City Star reporter Mary Sanchez has posted an excellent column entitled “James O’Keefe and the Ethical Bankruptcy of ‘Gotcha’ Journalism.” Outside of an unfortunate final “Let’s see some genuine evidence that NPR’s coverage is biased” conclusion (you mean, other than its choice of stories, its lack of ideological balance, Nina Totenberg, its treatment of Juan Williams, and its institutionalized positions on issues like Palestine, gun control, abortion,  and illegal immigration?), she makes a strong case. But her piece is marred by a tell-tale gaffe that makes me doubt her own ethical orientation.

Your challenge in today’s Ethics Quiz: Find it! It occurs in this section: Continue reading →

Gallup’s 2010 Ethics Poll: Little Trust Where We Need It Most

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

As it does periodically, Gallup has released the results of its surveys to determine what professions Americans regard as ethical, and which ones they don’t. Gallup notes that there has been very little change over the last two years; on its site, it compares the results to those of polls taken from 2004 to the present.

The professions that have positive ratings from the public are nurses, the military, pharmacists, grade school teachers, doctors, police, clergy, judges, and day care providers.

The rest are in the red, trust-wise, with TV and newspaper reporters coming in below auto mechanics and bankers, lawyers below them, business executives even below lawyers, and well below them, Congress, which comes in barely above car salesmen—and more people actually have a low opinion of Congress members than of car salesmen. Congress inches ahead because a larger number also think that members of Congress are ethical.

Probably federal workers… Continue reading →

On Idiots, Book-Burnings, and Journalistic Ethics

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Let’s keep this post as abstract as possible, as the less publicity the renegade Gainesville book-burners get for their idiotic stunt, the better.

Why is a dim-witted “protest”by a fifty member church that we were all blissfully unaware of until recently a national, international, or even local news story? I am pretty sure I could gather a group of fifty friends in the parking lot across from my house on Arbor Day and burn an effigy of ultra-prolific junk novelist James Patterson to protest the many trees that have died to bring his books to Barnes and Noble. Would that be newsworthy—a few wackos doing something just to get attention? Does the public have a right to know about a trivial and pointless event that is only occurring so that the media will make it news?

Let us now assume that there is a powerful James Patterson cult, funded by an eccentric billionaire fan, and that it has acquired nuclear weapons. Continue reading →