In such a de-sensitized culture as ours, it almost strikes me as odd that photographs from the likes of Nina Berman and Farah Nosh have drawn so much criticism. While it is quite true that the images are indeed graphic, it isn’t as if the average person hasn’t been exposed to graphic images of similar nature before. These images, which stem from the effects of the Iraq war, are an isolated example however.
By my way of seeing it, evaluating these images on grounds of graphic content does nothing to separate them from the plethora of graphic material we are subjected to by American popular culture. What does distinctly differentiate these images however, is the stark reality they portray. Perhaps that is in fact the very reason these images have drawn a great deal of criticism. People today are quite happy with ignoring the consequences of reality. Out of sight, out of mind right?
The images of Nina Berman and Farah Nosh merely depict the sad reality of the consequences many have faced as a result of the Iraq war. It is not only the public’s right to know this reality; it is quite simply their duty as informed citizens. We must bear witness to the atrocities depicting in these stirring images, even if that means a little discomfort on our part. In a society as de-sensitized as ours, it is a bittersweet realization that are still images that can still impart a bit of emotion. Those who deem the photographs too graphic are merely denying the dim reality of the world around them.
Berman and Nosh deliver extremely powerful photographs, which deliver equally important messages, messages that deserve the audience of the American public, no excuses.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Lost in Translation: Journalistic Integrity
Howard Bryant surely could not have anticipated the reaction he would spark when he went about the simple act of cleaning up a quote—a standard practice for many journalists, especially those involved in sports writing such as himself. Little did he know however, that the unaltered version of the quote would run in a story right next to it, catching a few readers’ attention, and quickly becoming the flagship example in the ensuing debate on whether or not it is ethical to tamper with what appears within the ever sacred quotation marks.
While Bryant’s changes to the quote weren’t exactly major from his viewpoint, others deemed it a grievous broach of journalistic protocol and blatant violation of ethics. Such journalists, like Deborah Howell view even the slightest change to the words within the quote as a violation of ethics.
“Simply put, quotes should be sound and authentic.” She says.
This goes right along with the Washington Post’s policy that "when we put a source's words inside quotation marks, those exact words should have been uttered in precisely that form."
To be fair, in Bryant’s defense, he states, “I clean up his language to not embarrass him…what’s fair is fair.”
But is it really?
By my way of seeing things it hardly appears to be fair for all parties involved. It’s not fair to the person whose quote that’s been altered, and it is surely not fair to the readers who will end up reading it.
In the case of Clinton Portis, the alteration of his quote provides an added element of complexity because it brings the topic of race into the question. While Bryant claims he only changed the grammar of the quote, I claim that by merely changing the grammar, he did in fact change not only the meaning of the quote, but it’s intended message as well.
While the unaltered quote: “I don't know how nobody feel, I don't know what nobody think, I don't know what nobody doing, the only thing I know is what's going on in Clinton Portis's life” is clearly far from grammatically correct, it represents a distinct, conscious choice on the part of Portis to speak a certain way. It is only right then, to portray the quote in it’s original, unaltered form. Altering a quote for simple fear of how readers might perceive it and its speaker simply provides an injustice to both the speaker and the reader and inserts the reporter’s bias into the story…not exactly a good thing.
While this alteration may be done out of a journalist’s hope to avoid highlighting a stereotype and embarrassing the source, it is still an infringement on the reader’s right to interpret and attach meaning and/or judgment to a quote on their own. Reporters simply need to cut out the practice of altering quotes altogether, there is simply no excuse for it. Altering quotes merely provides a disservice to all those involved and degrades the strong base of ethics from which good journalism draws its credibility
While Bryant’s changes to the quote weren’t exactly major from his viewpoint, others deemed it a grievous broach of journalistic protocol and blatant violation of ethics. Such journalists, like Deborah Howell view even the slightest change to the words within the quote as a violation of ethics.
“Simply put, quotes should be sound and authentic.” She says.
This goes right along with the Washington Post’s policy that "when we put a source's words inside quotation marks, those exact words should have been uttered in precisely that form."
To be fair, in Bryant’s defense, he states, “I clean up his language to not embarrass him…what’s fair is fair.”
But is it really?
By my way of seeing things it hardly appears to be fair for all parties involved. It’s not fair to the person whose quote that’s been altered, and it is surely not fair to the readers who will end up reading it.
In the case of Clinton Portis, the alteration of his quote provides an added element of complexity because it brings the topic of race into the question. While Bryant claims he only changed the grammar of the quote, I claim that by merely changing the grammar, he did in fact change not only the meaning of the quote, but it’s intended message as well.
While the unaltered quote: “I don't know how nobody feel, I don't know what nobody think, I don't know what nobody doing, the only thing I know is what's going on in Clinton Portis's life” is clearly far from grammatically correct, it represents a distinct, conscious choice on the part of Portis to speak a certain way. It is only right then, to portray the quote in it’s original, unaltered form. Altering a quote for simple fear of how readers might perceive it and its speaker simply provides an injustice to both the speaker and the reader and inserts the reporter’s bias into the story…not exactly a good thing.
While this alteration may be done out of a journalist’s hope to avoid highlighting a stereotype and embarrassing the source, it is still an infringement on the reader’s right to interpret and attach meaning and/or judgment to a quote on their own. Reporters simply need to cut out the practice of altering quotes altogether, there is simply no excuse for it. Altering quotes merely provides a disservice to all those involved and degrades the strong base of ethics from which good journalism draws its credibility
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Yellow Journalism: Making a comeback?
Making headlines this past week was a massive recall of tainted beef. Found to be contaminated with E. coli bacteria, the U.S. Department of Agriculture eventually ordered the recall of over 21.7 million pounds of ground beef products processed by the Topps Company.
One of the largest meat recalls in recent years, it’s safe to say that Upton Sinclair would be rolling in his grave over this one. While Sinclair’s The Jungle may seem particularly pertinent in regards to this week’s news, another facet of that foregone era seems to have stolen it’s way back to the presses as well. It may just be me, or do the words yellow, and journalism come to mind?
A quick glance at the bevy of articles covering the recall can’t help but uncover a yellow tinge infiltrating the coverage. Inflammatory titles and overstated warnings seem as if to prey upon the concerned shopper, and harkens back to the days of Ida Tarbell and her gang of fellow muckrakers.
One such article covering the recall is an ABC News piece. It’s obvious, that from the beginning, the piece is intended to be an inflammatory one. Shocking the reader with quotes from “concerned shoppers” along the lines of “It almost cost me my life” and “I didn’t want a silly burger to kill me.” Such quotes are clearly thrown into the piece for shock value alone, and in reality, do not paint the most accurate picture for the reader, which in my opinion constitutes a major journalistic error. While sure these quotes may deserve to be in the article, they should not be its entire focus when there still lay other facts and viewpoints to be reported. Nevertheless, the quotes the article utilized did give it a more personal aspect as well, placing the reader in their shoes.
However, a piece run in the New York Times regarding the recall took quite a different approach. Instead of printing a sensationalized article highlighting the dangers and risks the recalled meat poses for consumers, the Times delivered a well-rounded and informative piece that even without the overwrought quotes, gave the reader a very personal view of the coverage as well. With observations such as “Yesterday, garage doors at the company’s plant were shut, and the window blinds were pulled down,” the article is still able to deliver a personal touch to the coverage without compromising the article’s integrity. In stark contrast to the ABC News article, the Times piece shines as an example of good honest reporting, that while informative, gives the reader a personal sense of the issue at hand as well.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
How much is too much?
In the wake of recent scandals such as Britney’s custody battle, and the enduring one-man media legacy that is O. J. Simpson, one must ask themselves a seemingly simple question, “How much is too much?” Does the media focus too much attention on these impractical people and events, drawing them out to no end, or are they merely doing their jobs as journalists? While sure, these celebrity headlines may be considered newsworthy, if not only for the enormous curiosity they stir, but does this truly warrant the excessive amount of coverage they indeed receive?
In my not so humble opinion, I consider it flat-out shameful the amount of attention that these events receive in the media. In all honesty, what of real value can we actually extract from a three hundred word article on Britney’s purported drug abuse, or a three minute sound byte recounting O.J.’s most recent mishap with the law? I’m willing to go out on a limb and say not a whole lot.
Whether or not this is entirely the media’s fault is open to question, however. It’s a bit of the chicken and the egg scenario when one considers whether the media merely reacts to the public’s obsession with prominence and fame, or if in fact the media was actually responsible for fostering this obsession to begin with.
A Pew research project found that fully 87 percent of the public believed that celebrity scandals are the focus of too much coverage by the media, though only a slim majority, 54 percent, actually attribute the blame to news organizations. Regardless of the actual reality of the situation, the outcome is still unfortunately the same—an endless torrent of mindless celebrity-crazed babble.
Nevertheless, when everything is boiled down, sadly, one must come to the realization that, media driven or not, there is a huge market, and an even larger demand for the trivial details regarding the private lives of the prominent figures of our society. Since when did we forget our mothers’ advice to be polite and mind our own business?
In my not so humble opinion, I consider it flat-out shameful the amount of attention that these events receive in the media. In all honesty, what of real value can we actually extract from a three hundred word article on Britney’s purported drug abuse, or a three minute sound byte recounting O.J.’s most recent mishap with the law? I’m willing to go out on a limb and say not a whole lot.
Whether or not this is entirely the media’s fault is open to question, however. It’s a bit of the chicken and the egg scenario when one considers whether the media merely reacts to the public’s obsession with prominence and fame, or if in fact the media was actually responsible for fostering this obsession to begin with.
A Pew research project found that fully 87 percent of the public believed that celebrity scandals are the focus of too much coverage by the media, though only a slim majority, 54 percent, actually attribute the blame to news organizations. Regardless of the actual reality of the situation, the outcome is still unfortunately the same—an endless torrent of mindless celebrity-crazed babble.
Nevertheless, when everything is boiled down, sadly, one must come to the realization that, media driven or not, there is a huge market, and an even larger demand for the trivial details regarding the private lives of the prominent figures of our society. Since when did we forget our mothers’ advice to be polite and mind our own business?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)