The American Pit bull Examiner has been shut down by a 1%'er with nothing better to do

One of our supporters has written an insightful piece about Rhonda Shearer who is the mastermind behind Imediaethics..the group who worked with Amsterdog to take down all American Pit Bull Examiner life saving stories.

Complete blog:

The American Pit bull Examiner has been shut down by a 1%'er with nothing better to do with her wealth than destroy a writer who spends the majority of her time trying to save Pibbles.

Apparently the author being attacked by Plutocrat "Rhonda Roland Shearer" made the terrible mistake of publishing a story about a dog on death row 3-4 hours after the dog was allegedly adopted by Shearer. That's right, HOURS.

I guess the author was supposed to sit at her computer and keep hitting the refresh tab on the Shelter page every 60 seconds until the Examiner actually published the story?

The Examiner canned the author, Cindy Marabito, and deleted ALL her Rescue stories, when the Plutocrat's pet oxymoron "iMediaEthics" started threatening to bludgeon the Examiner's Serfs with expensive lawyers.

It did not matter that Marabito wasn't aware of the fact that the dog had been pulled, and updated her story as soon as she found out. No one has mentioned how long the Examiner Editors held her story before publishing it either. Didn't matter... a rich person was offended, so heads must roll.

Showing all the empathy of Dexter in drag, Shearer completely ignored the fact that we, as Rescuers, are in a frantic battle to save as many furry lives as we can, as fast as we can. Yes, we do make mistakes, basically because we're actually DOING something, while people like Shearer sit in their ivory towers and criticize our efforts.

Rhonda R. Shearer lives in New York, a state that slaughters 10's of thousands of Pit Bulls in "Shelters" every year. Instead of addressing this horror, Shearer decided to use the power of her obscene wealth to annihilate one of the few outlets to salvation these poor furbabies had.

We live in a world where People of Color are being murdered with reckless abandon, and the Media twists the story seven ways from Sunday. Our corporate owned Media is so corrupt you can't sling a cat in a newsroom without slapping a lie in the face.

So Shearer and "i Media Ethics" choose to "Expose" the heinous wrong of unknowingly posting a story, written to save the life of a condemned dog, 4 hours after the dog was saved.

Oh yeah, sounds legit.

Rhonda Shearer epitomizes much of what is wrong in our society....people who use their massive riches to BULLY people who make less in a year than they spend on a new dress. Rhonda Shearer is a Marie Antoinette of the Internet.

This time her victims are dogs. Dogs who are going to die because she had a huge Affluent Blond Privilege snit and killed The American Pit bull Examiner.

I rarely pass on petitions, but the one below is worthy. Please tell The Examiner that we need The American Pit bull Examiner back, and please let the media know that Rhonda Shearer is being a grey poupon azzhat.

We must use our thumbs to defend those who have none. Please call, email and sign...not necessary in that order.

pressoffice@cityhall.nyc.gov
(212) 788-2958

news-tips@nytimes.com
1‑844‑698‑6397

AEG Corporate Headquarters (owns The Examiner)
(213) 763-7700
legal@examiner.com

Disclaimer- I represent no one but myself. These are my opinions. If you don't like them, I have more.

Their libelous piece is being promoted by hate groups and the very high kill NYC Shelter System..these groups do not want the truth exposed about mass companion animal slaughter and pit bulls.

Bettie Ashby - Bettie Ashby shared a post. | Facebook

Bettie Ashby shared a post.

HTTP://WWW.FACEBOOK.COM
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1707113499502059&id=434500310077521

https://www.change.org/p/demand-investigation-into-american-pit-bull-examiner-shut-down/u/15411150?tk=Gmd_5ua4k1Ztp3EsbcLxm7wpdgCQPllkRWG827E2Rkw&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email

Ethics and Social Media: Where Should You Draw The Line?

A recent survey shed light on the ethics of frequent social networkers.

Sharlyn Lauby

As social media usage continues to rise, it’s only natural that statistic correlations will be made about the individuals who use the medium. This isn’t a bad thing; it’s common to deep-dive into demographic information and behavioral data. While there will always be exceptions to the "correlations" that emerge from such data, universal truths about social networking usage and user behavior can be valuable.

The Ethics Resource Center (ERC) is the oldest non-profit organization in the U.S. dedicated to independent research and advancement of high ethical standards and practices in both public and private institutions. Since 1994, the ERC has produced the National Business Ethics Survey (NBES), available for free to the public, to gather information about employees’ perspectives of ethics in the workplace. Dr. Patricia J. Harned, president of the ERC, says the NBES is the only longitudinal study that represents the views of the U.S. workforce in business.

The ERC’s latest report is one of the first to explore the possible connection between ethics and social media. “Social networking has become very important in our culture, and we wondered if the technology is influencing employees’ views about ethics at work," Harned explains. "Additionally, over the past few years, we have seen companies establish policies concerning social networking in the workplace, so this year it seemed fitting to add questions on the topic.”

National Business Ethics Survey results

One of the most fascinating conclusions in the report is that "active social networkers show a higher tolerance for activities that could be considered unethical." But Harned says the findings are not an indictment about the character of social networkers: “It appears that they are more willing to consider things that are ‘gray areas’ – issues that are not always clear in company policies as wrong; and that’s an area for further study.”

The report also points out that active social networkers are at higher risk for observing misconduct. Harned stresses that it's observing wrongdoing, not necessarily participating in it. “You could also look at another set of our responses – particularly the high number of active social networkers who reported misconduct – and say that social networkers behaved appropriately,” she explains.

Defining ethics and influence Factors

In order to understand any potential connection between ethics and social networks, it only makes sense to step back and discuss what ethical behavior means. Jay Shepherd, author of the book Firing at Will: A Manager’s Guide, sums up unethical behavior with a sentence.

“It’s like pornography: You know it when you see it. It’s as simple as knowing the right thing to do, then doing the wrong thing.”

Harned adds that perceptions of ethics are influenced by many things. “One influence is the values that we learn as children. But another aspect is the influence of people along the way in our lives," she says. "It could be that there is something about the conversations and the world view that comes through the connections of social networks that influences employees’ views about what is right and wrong.”

Is there a logical connection between ethics and social media?

There is some skepticism about trying to draw conclusions about ethics based upon social networking usage. Shepherd suggests the study perpetuates old-school thinking. “The idea that social networkers are more apt to be unethical is absurd. It’s just that you’re more likely to hear about it. In my experience, social media participants are likely to be more advanced in terms of relationships and thoughtfulness – not less.”

One definition in the study that drew attention was the classification of “active social networker” as one who "spends 30% or more of their work day participating on various social network sites.” Shepherd says his reaction was, “Seriously? That’s a ridiculous amount of time. Those employees aren’t even working; who cares what they think?”

Maybe it’s exactly this time-wasting factor that creates the perception toward connecting social networking and ethics. Dwane Lay, human resources director at Missouri Baptist Medical Center, also feels the connection might not be directly causal. “Social media tools are the latest in a long line of time-stealers in the workplace, following in the footsteps of March Madness brackets, afternoon golf games, morning water cooler gossip or cigarette breaks," Lay explains. "But social media like Twitter and Facebook are more visible from a distance (of both time and space), so they are easier to criticize and quantify.”

Should ethics blend into social policies?

Both ethics and social media are important in the workplace, so the question becomes: What is the best way to manage them? Should they be treated as two distinct conversations? Or should ethics be addressed in social media policies? Shepherd recommends keeping it simple. “My social media policy is just two words but covers everything: ‘Be professional.’ Unprofessional employees are going to act unethically whether or not they’re plugged in to social media.”

Kristen Fyfe, senior communications manager at training and development association ASTD, points out the component that both ethics and social media must have in common to be successful. “Clarity is the most effective element for both ethics and social media policies," Fyfe says. "Companies that have not incorporated behavior expectations into their employee handbooks should make that a top priority.”

Ensuring both ethics compliance and social media success

Whether you choose to incorporate ethics into your social media policy or handle the topics independently, there’s agreement that setting expectations, conducting training and holding people accountable is necessary. Lay shares some practical advice on how to ensure employees are in compliance with corporate ethics, but it really applies to any policy, including social media.

“First of all, read the policy. Not fun, granted, but educational," he says. "Second, remember that if you identify yourself as a member of a company or organization, you are always on stage. Act like it. How you respond online will have as much or more resonance than in person, so either be on your best behavior or don’t act as a brand advocate.”

More questions than answers

Perhaps there aren’t any definitive conclusions about ethics and social media usage. After all, social networking is still in its relative infancy in the workplace. But we’re learning that social influence exists, and its true impact is just coming to the surface. Further exploration across the social landscape is needed.

What do you think? Are social networking and ethics connected in some way? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

Dig Deeper:

OpenForum

Rescue Watch closes comments to followers after being threatened with removal from Facebook

Rescue Watch seems to have some sort of misunderstanding of how this Facebook page works, it's a place for people to post profiles and pages they think are fake and we investigate, no where on that page do the owner or the admins advise anyone to report or block people  the page was created to expose fakes.

Rescue-Watch We want to point out that the folks over at American Pit Bull ExamineR are posting direct links to the profiles of those who vocally disagreed with them and are asking for others, who have had no dealings with the posted individuals to report them as fake accounts. Real professional organization they're running over there.https://www.facebook.com/Report-Fake-Fbook-Accs.../...

Report Fake F'book Acc's

Community

137 Likes

5 talking about this

1 · 20 hrs

While every post on this page may not be a fake but there is generally one common denominator they're all cyber bully's as Rescue Watch seems to be if some of your supporters feature on the page they can easily go to the page and make the page aware bitching and moaning and telling lies has nearly got your page taken down and I notice you've closed your comments to everyone as you obviously can't trust your followers to not get your page taken down with their bullying and lies?

Rescue-Watch Please understand, our page is at risk of being unpublished for good.

16 hrs

Please remove the comment featuring the Report Fake Facebook Profiles page and the accompanying lies thank you very much and an apology would be nice but I'm not expecting one as bully's rarely acknowledge their mistakes or their victims?


more to come......

Improving Public Dialogue

Jerry Ceppos

Freedom of the press is one of our cherished rights.

But so is freedom to criticize the press. Just yesterday, I read the following criticism, with which many of you will agree: "Our newspapers every day are loaded with accidents, casualties and crimes concerning people of whom we never heard before and never shall hear again, the reading of which is of no earthly use to any human being. "What is news? What is it that an intelligent public should care to hear about?"

Sound familiar? It should. Those words were spoken on Sept. 6, 1881, when one Charles Dudley Warner presented a paper to the Social Science Association. My point in quoting Mr. Warner somewhat belatedly is to prove that media criticism—I suppose that it would have been press criticism in his time because there weren't many media—that press criticism is an old and honorable exercise.

But I also found Mr. Warner's two questions provocative. First, he asked, "What is news?," a question that journalists love to debate. Next he asked, "What is it that an intelligent public should care to hear about?," a question for that public.

It seems to me that those two questions give us a framework, perhaps a new one, on which to build a look at media ethics. I want to argue that, yes, the media have very significant ethical responsibilities. But an ethical public also bears some responsibilities, which we usually don't talk about. Talking about journalists but not readers is a little like talking about elected officials without mentioning voters. So let's talk tonight about the ethical responsibilities of both the journalist and the public.

For the journalist, four ethical responsibilities:

1) Tell the public what you do—when you do it, not a few days later. Years ago, after lots of deliberation, the San Jose Mercury News ran a front-page picture of Richard Allen Davis, the killer of Polly Klaas. He was making an obscene gesture after being convicted by a San Jose jury. The Mercury News explained—on the front page just beneath the picture—what had gone into the decision. The paper also invited readers to tell how they felt about the decision. About 900 responses later, readers overwhelmingly endorsed the decision because they understood it. On the other hand, many readers condemned other Bay Area newspapers that also published the picture on their front pages-but didn't explain their decisions.

Just imagine if newspapers of the 1800s had told Charles Dudley Warner why they ran all of those crime stories. More recently, imagine if the Los Angeles Times had explained at the time why it was reporting on allegations against Arnold Schwarzenegger rather than waiting until the Sunday afterward to explain. Better yet, ask for reader reaction. Of course, implicit in that suggestion is the thought that journalists will listen once they ask.

In summary, transparency—the good kind of transparency—should be the name of the game: Explain why you do what you do.

2) If you're a journalist, watch out for what I call drive-by shootings of newsmakers. Before I cite an example, I should say that I've been impressed by the Mercury News' aggressive coverage of the case of a local judge accused of misconduct. But in the 23rd and last paragraph of one story, the Mercury News wrote, "'People have been talking about Bill Danser for years now, but everyone was absolutely shocked when word came out that a grand jury was investigating him,'' said one longtime prosecutor....'' You shouldn't let anonymous sources opine that "people have been talking." Likewise, even careless word choices can cause the same kind of unintended pain…

3) Which leads to a third ethical rule for journalists: How will all of the stakeholders view the way they're being portrayed? Does the story make an effort to look at issues and conflicts from the standpoint of each affected individual or group? Incidentally, to give credit where it's due, I should point out that the Mercury News has handed out laminated cards to its staff members enumerating those questions and others.

4) If you're in charge of a newsroom, decriminalize corrections rather than punishing the offender. Praise reporters who volunteer that they've made errors in their stories. Run more corrections rather than fewer. Some very good editors try each year to publish fewer corrections than the year before, thinking that suggests better efforts at accuracy. The goal should be to ferret out more errors. It is impossible not to make mistakes—perhaps many mistakes—in a newspaper with 50 or 60 or 70 or 80 pages and probably thousands of pieces of information.

Incidentally, my favorite correction ran late last year in the New York Times. Remember that it was last year, 2002. The correction read, "An article on Nov. 28, 1994, about the science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke and his home in Sri Lanka misstated the surname of a University of Tennessee law professor who nominated the writer that year for the Nobel Peace Prize.... The professor is Glenn Harlan Reynolds, not Roberts. A reader recently brought the error to the Times' attention.'' A nine-year-old correction is bizarre in itself. But there's a more important point: The Times had made an error and felt a responsibility to correct it, even nine years later. It even explained why the correction suddenly appeared.

Finally, I'm tempted to ask, When was the last time that you heard a correction on radio or TV or saw one on the Internet? But that would be a lost cause, which is quite remarkable in itself.

So, four ethical points for journalists:

• Practice transparency, the good kind.
• Watch out for drive-by assassinations by anonymous quote or ill-chosen word.
• Consider how each of the stakeholders will feel.
• And decriminalize corrections at newspapers and someday at other media.

Now, four ethical points for citizens:

1) Read or listen to news from a variety of sources, even if you don't agree with them. The New Yorkerrecently quoted an Associated Press story about how President Bush gets his news. "Bush said he insulates himself from 'opinions' that seep into news coverage by getting his news from his own aides. He said he scans headlines but rarely reads news stories. 'I appreciate people's opinions, but I'm more interested in news,' the president said. 'And the best way to get the news is from objective sources, and the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world.'"

I respectfully would say that I wish my boss used me as his only source about what's happening in my company's newsrooms. But he seems to think that may not be the best way to get the news. He's right. Remember that the authors of the Bill of Rights presumed that lively debate leads to informed decisions about the way we should be governed. That debate, and the subsequent good decisions, are at risk when citizens listen only to the news that they want to hear....

2) Which leads to the second ethical responsibility of citizens: Tell journalists when you think they're wrong. There is nothing worse than hearing that someone in the news or that someone you know criticized your newspaper-but not to you. That's effectively what happened as Jayson Blair's career was unraveling at the New York Times. We now learn that the subjects of some of his stories knew that he had made up facts but didn't say anything because they presumed that's how the media work. How in the world will those media improve if its customers don't react, or interact? We're all in this together....aren't we?

3) The third responsibility of citizens: Read or listen to the serious news. I am not one of those "pure" journalists who worried about too many celebrities being in the news. I'll read about J. Lo, and I don't mind if you do. But I find it incredibly depressing when readers ignore a lot of serious news even if we spiff it up and make it interesting and relevant.

4) Finally, read the editorial page. Again, this is uniquely a print animal. Editorials almost have disappeared from TV and radio. It's a newspaper's responsibility to lead the community with interesting, timely, accessible local editorials. It is your responsibility to read and react to them.

So, four responsibilities for citizens:

• Read or listen to the news even if you don't agree with it..
• Give journalists feedback.
• Read or listen to the serious news.
• Read the editorials.

Imagine the possibilities if journalists and citizens alike agreed on their ethical responsibilities.

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/journalism-ethics/resources/improving-public-dialogue/

Applying standards: media owners and journalism ethics

Eugene L. Meyer

Source: 

Center for International Media Assistance

Owning Institution: 

National Endowment for Democracy

Link to Resource

This report examines the inherent conflict of interest many media owners face in placing responsibility for content above their commercial interests and how this affects the practice of journalism in countries where independent news media already face challenges.

Recent focus in global discussions of media ethics has been on establishing and raising standards for rank-andfile journalists, including reporters and lower or mid-level editors. But there is a nascent effort to refocus a critical lens on the proprietors of media.

When it comes to codes of ethics for media owners, the traditional organizations concerning themselves with ethics in journalism have been noticeably silent. Scan the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) code of ethics, considered the gold standard in the United States, or the brief, but global code of principles of the International Federation of Journalists and you will not find “media owners” or proprietors mentioned anywhere. Perhaps it is assumed that one size fits all. But does it?

Focus on media owners is a relatively recent phenomenon in the twenty-first century, but it is not entirely new. In the United States, reformers in the early decades of the twentieth century aimed their criticism at the “press lords” who owned large newspapers and chains. These critics emerged from the Progressive Era and, later, from the Great Depression-spawned social movements of the 1930s.

More recent criticism has focused on ownership concentration and the perceived evils of media monopolies stifling competition. A market with less concentration, the argument has gone, encourages pluralism and has at least the potential to offer diverse voices and more of what has come to be called “accountability journalism.” In 2002, prominent journalists called for media boards of directors to include working journalists to balance corporate responsibility with social responsibility in coverage. The idea created some buzz among media theorists but went nowhere.

In Western democratic societies there exists an inherent conflict of interest as ownership has shifted from private to public, with corporate boards that must, by law, respond first and foremost to their shareholders. Thus, even media corporations with high ethical standards reflected in their content have been forced to sell to abide by their fiduciary responsibility. Champions of private local ownership over the larger publicly-traded corporate model are vocal, but the evidence of one method being superior to the other is contradictory. In either case, conflicts over the interests of owners–whether large corporations or private parties–and journalistic values persist.

In countries where news media are considered less free, the conflict is even more troublesome. While several codes in these countries call for media owners to place responsibility for content above their commercial interests, the reality is that when promulgated by governments they can threaten rather than enhance freedom of the press. When voluntary, they are little more than aspirational.

Thus, some view the very notion of codes of ethics for media owners as potentially dangerous as well as ineffective. Nonetheless, media funders and implementers are urged to assist groups that seek to hold media owners accountable for the sins of omission and commission that occur in the publications, broadcast networks, and other media they own and control. As the funding of public-interest journalism becomes more challenging, notions of corporate social responsibility and good governance in management of media become more relevant and confidence-building actions that will encourage change across the ownership landscape, old and new, are urgently needed.

http://apo.org.au/resource/applying-standards-media-owners-and-journalism-ethics

North America: United States Code of Ethics of the Media Council

Current Status: unknown

Explanatory note

The purpose of distributing news and informed opinion is to serve the general welfare. Journalists who use their professional status as representatives of the public for selfish or other unworthy motives violate a high trust. Journalists uphold the right to speak unpopular opinions and privilege to agree with the majority while at the same time respecting the will of the minority. A journalist shall at all times defend the principle of the freedom of the press in relation to the collection of information and the expression of comment and criticism. Council members therefore agree to abide by the following ethics.

Code of ethics

1 - The public has the right to know the truth. Therefore journalists have a duty to report the truth either as representing objective reality or representing what the source says fairly, accurately and objectively.

2 - Newspaper headlines should be fully warranted by the contents of the articles they accompany. Photographs and telecasts should give an accurate picture of an event and not highlight an incident out of context.

3 - Journalists should respect the confidentiality of sources to whom they have pledged anonymity.

4 - Only fair methods should be used to obtain news, photographs and documents except where overriding public interest justifies the use of other means.

5 - Journalists should regard as grave professional offence, the acceptance of bribes in any form in consideration of either dissemination or suppression of information.

6 - Journalists shall rectify promptly any harmful inaccuracies, ensure that correction and apologies receive due prominence and afford the right of reply to persons criticised when the issue is of sufficient importance.

7 - Journalists shall be aware of the danger of discrimination being furthered by the media, and shall do the utmost to avoid facilitating such discrimination based on among other things, race, sex, religious, political or other opinions of national or social origins.

8 - Secondary employment, political involvement, holding public office, and service in community organisations should be avoided if it compromises the integrity of journalists and their employers. Journalists and their employers should conduct their personal lives in a manner that protects them from conflict of interest, real or apparent. Their responsibilities to the public are paramount.

9 - Plagiarism is dishonest and unacceptable.

10 - Journalists must respect the moral and cultural values of the Zambian society. Journalists should respect people’s privacy unless when public interest demands otherwise.

http://accountablejournalism.org/ethics-codes/US-Media-Council

Media Ethics: Some Specific Problems. ERIC Digest.

The decade of the 1970s gave rise to a reinvigorated press. Such scandals as Watergate and the Pentagon Papers case renewed the spirit of "investigative journalism," and created in many young people a desire to pursue careers as reporters.

In the 1980s, incidents occurred and new technologies appeared which together raised questions about the ethical values of American journalists. This digest seeks to identify some of those ethical issues and to point to the work of those who have studied these issues

IMAGINARY ADDICTS AND A TELEVISED SUICIDE

Washington Post reporter Janet Cooke received the 1981 Pulitzer Prize for her feature story, "Jimmy's World," the account of an eight-year old, tenement-bound heroin addict. Publication of the story set off widespread demands for the government to do more about the scourge of drugs in society. A few days after Cooke accepted the Pulitzer, it became evident that she had made up the story.

In detailing the events of the Janet Cooke incident, David L. Eason focuses on the pressures which may have led Cooke to concoct her report (Eason, 1986). Eason theorizes that Cooke, a young, black, female reporter, may have felt compelled to give the liberal, white, male editors of the Post exactly what they seemed to demand: stories portraying the horrors of ghetto life. In Eason's view, the editors would not have sent out one of their own (i.e., a male white reporter) into the urban slums to obtain details of life there. As such, the paper made itself overly dependent on material supplied by inexperienced reporters like Cooke.


Eason sees the end of the Cooke story as taking on mythical trappings. Established journalism, in the role of the defender of the faith, ultimately cast out the violator of its moral code. Cooke's ostracism from the profession was seen, at least by many within the established press, as a necessary step in the protection of the standards of truthfulness and accuracy in journalism.


One incident in which journalism could not so easily assume a mantle of purity was the suicide of Pennsylvania state treasurer R. Budd Dwyer. On January 22, 1987 Dwyer, who had been convicted of racketeering and mail fraud, called a news conference. As the TV cameras rolled and the reporters awaited the official's anticipated resignation announcement, Dwyer pulled out a revolver and ended his life. Some of Pennsylvania's television and radio stations broadcast only partial recordings of the event; one TV station ran the entire tape of the suicide. As Matviko (1988) points out, those media outlets that declined to carry the entire suicide took a somewhat holier-than-thou stance regarding the incident. The station that showed its viewers the shooting was defensive about its editorial decision. Interestingly, a survey of more than 800 viewers showed that members of the public were fairly evenly divided between those who supported the decision to carry the shooting in its entirety (46%) and those who opposed the choice (54%).

MEDIA ETHICS AND THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES

With the 1980s came new developments in the manner in which information was presented to the public. Photographic methods improved, enabling newspapers and magazines to show to their readers images that reflected an "improved" vision of reality. But as is true of many new techniques and inventions, the advancements in photography raised ethical questions. Some of these issues were addressed by Shiela Reaves in her article, "Digital Alteration of Photographs in Magazines: An Examination of the Ethics" (1989).

As Reaves explains, new computer processes permit editors to alter the content of photographic images. Colors can be controlled, and objects or people can be removed from or added to pictures. Furthermore, if the changes are made carefully, they are virtually undetectable. To confuse the issue, negatives can be manufactured from an altered image to create "proof" that the photograph represents reality. The ethical issue is obvious: how far can photo editors take the alteration process while still purporting to present to readers a genuine image?

Reaves asked twelve magazine editors about their publications' practices with respect to computer enhancement of photographs. The editors unanimously claimed that they would refuse to apply the technique to news photographs. One respondent labeled such retouching "never...morally justifiable."

While the editors decried tampering with news photographs, most of them saw no ethical difficulty in adjusting the backgrounds of cover photographs to fit headlines and so on. Some also saw nothing wrong with deleting stray objects from pictures.

Reaves found that non-news magazines freely adjust elements of photographs for the best possible presentation. For instance, a home decorating publication might delete an unattractive curtain from the window of an otherwise "picture-perfect" home. A food magazine might erase a cigarette butt from a plateful of the consummate holiday feast.

MEDIA ETHICS AND CODES OF CONDUCT

What happens when a reporter derives personal gain or allows others to achieve such gain from his inside information about his organization's publication plans? Stories in the prestigious Wall Street Journal have frequently helped determine the success or failure of a business venture. During the 1980s, a Journal reporter was found to have contributed to insider trading by passing tips along as to when his paper would carry stories about firms. This event was mentioned in an especially thought-provoking article by Robert E. Drechsel entitled "The Legal Risks of Social Responsibility" (1987). Drechsel suggests that in such cases as the Journal incident, the existence of an internal policy or code of ethics could backfire on a news organization. In Drechsel's view, a party alleging that a news organization has committed libel (or in the insider trading case, a government prosecutor alleging that a reporter has practiced insider trading) can point to the code of ethics as a standard of care for the organization. For example, if a newspaper's policy required double confirmation of facts, a person alleging that a story was printed in disregard of its truth or falsity could point to the lack of a second confirmation as "proof" of such disregard.

First, such standards are inconsistent with the notion of an unregulated press as envisioned by the First Amendment. As the authors suggest, protection of a free press is but a facet of protection of everyone's free expression. Each person best develops as an individual and a citizen if he or she is free to obtain whatever information may contribute to that growth. Governmental control of the media, or even self-imposed regulations to which all reporters must comply, limits the flow of such information.

Black and Barney's second argument against ethical codes for the news profession emerges from the difference between what they label "moral philosophy" and mere "moralizing." The authors suggest that a genuine moral philosophy evolves within the reporter as that person gains experience. On the other hand, codes merely advise as to the industry's view of what is appropriate behavior. The codes remove the need for reporters to become what Black and Barney refer to as "professional philosophers" who are capable of making their own decisions about what is right and wrong.

If codes of ethics are ineffective means of securing good journalistic practices, what would work better? John C. Merrill offers one answer in the title of his essay, "Good Reporting Can Be a Solution to Ethics Problem" (1987). Merrill would set the standard of ethical journalism at simply expecting the reporter to write a good story. As he sees it, expecting the journalist to expound upon the ramifications of an event is empty moralizing. Merrill would also call upon reporters to abandon the claim of objectivity (an obviously unobtainable goal) for an admitted subjectivity which the reporters constantly work to overcome.

Journalists themselves accept Merrill's view that objectivity equals ethicality, but they see objectivity as a reasonable goal. When Merrill asked 50 reporters and 50 journalism educators whether an accurate story is an ethical story (Merrill, 1985), 64% of the reporters agreed. Conversely, only about half as many of the educators took the same position. Almost all of the journalists had faith in the possibility of objective journalism, while almost all of the educators negated that possibility.

http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9213/media.htm