May 14, 2008
Digital manipulation
The problem of digital manipulation is a tricky one. Like Kittross said, photographers have always been able to choose angles and lighting to paint a certain picture. The same is true of writers or broadcasters or anyone else in any medium. I like the idea of teaching consumers to be critical of everything they see - not to the point of being too skeptical, but understanding the process of photography and knowing what you can trust.
Of course there's no guideline for "what you can trust." Even before we had digital tools, there were ways to alter photos. I do think there is a place for these tools in the media - even the news media. They just have to be used as truthfully as possible. Even adding in a cutline, for example, how the image was altered to make someone's face clearer or to burn two images to show a panorama. Just as long as consumers are not being deceived, I don't have a problem with it.
The key lies in determining what is being done for the good of consumers in the name of truth. I can't imagine a specific guideline to put in place. The only thing would be to keep in mind basic ethical principles on a case-by-case basis.
Posted by herzog at 11:03 AM | 213 Words |
May 6, 2008
Diversity and Media
I tend to agree more with Gordon on the issue of diversity. I do think special efforts must be made to at least consider the impact of your work. I understand Kittross's explanation of needing to find a "center" through which to operate in mass media, but I think that center can very easily be skewed when you're not considering as many groups of people as you can. It's human nature to to understand the world through your own perspective and experiences. The media, like many other things, is still controlled mostly by white men. If those controlling the media subconsciously consider their own experience and perspective as having more weight (as humans tend to do), then that center is going to be too close to the white male experience, and not the experience of the entire public.
That being said, without diversifying your working operation, you will miss certain groups or misrepresent groups out of a lack of knowledge. I still think making an effort to represent all groups will lead to a more accurate representation of the entire human experience as you are presenting it. Someone will always be left out - our world is too diverse - but you can at least attempt to make your coverage as all-inclusive as possible.
Posted by herzog at 3:45 PM | 214 Words |
April 25, 2008
Media & Diversity
Once again a fence-sitter, I seem to mostly agree with Merrill’s commentary fusing both Gordon and Kittross’ ideas. In a dream world, pleasing every constituency would be ideal. However, there are far too many special interests to even understand, let alone represent. It is still important to be aware of any representations or lack of representation that could impose harm on a group. Discriminating against a group is clearly unethical, but so is portraying, say women as only tall, thin, and beautiful. This kind of behavior can lead to people in those groups finding the need to change, or even harm themselves. I suppose what I am trying to get at is that media producers must understand that what they create is what the nation/world views as normal or true. They have an ethical responsibility to portray as much diversity as they can to truly reflect the “real world”. As pointed out by Gordon, not only is this the ethical thing to do, but the whole nature of the business is to serve a diverse society, which would require that their perspectives are reflected.
While it is important not to be grossly ignorant of other lifestyles, it is also important to remember that we are all part of a larger community, the human community in which “we have more similarities than differences.” We must be careful not to identify more with a particular group than with the country as a whole. That too is a responsibility of the media. Along with Merrill, I too agree that the media cannot please everyone, so their only choice is to do their best. They should avoid ignorance and promote diversity while simultaneously promoting national and human pride as well.
Posted by asmithpaulson at 7:08 PM | 286 Words |
April 23, 2008
diversity in the media
I think that no matter what, the issue of diversity or lack thereof, in our media, entertainment, and news alike, is always going to be a hot issue. This probably has to do with the fact that it is impossible, yes, impossible to fairly and accurately portray any and every race, gender, age, social class, geographic location, religion, etc. Stereotypes have been used in the past to tell a story without having to spend the time to explain who each person is. They have been used for convenience for years. But with that comes offense. And it should. The question is how can the media perform without using some stereotypes? I don't really think it's possible to make everyone happy. And I don't really think we should bend over backward to try to please everyone. As far as entertainment goes, offensive stereotypes should be used sparingly. In news the journalists need to accurately portray their community. I think that diversity is a tough issue, and the ought gets lost. We ought to be accurate and fair. But when something is so hard to actually do...ought gets puts to the side as impossible.
Posted by jduren at 8:37 PM | 192 Words |
April 22, 2008
Josh - Chapter 7
I think as long as media is controlled by anyone other than the people it will be in some way jaded by the views of those who fund it, and accordingly their agenda. The stereotypes that can be seen in both today's and past media are fueled by a need for familiarity between the show and the audience. This familiarity increases viewers because they can relate. The show is then produced because it makes money. Why make a show about a black family in the ghetto and target it to suburban america? Hopefully in the coming years media consumption will switch from television and radio to the internet, where a greater diversity of shows will be allowed a bigger audience. This is already happening with hulu, joost, current, etc., but I think the real push will occur when these services are delivered to the television in a method that my grandmother could understand (think set-top box, i.e. tivo). Hopefully then, with user-produced content, we will begin to see media as it should be, which is user-produced and more highly rated/consumed based on its relevance, rather than what demographic it serves.
Posted by jchamberlain at 1:33 PM | 193 Words |
April 21, 2008
BYOC, Bring your own cup
Privacy is obviously an important commodity that we are eroding with our advances and dependence on technology. Touching on the subject of hidden cameras, I strongly feel that businesses should have nothing to hide. Naturally they always do.
If a hidden camera were to reveal unethical behaviors on the part of the business then they should pay the costs of having them exposed for the public to see. A tarnished reputation is exactly what they deserve for putting the public’s health at risk. An example that comes to mind is the piece on hotel room drinking glasses.
Hidden camera reporting by Fox Atlanta revealed that certain hotels which are part of or affiliated with certain chains have a habit of not cleaning the drinking glasses that are provided for the guests in their rooms. Footage consistently shows the cleaning staff spraying down the bathroom with a bottle of industrial grade cleaner and then finishes by “washing” the cups with the same chemicals in the sink.
Don’t you wish you knew that in the past? I sure wish I did...
Would the hotel have told you straight up that they don’t send the cups through a dishwasher but instead relied on wiping them with glass cleaner? I don’t think so.
In defense a former staff wrote on a blog entry concerning this matter, “If hotels provided us with adequate time, they would be much much cleaner.”
People deserve privacy, but businesses surely don’t. If the health inspector is the only check for businesses then they will just continue on with unethical behavior. The media has the power to make sure that corporations have nothing to hide. It is up to them to ignore sponsorship deals and crack down on our corrupt and greedy corporations.
Posted by apong at 9:51 PM | 293 Words | | TrackBack (0)
Diversity
Representation on television has always been somewhat lacking. Traditional white families have been a staple of American television since the '50s. And even though recently more diversity has popped up in shows and film, we still have far to go to be truly representative of other races and cultures.
Although I definitely believe that the entertainment industry should try and expand its representations in the media, I do agree with Kittross that we shouldn't just increase diversity in media just for the sake of meeting quotas and percentiles. That would probably do more disservice than actually improving representation on tv. Most people tend to write what they know, so if the majority of a writing staff is white and male, they may not write or create diverse characters that accurately portray minorities. I feel the solution to this problem is that studios need to start hiring more diverse writers to create shows and film. I think the success in this can be seen in such as Grey's Anatomy, which was created by an African American woman, and Ugly Betty, which is executive produced by Silvio Horta. These shows have expertly created a cast of diverse and interesting characters that doesn't rely on stereotypes or paper thin characterizations.
Posted by srichard at 8:42 AM | 209 Words |
Media Diversity
I feel that, though the media can try to include as many groups as they can, they will still never be able to encompass everyone. It is impossible to cater to every group of people however you group them. There will always be super minorities that evade the watchful eye of media ethics.
While it is very important to try to include all groups and should be attempted, I feel as though it would be an impossibly lofty goal to hold yourself to. In essence, I feel as though that, while it serves as something to shoot for, it shouldn't be the ideal end goal.
Posted by tregan at 7:26 AM | 106 Words |
April 16, 2008
A World of Lies
Kittross makes some good points here about how there has been such a variety of manipulation in our everyday lives over time that we tend to overlook, however, they are either for fictional purposes or simply unethical. Makeup and costumes for a play do not constitute manipulation to me nor do they harm the public. Surely people know they play they go to see is not real life. When Forrest Gump meets the President, people know they are watching a movie. I don’t think the film creator claimed that it was based on a true story. However, when advertisers alter the image of the product or when magazines alter a person’s appearance, then we have a problem. People are given the impression that what they are seeing is the real thing, when it is not.
If you use the bigger and better ingredients to advertise your burger, that is fine, but a woodcut one is simply unethical. Altering an image, even if only to make it fit the magazine cover is unethical. It is not right to mislead people for any purpose. Putting celebrity faces on other bodies leads to an entirely different issue of body image in society. People feel that that is the way they are supposed to look, and a lot of problems stem from this issue alone. Encouraging this way of thinking by altering an image makes the problem that much worse.
Kittross provides a quick fix: never trust a picture and no one will be harmed. I am saddened by this way of thinking. What message are we sending to people if we tell them never to trust what they see? Soon will we never believe anything at all? I find trust to be an important value in life, and one that everyone should make a part of their’s. In a land of freedom we should not have to accept a world of lies. Instead, we should insist that media producers be ethical. Telling and showing the truth is a lot easier than creating a lie. Society should not have to alter their entire way of thinking so that a few companies can play with Photoshop.
Posted by asmithpaulson at 3:14 PM | 361 Words |
April 15, 2008
digital manipulation
The problem of digitally altering photographs is definitely a new problem in today's society. As Kittross points out, pictures have never been exactly truthful, since photographers can choose which angle to choose from and other camera tricks to get a certain point across. But today, images can be completely altered to look completely different to manipulate its viewers into thinking something.
I think one of the biggest issues today is in regards to magazines "touching up" actresses and models that grace the cover and pages of their magazines. Many magazines have been exposed for slimming down different people in order for them to look skinnier and more "attractive" to their readers. This is disheartening because it fuels the idea that only people who are skinny are beautiful.
I agree with Kittross's solution that people should be trained to be skeptical about pictures their seeing advertised and produced. The more people know about manipulation, the more people can be defensive against any sort of manipulation a publication may be attempting.
Posted by srichard at 6:51 PM | 169 Words |
April 14, 2008
Digital Media Manipulation
I remember coming across this in my electronic news gathering class last semester. In some cases, we would doctor up some of the footage we got in the field if it was a little too dark or hadn't been white balanced. Ethically, I don't find any real problem with this, although it wouldn't be needed in the first place if photographers take enough time to get their iris, white balance, etc. at the right setting. Having said that, I think there is an ethical line that is crossed if you go too far with correction, like lowering the brightness until a shot looks like nighttime instead of mid afternoon. While it may not be as harmful as if you darkened someone's face (like the OJ pic), it is still misleading the viewer and in my mind is unethical.
As far as having digital copyrights of photos, I agree with Kittross that it is improbable. With so many "civilians" contributing to newsgathering today, I don't think it would be a very effective tool. Plus, this seems like it would be more of a legal issue than an ethical one.
I guess the remedy for this dilemma is the same thing I've been arguing all semester: media consumer education. Viewers and readers need to know that what they see in magazines can't always be 100 percent accurate due to stylistic doctoring.
Posted by bfry at 10:49 AM | 229 Words |
Pornography
Pornography is one of those things that is going to be around whether people support/like it or not. I personally don't care for it, but most of the people my age get personal enjoyment from viewing it. After doing our presentation and seeing that a big charity had to research whether or not they would accept money from a porn magazine it makes me think that maybe there are some ethical people left in the world. In my eyes porn goes against a personal type of ethical code. People should realize that by taking part in porn acts they will be placed in that category and in sense, to a person with good eithics, will be looked down upon. That is just my opinion so take it with what you will......
Posted by ahenderson at 6:45 AM | 131 Words |
April 13, 2008
pornography
If it wasn't obvious enough in class, pornography makes me pretty uncomfortable. I don't get the appeal. I also think that pornography is a destructive behavior. I have seen what it does to people and how it has ruined marriages and careers. To most people pornography is a joke, it's something that doesnt really get the kind of attention it deserves. People use it as entertainment. I cannot justify it for anything. It objectifies women and men alike. It distorts how sexual relations are supposed to be. For me, sex is meant for a husband and wife. And they should be able to make each other happy.
Every part of pornography is unethical. The making, the filming, the selling, the watching. All of it. It all leads to a distorted view of how things were intended to be. SO no matter what, pornography is unethical.
Posted by jduren at 11:49 PM | 145 Words |
April 12, 2008
Josh- Chapter 15F
I agree that there is nothing that can be done about the manipulation of images, and because of this think the only ethical approach could be to tell the audience that the photo has been manipulated. This of course would ruin the point, however, and consequently can not be expected. As far as distribution of altered images is concerned, if I am in charge, I would see to it that anything I distributed did not tell a lie in the way it had been altered. If something is deliberately trying to be said by the alteration I have made then in my opinion that is wrong, and should not be done.
I like the idea of making the photographer solely in charge of determining whether the image can be altered or not, and to some degree this is already effectively being done with creative commons, but the fact of the matter is that most people won't notice the difference between an altered image and an original, other than the original photographer, and if they don't speak up, nobody would ever know. This is all to easy to do, and I have seen it happen with Flickr repeatedly.
In the end it is up to the distributor of the image, and unfortunately the deciding factor is almost always the revenue, and it usually leans towards "digitalization without detection"...
Posted by jchamberlain at 7:05 PM | 227 Words |
Josh - Chapter 10
Whenever somebody brings up violence in the media, or "porn" for that matter, I usually bring up Europe. This is because it has been shown a number of times that the amount of violence shown on American programming parallels the amount of sexuality prevalent in European programming. The difference? In America kids are shot up in schools everyday, while hip/hop & rap are the most frequent forms of music listened to (usually glorifying violence/sex). In Europe though, our age group listens mostly to electronic music which has a surrounding that tends to lean towards peace, and how often do you hear about violence there? In my opinion this trend is not hard to see, and what I don't understand is why more people don't. Would it not be possible to switch away from violence and towards sex? Seems to work for Europe....
Posted by jchamberlain at 2:38 PM | 142 Words |
Josh - Chapter 8
I agree that as public figures, those in charge of running our government should not only be watched closely by the media, but should also expect it. They have chosen to be in the position they are in, and how they act/the decisions they make in turn affect us. In my opinion media focuses to much on petty things even when they do cover these people, however. In the search for the next sensational story, media tends to disregard important events and instead focus on who is sleeping with who, etc. To me this seems to happen because media attempts to make a somewhat dull subject, our rights and freedoms, interesting, but cannot. In turn the turn to the types of stories they cover with celebrity news, and eventually just cover celebrity news altogether.
In regards to celebrity news, again it is my opinion that these people choose to be in the positions they are, and consequently end up being covered they way they do. Celebrity is most often something that is asked for, and while it is pathetic that Americans eat up celebrity news they way they do, at this point there is not much that can be done. Who needs to be held accountable here is the news organizations for feeding the beast by asking for more and more of this content. If there is nobody willing to pay for content, the content won't be produced. In the end those who should be held responsible for what news has become should obviously be the news organizations, as they have left behind their code of ethics in search of the dollar. Why does this always happen? Money sucks.
Posted by jchamberlain at 2:17 PM | 279 Words |
April 10, 2008
Violence and Pornography
The issue of violence and pornography is an old debate. These controversial issues have been discussed, dissected, researched and more to find out if viewing such material can cause changes in behavior or attitudes regarding these issues.
I feel that content in the media is a definite reflection of society. As Kittross points out, violence and sexual behavior have been apart of human nature from the beginning. Even violent sports, such as boxing, fencing, etc. have been around before the advent of radio, television or film.
However, I feel that just because violent and sexual content is a reflection of society, it doesn't necessarily mean that it should be prevalent on programming. Some things are better left unseen. I'm not sure what solution would be. I believe in freedom of speech and expression, and that all artists should have a right to create what they want. Yet, I do feel that the constant viewing of such material over time can have a subconscious effect on the way in which we view violent and sexual behavior. Ultimately, I guess I think the way things are now are probably most beneficial; we have a rating system that allows viewers to discern whether material is appropriate for their tastes.
Posted by srichard at 9:54 AM | 206 Words |
April 8, 2008
Privacy
Privacy and media....two words that don't even seem to fit well in a sentence together. When it comes to media I think if the information is out there it is fair game. When it comes to celebrities, especially, I think that they have put themselves in a status where having their lives fed to the public is inevitable and consequently their choice. You can tell the difference between the celebrities who vow for attention and then the ones that do a good job at keeping their lives their own. I think by examining this, one can see that if someone really wants to keep their business private, they can.
Posted by ahenderson at 7:35 PM | 109 Words |
Violence in the Media: A reflection or a cause?
The issue of violence in the media is one of the most complicated issues we have yet to cover. I truly relate to both sides of the debate. However, I think I connect with Gordon a bit more. Kittross is correct in using the First Amendment approach, and reinforcing the idea that the people already censor the media by deciding what they’ll continue to watch. Still, there is a larger problem at hand. It is not just children that are affected by the violence they witness, but parents, women, and men as well. I agree that parents need to take the primary role in keeping their children from bad things, but the truth is that there are way too many “bad” parents out there to trust them to do this. I’ve witnessed so many of these parents who could care less what their kids do, and while I’d personally like to see parents take a test before they can leave with their child, censoring the media instead would probably go over with society a bit better.
While it is true that the shows with violence really do portray what is going on in society, the rate at which they portray it is largely skewed. What people see on TV is often taken as reality, but in reality there is just not that much violence. I feel that seeing it so much, people will take it to be a normal occurrence, and even an acceptable one. This could lead to domestic violence, child abuse, sexual abuse, and other types of violence that is legitimized by the perpetrator due to what they see in the media.
As far as violence in the news goes, I don’t think we need to be made aware of every violent crime or accident that occurs in our area, unless the chances are high that it could affect us directly (i.e. a serial killer running through town). As for pornography, it must be censored simply because of ethics, for it is degrading to women and can evoke sexual violence. Most importantly, no matter what the case is, we must remember that law and ethics are two separate things. We must also decide which is more important to us. Personally, I can deal with loosing some First Amendment rights and never seeing, say, The Sopranos again if it would save even one women or one child from being harmed in any way.
Posted by asmithpaulson at 1:02 PM | 404 Words |
April 3, 2008
Mind your own business...
I am definitely siding with Gordon on this one. While Reuss is correct in saying that the media SHOULD be the only judges of what they are doing about privacy, her point to me seems mute since it is clear that their ways of going about it are not working for anyone but wallets. They do not handle privacy as an ethical situation whatsoever. Sure I agree with the whole freedom business of the Constitution and all, but I don’t feel that our freedoms in any way give us the right to impose on others, no matter who they are. This chapter made me think a lot about what news really is and all I seem to get from it other than the weather segment is information that, for the most part is of no use to my life. Then I looked up synonyms for the word “news” on Microsoft Word and among them were hearsay and rumor!!! This made sense.
I feel that news and other media need to be transformed to a solely need-to-know basis. People are simply too nosey, but this doesn’t mean that companies need to cater to our faults. If we weren’t receiving the latest info on who killed who or what Brittany Spears was up to, I really don’t think anyone would loose sleep. This change would eliminate so many of the privacy issues of today. If there is a sniper running through my city, I need to know that. If someone splatters their brain in a car accident, this information is of no use to me. This brings me to the ridiculous uses of the phrases “right to know” and “newsworthy”. Someone’s tragic death is in no way anyone’s Constitutional right to have access to. The same goes for the publication of a rape victim’s name. I think, as does Gordon, that information obtained by the media should only come from the person the story is about (or the family in a case of death), and public records (for the sake of satisfying the outburst of freedoms being revoked, but personally I disagree with use of records also). Court cases are also a personal matter. If Joe Bob wants to tell you he was found guilty, that’s great. No one needed to know or had the right to know about the O.J. Simpson extravaganza.
The area of politicians is where it gets fuzzy. Sure, they are going to be the leaders of our country and we want to choose them right. The media often helps in the weeding out of the wrong ones for the job. However, I do not feel that revealing information about them that has nothing to do with how well they could perform their governmental duties is ethical. What Bill Clinton does in his bedroom really has nothing to do with how he’d run public policy. Information on the number of trips he took paid for by a lobbyist, however, may be something we’d need to know.
To go about these transformations would unfortunately, most likely require government involvement. Freedom is a personal luxury, and if some choose to use it in a way that harms others, there should be consequences. It is hard to think of the news not covering a car wreck or a court case, but society needs to take a step back, put themselves in someone else’s shoes, and decide if this kind information is really that valuable to their survival. It seems that more people need to learn the lesson of minding their own business.
Posted by asmithpaulson at 10:03 PM | 591 Words |
