Moral minefields: legal and ethical dilemma

Its hard to fathom a time where ethics is not important, to anyone, including a journalist. Surely, many of us has ethical principles regarding various situations, and journalism is no exception. Probably the hardest would be interviewing relatives who have lost their loved ones. Journalists are seen by many as hard-headed vultures waiting to pick on the dead's flesh. The "dead" analogy can be used both literally and figuratively.

For me, ethics is a priority in my life. Being Christian, there are many morals and ethical codes that I have grown up with, and i feel some of them cannot go unfounded. If you would have to break the laws to get the information, it probably would not be a good idea. Examples include using zoom lenses to spy on celebrities' on the off chance of a "scoop".  Very simply i live by God's greatest commandment, that i would do unto others as how you want others to do. 

However, i know i'm speaking slightly romantically as well,  as i am not a journalist yet. A journalist would face issues as to releasing data that may destroy careers, or undermine people's reputation, stuff in which you would not want others to do unto you. 

So what does that mean? I shouldn't be a journalist to avoid all this trouble? However, it would remain an issue throughout my career in media communications. Therefore i would like to leave with this conclusion, that it depends on every situtation, but to remain true to yourself.

Truth & objectivity: post modern casualties or victims of PR piracy?

This is a pickle definitely. Which is more important, truth or objectivity? as journalists, we are compelled to be objective, but when it comes to the truth, would our objectivity be the barrier instead of the catalyst?

Being a Singaporean, this issue does speak volumes into the journalistic industry in Singapore. With the fast-paced society, and the censorship and oppression, its hard to find the unrefined truth of anything on the journalistic view. because of this,  many Singaporeans have resorted to the on-line political dissent websites. The journalistic profession has been severely weakened, and scholars who won their scholarships can also be front-page news in Singapore. It is relatively easy for PR agencies to gain coverage via the newspapers that most PR agencies rely on the press-agentry model in Singapore, according to Sriramesh (2007). 

Should either truth or objectivity be compromised? I am of the belief that if the truth has nothing to hide, then it should be the raw truth, only then can we talk about objectivity. How can we be objective if we do not have the necessary information to make an objective decision? Bill Moyers sums it up nicely when he says that objectivity is only longer possible in today's society. here is his link.

Privacy: a thing for sale or a private thing.

Quite possibly many journalists have struggled with this issue for many years. Its either more copies for the newspaper or a preservation of the privacy of whoever it is. Many journalists have gone past privacy issues of the person or organization in question, and changed the worlds of others, sometimes even the world itself. Most notable privacy issues involve the Watergate scandal involving the then-US president Robert Nixon, to the countless paparazzi with celebrities, and sex scandals which tabloid newspapers print with gusto. 

So where's the limit? honestly, i do not know. every journalist as a different threshold ethically, but in my opinion the most important factor to note would be how important would the story be to your audience. If it involves a matter of government corruption, it probably would be essential to break the story to the audience. A journalist's job is to be the gatekeeper of information and the choice of which information to give to the audience. Therefore, i would say if it involves the audience to a large scale, privacy shouldn't be the issue.

The same theory cannot be put to action where celebrities are concerned. To be famous, it is only natural that people would want to know more about their lives. And being famous only allows more scrutiny as the older generation would want to know more about the "idols" their children are listening to. therefore, every scandal wouldn't be small. 

what does it mean for us journalists? can we delve deeper into the celebrities, just because we can? or do we remember our audience? i remember a previous module i had took that posed this exact question. our professor then, prof steve mcilwaine (i can't remember how to spell it for the life of me) answered it succinctly. privacy or sales? "it boils down to who you're working for. if you're working for the newspaper, sales." so yeah, my answer to privacy would boil down to the sales that i may achieve, if it does not impinge on my ethics and my editor. :)

Wk 6: We're all a twitter!

The "onslaught" of Twitter was quick indeed. Twitter was founded shortly after Facebook and blogging, and had all the reasons and premises to fail. However, the power of Twitter was apparent to all. Many PR and advertising campaigns rely on Twitter to spread the news, as do the popularity of the many celebrities. 

I myself recently started a Twitter account just to have a experience on what Twitter is all about. Well, my experience was not that positive, but i do see the importance of Twitter in the future, especially since i may deal with PR campaigns.

Twitter functions essentially as a micro blogging website, where anyone can just send a short "tweet" to their twitter for their followers to read. anyone can follow anyone too, which allows a direct link to celebrities to their fans, who would love to read every single aspect of the celeb's lives. you could retweet tweets that you like onto your tweet and all. Here's where my experience went a little off the track. I added like 5 celebrities of whom i have respect for, but in doing that they flooded my twitter page with advertisements of upcoming gigs and TV shows, which was an obvious ploy by their publicists to increase their profile in the Internet domain. 

To get a good twitter experience i guess i must also have an adequate number of friends who use Twitter. However, i find that Facebook serves this purpose well for me, and having Twitter would probably be overkill. 

Whether Twitter will be more involved in the society, i cannot say for certain, but we do know that the Internet is expanding at a rapid rate, therefore Twitter would also grow with it. Some of us may not like Twitter, but it looks like Twitter is here to stay, with the fans wanting more of their celebrities, and as a campaigning tool for companies.

There's a funny clip that I saw on Youtube a couple of years back, so here's the link for you to watch! :)