Journalism minds meet to minimize harm

-Courtesy of Google Images

During an hour-long round-table discussion yesterday, four journalism representatives from Washington State University and the surrounding Northwest region met to discuss the ethical implications of journalism and what can be done to minimize the harm caused during the reporting of the news.

About fifty students, alumni and administrators gathered at the Minimizing Harm workshop, sponsored by the Society of Professional Journalists as part of the 33rd annual Murrow Symposium, to hear the panelists discuss the morality of the reporting done in a 2006 story concerning registered sex offender Nathan Sterr, then living in the residence halls.

In this discussion, whose panel included Peter Bhatia, editor-in-chief of the Portland Oregonian, and Rebecca Tallent, a journalsm professor and SPJ representative from the University of Idaho, the issues of the case were discussed, along with the consequences of media action, which ultimately may have caused the student to leave the school.

Jacob Jones, a third member on the panel and former editor of the Daily Evergreen, WSU's student publication, was part of the writing team which covered the Sterr case in the spring of 2006. When asked whether or not Sterr's leaving the school could have been predicted, Jones said that the effects of the exposure of something embarrassing in a person's past can have a very profound impact, especially in a small community.

"I kept in my mind the whole time we were reporting it, that he had a right to an education," he said. "He had done everything that had been asked of him since his conviction."

Sterr was convicted of First-degree child molestation at the age of thirteen. After five years of rehabilitation and efforts to rebuild his life, he was accepted to WSU in 2006, where he informed administrators and local law enforcement of his status as a level 2 sex offender. According to Al Jameson, WSU's Interim Vice President for Student Affairs and final member of the panel, it was the opinion of the administration that Sterr was of the lowest risk to other people; he had done every positive thing possible to atone for what he had done. Sterr was granted admission and given the option to live in the dorms with a roommate.

Unfortunately, his roommate was not informed of Sterr's status, who after being informed by other students who had found out from the Internet where all of the information is public knowledge, informed his parents back in Seattle. The scandal began when the roommate's mother went to Seattle's KING news station with the story. After KING broke the story live and identified Sterr openly with a picture, the Daily Evergreen and Jones's team followed with print coverage further ironing out the facts and exposing that Sterr would probably be forced to leave school because of the coverage. He did not finish the academic term

As Becky Tallent said in the discussion, "the overarching scope of ethics is to do no harm, but in this business you can't help it; it's the nature of the beast."

The discussion did not revolve around the accuracy of the facts presented by KING or The Daily Evergreen, which were immaculate, but rather it was ethical to expose all of Sterr's personal information, even though it is public record, if it was obviously going to end his education.

"There's a difference between publishing and reporting; you usually report 800 percent more than you publish," said Peter Bhatia. "As a reader, I would want to know everything, so it's a very tricky equation figuring out which information holes to leave."

Where a situation might be cut and dried in the case of a public official embezzling funds, it is much more complex when dealing with the young and presumably innocent like this case, where someones life, career or education might be at risk, he said.

Becky Tallent said that SPJ, with it's 250 chapters and nearly 10,000 member journalists, reworked it's own code of ethics in light of events such as this one, specifically concerning themselves with children and other people unable to defend themselves from just such harm.

"To me, this was pretty much business as usual for the media," Tallent said. "That's why we have these codes, to guide us; they're just tools, we still will have problems."

Frontline: The Future of News

Although I was unable to attend our in-depth class discussion of the unique ideas presented in Frontline's 4-part NewsWar series, I did view it online and will attempt to react to it now.

This series was quite compelling as it showed me some very unique insights into the future of my industry. We all know how the Internet is changing just about everything these days, but the impact it has had on the news is profound, and as it is shown by Frontline, stands to be one of the most influential developments affecting the presentation of the news in a long time.

Although the newspaper industry remains large and widespread, it is losing the credibility that it once had. Readership primarily falls to older generations, with youngsters second-guessing what we have called in class, "their parent's media." However, even with this decline in newspaper popularity, 81 percent of Americans encounter news at least once a day. This mind-blowing majority speaks directly to the case of growing integration of technology in the dissemination of information. People who are no longer interacting with print media are getting it elsewhere, whether it be an Internet news site, their favorite blog, or on the television (although that medium is falling to the Internet as well).

The Internet has also allowed for diverse and ethnic media sources to get their voice out to thousands more people than might have access to it otherwise. Sites like the one that play the Al Jazeera English channel, rejected and banned in the U.S., are growing in popularity, if for no other reason, because people want to hear both sides of the story, not just what the American public decides to feed them.

What has driven this growing flux of media consumers to the Internet, is the increased curiosity of American's, the ability to question what is given to them as fact. This also demonstrates the quickly growing "blogosphere", where we not only cannot hear the points of views of others, but can share ours as well. What the media should learn from this, is they need to be more thorough and all-encompassing with their coverage, and should share the information in a variety of mediums, if only in the interest of getting the highest volume of facts, to the most people.

Al Jazeera English

-Courtesy of Google Images

Due to strong opposition by American cable stations, and as recent survey results suggest, American citizens as well, the Al Jazeera English news station has been all but banned from our television sets, and restricted to broadcast online.

In our changing climate post-9/11, the Al Jazeera Network has become in some circles, known as the "Terrorist Network," a claim that I find to be mostly unfounded. For the most part, Al Jazeera English seems to hit stories that both the American and UK news frequently miss. The network has a monopoly on the news within their countries borders in the sense that they have enough proximity and context to report honestly on stories that otherwise would go ignored.

The question of whether or not Al Jazeera English will ever be allowed to broadcast within the US seems to have been answered already. I think the negative feelings of many Americans will prevent this channel from going anywhere but the Internet for quite a while. This is a mistake, because from my point of view, they should be allowed to broadcast.

The purpose and duty of the news is to inform the public about issues that affect them, and allow them to make an informed decision for themselves. For this purpose, Al Jazeera English is a vital component to the media environment. Because of their ability to scoop both American and world news sources on many issues, and then cover these issues from often unrepresented perspectives, Al Jazeera is giving all it's viewers the opportunity to be just that much more informed, and to make better decisions.

The interviewing and reporting style used on this new news venue differs from what I am used to in the Western News. The interviews seem to be more personal, usually in the subjects environment, and very up-close and personal. The reporting style follows the same theme, with reporters often going out to see and experience the story, instead of just sitting in the newsroom. I think this furthers yet again, their proximity to the news, and improves their story-telling potential.

Ethically, the Al Jazeera network does as good of a job of fulfilling it's obligations as any news network. They have most fulfilled their 5th element of their Code of Ethics, which is "Present diverse points of view and opinions without bias or partiality." Their point of view, by default is a diverse one, but they also do an outstanding job of avoiding bias and partiality, a huge step towards ethical operations. As far as avoiding encroachment by commercial or political sources, Al Jazeera does a better job than many Western channels; if they didn't the American audience wouldn't be small, it would be nonexistent.

It's obvious to me that the negative publicity and reputation that the Al Jazeera English network is receiving is mostly impulse judgement, and largely unfounded. With enough patience and perseverance I do believe the channel will gain popularity in the online space, though it may take a very long time for it to be allowed on American networks.