All of the student projects are at this URL.
http://www.jclass.umd.edu/652352/2013fall0401/mmoj13fallumd/index.html
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Monday, December 2, 2013
Conflict of Interest in the World Cup
The World Cup is scheduled to be held in the oil-rich Middle East nation of Qatar in 2022. South Africa hosted the 2010 tournament amidst serious issues in building stadiums and preparing the national infrastructure for the gravity of the event, and since then, nations have been under a microscope in the years leading up to the event, much like Brazil is now.
Qatar has come under fire for human rights violations, allegations of bribery/political corruption, and the deaths of thousands of workers, and the country needs to make good impressions on the rest of the world if this international event is to run smoothly.
To accomplish this, the Qatar 2022 World Cup Committee gave ESPN soccer columnist Phil Ball an all-expenses-paid trip to a conference in a hotel in Doha, the nation's capital, and he wrote a glowing referendum on the nation's preparedness for the event in return, despite fairly obvious evidence that they aren't ready.
The question is - is this a conflict of interest? ESPN removed the article - did they need to do it?
Qatar has come under fire for human rights violations, allegations of bribery/political corruption, and the deaths of thousands of workers, and the country needs to make good impressions on the rest of the world if this international event is to run smoothly.
To accomplish this, the Qatar 2022 World Cup Committee gave ESPN soccer columnist Phil Ball an all-expenses-paid trip to a conference in a hotel in Doha, the nation's capital, and he wrote a glowing referendum on the nation's preparedness for the event in return, despite fairly obvious evidence that they aren't ready.
The question is - is this a conflict of interest? ESPN removed the article - did they need to do it?
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Journalists Faced With Advertiser Conflict of Interest
As Black Friday nears, the Nieman Journalism Lab discussed possible issues that modern journalists face when writing articles that may involve possible advertisers that work with their publication. The main concern: do you avoid any writing that could shine a negative light on these advertisers OR do you risk the possibility of losing money for your publication/risk getting fired for doing so?
Caroline O'Donavan writes about a Buzzfeed staffer who claims he was recently fired for articles criticizing Axe and other big funders of the Website. In his words:
Ben Smith made me delete a post I did on Axe Body Spray’s ads, titled, “The Objectification Of Women By Axe Continues Unabated in 2013″ (it was initially called something to the effect of “Axe Body Spray Continues its Contribution to Rape Culture,” but I quickly softened it). Get this: he made me delete it one month after it was posted, due to apparent pressure from Axe’s owner Unilever. How that’s for editorial integrity?
Understanding that no online news outlets are immune to pressure from advertisers, would you avoid risky topics dealing with a company if there could be repercussions for yourself or your publication? Or would you write the piece anyway?
Caroline O'Donavan writes about a Buzzfeed staffer who claims he was recently fired for articles criticizing Axe and other big funders of the Website. In his words:
Ben Smith made me delete a post I did on Axe Body Spray’s ads, titled, “The Objectification Of Women By Axe Continues Unabated in 2013″ (it was initially called something to the effect of “Axe Body Spray Continues its Contribution to Rape Culture,” but I quickly softened it). Get this: he made me delete it one month after it was posted, due to apparent pressure from Axe’s owner Unilever. How that’s for editorial integrity?
Understanding that no online news outlets are immune to pressure from advertisers, would you avoid risky topics dealing with a company if there could be repercussions for yourself or your publication? Or would you write the piece anyway?
How Journalists are Dealing with Redskins Controversy
As I am sure you all know by now, the Washington Redskins have been in the headlines for all the wrong reasons thus far this season. While their play on the field has been less than inspiring, to say the least, they've created the most headlines for their steadfast refusal to change their team name. Consequently, since the name is essentially a racial slur, many people would like to see them change their name; including the likes of many prominent sports journalists and personalities such as Bill Simmons, Peter King, and the immortal Mike Francesa. In fact, in their articles, Simmons and King have boycotted the term "Redskins" and only refer to the team as "Washington" or the "Washington Football Team".
So I guess my question is: With the growing resentment toward the team name by the public and the increasing amount of journalists speaking out against the name and even boycotting it, do you believe Daniel Snyder will eventually cave and change the name due to media scrutiny and all the negative coverage this whole incident is causing? Also, is it appropriate for journalists to get involved in issues like this or would you prefer the sports media to lay low on these issues and focus strictly on sports? Or do you enjoy the movement many journalists are making against this particular issue?
So I guess my question is: With the growing resentment toward the team name by the public and the increasing amount of journalists speaking out against the name and even boycotting it, do you believe Daniel Snyder will eventually cave and change the name due to media scrutiny and all the negative coverage this whole incident is causing? Also, is it appropriate for journalists to get involved in issues like this or would you prefer the sports media to lay low on these issues and focus strictly on sports? Or do you enjoy the movement many journalists are making against this particular issue?
Should a newspaper sue the federal government for taking a reporter's notes?
The Washington Times is suing the Department of Homeland Security after the department seized a reporter's notes, the newspaper reported. Agents from DHS took journalist Audrey Hudson's notes while looking for firearms, according to The Daily Caller.
The Washington Times:
The newspaper alleged that federal agents accompanying Maryland State Police on the raid took materials from Ms. Hudson’s office that were not covered by the search warrant that authorized the collection solely of evidence about guns and a potato launcher allegedly possessed by her husband, Paul Flanagan.
The filing asks a federal judge to order the return of “property that has been unlawfully seized … in violation of the Fourth and First Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.”
The Washington Times:
The newspaper alleged that federal agents accompanying Maryland State Police on the raid took materials from Ms. Hudson’s office that were not covered by the search warrant that authorized the collection solely of evidence about guns and a potato launcher allegedly possessed by her husband, Paul Flanagan.
The filing asks a federal judge to order the return of “property that has been unlawfully seized … in violation of the Fourth and First Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.”
Should the federal government be allowed to seize a reporter's notes?
Is the Washington Times right for suing over this issue?
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Would you publish mugshots related to a drug investigation at the risk of your publication being seen as racist?
The Chattanooga Times Free Press has received criticism
after it ran a front page story showing the mugshots
of 32 men that were arrested in an investigation of the city’s crack trade. All
of the suspects were black and described by police as the “worst of the
worst.” The paper got feedback describing its coverage as racist and irresponsible.
There was disagreement inside the newsroom over whether or not to run the mugshots at all or to put them inside the paper so fewer people would see them. The use of the 32 mugshots got more attention (even if a lot of it was negative) than previous coverage of the investigation that appeared about a week earlier without the photos.
There was disagreement inside the newsroom over whether or not to run the mugshots at all or to put them inside the paper so fewer people would see them. The use of the 32 mugshots got more attention (even if a lot of it was negative) than previous coverage of the investigation that appeared about a week earlier without the photos.
Would you have run the mugshots on the front page?
Does reporting the truth outweigh public backlash over how a
publication presents the news?
Should reporter have been fired for comparing a high school to "Mean Girls"?
According to Poynter, North Adams Transcript reporter Isaac Avilucea was fired for his October 18th story, where he included an interview from a girl who said she had transfered to her new school because her old one was like "the movie 'Mean Girls.' " She also commented how she made the move even though her new school has "somewhat inferior academics and athletics"(Poynter). The paper received a lot of backlash from the schools. See story
Avilucea responded to his termination by writing an article titled, "I Got Fired For Being A Journalist."
The case involves a few major questions:
1) Do you think Avilucea was wrong in reporting the high schooler's opinions of the schools and should he have been fired? Was he practicing fair reporting?
2) Should the sister paper have hired him?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)