The Freedom of Information Act was created in 1966 and signed by Lyndon B. Johnson. It is a "law that gives you the right to access information on federal government. It is often described as the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government". A lot of people and companies would like to keep their documents hidden from view and will fight to keep them from the public eye. ExxonMobile is currently dealing with people trying to view their documents.
"ExxonMobile is fighting a subpoena seeking its internal documents on climate change, arguing that the order violates the company's constitutional rights". Claude Walker, a U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General, set this investigation in motion. He believes that ExxonMobile may have ill informed or mislead the public on climate change and climate science. The "subpoena accusses Exxon of defrauding the government and consumers, and 'misrepresenting its knowlege of the likelihood that its products and activities have contributed and are contributing to climate change'". ExxonMobile is saying that Walker trying to view their documents is something purely politically motivated and that his attempt is a violation of their rights.
The Freedom of Information Act is put in place so that the citizens of the U.S. can be informed, especially when it comes to things regarding their pwn safety. The fact that ExxonMobile is fighting to withhold information they have regarding climate change is a little concerning. This begs the question of how accurate is the information big companies and the government is telling us? We should be concerned, we should seek answers, we should be informed.
Articles Cited:
(http://www.foia.gov/)
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63)
College seems to be another world in its own. "For college students, a university creates a bubble-like environment we believe to be unique". However unique each university is, they share a lot of the same problems, one being the current state of college media. "College media outlets are in turmoil". They have lost much of their revenue and are falling behind in this new technological era. With the current college generation being quick to address problems, something is being done to bring college media back.
"College media innovators gathered for a national Future of Student Media Summit in Schoonover Center at Ohio University". This event was even funded by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, "the worlds premier funder of of journalism initiatives". The "aim of the first-of-its-kind event is simple - brainstorm practical solutions to revenue and audience engagement challenges for college media". The Post, who attended this convention, believes that them coming together with the college media community will "address collective challenges and better position [their] organizations for success".
Since cell phones are a "predominant news source for college students, college media is poised to lead the way in developing new ways to connect with [their] audience". Times are changing. Technology is seeming to rule our lives. Having students that have grown up with the advancement of technology and have first hand experience on how dependent the college aged generation is, it leaves reason to see promise in them finding new innovative ways to bring back popularity and revenue to college media outlets. In the future, we may see college media being done in ways never seen or done before.
Articles Cited:
(http://www.thepostathens.com/opinion/future-of-student-media-summit-aims-to-identify-and-fix/article_bd4e9712-fb67-11e5-9c45-036330423faa.html)
Non-Profit investigative journalism sites are at risk. " Journalism ethicist Edward Wasserman notably commented several years ago that asking for money every now and then to keep afloat isn't a 'real business model'". With the current financial state of the non-profit investigative journalism site, there was a panel put together to discuss how to keep these non-profit sites running and why it is important that they find a way to do so.
"Is philanthropy the answer to paying for non-profit investigative journalism"? This is a question that the panel was asking. "ProPublica's general manager, Richard Tofel, recently stated that 'philanthropy is how these non-profits are sustained'". ProPublica is also the first non-profit to win a Pulitzer Prize, giving their general manager much more credibility. The big discussion about non-profit journalism's ability to sustain themselves was "brought up at a workshop at the Reva and David Logan Investigative Reporting Symposium". There was a panel that included representatives from the Center for Investigative Reporting, Frontline, and the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting, along with others. The panel discussed how to fund non-profit investigative journalism. "The oldest non-profit investigative news organization", the Center for Investigative Reporting, explained how the center is "charging for... content to help cover their expenses". Another non-profit that spoke within the panel was ProPublica. They described how they use a "combination of fundraising, sponsorship's, and other ways" to stay in business. Some organizations even give money to these non-profit groups, such as the Ford Foundation. The Ford Foundation is noted for giving "significant grants to journalism ventures" that have "big influence and impact". Non-profit investigative journalism is struggling, but they are finding ways to make it work.
Investigative journalism can be powerful, but for non-profits, keeping afloat is proving to be a struggle. Whether you have companies like the Ford Foundation to donate money or have multiple fundraisers and sponsorship's, money is tight in the non-profit community and something more needs to be done. While they are in the clear for now, it is possible that non-profit investigative journalism could be a thing of the past, and that would truly be a tragedy.
Articles Cited:
(http://www.imediaethics.org/panel-discusses-how-to-keep-nonprofit-investigative-journalism-sites-in-business/)
When a media finds a story that sells, it is common to see exploitation and over coverage concerning that topic. Exploitation can be used to manipulate consumers into viewing a story in a way that reflects what that particular media outlet desires. Megyn Kelly calls out the Liberal media and accuses them of excessive coverage on the Planned Parenthood shooting. Kelly is saying that the over coverage is evidence of a bias, most likely being political.
In December, "Megyn Kelly tore into liberal media, accusing some reporters of bias by comparing recent coverage of [the] shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic to the way in which journalists have handled other crimes". Although there has not been a definite motive detected by law enforcement, it has not stopped "some from suggesting this has everything to do with political rhetoric". It is possible that the Liberal media is exploiting this story to try and get their viewers on their political agenda by making a criminal out to be an extremist from the opposing party. "Kelly also accused many media outlets of barely paying attention to the undercover Planned Parenthood videos when they were released this past summer by anti-abortion groups..., saying that some reporters are now suddenly invoking these clips in the wake of [the Planned Parenthood] shooting". The fact that there was only a small amount of coverage on the videos when they were released and since the shooting there was a huge increase in the amount of airtime these videos are getting reflect that the Liberal media is grabbing to find things that will support that the shooter was a part of an anti-abortion group. Although, there is no evidence that this is to be held true.
The media often will have over coverage of a story that sells, but when the media begins exploiting a story to frame the minds of viewers it gets a little unethical. Until something is proven to be true, such as the shooter having a political motive, it should not be covered in such a way that viewers believe it to be the truth. Covering a story in such a way only proves that the media outlet is the one who has a political motive.
Articles Cited:
(http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/01/megyn-kelly-tears-into-liberal-media-over-coverage-of-planned-parenthood-shooting-is-this-not-evidence-of-bias/)
Copyright and fair use laws can be a bit of a blurred line in media today. Fair use "permits copying under limited circumstances," this can include content used for educational purposes and if no profit is being made. This can leave certain copyright lawsuits mildly open for interpretation. A company that is currently undergoing a copyright lawsuit is Google and Oracle.
Oracle "is asking Google the largest copyright verdict ever over the alleged software copyright infringement" at 9.3 billion dollars. Over 4 years ago "Google was accused of using the Java APIs without consent and that they were purportedly using a protected property in order to build its version of the market-leading mobile OS, Android". Google and Oracle first went to court in 2012 and the jury concluded that they were "unable to determine whether Google's use of Java was ensured by fair use". Google and Oracle are set to go on trial again on May 9 this year. Oracle is said to be asking for 9.3 billion in the upcoming trial, however Google "assessed damages are close to 100 million only." In fact, "the jury had found Google infringing only 37 APIs, which [is] a small fraction of the company's Android codebase". Copyright laws are coming into place and they state that "damages can only be claimed for profits that are inferable from the infringing code". This is a huge lawsuit and with the copyright and fair use laws in play, the outcome will be interesting to see.
Copyright violations can be a serious crime, this lawsuit is a prime example. The numbers the companies are throwing around start at 100 million and reach a staggering 9.3 billion. The copyright and fair use laws are in place to protect companies and people from the theft of their material for others gain, as well as protecting people who are using others content harmlessly. The moral of the story is that you should always double check that you either ask permission for content or give credit when its due, you also need to know your rights under copyright and fair use laws to prevent a nasty lawsuit similar to the one Google is facing.
Articles Cited:
(http://en.yibada.com/articles/112632/20160330/oracle-vs-google-demands-9-3-billion-copyright-lawsuit-against.htm)
Reporters are able to find great stories and obtain controversial information due to their ability to promise sources that what they say is going to remain anonymous. This promise is backed by shield laws that protects writers privilege and keeps them from being forced to testify about confidential sources. However, this law doesn't always fully protect reporters. They are still subjects of scrutiny from the public, law, and their company when they refuse to release information on their source, especially when their source reveals controversial information. This happened when reporter Claire O'Brien was fired after a reporters privilege fight.
Claire O'Brien "refused to reveal a confidential source and story notes from her jailhouse interview to Ford County Attorney". She was later fired from the Dodge City Daily for her practicing her rights as a reporter. She "told the press her lawyers from Gatehouse had hindered her from seeking outside counsel unless she agreed to testify". The Shield Law should protect her from this kind of manipulation, however you can clearly see this is not the case. She said that Gatehouse even "kept her in the dark about court dates," making it harder for her to keep up with her legal matters.
O'Brien was not forced by the court to reveal the confidential interview, however, the company she worked for tried to twist her arm into spilling the information by keeping her from seeking outside counsel and withholding her court dates from her. When she resisted releasing the information and exercised her reporters privilege, it resulted in her being fired from her job. Yes, the Shield Laws protected her from harassment by the courts hand, but what is going to protect her, and future reporters from the scrutiny and the ultimate demise of her career she faced with the company she worked for?
Articles Cited:
(http://www.imediaethics.org/dodge-city-reporter-fired-after-reporters-privilege-fight/)
The media lives for stories that grab attention and captivate the minds of the viewers. Resulting in fame and admiration for the source that found such a intriguing tale. Obtaining stories that do such things aren't easy to come by. The media may resort to stretching the truth to create a more noteworthy story. Some even succumb to fabricating enticing stories and claim it as truth for ones own gain. O'Reilly and his stories from El Salvador are a prime example of fabrication in action.
"O'Reilly has claimed repeatedly that he witnessed the execution of nuns while reporting in 1981 on the civil war in El Salvador, an apparent fabrication that is at odds with both history and what O'Reilly himself has said about arriving in the country after the event took place". O'Reilly continues to talk about his time in El Salvador as a CBS correspondent today. He has said multiple times that he actually saw the churchwomen being executed. In 2005 he said, "I've seen guys gun down nuns in El Salvador," and in 2012 he again discussed how "[he] was in El Salvador and [he] saw nuns get shot in the back of the head". However, if he was telling the truth of his whereabouts during the time of the civil war in El Salvador, it is not possible that he actually witnessed the murder of these nuns. In his book The No Spin Zone, "O'Reilly details a reporting assignment in which he arrived...shortly after it had been wiped out by the rebels and witnessed carnage that was obviously recent," but he never discusses him seeing anyone being killed, much less the nuns. "O'Reilly even admitted he had arrived in El Salvador right after the killings during an interview... in 2009". So why would he continue to change his story after admitting he was not present during the execution?
O'Reilly gained fame for covering the civil war in El Salvador. His fame and reputation started from a story he fabricated about witnessing the murder of nuns, something that captivated the minds of viewers during that time. What could be more credible and intriguing than an eyewitness account? However, he continues to switch his story from time to time and it is drawing attention. He "exaggerated his claims of being in a "combat situation" during the Falklands War". He could lose his credibility if the fabrication of his accounts are revealed on a wider scale. He could lose everything he has worked for. Would his white lie be worth it?
Articles Cited:
(http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/02/25/another-fabrication-oreilly-never-witnessed-the/202667)
In the United States, Fox and MSNBC are some of the top dominating 24 hour news channels. While Fox and MSNBC are reporting the same news stories, you get a completely different experience and coverage on the hot topics they are covering. Fox is notoriously biased against Obama and his decisions, while MSNBC is known for supporting him. This can be seen clearly through the coverage of Syrian refugees on the contrasting news channels.
When Fox was covering the Syrian refugees being allowed to seek shelter in the United States, they used negative terminology towards the refugees as well as the government officials in charge of screening. They used terms such as bloody, asylum-seekers, terror-ties, lack of on-the-ground intelligence, and ruthlessness. These terms show an obvious negative bias towards the Syrian refugees being allowed to enter the United States, as well as the people in charge of allowing them in. The negative bias doesn't stop there. Fox news channel displays their opposition towards Obama by exemplifying their "mounting concerns over whether the Obama administration can properly vet [Syrian refugees]". They also talk about how it is "impossible to trust screening" and the "lack of ground intelligence necessary to identify terror links". Fox news also discusses the white house and how vague they were when questioned about the screening procedures used to determine which refugees were safe to come into the United States. It is obvious how negatively Fox news feels toward the incoming refugees and Obama allowing them in.
MSNBC also covered the Syrian refugees being allowed into the United States. However, it was a completely different experience than Fox's coverage. MSNBC used much more positive terminology, such as welcome, accepted, encourage, help, and in need. It is easily recognizable by just the terms being used that they are in favor of Obama's decision to allow the refugees into the United States. MSNBC also exhibits their positivity towards the incoming refugees by discussing how the "U.S. will welcome refugees" and "[their] plans to encourage other countries to "ramp up" their humanitarian efforts in the region, as well as their willingness to take in Syrian refugees". MSNBC then discusses how the decision to allow refugees into the states came "amid increasing pressure from human rights groups for President Obama to do more to help the millions of displaced Syrians". This could be a ploy to increase positive views on Obama's decision by showing that there was a demand from human rights groups. MSNBC also doesn't "anticipate that the U.S. would have a significant problem in trying to meet the ambitious goal the President has laid out". Again, MSNBC is using positive language to talk about Obama and his decision to allow refugees in the U.S.
It is quite clear that Fox and MSNBC are biased on the acceptance of the Syrian refugees into the country. Fox is very negative and pushes the idea that there should be high concern over the decision Obama made, as well as the refugees and officials screening them. MSNBC completely ignores the fact that problems may arise from the incoming Syrians. They keep a positive outlook and are pleased with Obama's decision to welcome the refugees into the country. This extreme difference in the type of coverage effects the viewer's perception of the Syrian refugees and inflicts highly emotional responses from both Fox and MSNBC viewers. The way it was covered skewed the reality of what is actually occurring and leads the population to think the way that the opposing news channels would want.
Articles Cited:
(http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/us-accept-1000-syrian-refugees)
(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/28/surge-syrian-refugees-into-us-stirs-security-concerns.html)
Advertising's goal, more often than not, is to get the consumers to buy the product the ad is selling. The market is extremely competitive and some companies will go to whatever lengths necessary to reel customers in. Some companies will even resort to misleading and deceiving their customers. However, they try to cover their backs by putting the information that would keep you from buying the product in the fine print. That being said, if an offer seems too good to be true, it probably is. You should always read the fine print before committing to a product, or you may end up like many of the customers at DirecTV.
DirecTV was promoting the "popular 12 month discount package" which advertises a "12 month plan for as little as $19.95" per month. This sounds like a great deal to the unassuming customer viewing this ad. However, they were unaware of what came along with this 12 month discount package. DirecTV does not make it clear that a 2 year contract is required if you want to get the discount package. After the first year, the prices jump from $19.95 a month to a much higher price. The prices go up from anywhere between $25 and $45 a month. Once the customer finds out how much their discount package is costing them, they can cancel their contract... for $480. The high price for the cancelation fee almost ensures that the customers will stick to the contract since the fee may very well be around the same price they would pay originally. The customers also have to cancel "free premium channels like HBO and Showtime that they get during the first 3 months of the package". If they don't cancel in time, they are automatically charged for these channels.
"DirecTV is the largest satellite television provider in the country" with over 20 million subscribers. How ethically sound is it for them do mislead and deceive their millions of customers into buying a product they didn't know they were buying? DirecTV tries to argue that the ads "sometimes" includes a disclaimer in the fine print, but "in other cases it was obscured by texts and pictures". So depending on which ad you saw, you might get some fine print that includes the details of the purchase. This is downright dirty marketing.
The bottom line is that DirecTV tricked their customers, causing them to buy a seemingly great product that would unknowingly cost them way more than they perceived. These customers were uninformed, partly due to the vague ad. This violates many ethical codes and will most likely result in the loss of many loyal customers. But on the other hand, customers should be more observant. They should research the product they are buying instead of going off of what they hear and see in a short 30 second ad. Consumers, put more thought into your purchases, and ALWAYS read the fine print.
Articles Cited:
(http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/11/news/companies/directv-false-advertising/index.html)
Supermarket Tabloids, such as the National Enquirer and Star Magazine, can be found in checkout lanes across the nation. There are big, bold letters pasted on the cover. They have intriguing, and often shocking headlines, drawing the customer in to buy a copy before they leave the checkout line. While these tabloids may be interesting to read, how much can you actually rely on the information being displayed? And, is it really okay for the tabloids to make such accusations?
The National Enquirer is notorious for their outlandish headlines, such as "Cher's Deathbed Tell-All". Although, there are no definite signs pointing to
her death in the near future. This article features "insider" information, which is not verified and unreliable. Anyone can be an insider if they claim to have a relationship with the person under the wrath of the tabloids. This insider said that Cher "has been so freaked out by her poor health that she wants to set the record straight before she dies." The insider goes on to predict the disclosure of Cher's "secret lesbian love life" and her "coming clean about her numerous plastic surgery procedures". This article could be mentally detrimental to a person reaching the age of 70. Displaying ones mortality for ones own gain is ethically wrong and nauseating.
Star Magazine is known for their celebrity gossip. Who better to talk about than the Kardashians? In one of the many recent headlines involving the Kardashian Klan, Star Magazine writes about "Kris Jenner Taking a Tragic Turn with 72 Pound Weight Gain". A "Kardashian source" estimates that "she gained 72lbs in the second half of 2015". They also discuss her "hitting the bottle again" and display a picture of her drinking a single class of wine at an event. A "tipster" said that "she couldn't keep up her healthier lifestyle." How accurate is this information? They make it seem as if she has a drinking problem, however, in the picture displayed it is clear that it was taken through a window at a social event, where a glass of wine would be common. Especially since there is a man holding a glass next to her. The article is also riddled with images exploiting her weight gain. Star clearly is blowing pictures out of proportion and making her out to be a drunk, as well as shaming her for her body.
Yes, it is was ethically wrong to make possible false claims on Cher, and exploiting her mortality. It is also wrong to portray Kris Jenner as a drunk and body shaming her. However, this is being done legally as far as the tabloids lawyers are concerned. These awful headlines and articles clearly violate most peoples morals, but, we're buying. These headlines are aimed toward the public. They talk about things we are interested in and are continuing to profit out of consumers thirst for gossip. So, what's really the problem?
Articles Cited:
(http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/cher-dying-scandals-secrets-national-enquirer/)
(http://starmagazine.com/photos/kris-jenner-weight-gain-depressed-meltdown-kuwtk/photo/259253/)
The Freedom of Information Act was created in 1966 and signed by Lyndon B. Johnson. It is a "law that gives you the right to access information on federal government. It is often described as the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government". A lot of people and companies would like to keep their documents hidden from view and will fight to keep them from the public eye. ExxonMobile is currently dealing with people trying to view their documents. 
