Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts

Monday, December 4, 2023

The Emotional Fallacy: The Mirror in the Media

I was introduced to the idea of the emotional fallacy when studying literary criticism in college. The idea was that, instead of evaluating a work on the characteristics and qualities of the work itself, people sometimes respond to their own emotional response to the work. Thus, we are analyzing our individual and personal reactions and not parts of the work. 

For example, few people regard those highly sentimental movies about lovers, one of whom gets a terminal disease, and we watch their relationship grow as one of them dies, as great art. However, someone suffering from an illness or whose lover, mother, or friend had a similar situation might be touched emotionally. They would identify with the characters and situations in the movie. Their evaluation, therefore, might be a function of their response and not a result of the quality of the writing, acting, cinematography, editing, or other pieces of the craft of movie-making. They like the work because they relate to it. 

Yet, people judge works based on their own emotions all the time. They like things that make them feel good, inspired, or uplifted. They recoil from works that challenge their firmly held beliefs or make them think too hard. Sometimes, they miss the real art, skill, and beauty of the work because they are too caught up looking at themselves. Instead of examining the work, they see a mirror that reflects parts of themselves. 

We identify with a character and then that character becomes a stand-in for us. We think we know how they feel. We know how this plot goes because we have encountered situations like this in our lives. The work feels authentic and rings true because it mirrors our experience. 

Or our values. A work that confirms and supports our view of the world can be more appealing than one that challenges us to see a different perspective. A work that is simple and sweet goes down easier than one that is complicated and depends a great deal on the craft of storytelling. We like pretty pictures more than complex puzzles. 

Have you ever talked to someone who read a book you read or saw a movie you saw and thought to yourself, “Did we see the same thing?”  They may make a minor character into the protagonist because they see themselves in that character. They may impose their view of the world on the world of the story. They embellish the work with their values and experiences and transform it into an extension of themselves. Their response to it is no longer about the work.

Of course, creators want their audiences to connect with their works. They rejoice when their characters and situations are real to people. However, when the response centers on the viewer to the detriment of the work, we are no longer focused on the work – but on the viewer. 

It is not difficult to play with people’s emotions using words, images, music, or story. Advertisers, politicians, and propagandists frequently use anecdotes and compelling tales to manipulate their audiences. They are so good at this that their audiences rarely look behind the curtain to evaluate the vehicles themselves. They only see their images in the mirror. 

They see themselves in the characters and rewrite the story to fit their world, values, experiences, and prejudices. Think about the responses to the first Hunger Games movie when a Black woman was cast as Rue. The book made it clear that Rue was Black. However, many people who claimed to love the book rewrote that fact in their minds. They brought their bigotry to the novel and, when its explicit features were turned into a movie, it no longer matched what they recalled from the book – and they got mad! 

We recast the world in our own image. We rewrite the story to fit our values, wishes, and worldview. We think we know who are the oppressors and who are the victims because of course they reflect what we have seen and experienced in our world. 

And if it is not the same, if the story is not our story, we sometimes ignore those aspects of the text and rewrite it to reflect us. We create a confirming and comforting carnival mirror instead of analyzing the work itself. 

But the real story, the real movie, the real world doesn’t change. It isn’t just a mirror of us – and that can be difficult and uncomfortable to accept. It can make us the pawns of manipulators and Machiavellians. It can make us allies with evil.  

Friday, May 12, 2023

Privacy Protections Not TikTok Bans

When I was in the classroom (I’m retired), I wanted to keep up with my students’ technology trends. I wanted to know what interested and engaged my students. I was aware of social media when My Space, Friendster, and eventually, Facebook came out. However, it wasn’t until I signed up for an account on Facebook that I really understood what all the fuss was about. Reading about teen culture is one thing, diving in is very different. 

When TikTok came out, I didn’t hear kids talking about it. I had an account on Instagram and I found the “stories” slow and often duplicates of images and ideas from other posts. My students seemed more involved in other platforms like Snapchat.

Two years ago, on vacation, my twenty-something daughter (our family trailblazer) showed me the TikTok videos she was watching. We spent an hour or more laughing together. It was delightful. 

She showed me that TikTok was more than comedy videos. She was learning about smart homes, cooking, and other do-it-yourself skills. So, I signed up. I found TikTok the most entertaining of my social media sources. I like Facebook for personal connections, but TikTok was way more engaging and thus time-consuming. 

There, I said it. Despite the controversy, the fear of foreign manipulation, or the theft of my personal data, I like TikTok because it is the most entertaining, edifying, and enjoyable social media site I have found - and I have tried almost all of them. 

I like TikTok’s variety of content. I am following folks reviewing and talking about books, science fiction, Star Trek, theatre, education, religion, health, social issues – and, of course, politics. I hear about people’s perspectives and experiences. I learn about music, linguistics, science, education, and technology. 

While our lawmakers are worried about espionage, misinformation, and unethical use of my information, my concern is more about the way kids may be using social media (on any of its platforms). I am told that kids are using TikTok instead of search engines and it has become a mediator of the internet for them. Yet, this is a problem with many social media platforms, not just TikTok. Kids must be taught both critical thinking skills and how to seek and evaluate information they find online. 

And yes, I have Marshall McLuhan in my head at times asking something like, does viewing short, clever, and easy to digest videos about such important topics as race, religion, and the culture wars minimize and trivialize these complex issues? Is it also possible that this medium has made messages both more available and powerful to a new audience? 

Yet, when some legislators seem to want people to go to sleep rather than confront anything that might kick their complacency, worrying about quick videos seems the least of our troubles. The issue is not the form or the ownership. The issue is that social media can foment hate and violence. The issue is that kids can learn wonderful and wholesome lessons as well as destructive and dangerous ones. But that is a problem with all social media platforms, not just TikTok. In fact, that is an issue on and off the internet. 

Should we be concerned about privacy? Of course. At this point, it is more than a cliché statement that if you don’t pay for a service, you are the product. TikTok is getting my attention. But that, too, happens with every social media platform. 

Do I make purchasing decisions based on TikTok, Facebook or other online ads: not consciously. Will I? Perhaps. I am thinking about buying some of the products that the home automation guy on TikTok has been demonstrating (but I haven’t done it yet). I do go to some of the websites that I learn about from the people who demonstrate “useful websites I’ll bet you didn’t know about.” 

I know I am leaving digital footprints. They are far deeper than my use of TikTok. I find Facebook’s targeted ads creepy. But the use of my data is the price I am paying for this service. Should the government make sure that Facebook, TikTok, and others use my data ethically? Absolutely!  

Burying our heads in analog sand (or staying asleep) is not going to help either. Our world is now, at least in part, online. We must be informed and connected. TikTok has, on several occasions, informed me about important issues long before they appeared in my news feeds. Snapchat doesn’t work for me. I find Instagram slow and self-indulgent. Facebook is a way to stay connected to distant folks. I don’t go to social media to be angry or argue. I don’t go to feel good about myself or look down at others. I go to learn, connect, explore, and laugh. I hear authentic voices that I might not hear in real life (IRL). 

Banning TikTok doesn’t make us personally or communally safer. Creating legislation that protects users against inappropriate and unethical use of their data might. Like other industries, social media, and perhaps the internet in general, could use some consumer protections – in order to do this, lawmakers need to become much more knowledgeable about today’s technology! 

Thursday, February 23, 2023

Reading for Treasure: Articles I Can't Stop Thinking About

Reading for Treasure is my list of articles that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction!

My theme this month is articles that have taken up residence in my head, that I cannot stop thinking about. I strongly recommend you read them. Many of them will probably end up being the seeds of my own writing on this blog. 

Lifehacker contrasts two thinkers who have confronted evil: Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Donald Ewen Cameron. The piece asks what is the difference between being evil and stupid: “Why Stupidity Is More Dangerous Than Evil.

When I was first hired as a teacher, I told my department chairman that I wasn’t going to give grades. He said I had to, so I said I would give everyone A’s. He said that wasn’t going to work either. So, I tried to make the idea of grades fit with real student-centered education. These two pieces about how institutions of learning are rethinking grades are excellent discussions of this issue: KQED’s “Some colleges mull the idea of 'Ungrading' for freshman students” and Wired’s “The End of Grading.”

Similarly, I struggled with kids’ use of their smartphones in the classroom. I ended up hanging a shoe tree near the door and requiring my students to relinquish their phones during class. This also made taking attendance quick and easy. This wonderful article in The Atlantic looks at “The Schools That Ban Smartphones.” 

This quick article from The Daily Herald addresses a question I have been asking since I moved next door to the school at which I taught and my children attended: “It’s Good For Kids and the Environment. So Why Aren’t More Students Walking to School

As a follow-up to several sets of articles about gun violence, The Chicago Tribune addressed a part of this issue that does not receive enough attention. While we hear about people killed and injured by shootings, we don’t hear about how those who are shot cope afterward: “Doctors: A firearm-related injury is a chronic and expensive condition, but many victims are forgotten.” 

Two very political articles from The Atlantic fascinated me. As a former debate teacher, the “Gish Gallop” technique that the former president uses is both effective and highly problematic. “How To Beat Trump in a Debate” is a great analysis of more than Trump’s rhetorical style, but the philosophy behind it. Similarly, “Why Fox News Lied to Its Viewers” looks at how ratings and pandering to the desires of an audience were more important than journalistic ethics on the Fox News Channel. Is there a connection here? 

Finally, two more articles from The Atlantic (can you tell that I am a huge fan of that magazine?) about reading. First, “The People Who Don’t Read Books” looks at some high-profile people who are proud that they don’t read. Second, “A New Way to Read ‘Gatsby’” was fascinating to me as I finished Nghi Vo’s magical spin on Fitzgerald’s classic, The Chosen and the Beautiful. Read them both and you will see why this book has staying power. 

Besides The Atlantic, I am reading Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand by Samuel Delany. 

Friday, November 18, 2022

RSS: The Easiest Way to Stay Current On Your Favorite Websites

Do you go to the same websites on a regular basis? Do you check news, sports, entertainment, or other blogs or information sites? What if, instead of going to them, they came to you in a neat, simple, and easy-to-read format. 

People rarely understand what I mean when I say I am addicted to my RSS feeds. Only the geekiest of tech nerds will nod and then ask what reader I use. While some people like Apple News or the home page on Yahoo (or some other service), using RSS (real simple syndication) provides a personalized view of what is new on the websites I most want to read. 

I follow a variety of news sources. I follow news sources specific to cities that interest me (for example, because my children live there) and local or niche websites. In addition, I think it is important that I follow sources that are designed for demographics that do not include me so I can get different perspectives on what is happening in the world. In addition, I am interested in technology, science fiction, word games, and a multitude of highly niche blogs, zines, and literary news. 

Like the old-fashioned dad at breakfast, I open my iPad to my RSS reader (I use Feedly) and get a list of what is new on the web sources to which I have subscribed. I see a long list of headlines with a few short sentences after each to give me a flavor of that article. 

I have grouped my list into sections like in a newspaper. These sections make it easier to manage - feeds. Like the newspaper, I have a news feed as well as feeds on technology, literature, education, shopping, and one for articles that don’t fit into any of my categories. I also have a favorites feed so, if I am in a hurry, I only look at the articles that come from the sources with which I am most engaged. 

I read some of the articles. Some I save for later. My reader, Feedly, has a means of saving content, but I use another web app called Instapaper. Instapaper allows me to save an article to read not only later, but offline when I don’t have an internet connection – perfect for reading on airplanes or while waiting somewhere where there is no wifi. 

Here is how you start. Start with an RSS reader. Here is an article describing several

Here is a step-by-step video to help you set up feeds and websites in Feedly. 

Enjoy! 


Saturday, October 22, 2022

Reading for Treasure: Consider These Articles and VOTE!

Reading for Treasure is my list of articles that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction!

Your vote is critically important. The polls are probably wrong. Here are some articles to think about as we move toward the November elections. I present them without introduction or commentary: 

Mother Jones (Video): “If Republicans Retake Congress in November, Here's What Their Agenda Will Look Like” 

NewsOne: “2022 Midterm Elections: Filibuster, Senate Control And The Importance Of Black Voters” 

Reuters: “Pro-Trump conspiracy theorists hound election officials out of office”

Financial Times: “Ukrainian officials ‘shocked’ as Republicans threaten tougher line on aid” 

The Guardian: “Republicans aim to pass national ‘don’t say gay’ law”

The Bulwark: “Attack Ads Are Darkening the Skin Tone of Black Candidates”

Atlantic:  “We need to take away children” 

New York Times: “Voters See Democracy at Risk, but Saving It Isn’t Priority” 

Wired: “The US Needs to Recognize Intimate Privacy as a Civil Right” 

The Washington Post: “Trump charged Secret Service ‘exorbitant’ rates at his hotels, records show”

CNN: “What could happen if an election denier is running elections” 

NBC: “Johnson's campaign is paying the law firm of a Trump attorney allegedly connected to Jan. 6 fake elector plot”

NPR: “Borrowers who were cut out of student loan relief describe 'a gut punch'”

CNN: “'I'm my own man': Colorado Republican Senate nominee fires back at Trump” 

Scientific American: “U.S. Lost 26 Years Worth of Progress on Life Expectancy” 


I am currently reading Gods, Monsters, and the Lucky Peach by Kelly Robson

Friday, August 26, 2022

Reading For Treasure: Hope from Star Trek and Science Fiction

Reading for Treasure is my list of articles that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction!

There is a new science fiction sub-genre called hopepunk. According to Wikipedia, hopepunk stories “are about characters fighting for positive change, radical kindness, and communal responses to challenges.” Coined by author Alexandra Rowland as the opposite of grimdark, “The aesthetic of hopepunk is generally agreed to incorporate a mood of gentleness or softness and a sense of self-awareness of weaponized optimism, with a worldview that fighting for positive social systems is a worthwhile fight. There is an emphasis on cooperation as opposed to conflict. There is an awareness within hopepunk works that happy endings are not guaranteed and that nothing is permanent.” Here is the Vox article from which that quotes come: “Hopepunk, the latest storytelling trend, is all about weaponized optimism.” 

Some Star Trek stories could certainly be hopepunk. Emmet Asher-Perrin writing on Tor.com explores the way that the latest incarnation of this franchise, Strange New Worlds, takes the Hero’s Journey and turns it into something far more important and optimistic than the way it shows up in superhero and other traditionally portrayals: “How Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Reimagines the “Hero’s Journey” for the Better.” Be aware there are spoilers in this article. 

CNN also recognized the power of Star Trek’s hopeful outlook: “The New ‘Star Trek' series couldn’t come at a better time.” This article does not have spoilers and is safe for those who have not yet watched Strange New Worlds – and you should! 

Star Trek has improved the real world in many ways: one of the most powerful and hopeful is the work of Nichelle Nichols, who played Lieutenant Uhura in the original series. The article, “From Star Trek to the White House, The World Remembers Nichelle Nichols” from TrekMovie.com is much more than a list of tributes from important voices. It also includes several wonderful video tributes, so scroll to the end. The documentary about Ms. Nichol’s work on the space program, Woman in Motion, it is also well worth viewing. Like all of Star Trek, it is on Paramount+. 

During the worst of the early pandemic and the years that preceded it, I found solace and hope in a quirky half-hour situation comedy called The Good Place. This lovely expert from a book by its creator,  Michael Schur, explores some of the powerful and optimistic philosophic questions that made the series such a delight. The Literary Hub published the excerpt, “Good Place Creator Michael Schur Wonders: What Makes Someone Good or Bad?” If you haven’t seen this series, it is worth a watch! 

Star Trek and several other on-screen science fiction franchises have been working hard to be inclusive. The first of the “Nu Trek” series, Star Trek: Discovery,  features a Black woman in the leading role (and now, finally, as a captain) and all five of the new series have gone where no science fiction show has gone before with representation. Nonetheless, there are fans that were shocked to see that Star Trek (and some other famous series) are so left-leaning. I don’t how they missed the message in earlier incarnations of Trek. So we’ll finish with a little laughter at their expense from Carolos Greaves in McSweeny’s, “This Fictional Universe is Getting Way Too Diverse.” 

I am currently reading A Master of Djinn by P. Djèlí Clark. 


Sunday, April 24, 2022

Return to the Comic Cons: Cons Run By Fans and Cons Run For Profit

I attend science fiction fan conventions. Since I was in high school, I have loved their community, conversation, and connection. The first conventions I attended were not-for-profit events run by fans. The folks organizing these conventions were doing it for the love of fandom. 

These conventions featured panel discussions, film, video, and game rooms, music events, art shows, dealers' rooms, con suites (to eat and talk), and countless other planned and unplanned fun. They were immersive all day (and much of the night) experiences. The featured guests at these conventions were usually writers, artists, and, in the early days, movie and television creators and stars. Even when I attended alone, I was pulled into parties, conversations, and made friends I still see at cons today. 

In the eighties, soon after the premiere of Star Trek: The Next Generation, I attended some conventions run by companies for profit. These conventions were different than the fan cons. Initially, these pro conventions only had two spaces: a main stage and a shopping mall. Sometimes, there were exhibit spaces as well. The guests at these conventions were almost exclusively movie and television stars and creators. 

Over the years, I had seen all of the original Star Trek series cast and many from the other series at a fan-run convention in St. Louis called Space Trek. However, as the pro cons grew, they became the primary or only way to see the on-screen (or screen-related) celebrities. 

At these pro run cons, I often felt like a commodity. These for-profit conventions were shows. I found a seat in a big main stage room and stayed there most of the day. Many of the presentations felt like commercials. I felt like the Ferengi had taken over the con business. 

To be fair, a few of the fan-run conventions focused far more on literary science fiction than television, movies, or comic books – sometimes with a problematic attitude. I remember a person at a panel sneering, “Haven’t you ever read Left Hand of Darkness?” But this was not true at all fan cons; each one had a unique personality. 

I was introduced to science fiction through short stories and novels and I have always been a reader. I am also an enthusiastic fan of genre television shows and movies. There are fan conventions that catered to all of these interests, even if some had a higher-brow tone. But the pro conventions focused on comic books and media (and related products). The fan cons focused on what the fans who organized and attended them wanted: some were more literary, some were more media-focused, and some included anime, comic books, music, art, and more. 

In the 90s, I was immersed in my career and family, so spending the entire weekend at a convention was impractical. Sometimes, spending a Saturday was a luxury.  I did my best to go to the two local fan-run conventions, Windycon and Capricon, as often as my schedule permitted – which wasn’t as often as I wanted. 

For decades, my connection to fandom was through these two conventions. I did not attend the big comic cons that had become popular or the professionally run conventions focused on Star Trek or newly popular franchises. Since I didn’t have as much time (or money) for conventions, when I went, I wanted to connect with community and have substantive conversations and experiences. The pro cons felt like cotton candy, the fan cons were a sustaining meal! 

As my children and I grew older, I attended a few fan-run World Science Fiction Conventions, which were everything I loved about conventions writ gargantuan. I ventured out and went to a few fan-run conventions out of town. 

Recently, I retired. Now, I have time. I attended my first comic con, C2E2 (Chicago Comics and Entertainment Exhibition). When the folks who run C2E2 announced a major Star Trek convention in Chicago, it felt like an opportunity to reacquaint myself with the pro cons. 

I enjoyed C2E2 and Star Trek Mission: Chicago. However, if I have to make a choice between these stage and store cons and the cons run by fans for fans, I am going to the latter. I had a good time and I met some nice people, but the connections were superficial and commercial. 

All conventions must make money. There are bills to pay. Convention spaces don’t donate their space or resources. However, the commercial focus at C2E2 and Mission: Chicago was prominent. For example, it was very clear that Mission: Chicago’s real mission was to sell the new Star Trek shows. It was peddling all sorts of products and subscriptions connected to them. That was its main purpose. The celebration, exploration, and community were by-products when fans buy products. 

I liked hearing from the stars and creators, yet I missed the analysis and thoughtful conversations that are often present during smaller panels. The comedian emcees at Mission: Chicago did not seem to be fans themselves and often, perhaps unconsciously, took a condescending tone. I sometimes felt like I was at an event for children. 

I met some very nice people and had good conversations with the folks sitting around me. We didn’t walk to the con suite and sit down and talk. We didn’t ask each other, “Where are you going next?” I doubt we’ll see each other at the next con. 

I was pleased to see that both pro conventions had some events beyond the main stage. However, they were few. There were a few costume-related events, a secondary stage, and a panel room (or two); skimpy by even COVID fan con standards. 

The pro cons are not cheap! They want high prices for entry – and all the stuff in the exhibit hall. They also sell products related to their famous star guests: autographs, photo opportunities, and other ways to rub shoulders with celebrities were main items on the menu– for a price. 

Fans created these conventions many years ago. Business people now use them as marketing tools. Conventions, for me, are far more than celebrities and shopping. 

I wonder what all the folks who go to these big productions would think of their local conventions? Would they join a fan group, help with a fan-based charity project, discuss a book, and become more substantively connected to the brilliant, inclusive, and thriving fan family? I hope so. The World Science Fiction Convention is coming to Chicago over Labor Day Weekend. Windycon is in November and Capricon is in February. Join us! 

Friday, February 4, 2022

In Search of Media Integrity: What About Openly Affirming It?

We need a news source for everyone! 

Remember when there was a rule that, if a news story quoted one point of view, they had to provide the opposing viewpoint? The Fairness Doctrine was a rule from the Federal Communications Commission that stated that, if an organization is using a publicly held resource, the airwaves, to share news, that news must be “honest, equitable, and balanced.” 

Cable TV and relaxed regulations made the Fairness Doctrine a thing of the past. Suddenly, every point of view had a news source that was the opposite: unbalanced, biased, and sometimes stretching the truth beyond recognition. Spin and news were indistinguishable. 

Newspapers have frequently been allied with specific political points of view, but these leanings were only supposed to be seen in their editorials and opinion sections. The goal for their news stories was to be as factual and unbiased as possible.

We know that there is a limit to news neutrality. Students studying to become journalists learn about the myth of objective journalism. There are too many factors that can taint objectivity and a writer’s choices about which points of view to share may not be complete. 

Add to this the attempt of strong forces to purposely spread disinformation. Beyond advertisement and opinion, our recent elections have been plagued by powerful forces, both inside and outside the United States, creating propaganda that attempted to change people’s voting behavior. 

If voters can’t figure out what is true, how can they make good choices? If voters rely on sources that have specific agendas or points of view, a feedback loop is created that prevents growth, learning, and change. If voters are overwhelmed by so many different versions of the news, they may retreat to a mindset of choosing which is most comforting or consistent with their points of view rather than making a careful evaluation of the facts. 

Facts are the issue here. What are the facts? Over and over, we hear people debating if something is factual and often the response is, “I don’t believe that.” A fact is true regardless of any person’s belief in it. Denial of fact is not debate, but delusion. 

So how do we know what is factual? Therein lies the rub! 

At first, I was going to suggest a Wikipedia style crowd-sourced and checked news source. This way, all the interests would have the ability to both be represented and a reader could look at them side by side. 

Aside from articles becoming too long to digest, this idea also requires the creation of another news source and that news source has to reach people. There might be a way to achieve the same goal with our current media outlets. 

Instead, could we create a clear statement of integrity that news sources could endorse, a kind of pact or promise? A media source that signed on with this promise would be saying that the news they presented followed a set of ethical guidelines; it would be a kind of commandments of fair media. 

One doesn’t have to look far to find such a set of values. The Society of Professional Journalists  (https://www.spj.org/) publishes a code of journalistic ethics (https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp). In it, they state that 

“Journalists should: 

  • Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.
  • Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.
  • Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
  • Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.
  • Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.
  • Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
  • Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
  • Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
  • Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
  • Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.
  • Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
  • Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.
  • Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.
  • Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.
  • Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.
  • Label advocacy and commentary.
  • Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.
  • Never plagiarize. Always attribute.
  • Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.
  • Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.
  • Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.
  • Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.
  • Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.
  • Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.
  • Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.
  • Act Independently
  • Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
  • Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.
  • Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; do not pay for access to news. Identify content provided by outside sources, whether paid or not.
  • Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.
  • Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.
  • Be Accountable and Transparent
  • Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news content.
  • Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.
  • Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.
  • Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.
  • Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.” 

How would voters find out if their news source were trustworthy? The news source would openly state that it agrees to abide by this universal code of journalistic ethics. If a news source did not make this promise, that, too, would be a message. Much like the UL logo on a product says that Underwriters Laboratories’ tests have found it safe to use, we would know we could trust a media outlet’s promise of integrity because we would clearly know what that means. 

And if a media outlet violated this code? Well, that would be a news story for other sources to carry.