We will spend time in lecture Monday discussing the ethics of retouching images in magazines and advertising. Check out the details of this case of retouching to prep.
Many people are praising Martha Raddatz’s performance in last night’s vice presidential debate. Her gender has been noted repeatedly. Why? Because only three women have moderated a total of four presidential debates since 1960 (the last one fully 20 years ago in 1992). Candy Crowley will become the fourth with her upcoming outing.
Does that matter? Why or why not?
You’ve likely heard or read about this:
This Poynter piece adds important context: Local TV anchor criticized for her weight: ‘I don’t take a lot of crap from people’ | Poynter.
What are the ethical questions in here? Some to get you started: Is this a news person doing editorializing? How is that justified? Do responses to personal attacks belong on news? How and why? The anchor ties her experience to larger social issues. What are the effects of that? How are social media being used to share this story?
The New York Times announced it would no longer allow sources to approve quotes after the fact.
The practice of allowing sources to review and approve quotes has become standard for many reporters, something that emerged in the last few months. Sometimes, quote approval can be a condition for a source cooperating, as we saw with the recent story of Michael Lewis and his access to the White House.
Sources argue that reporters often get quotes wrong, so approval is just a way to ensure accuracy. Others respond that such quote approval is an ethics violation, since, as a Times memo put it, the practice “risks giving readers a mistaken impression that we are ceding too much control over a story to our sources.”