March 25 reading

It seems silly to me that any code of ethics would have to be specified for electronic journalists when we are constantly saying that they should be held to the same standards as any other journalist. Just by saying that these are the ethics guidelines for electronic journalists - aren't we implying that there is some difference between them and other journalists? That doesn't make sense to me. And it's not as if anything on that list of ethics practices really differs from any other code of ethics I've seen, but I just don't see why the association would even create that loophole for the future. What might have made more sense, in my opinion, is to find examples of how situations from a journalists code of ethics might apply differently to electronic journalists than to print journalists. I think we are all still responsible for the same moral code, but I can see situations in which an electronic journalists might be confused about how to approach things on the Web - especially since the Web is so conducive to visuals and free-flowing information and, as Robert Steele wrote, getting it all out "as quickly as possible."

The thing is, I think that posts like Robert Steeles and the conversations that Poynter had with online journalists are blowing the issue out of proportion. Everyone should just say: do things online exactly how you've learned to do them in print. Then you have specific conversations when things arise that make those old rules unclear. But to have these big conferences about the ethics of online journalism just gives journalists the idea that the ethics are different which is where all these questions come from. I mean really, look at that list of questions that journalists have asked about ethics - is there ANY reason that ANY practicing journalist should have to pose a concern like, "speed of posting versus confirmation"? That's pretty much Into to Journalism. Not online journalism. Just journalism.

Honestly, because of the view I just shared - I didn't read the post on the ethics of online journalism. It's just too much.

The guide to audio and video editing does make sense though and I actually found it very useful. One thing I found really interesting was the idea that viewers are quicker to place blame on a subject viewed in slow motion than in standard speed. I doubt that I would ever find reason to put slow motion into a video I was producing, but that's really intersting!

I think the ethics of digital photography are a little vague. In reading the sections "What you can do' and 'what you can't do,' I find that there is a big gap that is not covered there. It's possible this is because the guide was written in 2002 and since then there are a lot more capabilities in digital photography, but I don't think it tells the whole story. For example, the guide says that it's within reasons to make adjustments in focus or glare - but the author of this post had an issue with an over-sharpened photo in a professional publication. So where's the explanation there? How do you know what's too much?

In that same vein, I really appreciated the depth to which the Sarasota Herald-Tribune explained their photo policy and broke it down into what warrants what level of discussion. It is obvious that the paper provides an open, discussion-based environment that is willing to judge things on a case by case basis instead of instituting hardfast rules. In times when the technology is constantly changing, this seems like the smartest strategy. It was also interesting to see what other papers considered acceptable or unacceptable in terms of photo content and manipulation. Especially interesting is the restriction of photos that feature bodies or victims (which I found appropriately sensitive of the papers) and photos of politicians signing documents or looking at checks near a campaign season. You can tell that these staffs have really thought long and hard about how these images are perceived by their readers.