Ethics Critique: EC

This article obviously hits a nerve with me as well as many other journalism students, I'm sure. I can see both view points to this issue. On one hand, I think it is great for students to have the opportunity to write for major publications to get practical experience and name recognition. On the other hand, I don't think these students should write for publications as "free laborers." Most universities have their own newspapers where students can gain practical experience for credit hours. Atleast there, we are gaining a grade and hours toward our degrees. I also don't think it seems fair for journalists with more experience to lose jobs to recent graduates simply for the sake of money. If an individual is more qualified for a position, he or she shouldn't get the "boot" because an editor doesn't want to pay the more qualified person more money. If I were an editor, I would want the journalist who is going to bring me the most compelling stories for my readers, no matter how much I had to pay them. Now, I understand there is a budget for publications and such, but I wouldn't take the easy way out and hire a 21-year-old who can't write a decent lead. Also, if I am in a student's position, which I am, I wouldn't want to produce great stories for a publication where I'm not receiving any benefits, but the editor is. I would be honored to write for the New York Times if I were an NYU student, but knowing I only get to write for such an accomplished paper because there were 200 layoffs would be degrading. It's hard not pay attention to news coverage about the decrease of journalism careers, but I think journalists have a passion for what they do, so we're not as indulged in the bad publicity surrounding potential careers. A famous deontologist, Kant, said, "people should always be treated with respect and as ends unto themselves, never as means to an end." I feel as if student journalists are means to an end in the economic/journalism world.

Ethics Critique

Columbus Dispatch writer Meredith Heagney spoke to my Media Ethics class Tuesday, February 23, and made a relevant point concerning journalists' duty and social media. "A journalist's job is to cover the news, not make the news." I think this is a valid point when questioning where the line is between reporters and social networking sites. For example, tweeting the details of a meeting is creating the news, not covering the news. Covering the news would entail the reporter to speak with sources to gather accurate information and unbiased facts. When did reporters start misunderstanding their duty to the public? Although Pamela J. Podger offers many different views in her story, one stuck out to me. Cheryl Rossi's idea of having two separate Facebook accounts seems to make the most sense while creating the least amount dramatic debate. Although this whole debate is clearly complex and blurry, this solution is simple. The idea offers reporters to have social lives while maintainting "transparency" as a professional. I don't think there is any real answer as to where the line should be drawn. Many journalists are still asking the question. One newspaper journalist, Gina Chen, blogs about her thoughts which are basically the same as other every other ETHICAL journalist! Finally, when considering where to draw the ethical line between jounalism and social media, ask yourself these questions: What is the situation? Consider the principles, state the ethical issue, weigh the principles, consider external factors, examine all parties involved. At the end if you(being a journalist) have truly concluded that calling the president a "SCUMBALL" on your twitter is ethical and will cause no harm, then by all means...but I highly doubt that will ever be the case.