When a secret is leaked… benefit or drawback?

A media professional is responsible for the information he/she obtains. Being responsible means that they have to determine when it is necessary that the information be made public. Along with the information we may also discover secrets and that is when we must look into our code of ethics and really determine if the public has the right to know this secret or if is in the best interest of the public to keep it secret. In my opinion, if revealing the secret will have a positive effect on the community then it should be shared. A positive effect would be saving lives or preventing deaths, a negative effect would be anything that may harm the community. It doesn’t matter if the secrets we encounter involve a person, a group of people or a whole country it is the way we handle the information that becomes a matter of ethics.

In some cases it is not just the media professional who may encounter these secrets, it may be a person working in a facility that may hold sensitive information and it is that person’s choice whether or not to share the information. Such is the case of Porter Fischer a former employee of Biogenesis a Coral Gables anti-aging clinic. Mr. Fischer leaked documents linking various MLB players to the clinic. The reason behind the players visit was to obtain performance enhancement drugs. According to NY Daily News, Porter Fischer leaked documents he obtained from the Biogenesis offices to the Miami New Times. He did this after having a dispute over money with the biochemist that operated the clinic. It was later known that the MLB offered Mr. Fischer money for a signed affidavit and the rest of the documents he took from Biogenesis. This person knew how valuable the information he obtained was. Furthermore he knew the MLB players needed to keep their visits to the clinic a secret because it is illegal to use performance enhancement drugs in the MLB. In this case we can see that the person who obtained the information decided to make it public, most likely for personal gain rather than for the public’s interest or right to know.

There are many talented athletes in the MLB although it is true that in the past years there have been a number of players that have used performance enhancement drugs to improve their game. In the Biogenesis leaked documents case, the players involved in the case are the ones who were affected. Does the public have the right to know about the activities athletes are involved in? Athletes today are public figures some may even be considered celebrities, they appear on magazine covers, cameos in movies and are still considered role models. I do believe that the public has the right to know whether an athlete is “cheating” to improve their game by using performance enhancement drugs.

There are two ethical dilemmas in this case, first the athlete that went to the clinic and second the person who knew about it and leaked the information. The ones hurt by the release of the information were the athletes. The one who benefited from it was the Biogenesis employee. If I were the journalist who received this information I would consider the ethical perspective of Communitarianism for this case, because it seeks social justice. There should be fairness for all players and they should all have the same starting point and equal playing field. And although this may be true for the physical field in which they play, it is not fair that some players have an advantage over others. As a journalist I would interview the players in light of the evidence and let them be the ones who tell their own story, this way they feel in control and not necessarily hurt by the information leaked.

Article about investigators who met with Porter Fischer about leaked documents: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-team/mlb-meets-biogenesis-whistleblower-article-1.1388707

In 2007, MLB player Alex Rodriguez (who was affected in the Biogenesis case) agreed to a 10-year, $275 million contract with the NY Yankees. This contract was the richest in baseball history, but “worth it” for an athlete like Rodriguez. He is the youngest player ever to hit 500 home runs and he has received many awards and honors for his many achievements. But now those achievements become questionable if he was using drugs to enhance his performance. Was he really worthy of a ten-year contract of $275 million? If we consider Kant’s Categorical Imperative and focus on the action, what Rodriguez did was illegal. If the action was universal law and every player did it, then there would be no problem in letting the public know about it, it wouldn’t need to be secret. After an arbitration hearing, Alex Rodriguez was suspended for 162 games, he may be off the field for the entire 2014 season. This is the consequence of his action, his secret made public.

Alex Rodriguez, MLB player affected by leaked information

As a professional using the media to share previously secret information may have some negative effects as well as positive ones. When secrets are revealed an investigation may take place and there are a lot of questions from the public and until it is confirmed, the professional’s credibility may be at risk. If the secret is very personal to the ones affected by it’s revealing, the one responsible for leaking it may even get served with a lawsuit. On the other hand, if a secret is revealed and there is a benefit to the public then that is a positive outcome.

I believe that as a media professional it may be a little difficult to avoid getting entangled in secrets, just because of the nature of the job or workplace. Each professional should take into consideration their own values as well as their code of ethics when making the decision to share secret information. If I was working for a place where I know I may encounter secret information, I would think of Mill’s Utility Principle and focus on the outcome. If the outcome is positive according to my values and code of ethics, and it would benefit the community, then I would consider sharing the secret information.

Case Study "Faking Photos: is it ever Justified?"

My case is called: Faking Photos: Is it ever justified? In this case, a Computer Software Corporation wanted to build their plant-site in an area of a city, which housed a homeless shelter. A reporter for the metro newspaper confirmed the Corporation’s intentions. He also found out that the property owner would give his response to the Corporation in 3 days, as of whether or not he’s willing to sell. This would mean that the homeless shelter, among other properties in that area, would have to move. Upon this knowledge the newspaper editor assigns Steve Stone, a photographer, to take strong and emotional photographs of homeless people that lived in the shelter. The idea was to run a story about the homeless shelter and the fact that it couldn’t afford to move, along with photos of the homeless people that would be affected by the Corporation’s decision. The photos were needed as soon as possible since the decision to sell was to be made in 3 days. Unfortunately Stone (the photographer) was having difficulties taking the photos because the homeless would cover their faces, walk away or plead with him not to take the photos. After developing the photos he had taken, the photographer wasn’t satisfied with his work because it didn’t portray what his boss wanted. The photos didn’t show pain or struggle. Under such tight deadline, Stone calls his friends and asks them to pose for him as homeless people. The photos are taken in an alley near but not in the affected area or street. The photos were successful and the editor was so impressed that he ran the story the next day and even placed one photo on the front page of the newspaper. The day the photos are printed the newspaper and the Corporation receive calls protesting the plant-site. Later that same day, in a press conference, the Corporation indicates that it would be best to look into other plant locations in the city.

To evaluate my case, I will be using the Photographer’s Code of Ethics. This code of Ethics has various sections; I will be using the Responsibility of the Photojournalist section. According to its website, this is a guide for ethical business dealings, protecting the profession, the photographer, vendors, employee, subjects, clients and colleagues. 

To find out more about the Photographer’s Code of Ethics, you may visit:

http://ethics.iit.edu/ecodes/node/3666

To speak about the Responsibility of the Photojournalist, I’d like to first refer to the word responsibility. According to Chapter 2 of our book Controversies in Media Ethics, to be responsible requires thought, decision-making, and action it is not just about obeying orders. To be responsible is to be unselfish, to consider and work for the benefits of others without expecting any kind of reward. 

The responsibilities of the photojournalists are as follows:

1. Photograph as honestly as possible, provide accurate captions, and never intentionally distort the truth in news photographs.
2. Never alter the content or meaning of a news photograph and prohibit subsequent alteration.
3. Disclose any alteration and manipulation of content or meaning in editorial feature or illustrative photographs and require the publisher to disclose that distortion or any further alteration.

This Code of Ethics is helpful in evaluating the ethical considerations of this case study because it relates directly to the case and outlines how a photographer should perform, even under deadline pressure. The first responsibility is to photograph as honestly as possible and it indicates that a photographer should never intentionally distort the truth in news photographs. I believe that the photographer in the case intentionally distorted the truth because the people in his photos were not really homeless. The photos were not honest. The second responsibility is to never alter the content or meaning of a photo, which is what the photographer in the case did when he asked his friends to pose as homeless people. The third responsibility states that the photographer should disclose any alteration and manipulation of content or meaning. The photographer in the case clearly did not disclose to his editor about the truth behind his photos. 

This Code of Ethics is not helpful in evaluating the ethical considerations of this case because the end result was for the good of homeless people and to prevent them from suffering. The editor needed photos of homeless people and that was what he received and the photos made the impact that he needed them to make. It raised social conscience in the people that called the newspaper and Corporation and it changed the minds of the corporate executives.

If we consider Mill’s Utility Principle and focus on the outcome, then we can say that the photographer was right to have friends pose as homeless people. If we look at the case from the editor’s point of view, we see that he wanted to run a story that would explain why the Corporation shouldn’t build its plant-site in that particular part of the city. The homeless shelter couldn’t afford to move and many homeless people would be affected by this Corporation’s decision to build their site there. The editor needed strong emotional photos that would evoke interest in the audience and the Corporate’s leaders. The outcome was that the Corporation declined to build their plant-site where the homeless shelter was. The outcome turned out to be what the editor wanted.

If we consider Kant’s Categorical Imperative and focus on the action, then we can say that the photographer was wrong or acted against his Code of Ethics. He did not portray the truth in his photos. Even though he didn’t alter the meaning of the photo, he didn’t disclose to his editor the truth behind the photo. He didn’t express his difficulties getting the photos that he needed. He didn’t have a caption that indicated the people in the photo weren’t really homeless. And of course that poses the question about audience reception, how would the audience react if they read a story about a homeless shelter, then see that the picture shows a person pretending to be homeless? I believe that disclosing the truth behind the action would not have had the same outcome or audience response.

What was most helpful in this case was that even though the photos didn’t show a real homeless person, the outcome helped many homeless people. The photographer was acting out of desperation because he needed to comply with what his boss wanted and he didn’t have a lot of time to do it. In the end he needed photos of homeless people and that was what he took. He was responsible with fulfilling his task, he thought about a solution to his problem, he made a decision and acted upon it. 

In my opinion the outcome of this case was not necessarily positive for everyone involved. The Corporation had chosen that site because it was in a run down part of the city. Having the Corporation build its plant-site there might have helped other people in the city by creating jobs, cleaning a run down part of the city and it would’ve brought financial gain to the property owner. To me the only ones that benefited from the Corporation’s decision were the homeless people and their shelter. So, faking photos could never be justified because even when one group may benefit from it in a positive way, there may be another group that will not benefit from it. And when the truth is not being portrayed in the photo it is still deceiving to the audience.

Ethics

As a communications student, I plan to enter a profession related to Digital Multimedia Production (DMP) field. One area I am interested in is sports broadcasting but more specifically in editing. Whether it is editing photos or video footage there are many ethical scenarios that a professional may encounter. I worked at NBC Sports as part of my professional internship. I learned a lot from this experience and received lots of advice from professionals working in the NBC Sports facility. One advice that stood out to me was that as a sports editor, you should not let the way you feel about a team interfere with your work. One ethical scenario an editor could encounter is “photo or footage manipulation”. When doing this you are misrepresenting the truth of what really happened. One way of manipulating an image can be to digitally alter the image so that it may represent something different than what was originally taken. I was told that it is ok to be a fan, but for work purposes an editor should not manipulate an image to benefit his/her favorite team or misrepresent a team they don’t like. In sports, any kind of manipulation to the media can be offensive to the team, their managers, family and fans.

Sports editors have to present game producers with highlight reels and footages of previous games. Another ethical scenario an editor may encounter could be the acceptance of free gifts or tickets to sporting events in exchange of a highlight reel that may boost one team over another. A highlight reel that shows one team doing great/outstanding plays while the other does regular plays is misleading. This may be done to boost one team over the other or to showoff the home team. Either way it is still not a true representation of the team.

Sports Illustrated is one of the most recognized sports magazines. The magazine is read by its subscribers and by people who buy individual issues each week. In November 2012, Sports Illustrated published a photograph of the Baylor Bears football teal celebrating after their victory over the Kansas State Wildcats. But something was different in the image; it showed the Baylor football players wearing green jerseys when they actually wore black ones in this game. This is an example of photo manipulation. After the mistake was revealed, a VP at Sports Illustrated said the magazine would run a correction the following week. He also said that the photo manipulation was a production error that was misleading.

Original Photo

Manipulated Photo

You may read about this story and see the images here:                    http://petapixel.com/2012/11/29/sports-illustrated-magazine-accused-of-manipulating-college-football-photo/

When I was a teenager I was a member of the Pentecostal church. There I learned about doing the right thing and about making choices in life that present the truth in any situation. Even though I am not a member of any church group today, I still have my beliefs. I also remember what I’ve learned and put it into practice in many aspects of my life. My parents also played a role in teaching me about what is considered the right thing to do. I’d say that my religious background and my parent’s teachings are the tools I can draw on to help me in ethical decision-making. 

From the course readings I’ve learned various ways to define the word ethics. From the Elliot reading I learned about case studies and how they are used for ethical discussions. This practice may improve the discussants’ critical decision-making abilities. Elliot mentions that in an ethics discussion the best opinion is the one that best addresses the morally relevant factors of the case. The reading also included a guideline made up of 5 questions. Elliot mentions that these questions may be used as a map for ethical discussions. The guideline questions are a good tool to follow for ethical decision-making.

From the Plaisance Chapter 2 reading I learned that ethics deals with finding the solution that may be best or close to best, among other options that are less fulfilling. That the focus of ethics remains on how we reach that decision rather than the final decision itself. That ethics it is about the discussion and debate process from which the final decision is reached. It is also about how we manage the gray areas or areas that are unclear or not as simple, therefore require us to think more deeply about our values before reaching a decision. Plaisance also offers various codes of ethics for journalist, marketers, and public relations professionals among others. As for Media Ethics in cyberspace, Plaisance offers the Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics. Among the commandments there was one that really stood out to me, commandment number 8:

•  Thou shalt not appropriate other people’s intellectual output.

The reason this one stood out to me is because in the technological world we live in today, it is very easy to copy other people’s work. Not many people invest time on doing real research when there are tools in the Internet that help us reach answers to questions faster. Other people’s work is revealed through search engines by simply typing in certain key words. I believe that the Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics should not only be applied to computers but also to all devices used today to access the Internet, such as cell phones, tablets, and iPads among others. But Plaisance explains that even though we live in a high-tech world, that shouldn’t change our basic standards ethically informed communication.

Some topics I’d like to see addressed in class are: the acceptance of gifts at work, when is it appropriate to use an anonymous source and is it correct to use a sports celebrity or well-known person’s reference to obtain a sports media related job.