Links to Comments on Digital Ethics Essays

http://digitalethics.org/essays/continuing-saga-self-destructive-tweet/

http://digitalethics.org/essays/yik-yaks-growing-pains/

The Efficiency of Awareness

In The Ethics of Imagemaking, Jay Ruby criticizes several methods of distributing and displaying images—from art exhibits to news photographs to documentaries. His argument is that they either don't tell the whole truth, or when they do, it's at the cost of the individual's involved. However, what struck me as particularly unsettling was his view on the influence of documentary films. According to Ruby, "Power comes more directly from the end of a gun than it does from the lens of a camera. Few revolutions were won in a movie house or on the six o'clock news." I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. While guns and violence may be effective in creating upheaval and some form of immediate change, the power of films and news coverage continuously proves just as impactful.

Netflix has played a major role in making documentary films more accessible and thus more effective. With over 1,000 documentaries available to stream instantly, Netflix has made the documentary film essentially more "mainstream." Instead of having to find a theater where a particular documentary is being played, indicating that the individual has prior knowledge of the film already, people can just browse Netflix's nicely organized category and find a documentary film that is either popular at the moment or one that caters to their interests. Documentaries such as Blackfish and Food, Inc. gained significant popularity recently and raised attention as well as progress regarding the topics they covered.

Blackfish, CNN's documentary about the horrors at SeaWorld, has resulted in several changes since its release. According to the news outlet, Mic, not only has SeaWorld's stock dropped as a result of the documentary, but legislative action is being taken to "end the use of performing orcas in theme shows, ban captive breeding and prohibit the import and export of the so-called 'killer' whales."

Similarly, Food, Inc. showcased the atrocities associated with the corporate food industry. In a Q&A with the filmmakers, PBS revealed several legislative steps that have been taken to improve food safety, as well as progress regarding other subjects explored in the film. It's evident that these documentaries are having some sort of impact.

I think it's quite ignorant to say that power can't come "from the lens of a camera." The power that documenting and distributing images provides is simply making people more aware. When people are aware about an issue, they can do something about it—make change, win "revolutions." Documentaries, art exhibits, news photography, and news broadcasting all educate the viewer about a specific issue. Dismissing them as ineffective is essentially dismissing the power of individuals to create change.

Internet Necessity

In her essay, The Ethics of Access, Federica Fornaciari brings up a very interesting yet relatively overlooked argument. She claims that the internet has become a pivotal aspect of our lives, and those without it are at a serious disadvantage in almost all aspects of life. She states, "To us, digital technology is an essential tool of social participation that may fundamentally influence human relationships." We utilize the internet for social, academic, political, business, and recreational reasons, yet we don't realize the impact that has on individuals who don't have that kind of access.

Internet Live Stats defines an internet user as an "individual who can access the Internet, via computer or mobile device, within the home where the individual lives." Fornaciari writes that in 2012, there were 2.4 billion internet users. While that number has increased to nearly 2.9 billion by 2014, that still leaves almost 60% of the global population without internet access. In a world where the Internet has become so influential and necessary for connecting and functioning, that seems to be quite problematic.

However, if the majority of the population lives without the same accessibility that we do, is the dire necessity of the internet really that immense? Yes, the internet provides for a vast array of possibilities and opportunities to connect and engage on a whole other level. Yet, I think we sometimes place too much importance on those digital connections. The internet is definitely the future, and because of that we treat those without it as charity cases who are stuck in the past. Fornaciari claims that "developing and supporting educational structures that facilitate digital access is fundamental for the future of the Web, for fully developing its potential to become a powerful and unprecedented democratizing tool and, perhaps, to start making the world a better and more inclusive place." While that inclusivity would prove beneficial, it seems like its aimed more at benefitting the future of the Wb more than the individuals utilizing it.

Community Journalism

Plaissance very clearly suggests that communities are significant in the realm of communications and media. He presents the idea of "participatory journalism" in which average civilians play a more active role in news coverage and distribution. More so than before, non-journalists are becoming involved with and even pivotal to journalists seeking first-hand and authentic accounts of various events. Plaissance mentions the media's use of civilian cell phone images from the 2005 London train bombings, and he argues that "it is almost expected that eyewitness content will be used from people who would never otherwise call themselves journalists" (Plaissance, 226). Its interesting how "the public" has become a source that journalists and media professionals turn to for eyewitness content, when conversely, the public has almost always turned to media for such information. That relationship seems like it should be mutually beneficial, and for a time it has been. Nevertheless, with the continuous improvement of cell phones, cameras, and other digital devices, it's becoming easier for the average Joe to capture and distribute news.

This article from the Huffington Post uses cell phone footage as the basis of its story. The video shows two suspects of the Charlie Hebdo bombings brutally murdering a police officer. While there is no mention about from who the footage came from, the Huffington Post uses it as the sole source and topic of its story. That's just one example of the media using the public to tell the story.

However, with social media, the public has begun to take on a more active role in the news realm. Take for example, the Ferguson protests. While major news networks did eventually cover them and provided some information about them, the most compelling and accurate information came from Twitter—from people providing first-hand accounts. The media eventually stopped talking about the story, but the internet didn't. Updates, videos, and tweets were (and still are) constantly circulating, providing a more comprehensive and detailed look than the news networks did.

While the public will always turn to the media for information, I think it's becoming increasingly more apparent that sometimes the public itself is a good source. People are turning to the internet for answers instead of the newspaper or the TV. First-hand accounts are becoming more valuable than catchy headlines. The credibility of the public is increasing. 

Privacy vs. Entertainment

There's no doubt that the People of Walmart and People of the CTA pages are funny and entertaining. Some of the posts on them are just so out there and ridiculous, you almost feel as if they need to be shared. But as we scroll through the various hilarious images, we often forget that these are actual people that are being made fun of, not some distant fictional characters. So that raises the question of whether sites like this are ethical or not. On pure instinct, you want to say "Yeah, it's totally fine because it's funny. This is for entertainment; it's not hurting anyone directly." However, if any one of those people found themselves on there, there's a very big chance they might not see it that way. They'd essentially feel hurt or embarrassed, and if their name somehow got connected to the image, it would haunt them for what seems like forever, considering the Internet doesn't really "forget" things. And taking their picture and posting it online without their consent is on some level a breach of their privacy. Yes, they were out in public and agreed to display themselves like that, yet, they really only gave consent to the patrons around them to view them like that. It would seem wise to ask people for their consent before posting their image on the Internet, but that would completely dismantle sites like People of Walmart or the CTA since I highly doubt many of those people would agree to it. It's alarming to see our willingness to forgo privacy for the sake of entertainment.

Another example of disregarding privacy for entertainment is the scenario of the guy live-tweeting his neighbors' breakup. While hilarious and fun to read, that's definitely an invasion of privacy. Yes, they were on the roof and out in the open, but they never expected to have their entire conversation broadcasted to the world. Had they found the tweets, I doubt they'd be happy about it. Live-tweeting normal, everyday interactions has become a bit of an Internet phenomenon. Here is another example of this fad. Colton Haynes, an actor and model, live-tweets a date gone awry:

While entertaining, this act of publicizing people's conversations leaves a bit of a sour taste in people's mouths. Haynes even writes "I'm a terrible person but..." signifying that he knows that on some level this isn't right, but for the sake of entertainment, he's going to ignore that pesky little thought. I'll admit I've done similar things—tweeting about the random people I see out and about or things I hear while in public. I've done it and other people do it for the sake of entertainment. We forget that there are real people behind the ridiculousness, and we disregard it because "it's funny" or "it'll get retweets/favorites." It's not a good thing, but it's not something that's going to go away. We're distancing ourselves more and more from humanistic qualities for a few good laughs.

Documenting War

Both of the articles about Louie Palu presented interesting perspectives about the role of journalists in war coverage. In the Q&A style article from the Globe and Mail, Palu describes war as being personal. He states, "I cover wars that are in some way personally connected to me." While most people would assume that war correspondents choose that path for the edgy and exciting stories they cover, the danger is very real, thus the motivation to put themselves in harms way stems from somewhere else for these men and women. It's a desire to unveil the truth. 

For the average civilian, war is relatively distant from our lives, and we take in news about it with a sort of desensitized disconnect. Most of us know of the atrocities of war, but we don't really understand them completely. War correspondents strive to convey that understanding to us. They've been there, they've lived it, and they want to make the public aware. Palu says, "All the issues that surround war aren’t going to go away. Until we deal with that collective memory, it’s going to sit there. It’s going to be a problem, and it’s going to rear its head again." 

It's important to remember that these journalists are in just as much danger as many of the men and women serving in war zones. The risk of injury and even death is very real. Take Bob Woodruff for example. On January 29th, 2006, the tank he was traveling in was bombed, and Woodruff suffered extensive brain injuries. Luckily, he survived and went on to start the Bob Woodruff Foundation to help veterans who also have suffered injuries across seas. Since he was "embedded" into the military in order to obtain coverage, his life was constantly on the line. In an interview, Woodruff explains that this integration of war and journalism, though not new, is becoming more of the standard for war journalism. "I think, like most reporters," says Woodruff, "Embedding is something that became much more prevalent in Iraq and Afghanistan than it ever had before."

While journalists can cover the war extensively, it's nearly impossible for them to stay there for the entire duration and capture every moment. It eventually takes its toll on them. Palu describes his thought process in the article from VQR: "I couldn’t see an end to what I’d been covering, and the risks no longer made sense. Afghanistan is like a balloon. If you squeeze one end, it just swells on the other." 

Giving Up Privacy

In the chapter on privacy, Plaissance discusses several examples of situations where people's right to privacy was questioned. Becky Lynn Gritzke's situation was especially unsettling. The then college student was caught on tape in 2000 drunkenly flashing her breasts at Mardi Gras by the show Girls Gone Wild. The show then used that footage without Gritzke's consent for the company's videos, cover, website, and advertisements. Gritzke sued on the basis of "embarrassment, humiliation, mental pain and suffering and the invasion of privacy" (Media Ethics, 175). The lawsuit was settled in 2002 when the company agreed to stop using Gritzke's image. 

However, the company's defense was "that Mardi Gras was a newsworthy event and that people who removed their clothes in public there forfeited their right to privacy." That's what strikes me as particularly unsettling, especially since Plaissance seems to take a similar stance. He explains that "Gritzke's claim that her privacy was somehow violated is a far cry from the true meaning of privacy" and that "Gritzke chose to 'vacate' her privacy" (Media Ethics, 175). 

While I agree that to some extent Gritzke relinquished some of her privacy by baring it all, there is a line that should not have been crossed. The fact that her stunt was then publicized and distributed without her consent is where I think her privacy was indeed violated. She knowingly flashed her breasts to the people on the street and consented to that "breach" of privacy. However, she did not agree to have that footage widely distributed and forever associated to her name. 

Subsequently, the damage was relatively lasting. If you Google Becky Lynn Gritzke's name, many search results are about the lawsuit, and the remainder are pictures or videos that are linked in some way to her involuntary stint on Girls Gone Wild. 

The very first result is a link to her IMDB page that names her an actress in two episodes of Girls Gone Wild. It isn't until the sixth link that her LinkedIn profile comes up. As a business professional, you'd most likely want that to be the first thing to pop up on a search of your name as opposed to articles and pictures regarding a one-time "wild" incident. 

Essentially, I believe that Gritzke did not entirely give up her right to privacy. The key to privacy, in my opinion, is consent. While we may not know what that information may do or where it may go, at least we can attest that it was our decision to have it released. 

Voting and Journalism

Plaissance's chapter on autonomy discusses several interesting questions regarding the extent to which individuals involved in media and communications can exercise various freedoms and rights. I thought it was particularly interesting when Plaissance brought up the idea that some journalists will forgo registering to vote in order to avoid "being suspected of advocating an agenda in their work" (Media Ethics, 154). It's a peculiar paradox—in order to uphold their credibility and dispel any suspicions of acting like an autonomous force, some journalists will relinquish this essentially fundamental right. The right to vote has attached to it the connotation of representing freedom to the ultimate degree, and I find it fascinating that there are journalists out there that are so dedicated to providing unbiased and objective coverage, that they will bring their work into their personal life to that extent. They're not just working as journalists—they're living as journalists.

In this collaborative article, three journalists express their reasons for voting or not voting while covering elections. Mike Allen explains why he decides not to vote: "The candidates I’d been covering — and the readers who trusted me — could see me and know that I wasn't neutral in my heart." Jim VandeHei takes a similar approach stating, "It is our job to do everything plausible to divorce ourselves from political bias as we try to earn the trust of readers and report as evenhandedly as humanly possible." However, John F. Harris disagrees with both men. He says, "Being a journalist for an ideologically neutral publication like Politico, or the Washington Post, where I used to work, does not mean having no opinions. It means exercising self-discipline in the public expression of those opinions so as not to give sources and readers cause to question someone’s commitment to fairness." He essentially claims that a journalist should be capable of distancing himself from his opinions when necessary, but relinquishing the right to vote isn't going to necessarily guarantee that.

I sympathize more with Harris in this argument, although I do understand why Allen and VandeHei choose to refrain from voting. I think the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics creates some ambiguity on this topic when it states that journalists should "avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived" (Media Ethics, 144). This idea of "perceived conflicts of interests" makes journalists wary of disclosing their opinions, even outside of their work. How do you define the perception of a conflict of interest? It's a bit of a grey area and very subjective, thus I can see why many journalists prefer to avoid it altogether rather than risk their credibility.