"Media Hype" Video

After watching the video, please write your responses to the following on your blog:


In the video, there are examples of digital manipulation in photos and videos. When, if ever, is it ethical to alter a photograph or video that accompanies your news reporting?

In my opinion, under no circumstance is it ever ethical to a alter a photograph or video that accompanies your news reporting. Through this type of manipulation, readers are intentfully mislead and are presented with a skewed view of reality. For instance, in the video Oprah and Nelly Furtado's photos were presented as evidence of this type of alteration. The media, therefore, mislead both viewers and fans into believe that these celebrities looked like that in real life. Jounalists should hold themselves to higher standards, by reporting the truth rather than lies.


The video shows examples of "hype"-filled headlines and alarmist reporting. In many cases, this is due to the fact that such reporting tends to get the attention of audiences. Should the news media adjust their news reporting strategies based on reader demand and/or interest?

No, the news media should never adjust their news reporting stratefies based on reader demand and/or interest. While such "hype"-filled headlines may grab the attention of readers, it often instills false fears and uncessary worries in the mids of the general public. For instance, the video mentions many news station's exaggeration in reporting about the "Summer of the Shark." In numerous versions of this story, readers/ viewers were provided with manipulated facts about the "escalation" of shark attacks that occurred during a given summer. This year, when journalists reported on the escalation of swine flu at WSU, they actually mislead the public, in some respects, about it's escalation on our campus. A reporter acutally interviwed one of my friends on the subject a few months ago and, when we wathced the tape, we realized the news station had edited what he said to make his fears about the virus sound worse than they actually were. The media plays a huge roll in controlling how people view the world and should present a moral, fair and balanced report of all stories.

Several publications and media outlets accept "freebies" and "junkets" from PR firms and lobbyists. Under what circumstances, does this present a conflict of interest for the journalists?

When publications and media outlets accept "freebies" and "junkets" from PR firms and lobbyists, this presents a substantial conflict of interest for journalists. Oftentimes, journalists may be swayed to present a better image of the story as form of remuneration for whatever "freebies" they were given. For instance, the video explored how various car magazine reporters often accept free trips, dinners and entertainment activities from various car companies. Therefore, it is often difficult to determine the accuracy of their reporting since they may have been swayed to respond to the cars a certain way as a result of the free gifts they received. Once again, when actions such as these are taken, the public is presented with a skewed view of reality.


Why do you think so many media outlets were fooled by the "Fat Squad" and other fake news stories? Do you think that the Internet news media is more or less likely to fall for such pranks?

I think numerous media outlets were fooled by the "Fat Squad" and other fake news stories simply because they wanted to report stories that were unusual, interesting and would undoubtably attract viewers. For many news outlets, reporters and editors are more focused on ratings rather than accuracy and moral reporting. I think that the Internet news media is just as likely to fall for such pranks as various sites continue to compete for readers/viewers. Whenever such competition exists, it is inevitable companies will continue to seek out such stories whether or not they are true.