Elizabeth Blanks Hindman

“Spectacles of the Poor”: Conventions of Alternative News

This is an ethnographic case study of an inner-city neighborhood newspaper caught between two worlds: that of mainstream journalism, with its traditional routines and expectations, and that of alternative journalism, which emphasizes advocacy for lower-income people and presenting the world from the neighborhoods, not the outside worlds, perspective. The study focuses on how the newspaper deals with the conflict between those worlds and their interpretations of the conventions of objectivity, newsgathering, and story construction.

When old and new media collide: The case of WikiLeaks

In November 2010, WikiLeaks released over a quarter of a million US State Department diplomatic cables to the world’s media, exposing private communications between diplomatic officials at US embassies across the globe and the State Department at Washington, DC. This study analyzes the WikiLeaks controversy through institutional views of the US news media. Our analysis of 83 newspaper editorials found four prominent themes in US newspaper discourse: (1) The contrast between the “discretion and maturity” of traditional journalism and the rash actions of WikiLeaks; (2) The need for “old media” in a new media landscape; (3) The tension between the public’s right to know and national security; and (4) The invocation of the Pentagon Papers as a way of drawing clear lines of difference between journalism’s past and its possible future. Our findings indicate ongoing tension between “old” and “new” media at a time when definitions of journalism are increasingly diffuse.

Journalism’s “Crazy Old Aunt” Helen Thomas and Paradigm Repair

Veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas abruptly retired in summer 2010 after she gave unscripted remarks widely perceived to be anti-Semitic. This case study applies paradigm repair and attribution theories to explore how mainstream journalists repaired the damage to their profession’s reputation. It concludes that they (1) situated Thomas’s remark against a backdrop of journalistic excellence, subtly reinforcing the point that her career should now come to an end; (2) suggested Thomas’s remarks were caused by senility; (3) condemned her remarks as racist; and (4) raised the norm of objectivity.

Black Eye: The Ethics of CBS News and the National Guard Documents

This case study applies ethics theories and codes to the mainstream news medias response to the CBS News-National Guard forged documents fiasco of 2004. It finds that 177 newspaper editorials applied truth telling, accountability, independence, and stewardship principles in their criticism of CBS, but only in a limited way. While the editorials dealt well with the specific issues of the case, they missed an opportunity to discuss the broader ethical principles involved.

“Lynch-Mob Journalism” vs. “Compelling Human Drama”: Editorial Responses to Coverage of the Pretrial Phase of the O.J. Simpson Case

This case study uses attribution theory to analyze mainstream newspaper editorials concerning media conduct during the pre-trial phase of the O.J. Simpson murder case. Three major conclusions arise. First, many newspapers acknowledged poor, even unethical, coverage in general, without taking responsibility themselves. Second, while admitting problematic coverage in general, many of the editorials shifted blame to external causes, namely Simpson himself, the legal teams on both sides, others involved in the case, and even the public. Third, while some newspapers defended coverage, to do so they were forced to re-define that coverage as part of their watchdog role.

Confusing Roles, Uncertain Responsibilities Journalistic Discourse on Juan Williams, NPR, and Fox News

Conceptualizing journalism as a paradigm, we analyze 193 journalistic texts responding to Juan Williams’ 2010 dismissal from NPR for comments made on Fox News. We found three dominant themes. First, journalists appeared unsure of Williams’ role within the journalistic paradigm, indicative of the role confusion that characterizes contemporary journalism. Second, journalists invoked the objectivity norm despite its incongruity with the case, evidence of a paradigm grasping for certainties at a time of industry upheaval. Finally, journalists used Williams as a proxy to engage the public in a dialogue on the responsibilities of the commentator.

Divergence of Duty: Differences in Legal and Ethical Responsibilities

Focusing on media actions surrounding the initial shootout between the Branch Davidian religious group and agents of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms outside Waco, Texas, in 1993, this article examines legal and ethical duties of the media. Using the legal concept of negligence and the work of several philosophers, the article concludes first that the media did not violate their legal duties but did violate the ethical duty to minimize harm and second that although law and ethical intertwine and often share vocabulary, they are different.

‘People will die because of the BBC’: British newspaper reaction to the BBC Gaza appeal decision

This study examines the responses of British national newspaper editorials and op-eds to the BBC’s January 2009 decision not to air an appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee to raise money for refugees in the Gaza region. We find six prominent themes in national newspaper discourse: (1) the BBC demonstrating blatant disregard for human life; (2) the BBC ‘taking sides’; (3) raising questions as to whether the BBC was ever impartial; (4) the decision situated as part of a broader narrative of failure; (5) the decision running counter to the BBC’s public service mission; and (6) broader questions raised over the BBC’s future. Our findings indicate that the BBC’s role in British life is under continued debate. This has implications for the organization in a time when its role is under scrutiny and threat from commercial forces.

When is the Truth not the Truth? Truth Telling and Libel by Implication

Implied libel cases involve defamatory news stories composed entirely of factual, truthful material. Because they lack the false statements typically required for a successful libel suit, these cases present unique challenges regarding determination of falsity. This article examines how appellate judges articulate and apply conceptions of truth in libel- by-implication cases. It concludes that there exists no common understanding of truth and that judges and courts that favor the correspondence theory of truth tend to favor the media, while those that adopt the coherence theory of truth do not. This disagreement over the fundamental understanding of what constitutes truth leads to confusion and lack of clarity for journalists and judges. The article concludes that the actual malice standard apply in all implied libel cases.

Meshing Law and Ethics

In the 1940s, the Commission on Freedom of the Press—The Hutchins Commission—surveyed the state of U.S. journalism and issued a dire warning: If journalists did not behave ethically, government would eventually step in and force ethical behavior. Sixty years later, in Journalism Ethics by Court Decree, John C. Watson concludes that the Hutchins Commission’s warning was justified; that courts have, in fact, required ethics on the part of journalists; and that the legal system sometimes demands just, ethical results that remove from journalists the power to make their own decisions.