Blog #3- This Is the End...

For the last and final blog of CM 503, the cases I chose to study are Case 8-A and Case 10-E, both which deal directly with celebrity, media, and the ethical decisions that they are faced with on an everyday basis. Oddly and interestingly enough, both of the cases have a link to actor Tom Cruise, which is a never good situation. I will start with 8-A from Chapter 8: “The Case of the Well-Documented Suicide” by Philip Patterson (Oklahoma Christian University).

On August 19^th, 2012, a very well-known filmmaker took to the Vincent Thomas Bridge in San Pedro, California and caused a spectacle. No, he was not hanging out at the bridge taking in the scenery but was rather planning to commit suicide. Tony Scott, brother of Riidley, successfully achieved his goal, which had been pre-meditated, yet onlookers had no idea what they were about to be witness to.

 

Scott, who brought us “Top Gun” and “Taking of Pelham 123,” left suicide notes in all of his main hang-outs and was ultimately filmed crouching down then leaping to his death. According onlooker, Eric Brill: “I could very, very clearly see his (Scott) face. He was very determined. He was not crying, he didn’t look upset, he didn’t look sad. He just looked very resolute.” (pg. 199)

Others were taking both photos and with the advancements of smart phones, had the ability to capture video footage of the jump happening. These videos were then shopped around to media outlets and it was TMZ that revealed this news. They have both a website and a very popular TV show that is nothing but gossip. TMZ said they declined to purchase the videos but did not say how high the price was.

 

There are many ethical questions that come from this case such as whether or not photos and/or videos of a suicide should be newsworthy and sold. If Scott had not had some prominence in Hollywood society, would that change the importance? One could argue that this falls under Bok’s Model as “we must have empathy for the people involved in ethical decisions and that maintaining social trust in a fundamental goal.” (pg. 5)

The fact that Tony Scott was so troubled in his life that he felt the need to end it is something that I believe we should empathize with. However, the fact that he jumped off of a popular bridge during a crowded time, it is bound to make headlines regardless of who he was. In the end, those who witnessed the act will want to know what happened to this mystery jumper. Did he die? Why did he kill himself? Did he have a family? He was removed from the water after someone called 911 and emergency relief came to the scene.

It was not just the drivers who captured the suicide; there were surveillance cameras from a local business that captured the event as well. As to whether or not their people were ones to attempt to sell the footage, that has not been shared. I believe that there is a big difference between a photo which captures one particular moment versus a video, which brings the entire event to life from beginning to the bitter end, in this situation.

We know that the news is gritty and that nothing is off-limits but when do we cross the line to exploitation? I think that is still being examined but when it comes to suicide and matters that are so powerful and heart-wrenching, we need to consider the time and the place. If the video of Scott jumping to his death was posted on YouTube, it could be beneficial for use in a psychology class or rehab center but just because society is nosy and feels a sense of entitlement, the video should never have been shopped for personal gain.

Film what you want, watch what you want, do what you want but when you risk hurting those who have already been in pain just to earn a quick dollar, that is crossing an ethical and moral line. TMZ may have had enough morals to not buy the footage but they had no problem alerting the world that it was out there. Them taking this “high road” is just their underhanded way of saying that they are not as bad as they appear…but they are still creeps (my opinion).

Blog #2- The Middle of the Road

The two cases that I have chosen to discuss are 5-A (Anderson Cooper's Not So Private Life, CH. 5- Lee Wilkins, University of Missouri) and 7-B (Netflix: Not So Fast...A Response to Customer Furor, CH.7- Lee Wilkins, University of Missouri). Though 5-A appears to deal with a singular person in news anchor Cooper, it is really a media ethics issue as to how much do we as viewers have the right to know about those who deliver us the news. Do we even have this right as it is not in the Constitution? Let us delve deeper.

"Don't ask, don't tell"- a military term when it came to the LGBTQ community enlisting. You could be gay but it was against policy to reveal such information and if you did, you could be discharged. But what if you are one of the most popular and successful news anchors in the country? What personal standards should you have to adhere to? In July of 2012, Anderson Cooper of CNN’s “AC360” confirmed what many had “assumed” for many years: that he was gay.

Via statement/letter to Andrew Sullivan who writes for the Daily Beast, Cooper had this to say: “The fact is, I’m gay, always have been, always will be, and I couldn’t be anymore happy, comfortable with myself, and proud.” To be proud of who you are is something to be admired but was it Anderson’s responsibility to share the details of his sexuality and what makes the media think that we have a right to this information?

This is where the slope gets slippery. Cooper is from a very prominent family, his mother being heiress and fashion designer, Gloria Vanderbilt. Interestingly enough, she was married to her fourth husband when she had Anderson in 1967. That seems pretty controversial from the get go. Anderson’s brother also committed suicide in 1988 by jumping from the family balcony. The family is already used to controversy by now so it seemed that Anderson took his life into his own hands at a very early age. 

He started working as a Ford model when he was only 11 and literally made a life for himself away from his prestigious family. He may not have known the ramifications, if any, if he were to come clean with his personal life. He also had a job with Channel One that broadcast throughout classrooms. A naïve educational system could argue they did not want their students to learn from a gay man.

In 2007, “Out Magazine” named Anderson the second most influential gay man in the United States yet he had not confirmed nor denied. Five years later, it was like a huge revelation everyone had been waiting for but why? Is his preference towards the same sex top news that trumps wars, bombings, kidnappings, and shootings? Does it override all of the amazing work that he did during 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina (2005) as he is one of the most hands-on journalists in the world?

Anderson is an amazing journalist however, when he reports about LGBTQ news, is it his responsibility to say he is gay? As someone who is and has been so respected, I think that there is a part of him that should have come out sooner, if only to help a generation of those who are searching for themselves. The LGBTQ community needs as many respectable and successful people as possible so that they can know you can be gay and still be anything that you desire.

Anderson, in my opinion, has a social responsibility to his young fans to be honest about who he is but does that qualify as hot news? No. Is it a leading media topic? No. Is it ethical to question his sexuality and opt to not like him for who he sleeps with? Up for debate. He is who he is and if you respected his phenomenal journalistic abilities prior to him coming out then that should not diminish how one feels after the fact. Not to mention that his mother’s collection is now being sold at Wal-Mart; just adding that in.

Blog Assignment One- Let's Get This Show On the Road...

I have chosen to discuss Case Study 2-A (pgs. 37-38) and Case Study 3-F (pg.73). Both, in my opinion, are extremely relevant issues that span the generations yet they both pose ethical questions that I am sure everyone reading will want to weigh in on. I felt most passionate about 2-A just because the beginning ideals seemed so ludacris. I could not believe that any “educated” person was capable of saying the things that Missouri Senate Candidate Ted Akin did in “Can I Quote Me on That?” by Chad Painter (Eastern New Mexico University).

 

 

Akin apparently made the claim that a woman could get not get pregnant via “legitimate rape”; his reasoning was the female body knows if a pregnancy is not desired so it has a way of blocking sperm. I laughed so hard, I almost cried. This essentially negates the need for any form of birth control if the woman participating in intercourse knows that she is not ready to conceive a child. Really, that is what Akin is saying but Mitt Romney (R) put him in his place by saying that this claim was not only “offensive” but “entirely without merit.”

 

Soon, it became a question if Romney had really used the words “offensive” and “entirely without merit.” I always was taught that if it is in quotations, it must be true but as I learned, there is such a thing as Quote Approval, which is used for politicos as high as the President. A battle between journalists and politicos soon ensued as they both battled for “power” and “control,” something I feel that they should have to share. Now, press access is extremely limited when it comes to specific political events because of quote alterations and he said/she said backlash.

 

The art of journalism has suffered due to those who are unwilling to share the truth; to quote properly and to leave behind any bias they may have. I do not think that we can base any political candidate solely on what their staff releases in statements and such because we know that, the President included, does have someone who writes the words he says. Who knows how much of it is from his heart or just to appeal to the people? That is for a different day and time.

 

Society complains that we are left in the dark when it comes to the real issues so if a piece were to be submitted for quote approval, there should be an asterisk attached to said writings. As writers, it is our responsibility to bring as much truth as we can to the mainstream and it is those who cannot adhere to set guidelines that should pay the price. The problem is that even well-respected journalists have sunk so low as to create quotes or misquote so unless citizens are following the politicians around day and night with a microphone and camera, we will never see the whole truth and that is just sad.