Spend five minutes in a room with a Republican and you are sure to hear an earful about how biased the media is. Stay another minute and you’ll hear how that bias lost the election for their favorite candidate. Of course, no one can explain how Ronald Reagan won (it was his sheer brilliance no doubt) or how George W. Bush managed to squeaked out two election victories (Karl Rove is one helluva a frickin’ genius, haven’t you heard?). Yep, that’s the pat response. If a Republican wins it’s because somebody somewhere with a GOP lapel pin and a gold cuff link was a mental giant. The GOP guy loses and the media ganged up on him. Republicans are such whiny crybabies!

Well, here’s a video of Shephard Smith defending the media - pretty cool, huh?

Oh, but it’s not just Republicans who claim media bias either. It’s the pollsters!

Evidently, there are a handful of really savvy researchers out there who have gone through the trouble of looking at news stories to see how many showed Barack Obama in a positive light versus how many were kind of John McCain. And if you listen to these jokers, they’ll tell you that the truth is in the facts. Only it isn’t. It’s more in how you interpret them, and I’m with these guys on that one.

Just remember: The next time some Republican or faux genius says that their guy lost because the media beat up on them, tell them that voters don’t vote for a guy just because newspapers and TV commentators say good things about them. Voters make up their minds based on what they see and in the Internet age when people are capable of looking for their own information at the drop of a hat, that’s not too hard to do. The media doesn’t lose elections. It reports the results of them.

A word of warning to citizen journalists, reporting ethics applies to you too. If you post fake news with intent to affect stock prices then you could face jail time as one citizen journalist with bad judgment may.

This is worse than plagiarism. Steal content and you might face a civil lawsuit and/or lose a job, but likely not jail. But posting fake stories so that stock prices rise or fall when you own the stock, well, that’s called larceny and it could get you jail time.

This is like insider trading without a partner. Remember Martha Stewart? Pillow talk was an expensive lesson for America’s most popular homemaker. It seems that love - and, yes, dirty (or clean) sex - has its price if you are playing the market while playing the field. You could go six months with no love or mercy.

But write stories with the intent to influence stock prices for stocks or commodities that you own and the penalties are just as stiff. You don’t even need the pillow.

Of course, in light of no evidence, the unnamed citizen journalist in the above story could have been just pulling a prank. Does that necessitate jail time? Likely not, but it could (and should) get the “journalist” banned from the site on which his story ran. And if name gets around, he may never get to write again. That would be justice well served.

Here’s an interesting blog post that brings up some ethical questions regarding contemporary news practices at the local level. Maybe ethics isn’t the right word, but propriety.

The real question, though, is not so much what the media did, but what parade organizers allowed. Didn’t someone approve the floats? Who was in charge of this parade? Didn’t someone tell these folks to leave that mess at home?

In order for these floats to have made it into the parade someone had to pay an entry fee (I’m guessing) and someone had to line them up in the right order and give them the go ahead to march. Who did that?

The interesting thing about this parade is its 100-year-old traditions. According to one community member:

The floats were part of the parade which has “been in existence for over 100 years and a portion of the parade is designed to poke fun at local and national events,” the committee said.

So if the parade is designed to poke fun at local and national events, does that include teen pregnancy? Does it include a particular act by a particular individual even if it is a teenager? Should the local media “report” on such an event and show the video footage of the “tasteless” acts by those in the parade?

These are all legitimate questions, but it seems to me that if this is a community event and it is designed to poke fun of the culture at large then it has done precisely what its objective is. Offensive? Sure, considering the nature of the culture, how could we expect otherwise?

This story from Houston Chronicle has me a bit befuddled.

I’m a big believer in journalistic ethics. Reporters shouldn’t break the law. They shouldn’t steal other people’s work or claim work that isn’t theirs. And so on. They’re principles more than rules and that’s important to note because principles, like rubber, bend, but rules break. I’m not altogether sure that this reporter is guilty of any ethical violation.

Here are the facts:

• Ramiro Burr was a music writer for the San Antonio Express-News
• His work has also appeared in the Houston Chronicle
• Burr published work in both papers that was written by someone else
• The other writer did not get credit or a byline for his work
• Allegations of wrongdoing were brought against Burr by an attorney of the other writer, a man named Douglas Shannon
• Shannon admits that he was a ghostwriter hired by Burr
• Burr’s contract with the Houston Chronicle gave him the liberty to hire employees since his status was that of an independent contractor and not a Chronicle employee

In light of these facts, I don’t understand why Burr apologized for wrongdoing. It doesn’t appear that he did anything unethical. If his contract allowed him to hire employees and he was writing as an independent contractor then having a research assistant who writes stories on your behalf is perfectly acceptable. It’s called “work for hire.” You do not owe the ghostwriter anything other than the fee that he agreed to accept for the work he was doing for you.

Since Shannon openly admitted that he was a ghostwriter and Burr’s contract with the Houston Chronicle allowed him to hire employees, this appears to be a case where Burr was in perfectly legal and ethical territory. Unless there is something else to this story or I’m missing a few facts, it doesn’t appear to be an ethics violation at all.

I guess the sticking point here then is whether the San Antonio Express-News sees its contract with Burr the same way that Houston Chronicle sees it. From the smell of things, it doesn’t, and maybe the Express-News frowns upon its writers hiring employees. If that is the case then I’d say that Burr is probably guilty of violating company policy, but not anything in the way of journalistic ethics. Again, unless I’m missing some facts.

The issue of accreditation guidelines which would have caused a major media boycott of the Indian Premier League (IPL) has been resolved by the Indian Newspaper Society (INS).

Though the agreement was settled amicably, there is still one clause concerning the issue of a bar on supply of photographs to dedicated cricket portals that lingers. The INS is looking to get that issue resolved, but will still cover the IPL under protest.

The Rest of The Story here

Photo courtesy of newsobserver.com

The News & Observer and nine other North Carolina news organizations sued Gov. Mike Easley on Monday over his administration’s deletion of e-mail, which they say violates the state’s Public Records Law.

The news media coalition accuses Easley’s administration of “the systematic deletion, destruction or concealment of e-mail messages sent from or received by the Governor’s Office” in violation of the law, according to the lawsuit, which was filed in Wake County Superior Court.

The Rest of The Story here

I never thought that I would see the day when media companies might actually OK piracy. Apparently, in order to create a “buzz”, some companies seem to have accepted piracy in some form or another.

This debate has very strong opinionated views. Where some might find this as an exploratory way to generate money from another source, others tend to deem this behavior as intolerable.

But look closer and you realize that the corporate suits aren’t all adopting the same strategy. The music industry doesn’t seem able to make up its mind: First it turned a blind eye to traditional mix-tape piracy, then it cracked down on illegal file-sharing while raising the price of CDs, and finally it slashed the price of CDs in an attempt to compete head-on with downloads, legal and illegal.

Whatever is decided, I can bet that the debate will continue to spark controversy for years to come.

The stand-off between the Indian Premier League (IPL) and leading news agencies over contentious accreditation clauses for the Twenty20 tournament starting on April 18 has been termed as a matter of concern by franchises, with some of them planning to discuss the issue with IPL officials if media coverage of the event is affected.

“If the issue escalates to a point where media or sections of the media will choose to ignore the IPL, we will have to step in, meet with IPL and seek clarifications. We need to find an amicable solution,” Charu Sharma, the chief executive of the Bangalore Royal Challengers, told Cricinfo.

The Rest of The Story here

Well, the wait is finally over and Bungie has released the details of all three new maps that will be featured in the upcoming downloadable map pack on Xbox Live April 15th.

The Legendary Map Pack will consist of:

GHOST TOWNPhoto courtesy of Bungie
AVALANCHEPhoto courtesy of Bungie
BLACKOUTPhoto courtesy of Bungie

These maps will cost 800 Microsoft Points which is equivalent to $10.00 USD. Since then, the Heroic Map Pack has been offered as a free download. For more on the Heroic Map Pack, click here.

Apparently, Britney Spears is in the middle of another controversy.

Photo courtesy of ABCNews.com

Ever since Britney took off in an ambulance surrounded by police cars, motorcycles and a helicopter, Dennis Zine, a popular political figure has pushed for L.A. lawmakers to provide a “Safety Bubble” for celebrities.

This “Safety Bubble” basically states that the Paparazzi must keep a minimum of 20 yards away from celebrities deemed “paparazzi targets”. Some celebrities with this level of star power are Angelina & Brad, Tom & Katie, George Clooney and…Britney Spears.

The demand for private, personal or intimate photos of celebrities is in greater demand than ever before. The reason being, just one of these photos can rake in six figures or more.

There should be limitations placed on “overly-aggressive” paparazzi who endanger the safety of those involved but, one thing to remember is that when someone becomes a “high-profile” celebrity, they should have already realized that much of their private life would no longer be private and that they have to sacrifice much of what us “little people” take for granted.