Religious Beliefs Should Remain Private

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and current Republican candidate for President in 2012 is a charlatan and a swindler. 

He was a supporter of women’s rights when he was running for governor of one of America’s more liberal states, then ever-so-conveniently changed his mind years later in order to boost his social conservative credentials. He’s worth more than $260 million dollars, yet tells unemployed voters he sympathizes with their plight because he’s also “unemployed” (while running for President is hardly a money-earning endeavor, he’s still doing so by choice). Romney also once infamously asserted that his sons’ service to his failed presidential campaign in 2008 was a more important task than the service of those in the U.S. military.

However, rather than focus on these and other examples of his chicanery, prominent media figures have instead elected to unfairly attack his religious beliefs. So as much as it pains me to do it, I believe Romney deserves some defense here.

Romney is a Mormon, one of the newer and fastest-growing sects of Christianity. Even though Mormonism dates back nearly 200 years and has always professed itself as part of the umbrella of Christianity, some (such as Baptist minister and Rick Perry supporter Robert Jeffress) have obnoxiously proclaimed that Romney should not be considered a candidate for President because he’s not a “real” Christian.

CNN/Tea Party Debate: Sexing up the GOP race and making $$$$

Debate: a contention by words or arguments (Webster's Dictionary)



Video by crooksandliars.com. 

Following last week's "nonsensical" Republican debate, the jointly organized CNN/TEA PARTY debate advanced the GOP presidential field of crazy and fueled questions that I could only file away into the "what the shit is this?" compartment in my brain.

A great deal has been speculated about the unusual marriage between CNN and the Tea Party. CNN itself has put efforts into explaining why it partnered with the party. Even Tea Party activists have noted that the debate, sponsored by the conservative Heritage Fund, is a situation of "strange bedfellows." Admittedly, it is a legitimate claim that the "Tea Party" has been a major influence in American politics over the last year and that voters should be informed about how this group will affect the election process. The point of the debate, Wolf Blitzer explained, "Its important that the American public knows where the candidates agree on the substantive issues and where they disagree. We want everyone watching to emerge from this debate more informed about these eight people who each want to become the President of the United States." 

However, the CNN/Tea Party debate has come off as a pure PR spectacle that only loosely resembled a debate, in which the aim is to offer voters a chance to become informed about important political issues and the candidates' actual positions. Take for example, CNN's preamble to the debate: a slick introduction that seems suited for revving up a crowd before a sporting event, cues which the audience diffused into wild applause and booing.

Considering that CNN's follow-up analysis and its own video of what some producer somewhere approved of as being the "greatest moments" of the ordeal, this debate might as well have been billed like a wrestling match: "Romney vs. Perry: the talking-points BLOW OUT of the year!" Because, basically, before anyone has the chance to begin to pick apart the candidate's talking points from one another, the scene has already been set. CNN even gave all the candidates catchy names, like characters in a Tarantino film. By the time Wolf Blitzer opens his mouth, you already know who the "best" candidates are ... and we are told to anticipate a rhetorical sparring match between them. This becomes what the debate is about, and the picky "my state is better than yours," "you're contradicting what you wrote in your book," side-arguments become the grounds for deciding which of the obviously favored candidates won. 
   
While presidential debates have been well regulated since 1987 by the Commission on Presidential Debates, primary debates are another matter entirely. The primary debates have clearly devolved into a complete circus ring that simultaneously exposes the moneyed interests major media outlets have in peddling the increasingly sexed-up debates and the complete joke our national political discourse has become.  

Unfortunately, there is also very little incentive for the major networks to keep this upcoming primary season from being anything other than a charade. The Project in Excellence for Journalism notes that the 2008 presidential campaign translated into record breaking advertising revenues for all three leading cable news outlets: FNC, MSNBC, and CNN.

When to Observe and When to Help: Ethical Dilemmas in CNN's Disaster Reporting

By Heather Turner


              On a Wednesday afternoon less than one day after a magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck near the capital of Haiti, CNN led the international coverage of the disaster and delivered some of the first images of the devastation to homes worldwide (Rainey 2010). Among CNN's nine correspondents and 40 crew members in Haiti was the network's Chief Medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a practicing neurosurgeon (Rainey 2010). Within days of the earthquake, the coverage that dominated both CNN's cable and internet content was the story of Gupta treating a laceration on the head of a 15 day-old baby. While the four minute Gupta-baby-treating clip brought instant recognition to both the doctor and the network, experts in media ethics pointed out that several ethical breaches were made, especially the obvious: the journalist had become part of the story and therefore, did not operate as an objective observer. The Gupta event in particular created plenty of fodder within the blogosphere and renewed the debate amongst journalism practitioners and media ethicists about the dilemma journalists face when reporting from disaster zones: when does a reporter observe and when does a reporter help?

              The first ethical standards in journalism took shape in the profession in the early twentieth century as "critics became concerned with the press's watchdog function and what the public had a right to know" (Ferre, 16, 2009). Scholars and academics set about creating ethical guidelines for journalists during this period, culminating in the creation of the Hutchins Commission during World War II (Ferre, 22, 2009). The group, which included Robert Hutchins, the president of the University of Chicago and Arthur Schlesinger, studied the effects and responsibilities of the nation's free press (Ferre 2009). Their recommendations for journalistic conduct, which included responsibilities such as "providing daily news that is trustworthy" as well as "inclusive reporting, free of stereotypes" (Ferre, 22, 2009), was adopted by journalism schools and elaborated upon by news organizations and academics. Perhaps one of the most well known is the code of ethics defined by the Society of Professional Journalists.  According to SPJ, today the organization's "Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of journalists, regardless of place or platform, and is widely used in newsrooms and classrooms as a guide for ethical behavior" (www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp). The SPJ Code of Ethics includes a preamble and specific guidelines for journalists to follow under the general themes to minimize harm, act independently, and that there is journalistic accountability (www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp).

             Less than two days after the CNN began broadcasting footage of Dr. Gupta treating disaster victims, SPJ reminded journalists of their role in disaster reporting in a news release. The release, entitled "SPJ cautions journalists: Report the story, don't become part of it" urged news organizations to "avoid blurring the lines between being a participant and being and objective observer" (www.spj.org/news.asp, 2010). By crossing the line between participant and observer, Gupta had violated several other SPJ ethical guidelines.

              One of these ethical breeches occurred in the hours and days after the Gupta event unfolded live before a global audience: the misrepresentation of the disaster due to playing and replaying the clip. The Gupta story was also a lead item on CNN's web site. According to the SPJ Code of Ethics, news organizations should "make certain that headlines, news teasers and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context" (www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp). A consequence of Gupta becoming the focus of the disaster in Haiti was the under-representation of the roles of other doctors and aid workers. Bob Steele, of The Poynter Institute and journalism professor at DePauw University described this process,"It gives the impression that these are the key people in what's going on ... It's an anecdotal capturing of reality, but there are thousands of medical personnel doing amazing things in Haiti" (Rogers, 2010). The subsequent Gupta coverage skewed the reality of what was happening on the ground in Haiti, as the roles of the very people who should have been the journalist's focus were downplayed in favor of hyping the role of the network’s new rock star.

              Moreover, material from the Gupta clip was used for promotional purposes by CNN, which further muddies the hypothetical journalistic waters. This was widely noticed and criticized by scores of other news organizations, including the LA Times, NPR, The Salt Lake Tribune and The Washington Post (Brainard 2010 CJR). In a report published in the LA Times blogs, Steele (2010), summarized: "Frankly, it isn't much of a story ... You can't help but look at this and worry there is a marketing element to it." Stephen J.A. Ward, director of the Center for Journalism Ethics at the University of Wisconsin also worried that the coverage was manipulative, "Is this compassion or is it congratulations? ... It's almost as if the networks are saying, 'Look at our correspondent down there.' It gives me an uncomfortable, queasy feeling" (Farhi 2010). In addition to CNN recycling the four minute video of Gupta treating the injured baby, the network also named the crisis "Saving Haiti," and took a major role in organizing fundraising efforts for relief aid, with the help of CNN's popular anchor/commentator Anderson Cooper and high profile celebrities (Lambino 2010).

              Perhaps a more disturbing consequence of Gupta's disaster coverage was that for the first time, all of the major domestic networks also sent doctor-journalists to Haiti, following CNN's example (Farhi, 2010). The Washington Post dubbed "Gupta effect," reverberated throughout the television sphere and provided networks with plenty of material to use to hype their own brands of participatory journalism. Among the doctors in the field were Dr. Nancy Snyderman, Chief Medical Editor of NBC News, Dr. Jennifer Ashton of CBS News, and Dr. Richard Besser of ABC News. Given the potential ratings gold doctor-reporters can generate, it is not entirely cynical to think that this is a factor networks take into account when deciding which correspondents to deploy in such situations. Indeed, it is not difficult to envision a media environment described by Dr. Bob Arnot, former Chief Medical Correspondent for NBC News: "The real risk is here that your producer calls up and says, hey we just saw the other network’s doctor deliver a baby, could you do an amputation. There’s a real risk that doctors could be pushed into things they shouldn't be doing because of the pressure of the suits or the producers, to just get better ratings" (NPR 2010, On the Media).
              
             Another violation of the SPJ Code of Ethics doctor-journalists and networks must consider is the treatment of the disaster victims who unwittingly become patients in a live broadcast environment. It is a primary objective for journalists, according to SPJ, to minimize harm and treat "sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect" (www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp). Media critics argue that Gupta's footage and the way it was used by CNN are exploitative of the individuals the doctor treated. On a recent appearance on National Public Radio's "Tell Me More," Dr. Kelly McBride of the Pointer Institute highlighted this issue: "If they're treating patients, they have an obligation to treat that patient with dignity. And I think its somewhat exploitative because clearly those patients have no capability of consenting to being part of - to having their medical situation becoming part of a story" (NPR 2010).  Besides the consideration for human dignity in the SPJ Ethics Code, the subject is one of the few universally accepted ethical norms of journalism that CNN came into direct conflict with when sending Dr. Gupta to Haiti and proliferating the resulting footage (Christian and Cooper 2009).

            CNN was quick to respond to the backlash it had created, not by addressing the specific ethical issues brought up by critics, but by more or less simply explaining via spokesperson that Dr. Gupta is a "doctor first." This was essentially the position the doctor in question took, communicating this via Twitter and during a follow up appearance on CNN's Larry King Live. Gupta explained,"Many have asked: of course, if needed, I will help people with my neurosurgical skills. yes, I am a reporter, but a doctor first" ( SanjayGuptaCNN, 2010). There was a similar response across-the-board from fellow doctor-journos operating in Haiti at the time, who likewise said that their role as physicians came before being a journalist in the field (Farhi 2010, NPR 2010). However, at least one news executive, Steve Capus of NBC News, expressed discontent in a response to the critics’ charges and also framed the dilemma that reporters face in disaster zones, "I'd like to see Bob Steele (Poynter Institute Scholar) to have to pick up the phone and [lecture] Nancy Snyderman on the journalistic ethics of driving past a kid who can't walk anymore because he has a crushed leg ... Where would you draw the line?" (Guthrie, 2010).