SYLLABUS Journalism 373 The Ethics of Television Journalism four units

Breaking news!

NBC’s “The Voice” and ABC’s “Dancing with the Stars” are locked in an epic ratings battle. And the relevance to this class?

L.A. stations KNBC and KABC regularly manufacture news stories solely to hype these prime-time series that air on their respective networks, often making them the leads on newscasts/before moving on to street crime .

If you buy this cross-promotion as ethical, I have a condo in

Kabul I’d like to sell you.

So…here’s the message.

It’s hardly breaking news that the Internet has transformed everything. It’s widened the media landscape to panoramic vistas never thought possible. It’s exposed everyone to teeming masses of ad hoc reporters, commentators and camera hounds. It’s collapsed the 24-hour news cycle to 24 seconds.

But news ethics don’t change. Internet, broadcast, cable or print—makes no difference. News ethics are transcendent. Or

1 should be—which is what Journalism 373 addresses with laser focus.

Whether it’s misleading banner headlines that give online

Yahoo News (now partnered with ABC News) the look and sneer of a sleazy tabloid.

Whether it’s our friends in local news where self love endures and zaftig, mini-skirted weather maids are deployed as forecasters, turning back the clock four decades.

Whether it’s the Los Angeles Times publishing photos that invade private grief.

Whether its business reporter Bob McCormick and other

KNX radio staffers trading on their news personas when making commercials.

Whether it’s partisan vamping by MSNBC and Fox.

To say nothing of oft-blathering CNN where star anchor

Anderson Cooper’s biggest story is inevitably…Anderson Cooper.

Ethics? Uh…never heard of ‘em.

And once upon a time, I was in the same boat. Instructor: Howard Rosenberg, former television critic for the Los Angeles Times. And speaking of ethics, I was no angel. While in graduate school, I was editor of the weekly White Bear Press near St. Paul, Minn., starting my meteoric rise by engaging in such unethical

2 practices as running editorials and news stories written by others without attribution—that’s plagiarism, by the way—and promising news stories about local businesses (free advertisements, in other words) if those businesses would buy ads. Talk about having no clue about ethics. And that’s not all. At the urging of my publisher, I stole professionally written local stories from the St. Paul Pioneer Press and ran them in my paper with a new lead. And it was these clippings—that I swiped from large daily paper—that earned me my first job on a daily paper, the Moline (Ill.) Dispatch. Absolutely unethical. Two years later, I moved on to the Louisville (Ky.) Times, covering politics and government, ultimately being named TV critic there before joining the Los Angeles Times in that capacity in 1978 and becoming fabulously famous and successful during the next 25 years. And by the way, self-promotion and making myself the story—as I have done here—is also unethical.

Course Description and Purpose: This course—meeting 2-5:20 p.m. Mondays in GFS 207—will introduce ethical issues arising from television (and print) journalism in the last 50-60 years, as well as the Internet. The major issue of whether news anchors should have their faces done, teeth whitened, and breasts enlarged or

3 bodies liposuctioned will not be addressed. Nor will their inclination (locally) to trumpet “team coverage” and This just in!!!!!!” when reporting in 2013 that Ulysses S. Grant, the nation’s 18th president, is buried in Grant’s Tomb: “I’m live at the tomb where just 117 years ago…” Come to think of it, aren’t such gimmicks or tricks—along with relentless advertising of LIVE!!!!—a form of theater, employed exclusively to snare viewers, and if so, unethical in themselves? So maybe we should ponder them after all. And we will! Meanwhile, students (that’s you) will identify and evaluate the moral dilemmas found in television journalism (most of which apply also to print, radio and the Internet) and use these ethical questions to prepare themselves for dealing with similar ethical issues in their personal, academic and professional lives. They can apply even if you’re going to be a dentist. In exploring specific decisions in the reporting of news events, and on what basis these decisions were made, students will be able to examine the ethical values of those who work in all areas of journalism and determine how the ethics of the profession dominate what events are covered and are not covered, how they are covered and why they are covered. Why is this significant? No. 1, because some or you undoubtedly will become television, radio, internet or print journalists. No. 2, and more importantly, the way much of the media cover both the seminal and even inconsequential events of our time (often not distinguishing one from the other) influences the way the public perceives the world and the way we, as a society, think and behave. Evaluating journalists from an ethical perspective gives us a better framework in which to assess what they do and decide for ourselves if some or most of them are

4 the Dishonest, Self-serving, Radical Left-wing Slugs many of their critics say they are. Rarely are decisions made in ethical or moral vacuums. This class will examine processes by which decisions are made, and the impact of those decisions on the public. Thus, it will define the ethical mission of electronic, print and Internet journalists and determine if they are living up to the ethical ideal of doing the right thing for the right reasons. What is the right thing? Good question. If you don’t have at least a vague idea by the end of the semester, then we’ll all be in trouble. Are there absolutes? Not always. In that regard, gray areas and other ethical dilemmas will be explored as part of a discussion of when, if ever, the ends justify the means and of the moral implications of such decisions made by journalists. Meanwhile… THIS JUST IN: NO TEXTING, SEXTING, TWEETING OR READING EMAILS DURING CLASS!!!!!!!

Required Reading: Nope, no text, but you may be assigned mandatory readings that you will receive in class. These may be the basis for class discussions, and thus, to some degree, will impact your grades. In other words, READ THEM! Grading: 1. Students will take one test and be assigned three papers. The test and first two papers, each about 850 words in length, will each be worth 20% of the course grade, for a total of 60%. The papers must be typewritten and double spaced. Papers that do not conform to this format will not—will not—be accepted. No exceptions. Late papers will be marked down one

5 letter grade for each week of tardiness, the “week” starting immediately after class on the due date. For example, turn in a paper after 5:20 p.m. on the day it is due, and you’ll be judged a week late; you’re toast. No exceptions. 2. A third paper—at least 1,000 words in length and embracing all issues mentioned during the entire course—will count 40% of the grade. 3. Class participation—without me having to pry it from you. Although I don’t grade specifically for this, it can affect borderline grades, possibly elevating a “B-” to a “B,” for example, or lowering a “B” to a “B-” if you are mum the entire semester. So even if you’re timid or speak in a hillbilly dialect you prefer not sharing, it still will benefit you to speak up in class. Remember: Your insights and opinions are as valid as anyone else’s. EXCEPT MINE!!!!!!! (kidding) Plagiarism: It will not be tolerated. This does not mean that you cannot be influenced by the words and thoughts of others and distill them into a point of view or hypothesis that you express in your own words. That’s how the intellectual process works. But stealing word for word as I did in my callow years—or something even fairly close to it—is absolutely forbidden. Discoveries of plagiarism have damaged and even destroyed careers of journalists at major newspapers in recent years. A similar fate has befallen several noted scholars whose non-fiction books were found to have included chunks of unattributed material from other books. Here is Annenberg’s policy on plagiarism and other bad behaviors: “Any student found guilty of plagiarism, fabrication, cheating on examinations or purchasing papers or other assignments faces sanctions

6 ranging from an F on the assignment to dismissal from the School of Journalism.”

Academic Accommodations: Students requesting special accommodations based on a disability must register with Disability Services and Programs (DSP). A letter of verification of approved accommodations can be obtained from DSP with adequate documentation. The letter must be delivered to me as early in the semester as possible. DSP is open 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. Monday through Friday. The office is in room 301 of the Student Union and the phone number is 213-740-0776.

Internships:

The value of professional internships as part of the overall educational experience of our students has long been recognized by the School of Journalism. Accordingly, while internships are not required for successful completion of this course, any student enrolled in this course who undertakes and completes an approved, non-paid internship during this semester shall earn academic extra credit herein of an amount equal to one percent of the total available semester points for this course.

To receive instructor approval, a student must request an internship letter from the Annenberg Career Development Office and bring it to the instructor to sign by the end of the third week of classes. The student must submit the signed letter to the media organization, along with the evaluation form provided by the Career Development Office. The form should be filled

7 out by the intern supervisor and returned to the instructor at the end of the semester. No credit will be given if an evaluation form is not turned in to the instructor by the last day of class.

Note: The internship must be unpaid and can only be applied to one journalism class.

Class Attendance: It’s mandatory!!!!!! Which means? You must attend class. Heed this: Two unexcused absences will result in a single letter-grade deduction in the final grade. Three unexcused absences will result in a deduction of two letter grades, four unexcused absences a deduction of three letter grades —that is if you have any grade left from which to deduct. Five unexcused absences? You flunk the course, even if you’ve done “A” work. Tardiness also will be judged harshly!!!!!! So be on time. Class begins at 2 p.m., not 2:06, 2:12, 2:30 or whenever you feel like breezing in. My commute is 40 miles—through the dangerous San Fernando Valley and other hostile terrain, no less. If I can arrive on time, so can you. Job or activity conflicts are not valid excuses for tardiness. Nor are terrorist attacks. So… If you are habitually late, your final course grade will be reduced a ½-letter grade. Alternative class viewing assignments will not—hear this, will not— be made without evidence of a valid excuse for an absence. I am not easily moved by sob stories. I once had a student who missed assignments because her same sweet granny died during the semester—twice! Regarding illness,

8 only a doctor’s note is valid evidence. Try your best to get one. You know, a doctor with a medical degree, not a note from Dr. Phil.

Office Hours: I’ll be available (with some flexibility) 1-1:45 p.m. and 5:30-6:30 p.m. Mondays in SCA 332 (that’s the School of Cinematic Arts where I teach as well). I can be reached other times, daytime or nighttime, at my home, where I do keep an office along with a wife, two cats and a bird. This Just In!!!!!! My phone number is 818-706-8583, my cell is 714-855-2241 and my email is [email protected]. Do not be shy. Do not be inhibited. Do not be intimidated. Do not be terrified. All right, be a little terrified, but…I am always accessible to you. I cannot stress this enough. I want to hear from you about anything you want to discuss, positive or negative. I am a very good listener. You will not be interrupting me. If you have a question or a worry or want to schmooze (but not snooze), call. If you want to bitch about something, that’s all right, too. We’ll talk it through—LIVE!!!!!!

WEEKLY SCHEDULE

Week 1: Introduction, Jan. 14.

9 Review the syllabus and course requirements. Define news and schmooze about it in general, including some of the issues facing media today, including a crush of celebrity journalism and the emergence of Harvey Levine’s flashy and trashy TMZ as a major news source for mainstream journalism. I want to hear what you think. Define ethics and discuss why ethical behavior still matters in journalism even though the nature of media has changed dramatically. Discuss the corny old Golden Rule’s application to journalism ethics, the areas of ethical theory applicable to journalists and where personal and professional ethics intersect. When you think about it, these conundrums imitate life in general. Discuss: (1) How the 1st Amendment justifiably provides a wide umbrella of protection for journalists. (2) When legal rights and ethical rights may be in conflict. Just because we have the legal right to do something, doesn’t necessarily mean we have the ethical right. Remember that. I will repeat it often. (3) A press that screws up is the price we pay for a press that’s free. I’d call that a bargain. Screen true-life film “Shattered Glass.”

Week 2: No class, Jan. 21, Martin Luther King Birthday.

Week 3: The Blogosphere/Twittersphere, Jan. 28. Jan. 28: The news business is changing dramatically, and as always technology is zooming ahead faster than our ability to harness and direct it.

10 News and information are on such a swift track now—with speculation increasingly sold as news—that we, as a society, no longer have time to think. Hence, the danger of government and citizens making knee-jerk decisions, based on erroneous information, that can have dire, even devastating consequences. In that regard, should the internet be guided by ethical standards that govern other media? I say yes. And what do you think about blogs—their significance and powers of persuasion?

Assignment: Write a 300-word blog about any topic you chose and in any format. But try to make it factual. Make copies for the rest of the class and me. Not to worry—these will not be graded.

Weeks 4-5: Lies & Deception, Feb.4/Feb. 11. Feb. 4: Read personal blogs Screen and discuss “Newsreels to Nightly News: A History,” which traces video news deceit and entertainment roots to early motion pictures more than a century ago. Big Lies/Small Lies. Define varieties of media deception and misrepresentation, from cross-promotion to using news to glorify the messenger to using “live” as theater and a gimmick. Define the components of The Big Lie. Supported by clips, discuss the many ways TV news, in particular, routinely tells small fibs. . Feb. 11: Discuss when hidden cameras and other electronic devices are proper and improper. Discuss the tactics of using them, including those of Joel Grover who exposed unsanitary restaurant conditions in Los Angeles.

11 Discuss the ABC/Food Lion case in which a jury found ABC News guilty of criminal trespass and fraud in connection with planting operatives and hidden cameras inside a food store chain suspected of selling dangerously contaminated products. Are these cases of ends justifying the means? Guest: KNBC investigative reporter Joel Grover. Screen and discuss the implications of the movie, “Absence of Malice,” regarding libel and the “dumb defense.”

Week 6: No class, Feb. 18. Presidents’ Day.

Week 7: Lies and Deception, Feb. 25 Feb. 25: A survey found that 21% of Americans between the ages of 19 and 28 made Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” their primary election news source for the 2008 presidential campaign. And Stewart’s influence continues to grow in 2013. Is there much difference between satirical news and real news? Screen “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” for comparison with conventional news programs. Supported by clips from the Fox News Channel, CNN and MSNBC among others, discuss the blurring of news and opinion by TV journalists, which is becoming a growth industry. Discuss the ethical implications of word choice. Week 8-9: Anonymous Sources, March 4/March 11 March 4: Test covering first five weeks, 20% of grade.

12 Reporters and their sources—Is using anonymous sources unethical or a necessity of doing business as a journalist? Is it ever proper to disclose the identity of an anonymous source? Discuss the Valerie Plame/Judith Miller case as it relates to George W. Bush alter ego Karl Rove and former Cheney chief-of-staff Scooter Libby. Screen “Nothing but the Truth,” a 2008 theatrical movie based in part on the Valerie Plame/Judith Miller case. March 11: Screen and discuss “All the President’s Men” and controversy surrounding the disclosure of Deep Throat’s identity. Should anonymity be granted to sources who are certified jerks if they have worthwhile information or only to nice persons with noble motives? Assign paper #1 on anonymous sources, 20% of grade. Due March 25.

Week 10: No Class, March 18. Spring Break

Week 11: Conflict of Interest, March 25. March 25: When, if ever, is it ethical for journalists to promote a point of view? Is wearing a flag lapel pin promoting a point of view? Do journalists owe their first allegiance to their profession or to their country? To their company and its interests or to their craft or some higher entity? Also discuss the bottomless pit of synergy in an increasingly incestuous media corporate world where consolidation reigns and more and more media influence is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, shrinking diversity and potentially skewing news coverage.

13 Discuss coverage of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the war in Afghanistan, and the embedding of reporters and how that process relates to police ride-alongs. Screen and discuss “War Spin: Jessica Lynch.” Paper #1 due. Assign paper #2, 20% of grade. Due April 1.

Weeks 12-13-14: Privacy, April 1-8. April 1: Screen “War Photographer” and local news tapes pertaining to possible exploitation. Screen “LAPD: Life on the Beat” and discuss if the dead have privacy rights. Paper #2 due. April 8: Discuss conflicts between personal privacy and the public’s right to know, including broadcast of 911 calls and the issue of whether to identify alleged victims of rape and sexual abuse that surfaced in the Kobe Bryant and numerous other cases. Is this a double standard, and if so, what are the implications? In other words, is it proper for media to make public the names of criminal suspects when they protect the identities of their accusers? When you accuse me of rape or sexual abuse, my name becomes a headline; yours is not revealed. Is that fair? And does withholding names of alleged victims extend a stigma by implying that victims are somehow at fault and should feel shame? Discuss the William Kennedy Smith case in this regard, and the “blue dotting” of his accuser. Also, does the end ever justify the means in privacy matters? Do celebrities have rights of privacy? Discuss the Arthur Ashe and Linda Ellerbe cases in this regard, and also lessons learned—or not learned—from the Richard Jewell/Olympic Park bombing case in 1996.

14 April 15: When, if ever, does the people’s right to know supersede a president’s or a presidential candidate’s privacy? Or do such people have no right to privacy, none at all? Discuss the undisclosed wheelchair disability of President Roosevelt and screen a portion of HBO movie, “Warm Springs.” Discuss the extra-marital adventures of Presidents Kennedy and Clinton and presidential candidate Gary Hart. Also discuss interest in the sexual orientation of Vice-President Dick Chaney’s daughter and the sexual orientation of Idaho Sen. Larry “Wide Stance” Craig. Assign paper #3.

Weeks 15-16: Fair Trial, April 22/29 April 22: Discuss such “Trials of the Century” as the Lindbergh/Bruno Hauptmann, Rodney King, Menendez brothers, O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson and Michael Jackson epics. Discuss the Kobe Bryant case. Discuss consequences of media emphasis on celebrity news. Screen “The O.J. Verdict.” Guest: HuffPost blogger and KNX radio and former

CNN investigative reporter Charles Feldman. Paper #3 due. April 29: Final class meeting: Do cameras belong inside a courtroom? Ever? Dr. Conrad Murray, Michael Jackson’s personal physician, was tried and convicted in connection with Jackson’s death. Should you and I have been able to see this trial on television? Do cameras belong inside an execution chamber? Ever? I say yes. What about televising sessions of state and U.S. Supreme Courts? Yes again. Discuss “Court TV” and media-induced courtroom theater.

15 Discuss the McMartin case regarding alleged sexual abuse of children at a daycare center—later proved untrue—and the media circus that helped fuel the case and ruin innocent lives. Relate this to the sexual abuse scandal at Penn State. Examine the use of checkbook journalism, including that employed by NBC in 2010 when chartering a plane to transport David Goldman and his 9-year-old son from Brazil—to secure an exclusive on-plane interview—and its impact on such trials as the William Kennedy Smith proceeding. Discuss taking a personal stand for ethics and the personal risks that may entail. Guest: Associated Press reporter and courts specialist Linda Deutsch. Screen: “Citizen McCaw.” Assign final paper. Due May 13

HOWARD ROSENBERG

16 This fabulous guy is the Pulitzer Prize-winning former television critic for The Los Angeles Times, where his provocative column was distributed nationally and widely read (but not heeded nearly enough, unfortunately) by decision makers in the media and entertainment industry for 25 years. Rosenberg was named the nation’s best TV critic in a survey of his colleagues (no big deal—it was 20 years ago) conducted by Electronic Media. In addition to the Pulitzer, he earned two National Headliner awards and numerous other citations for his print commentaries (minus the hype, this means I failed to win a Pulitzer in 24 of my 25 years at The Times). Rosenberg has been interviewed on many major national news programs from ABC’s “Nightline” to CNN’s “Larry King Live.” He has been a sports media commentator on ESPN and was the author of the nationally syndicated, tragically short-lived satirical cartoon strip, Airwaves. At the University of Southern California, Rosenberg teaches news ethics in the Annenberg School of Communication and critical writing and a TV symposium in the School of Cinematic Arts. In addition, he served seven years on the University of Georgia’s prestigious Peabody Awards board, which hands out the premier individual prizes in electronic media. An anthology of Rosenberg’s columns and essays, “Not So Prime Time: Chasing the Trivial on American Television,” was published in 2004 by Ivan R. Dee Inc. Publisher’s Weekly granted it a coveted starred review, anointing it a “delectable book of crisp, witty and caustic criticism.” Said Kirkus Reviews: “Rosenberg is the real thing—a serious, thoughtful, lucent writer whose low-brow beat appears almost incongruous…No one has mapped TV’s terrain more thoroughly and starkly.”

17 Rosenberg’s latest book, written with Charles S. Feldman, is No Time to Think: The Menace of Media Speed and the 24-hour News Cycle. It was published in 2008 by Continuum Books. The Associated Press called it “compelling and insightful,” Booklist proclaimed it “often humorous and completely engrossing,” and the Library Journal said, “This book pulls no punches.” Prior to joining The Los Angeles Times, Rosenberg was television critic at The Louisville (KY.) Times, and before that a reporter for that paper and the Moline (Ill.) Dispatch. He began his journalism career as editor of the White Bear Press, a weekly paper near St. Paul, Minn. A native of Kansas City, Mo., Rosenberg earned a bachelor’s degree in history from the University of Oklahoma and a master’s degree in political science from the University of Minnesota. He and his wife, Carol, reside in a suburb of Los Angeles with a cockatiel, two cats and stacks and stacks of DVDs.

18

19