Home » Posts tagged 'free speech'
Tag Archives: free speech
Images of Death in the Media
CASE STUDY: Journalism and the Ethics of Using the Dead
Case Study PDF| Additional Case Studies
Mathew MacQuarrie / Unsplash / Modified
The wonders of technology in the 21st century are less wonderful when looking into the eyes of a dead body on your handheld screen. Gruesome images can serve as a powerful journalistic tool to influence the emotions of viewers and inspire action, but they can also be disturbing for many viewers. Some argue that such shocking images shouldn’t be used to increase attention to a story. Others claim only shocking images can be used to illustrate the intensity of an event, a vital part of moving and educating the public. Where do we draw the line regarding what is appropriate in publishing images capturing death?
Historically, death images have had a controversial past in American journalism. For example, photos of horrific lynchings provide modern viewers with an accurate depiction of the normalization of brutal death for African Americans, with crowds of white townspeople surrounding the hangings with refreshments and a “picnic-like atmosphere” (Zuckerman, 2017). These events portray a lack of humanity; while African Americans are burned and dismembered, everyone else is merrymaking, as if they were at a neighborhood carnival. One could argue that photos speak louder than words in this case, as historical news reports describing the atrocities conveyed them as spectacles, but not to the extent of celebrations. For example, following a headline announcing the lynching of John Hartfield at 5 o’clock that afternoon, a sub-headline read “Thousands of People Are Flocking into Ellisville to Attend the Event.” Gruesome photos seem to be useful now, however, to understand the environment that encouraged these killings. Though it is recognized that these images are prone to disturb, many maintain that it is quite necessary to confront them in order to prevent anything of its kind in the future. While “there is no comfort in looking at this history—and little hope save the courage of those who survived it … there may be no justice… until we stop looking away” (Zuckerman, 2017). This is the same reasoning that 60 Minutes relied upon when they decided to show historical lynching photos in a segment produced by Oprah Winfrey on lynching and racist violence in America. Of course, the challenge is that these pictures might cause or invoke psychological harm among those related to the victims of lynching or those fearful of racist violence. There is also the possibility that airing such photos might cause enjoyment or encouragement among racist viewers; critics might remind us that many of these shocking photos were taken and celebrated in their day because they captured an event prized by violent racists.
Some of the most controversial imagery in the contemporary media comes from school massacres. While the mass shooting at Columbine High School in 1999 is certainly an unforgettable moment in our nation’s history, current students continue their battle against what they see as the causes of such tragedies. As part of the #MyLastShot campaign, students are encouraged to place a sticker on the back of their driver’s license that indicates their desire to have photos of their bodies published in the event they are killed by gun violence, in a way similar to the marks indicating organ donor status (Baldacci & Andone, 2019). Campaign founder and Columbine student Kaylee Tyner said, “it’s about bringing awareness to the actual violence, and to start conversations.” She also referenced the impact the viral video of students hiding under their desks during the school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School had on her: “I remember seeing people on Twitter saying it was so horrible… but what I was thinking was, no, that’s the reality of a mass shooting.” While such school shootings are comparatively rare, they are clearly horrible. The #MyLastShot campaign represents an attempt to get individuals to agree in advance to use shocking imagery of their death to showcase these horrors to others. If one is killed, the hope is that the image of their dead body might bring about a better understanding of the problem of school shootings, and perhaps move readers to action. Even if one is not killed in a school shooting, agreeing to the conditions of the #MyLastShot campaign still illustrates a willingness to do something that many perceive as shocking, and thereby functions as a plea for heightened attention to issues such as school shootings and gun control measures. At the same time, viewing the photos and videos of school shootings may be so traumatizing to others as to make children afraid of attending school, and for that matter, make parents afraid of sending them. Most children will not be directly affected by a school shooting. How much fear and imagery is needed to motivate the right amount of concern and action on the part of readers?
The #MyLastShot campaign leverages consent before one becomes a victim of violent crime. Not all newsworthy images involve subjects that could give such consent in advance. In cases where subjects of photographs cannot give consent for the use of their images or likenesses in news stories, lines begin to blur separating the newsworthy from the private. The National Press Photographers Association’s Code of Ethics states “intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see” (Code of Ethics). Determining when this “need to see” is applicable, however, is the difficult part of death photography. This is especially true when covering wars and other violent conflicts. The photo of Alan Kurdi, a two-year-old Syrian refugee whose dead body washed up on the Turkish coast after attempting to flee to Europe, overwhelmed the world with despair. Many believed the photo was vital in understanding the terrors of the refugee crisis, while others were disgusted at the exhibition made of his body throughout the media. Kurdi did not—or possibly could not, given his status as a child—consent to such a use of his corpse for news purposes. Regardless, the powerful image of Kurdi caused change; the British prime minister was so moved by it that the United Kingdom began to accept more refugees (Walsh & Time Photo, 2015). Yet Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch, who was the initial distributor of the photo, said “when I see the image now on people’s social media profiles, I contact them and I ask them to take it down. I think it is important that we give Alan Kurdi back his privacy and his dignity. It’s important to let this little boy rest now.”
Images of death tell a certain truth, but their reception often differs based upon the intention behind their use and the meanings imputed by their viewers. It isn’t uncommon for photojournalists to be accused of non-journalistic advocacy in their most shocking photographs. For many, though, the only message being conveyed through a shocking image of death is the truth, one that happens to hit us harder than most other written stories. But telling a shocking truth does not exhaust all that journalists owe their subjects and readers. When can images of death be used in a way that respects the deceased and contributes to a potentially laudatory social goal of the journalist conveying this information?
Discussion Questions:
- What are the different sorts of images of death mentioned in this case, and what differentiates each type?
- Under what conditions, if any, is it acceptable to photograph the dead for news purposes?
- What responsibility do journalists and news organizations have to the deceased? How does one respect an individual who no longer is alive?
- If journalism is meant to inform on important public issues, could a shocking photograph be too moving? When does powerful photojournalism shade into unethical manipulation?
- What ethical obligations do photojournalists owe their readers? Do these considerations change when violence or other human agents are involved?
Further Information:
Baldacci, Marlena, & Andone, Dakin. “Columbine Students Start Campaign to Share Images of Their Death If They’re Killed in Gun Violence.” CNN, 30 March 2019, Available at: http://www.cnn.com/2019/03/30/us/columbine-gun-violence-campaign/index.html
“Code of Ethics,” National Press Photographers Association. Available at: https://nppa.org/code-ethics
Farmer, Brit McCandless. “Why 60 Minutes aired Photos of Lynchings in Report by Oprah.” 60 Minutes Overtime, 27 April 2018, Available at: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-60-minutes-aired-photos-of-lynchings-in-report-by-oprah/
Lewis, Helen. “How Newsrooms Handle Graphic Images of Violence.” Nieman Reports, 5 January 2016, Available at: http://www.niemanreports.org/articles/how-newsrooms-handle-graphic-images-of-violence/
Waldman, Paul. “What the Parkland Students Wanted the World to See-But the Media Didn’t.” The American Prospect, 2018, Available at: http://www.prospect.org/article/what-parkland-students-wanted-world-see-news-media-didnt
Walsh, Bryan, and TIME Photo. “Drowned Syrian Boy Alan Kurdi’s Story: Behind the Photo.” Time, Time, 29 December 2015, Available at: http://www.time.com/4162306/alan-kurdi-syria-drowned-boy-refugee-crisis/
Zuckerman, Michael. “Telling the Truth about American Terror.” Harvard Law Today, 4 May 2015, Available at: http://www.today.law.harvard.edu/feature/telling-the-truth-about-american-terror/
Authors:
Page Trotter, Dakota Park-Ozee, & Scott R. Stroud, Ph.D.
Media Ethics Initiative
Center for Media Engagement
University of Texas at Austin
April 2, 2020
This case study is supported by funding from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Cases produced by the Media Ethics Initiative remain the intellectual property of the Media Ethics Initiative and the Center for Media Engagement. They can be used in unmodified PDF form for classroom or educational settings. For use in publications such as textbooks, readers, and other works, please contact the Center for Media Engagement at sstroud (at) austin.utexas.edu.
Misinformation, Social Media, and the Price of Political Persuasion
CASE STUDY: Examining Twitter’s Decision to Ban Purchased Political Advertisements
Case Study PDF| Additional Case Studies
Social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are increasingly used to promote a specific cause or political candidate, influence voting patterns, and target individuals based on their political beliefs (Conger, 2019). Social media’s impact on politics can be seen through paid political advertising, where organizations and campaigns pay to spread their messages across multiple networks. In the course of using finely crafted messages, campaigns sometimes take part in techniques such as the selling or buying of users’ data for targeted advertising (Halpern, 2019).
These “micro” targeted ads are often the location of fake news or misinformation. Twitter and Facebook both revealed that Russian operatives used their platforms in attempts to influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In 2017, Facebook turned over thousands of Russian-bought ads to the U.S. Congress. The ads showed that “operatives worked off evolving lists of racial, religious, political and economic themes. They used these to create pages, write posts and craft ads that would appear in users’ news feeds — with the apparent goal of appealing to one audience and alienating another” (Entous et al., 2017). All of this was enabled by the targeting power and data collection practices of social media platforms that financially depend on selling advertising to paying individuals and companies.
In response to the growing concerns associated with the misuse of online political ads, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced that his social media platform would ban all political advertisements from its platform starting in November 2019 (Conger, 2019). The platform’s move is an effort to curtail paid political speech without affecting political discourse in general. “The reach of political messages should be earned, not bought,” Dorsey wrote in a series of Tweets. Dorsey laid out the challenges he thinks paid political advertisements present to civic discourse: over-dependence on technological optimization, the spread of misinformation, and the promotion of manipulated media such as “deep fake” videos (Cogner, 2019). Another worrisome example are the “bots” or automated social media accounts that were created during the 2016 presidential election to help inflate social media traffic around specific presidential campaigns and influence “the democratic process behind the scenes” (Guilbeault, 2019). These programs magnified the reach of misinformation that seemed to run rampant over social media during the campaign.
Twitter’s restriction on political advertising is not absolute, however. Candidates or users would still be able to post videos of campaign ads, just as long as they do not pay Twitter specifically to promote the ad and enhance its audience. For example, 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden released a viral campaign ad in December 2019 critiquing President Donald Trump’s reputation with foreign leaders (Chiu, 2019). Because the Biden campaign posted the video to Biden’s account and did not pay for Twitter to promote the ad as one of the site’s promoted revenue products, the campaign video was permitted and could be shared by other users. The platform announced it will still allow some paid issue-based or cause-based ads that pertain to subjects such as the economy, the environment, and other social causes. However, “candidates, elected officials and political parties will be banned from buying any ads at all, including ones about issues or causes” (Wagner, 2019).
Twitter’s decision to ban all paid political advertising is not celebrated by all parties. Some worry that social media platforms may go too far in the search for accuracy and an uncertain ideal of truth in political discourse in their spaces. Facebook’s reaction to paid advertising is the diametric opposite to Twitter’s approach: “In Zuckerberg’s view, Facebook, though a private company, is the public square where such ideas can be debated,” said Sue Halpern, who covers politics and technology for The New Yorker (Halpern, 2018). Facebook has indicated that it will continue to allow politicians to post or purchase ads, even if they contain content that some may judge as false or misleading information. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg’s argument is that as a tool for freedom of expression, one of Facebook’s objectives shouldn’t be to censor political ads or be an arbiter of truth. Instead of getting rid of political ads, the platform said it will focus on combating micro-targeting, where “campaigns tap Facebook’s vast caches of data to reach specific audiences with pinpoint accuracy, going after voters in certain neighborhoods, jobs and age ranges, or even serving up ads only to fans of certain television shows or sports teams” (Scola, 2019). Google, owner of the video sharing platform YouTube, also made commitments to reduce targeted political ads, pledging that political advertisers “will only be able to target ads based on a user’s age, gender, and postcode.” However, the tech company’s policy for removing ads is still murky: “In the policy update, Google focused on misleading ads related to voter suppression and election integrity, not claims targeting candidates” (O’Sullivan & Fung, 2019). But some maintain that truth in political advertising is a worthy and attainable ideal. Criticizing Facebook’s stance, U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez voiced her support for paid advertising bans, saying “If a company cannot or does not wish to run basic fact-checking on paid political advertising, then they should not run paid political ads at all” (Conger, 2019).
Since Twitter and other social media platforms are companies and not government entities, they are not strictly governed by the First Amendment’s protections of speech and expression (Hudson, 2018). The debate over curtailing paid political advertising on social media brings up a related normative issue: how much free expression or speech should anyone—including social media platforms—foster or encourage in a democratic community, even if the messages are judged as untrue or skewed by many, or if they are connected to monetary interests? The challenge remains: who will decide what constitutes unacceptably false and misleading ads, whose monetary influence or interests are unallowable, and what constitutes allowable and effective partisan attempts at persuasion?
Discussion Questions:
- Should paid political advertisements be banned from social media? Should all political ads, paid or freely posted, be forbidden? Why or why not?
- What could be possible alternatives to Twitter and others banning paid political advertisements?
- Do you believe a focus on microtargeting is superior to banning paid political advertisements?
- What is ethically worrisome about microtargeting? Do you think these concerns would also extend to sophisticate campaigns run by traditional advertising agencies, or even public health campaigns targeting specific behaviors?
- Might there be ethically-worthy values to microtargeting political or commercial messages?
- Is curtailing certain kinds of political speech on social media good or bad for democracy? Explain your answer, and any distinctions you wish to draw.
Further Information:
Chiu, A. “‘The world is laughing at President Trump’: Joe Biden highlights viral NATO video in campaign ad.” The Washington Post, December 5, 2019. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/12/05/joe-biden-campaign-ad-laughing-trump-trudeau-macron-nato/
Conger, K. “Twitter Will Ban All Political Ads, C.E.O. Jack Dorsey Says.” The New York Times, October 30, 2019. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/technology/twitter-political-ads-ban.html
Entous, A., Timberg, C., & Dwoskin, E. “Russian operatives used Facebook ads to exploit America’s racial and religious divisions.” The Washington Post, September 25, 2017. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/russian-operatives-used-facebook-ads-to-exploit-divisions-over-black-political-activism-and-muslims/2017/09/25/4a011242-a21b-11e7-ade1-76d061d56efa_story.html
Guilbeault, D. & Wolley, S. “How Twitter Bots Are Shaping the Election.” The Atlantic, November 1, 2019. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/11/election-bots/506072/
Halpern, S. “The Problem of Political Advertising on Social Media.” The New Yorker, October 24, 2019. Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-problem-of-political-advertising-on-social-media
Hudson, D. “In the Age of Social Media, Expand the Reach of the First Amendment.” Human Rights Magazine, October 20, 2018. Available at: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/in-the-age-of-socia-media-first-amendment/
O’Sullivan, D. & Fung, B. “Google’s updated ad policy will still allow politicians to run false ads.” CNN, November 20, 2019. Available at: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/20/tech/google-political-ads-update/index.html
Roose, K. “Digital Hype Aside, Report Says Political Campaigns Are Mostly Analog Affairs.” The New York Times, March 21, 2019. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/business/political-campaigns-digital-advertising.html
Wagner, K. “Twitter’s Political Ad Ban Will Exempt Some ‘Issue’ Ads.” Bloomberg, November 15, 2019. Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-15/twitter-s-political-ad-ban-will-exempt-some-issue-ads
Authors:
Allyson Waller & Scott R. Stroud, Ph.D.
Media Ethics Initiative
Center for Media Engagement
University of Texas at Austin
March 25, 2020
This case study is supported by funding from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Cases produced by the Media Ethics Initiative remain the intellectual property of the Media Ethics Initiative and the Center for Media Engagement. They can be used in unmodified PDF form for classroom or educational settings. For use in publications such as textbooks, readers, and other works, please contact the Center for Media Engagement at sstroud (at) austin.utexas.edu.
Cooperation and Compromise in the Artworld
CASE STUDY: The Ethics of Artists Working with Controversial Governments
Case Study PDF| Additional Case Studies
Rostyslav Savchyn / Unsplash
Despite the controversies surrounding the Saudi Arabian government, Desert X founder and board president Susan Davis has repeatedly defended the partnership by stating that it is a chance to help create “a new dialogue, one that reaches across boundaries and borders.” The Saudi Arabian exhibit, which will be on view from January to March 2020, looks to “bring together artists from Saudi Arabia and the surrounding region with artists from around the world,” according to the Desert X website. This exhibit allows viewers and artists to explore various topics, such as feminism and the environment, which are typically off-limits topics in Saudi Arabia. According to Desert X artistic director Neville Wakefield, none of the artists he has reached out to have declined due to political or ethical reasons; on the contrary, many have embraced the opportunity to work freely in an environment that has had many artistic restrictions in the past. According to multimedia artist Manal AlDowayan, no restrictions, as of yet, have been placed on what can be created for the exhibition
Many of the artists to be included in the exhibit, including Los Angeles based artist Lita Albuquerque, believe that art should be created free of political positioning. “I think art transcends a lot of political issues,” Albuquerque says of her involvement in the exhibit, “it’s about wanting to utilize art to make a statement and to help communicate” (Vankin, October 7, 2019). The exhibition is set to be co-curated by three individuals: Wakefield and two female Saudi artists, Raneem Farsi and Aya Alireza. Farsi believes that this exhibit will not only provide a cultural diffusion between the two countries, but also allow for a special education opportunities for the students in Saudi Arabia. “It wasn’t part of our upbringing here to be exposed to all this art and culture,” says Farsi. Albuquerque, for example, is creating a form of land art that highlights a futuristic female astronaut teaching the Earth about the stars (Vankin, October 7, 2019).
Although there are many positive aspects to the exhibition, many believe that the exhibition involves too many compromises with a repressive regime. Three of the original fourteen members of Desert X’s board of directors have resigned following the announcement of the partnership between the organization and the Saudi Arabian government. The resignations came from to the members’ refusal to work with a government that has repeatedly been accused of human rights violations, discrimination toward the LGBTQ community, and the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Former curator Yael Lipschutz, one of the three members to resign, said the decision to work with the Saudi Arabian government is “about striking a deal with a national government that has committed a horrific genocide in Yemen, that is completely undemocratic and that has an appalling record of discrimination against the LGBTQ community.” Lipschutz believes that the partnership is not about the potential to increase the dialogue between the two countries and to expand Saudi Arabia’s cultural practices, but rather, it’s about “receiving money from the Saudi royal family” (Vankin, October 7, 2019).
Shortly after the announcement, one Desert X donor withdrew funding while releasing a statement that they were “disappointed that Desert X has chosen this path.” While the act of accepting money from such a politically-polarizing country is one worrisome part of the partnership, some worry about the potential use of art as a cultural distraction to divert attention from the problems of the Saudi Arabian government. Artist Ed Ruscha, another former board member of Desert X, states that “I see Saudi Arabia as being in desperate need of cultural legitimacy, and this is a way to move the spotlight away from their other problems. It’s like inviting Hitler to a tea party in 1943 — I see a simile here” (Vankin, October 16, 2019).
This Desert X and Saudi Arabia partnership is just one example of what might happen when artists work with unethical or controversial figures. While some believe that art should be created independent of outside factors, many still believe that art can do some good in the messy and complex world of everyday life. Can the good effects of art be outweighed by the means and potentially worrisome partnerships that have to be used to do achieve them?
Discussion Questions:
- What ethical conflicts drive the controversy over Desert X’s partnership with the Saudi government?
- Do you believe working with a controversial figure or government is unethical? Does it become more problematic if money is being exchanged?
- Do the potential positive impacts of the exhibition outweigh the negative consequences?
- What ethical guidelines might companies and artists follow in working with governments charged with repressive or reprehensible behavior?
Further Information:
Brian Blueskye, “Desert X collaborates with Saudi Arabia on exhibition at a UNESCO World Heritage site.” Desert Sun, October 8, 2019. Available at: https://www.desertsun.com/story/life/2019/10/07/desert-x-collaborates-exhibition-saudi-arabia/3901816002/
Deborah Vankin, “Desert X art exhibition heads to Saudi Arabia – and into contentious territory.” Los Angeles Times, October 7, 2019. Available at: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2019-10-07/desert-x-saudi-arabia-alula
Deborah Vankin, “Desert X show in Saudi Arabia brings more fallout: A donor pulls out.” Los Angeles Times, October 16, 2019. Available at: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2019-10-16/desert-x-saudi-arabia-alula-donors
Ella Peek, “Ethical Criticism of Art.” Available at: https://www.iep.utm.edu/art-eth/
Jackie Northam, “Investors Are Back in Saudi Arabia a Year After Khashoggi’s Killing.” National Public Radio, October 2, 2019. Available at: https://www.npr.org/2019/10/02/766494653/investors-are-back-in-saudi-arabia-a-year-after-khashoggis-killing
Authors:
Draven Schoberg & Scott R. Stroud, Ph.D.
Media Ethics Initiative
Center for Media Engagement
University of Texas at Austin
November 11, 2019
Cases produced by the Media Ethics Initiative remain the intellectual property of the Media Ethics Initiative and the Center for Media Engagement. They can be used in unmodified PDF form without permission for classroom or educational uses. Please email us at sstroud (at) austin.utexas.edu and let us know if you found them useful! For use in publications such as textbooks, readers, and other works, please contact the Media Ethics Initiative.
The Different Species of the Online Catfish
CASE STUDY: The Circle and the Ethics of Online Identity
Case Study PDF| Additional Case Studies
Promotional Poster / Wikipedia / Modified
Netflix’s new show, The Circle, is a real-life popularity contest where the winner claims the title of “the circle champion” and a whopping sum of $100,000. There’s a catch, however, which makes the show a bit fishy. Players interact with each other only through a voice-activated text messaging program designed by Netflix in a controlled and isolated environment without any other social media or internet access. Each player can choose to be themselves, another version of themselves, or someone completely different through their typed conversations. Everyone gets to choose their name and the profile pictures they present to the other contestants. The least popular players can be blocked by the circle “influencers,” the two most popular players from the previous round of competition. In this highly-controlled competition for popularity, “catfishing” is not only allowed, but it might bring considerable advantage.
“Catfishing” has become a popular internet phenomenon where social media and online dating site users trick others by pretending to be someone they are not (D’Costa 2014). Catfishes “hook” people into online friendships and romances, creating a story about themselves that is often far from the truth. The online medium allows for the easy manipulation of one’s image; an estimated 83 million Facebook accounts are fake (Gordon 2019). A catfish not only deceives people into believing they are someone else, but they also can bring considerable harm to others. It is a perfect way for pedophiles and other internet criminals to target innocent social media users, or a method for scammers to gain ill-gotten riches through impersonation. Once a catfish lures other users to share intimate information, they might extort the fooled person with threats to release this sensitive content. Cyberbullies sometimes mask their intentions and embarrass their target with information collected from the targeted individual out of misplaced trust. In less harmful cases, individuals still feel deceived when they find out an online partner or friend was not who they said they were. Catfishing for many seems like the worst sort of deception, one that involves inauthentically hiding or changing who you really are as a person.
But what The Circle teaches us is that catfishing is not as clear cut in what it means and what makes it morally questionable. For instance, what if one catfishes not out of malice, but instead from the desire to spread a message that they are more than their appearance (De Maria 2020)? One female competitor, Sean, chose to use pictures of a thinner friend “Colleen” for her profile. Sean claimed she chose to catfish so that people could fall in love with her quirky and bubbly personality, and not sneer at her “plus sized body.” In this instance, Sean only changed her appearance and not her complete self in her mediated interactions with others on the show. It’s true that people tend to “judge a book by its cover,” and using photos that are visually appealing can translate into a popularity advantage, or at least get one’s personality a hearing before someone moves on in the rapidly changing world of online interactions. Another Circle competitor, Karyn, used photos of another woman and the name “Mercedeze” to create a heterosexual personality that she predicted would gain her popularity on the show (Sanchez 2020). In another instance, the male Circle competitor Seaburn chose to completely transform himself into the character of “Rebecca,” a sweet, innocent female persona, because he thought it would give him an advantage in gaming the other male contestants. In a culminating real-life encounter over dinner before the season finale, “Rebecca”/Seaburn revealed his true self to four remaining competitors, most of whom were initially shocked about the radical deception that Seaburn had built up over many interactions. Each of these examples from The Circle allow us to imagine various ways that identity can be manipulated for different purposes and projects of the catfishing agent, each of which reveals different sorts of deception and inauthenticity by the communicating agent.
But The Circle has one more thought-provoking twist up its virtual sleeve. Male Circle contestant Ed chose to use his real name and a real profile picture for the game, but conducted his catfishing in his Netflix-controlled apartment with his secret weapon: his mom. This case of catfishing is different: even though the picture and name were accurate, the “brains” and personality behind the virtual self was really a composite of two individuals. Ed’s purpose in bringing his mother into his catfishing was to help him be the best version of himself. Ed’s mom worked on his word choice and strategy with each contestant to gain trust and popularity in The Circle. Ed, and his mother, built a relationship with Circle contestant Sammy, whom he chose to visit in real life after he was eliminated from the game. Upon revealing that he was accompanied by his mother, Sammy was shocked. Ed’s mother explained that the dynamic duo used “Ed’s looks” and her brain to flirt and build relationships with the other contestants. Ed’s catfishing was an act of deception toward the other contestants of The Circle, since he was not writing all of the messages and social media content like some of the other players. But other cases of catfishing involve a person being inauthentic in a different way—telling stories about themselves that do not match up to who they really are. But the question arses—who is Ed “really?” Ed didn’t use fake photographs or spread false information about himself, he just employed his mom as a check on his less-desirable ways of interacting with females; in other words, she was used to “enhance” his presentation of self. If one’s “authentic” identity might be the best part or version of one’s complex real-life self, could a composite catfish like Ed/Ed’s Mother bring out the highest potentials in Ed to his conversational partners?
Despite its drama and plot twists, The Circle shows us the range of ways that one can alter online identities in efforts at catfishing others. Some of these are clearly morally reprehensible, but some are not. And the reasons why we find some problematic seem to jar with what is troublesome about other cases of catfishing. If real-life identity is as complex as a human’s ever-changing life story, and if there are so many different species of the online catfish, might we be fooling ourselves into thinking we understand the complex morality of identity in digital communication?
Discussion Questions:
- What different types of online catfishing might you identify? What differentiates them from each other?
- What makes catfishing—in general, or in some of its specific forms—morally problematic?
- What values underlie individual negative responses to finding out that someone is a catfish? Are these reactions warranted?
- What does it mean to present your real or authentic self to others in online interaction? Would you put this same burden on other interactions such as job interviews, with their high emphasis on strategic presentation of personal details?
- What are the ethical implications of someone using deception like Ed did—perhaps to bring out his best self in every interaction? If Ed wasn’t doing this as part of a competition, would your judgment of this sort of catfishing change?
Further Information:
D’Costa, K. (2014, April 25). Catfishing: The Truth about Deception Online. Retrieved from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anthropology-in-practice/catfishing-the-truth-about-deception-online/
De Maria, M. (2020, January 16). ‘The Circle’ Is More Than a Netflix Reality Show-It’s Challenging Fatphobia. Retrieved from https://www.glamour.com/story/the-circle-netflix-reality-show-sean
Gordon, S. (2019, December 2). Learn the Warning Signs of Catfishing to Prevent Being Cyberbullied. Retrieved from https://www.verywellfamily.com/what-is-catfishing-460588
Sanchez, O. (2020, January). Get to know the real people in ‘The Circle’ catfish photos. Retrieved from https://ew.com/tv/netflix-the-circle-real-people-used-in-catfish-photos/
Authors:
Michaela Urban & Scott R. Stroud, Ph.D.
Media Ethics Initiative
Center for Media Engagement
University of Texas at Austin
March 24, 2020
Cases produced by the Media Ethics Initiative remain the intellectual property of the Media Ethics Initiative and the Center for Media Engagement. They can be used in unmodified PDF form without permission for classroom or educational uses. Please email us at sstroud (at) austin.utexas.edu and let us know if you found them useful! For use in publications such as textbooks, readers, and other works, please contact the Media Ethics Initiative.
To Release or Not to Release
CASE STUDY: The Ethics of Glorifying Violent Histories in South Asian Film
Case Study PDF| Additional Case Studies
Theatrical Release Poster
On October 31, 1984, two of Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s bodyguards assassinated her. The political killing came four months after the Prime Minister ordered the raid and siege of a shrine in the Punjabi city of Amritsar’s Golden Temple complex. Sikh separatists controlled the temple and Gandhi sent the Indian Army to oust them from the holy site. Hundreds died; an Indian Army general called it a “killing ground” (Raj & Najar, 2014). The two bodyguards and a third co-conspirator were Sikhs who sought revenge by killing the Prime Minister. Following their ambush of Gandhi, one was shot dead by police in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, and the second was hanged in 1989 for the crime alongside the third. The assassination provoked nationwide violence, with the communal retaliation resulting in the deaths of over 3,000 Sikhs.
Thirty years later, a film titled “Kaum De Heere”—which translates to “Diamonds of the Community”—was on the verge of opening in India. It would not be the first film to deal with Prime Minister Gandhi’s life, legacy, or death, but it would be the first to center on her assassins. In 2014, days before it was slated to be released the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) reversed its clearance of the movie and blocked it from distribution after Home Ministry objections that it could create religious tensions. Leela Samson, the CBFC chairperson, said “the problem lies in the fact that [the film] eulogizes things it shouldn’t … like taking the law into your own hands” (Raj & Najar, 2014). Religious tensions were particularly high when discussing the film, furthering Samson’s concern that it “puts a community or religious group above the interests of the nation” (Raj & Najar, 2014). Citing similar tensions, intelligence agencies warned the film could spark violence among religious communities within India. Youth in the Indian National Congress Party lobbied the current Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, to ban the film because it allegedly glorified the assassins.
One of the producers, Pardeep Bansal, countered these criticisms, stating that “it is a completely balanced film wherein no religion or sect has been belittled” (Raj & Najar, 2014). Another producer, Ravinder Ravi, claimed to have spent time with the families of the two assassins—Satwant and Beant Singh. He argued, “films have been made about political assassinations all over the world, so why can’t a film be made” about Prime Minister Gandhi’s (Biswas, 2014)? What’s more, the Revising Committee screened the film multiple times before originally granting clearance adding to speculation that the Congress Party and Bharatiya Janata Party called for the reversal. By October 2014, the producers had filed an appeal of the decision.
Fast forward to 2019 and the film is finally slated for release. Justice Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court, which overturned the CBFC ban, argued once the body clears a film, they cannot use law and order as an excuse to halt its release. Bakhru also stated that the board improperly used the unconstitutional Section 6(1) of the Cinematograph Act to justify their decision. The now illegitimate section “enable[d] the Central Government to exercise revisional powers in respect to decisions rendered by CBFC,” and in this case, the procedure dictated by the now defunct policy was not even followed properly, per the high court (Press Trust of India, 2019). The court’s finding supports the producers’ appeal, which argued there was “no factual or legal basis for withdrawal of certificate” to release the film (Press Trust of India, 2019), dismissing concerns of renewed violence as either immaterial or improbable. None of the speculated violence behind the CBFC decision has come to pass since the court cleared the film for release at the end of August and the Congress Party and Bharatiya Janata Party have not mounted significant protests, yet religious tensions are still simmering.
Meanwhile, a new web series on Prime Minister Gandhi is under production. Actress Vidya Balan, who will play Gandhi, claims the series “is not about any political party, [it] is about an individual who goes beyond the party” (Indo-Asian News Service, 2019). Perhaps it too will run into trouble clearing the CBFC; after all, Balan’s argument could just as easily be applied to the Sikh bodyguards as the Prime Minister she’s slated to portray. How can the values of free speech, artistic freedom, and communal safety be balanced in the turbulent media environment of India?
Discussion Questions:
- What issues are at stake in dramatized retellings of contentious history, such as the events of Gandhi’s administration or her assassination?
- What consideration, if any, should the CBFC—or similar bodies elsewhere—give to political and cultural climate when making censorship decisions?
- When making a movie about historical events, is there an ethical responsibility to condemn—or at least not to encourage or valorize—violence and its perpetrators?
- More broadly, how do ethics relate to artistic products? Are there subjects that are simply not suitable for art?
Further Information:
Soutik Biswas, “Indira Gandhi assassination: Controversial film blocked.” BBC News, August 22, 2014. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-28892001
Indo-Asian News Service, “Vidya Balan on why she decided to make web series on Indira Gandhi.” India Today, August 28, 2019. Available at: https://www.indiatoday.in/television/web-series/story/vidya-balan-on-why-she-decided-to-make-web-series-on-indira-gandhi-1592657-2019-08-28
Press Trust of India, “Delhi HC clears release of Punjabi movie ‘Kaum De Heere.’” Business Standard, August 29, 2019. Available at: https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/delhi-hc-clears-release-of-punjabi-movie-kaum-de-heere-119082900771_1.html
Suhasini Raj and Nida Najar, “Film about Indira Gandhi’s assassination is barred from Indian Theaters.” The New York Times, August 22, 2014. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/23/world/asia/film-about-indira-gandhis-assassination-is-barred-from-indian-theaters.html
Authors:
Dakota Park-Ozee & Scott R. Stroud, Ph.D.
Media Ethics Initiative
Center for Media Engagement
University of Texas at Austin
January 22, 2020
This case is supported with funding from the South Asia Institute at the University of Texas at Austin. Cases produced by the Media Ethics Initiative remain the intellectual property of the Media Ethics Initiative and the University of Texas at Austin. They can be used in unmodified PDF form without permission for classroom or educational uses. Please email us and let us know if you found them useful! For use in publications such as textbooks, readers, and other works, please contact the Media Ethics Initiative.
Censorship in Pakistan
CASE STUDY: Are Journalists Obligated to Speak Up?
Case Study PDF| Additional Case Studies
Bill Kerr / CC BY-SA 2.0
For many, there is little debate needed to reach the conclusion that Pakistan’s state sanctioned press intimidation is too harsh. One of the most pressing challenges to journalism ethics in Pakistan focuses on what the press is or is not obligated to do in response. Contemporary Pakistani laws combined with military and administrative aggression toward journalists have created a climate of self-censorship where journalists no longer act as watchdogs and informants for fear of reprisal. Self-censorship “is the worst kind of censorship, because it is done out of fear” said longtime Pakistani journalist, Ghazi Salauddin (Gannon, 2018). In response to the hostile media environment, journalists might persevere, seek greater independence, move online, or adapt to regulation, but each option is not without its own ethical considerations.
Cyril Almeida—assistant editor and columnist for Dawn—was recently named the International Press Institute’s 2019 World Press Freedom Hero for “his tenacious coverage” in reporting of the relationship between the state and militant groups and “tremendous resolve in tackling—at great risk to himself—deeply contentious issues that are nevertheless of central importance to Pakistan’s democracy” (Hashim, 2019). Almeida wrote a weekly column—discontinued in January—and interviewed an exiled former Prime Minister. As punishment for his coverage and refusal to back down from criticizing the government and military, Almeida faces treason charges, restrictions on his movement, and intimidation. Perseverance provided the citizenry with much needed information but cost Almeida much of his freedom.
On the other hand, press organizations may seek greater independence through financial divestment. Steven Butler from the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) argues Pakistan’s pressure on journalists comes in part “though the owners of media properties” (Gannon, 2018). Mohammad Ziauddin of the Pakistan Press Foundation explains that many of the business people running Pakistani media are there “not to make money, not to serve the public, but to have clout” (Gannon, 2018). In the last year, there have been layoffs and programming cuts associated with “the worst financial crisis the media industry has seen since it was liberalized,” according to Afzal Butt of the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (Ali, 2018). The crunch was caused by a drastic cut in government spending on media advertising because, as Saroop Ijaz of Human Rights Watch Pakistan explains, Pakistani news organizations “still rely heavily on government advertisements and subsidies” (Ali, 2018). The huge step back by the administration at once makes TV stations less beholden to government funds and thus government wishes but also makes them cash poor. As Butler asserts, “while reliance on government revenues is not a healthy model for press freedom, the sudden cutbacks have imposed extreme hardship on the media, which has had basically no time to adjust business models” (Gannon, 2018).
A third option for Pakistani journalists is to move online to less regulated and less capitally driven venues. Unfortunately, the government is cracking down on social media use by citizens but especially by journalists. They repeatedly ask companies like Twitter and Facebook to remove posts and pages and to suspend accounts. Journalist Taha Siddiqui moved to France after he was attacked but still cannot escape censorship from the Pakistani government. Reportedly, Twitter suspended his account twice in just three days because of “objectionable content that was in violation of Pakistani law” (Gannon, 2018). Several other journalists still in Pakistan, like Murtaza Solangi, have received similar notifications from Twitter that the government reported their tweets for violating the law. The problem of digital censorship is exacerbated by commonly-held impressions because, as highlighted by Asad Beyg of Media Matters for Democracy, “most accredited journalists bodies don’t recognize digital journalism as ‘real’ journalism” (Chaudry, 2018).
The CPJ advises news media owners and editors to strengthen security protocols and training, enhance self-regulation to instill confidence in accuracy and fairness, and universally condemn attacks, threats, and intimidation, potentially via professional guidelines. Almeida himself says the line of what is acceptable is drawn in terms of specificity; conflict between press and state occurs “if granular detail and specifics are reported on or commented on” (Hashim, 2019). Perhaps a solution then is to provide citizens with broad overviews of the issues and trust them to find more information for themselves, allowing journalists to serve as informants, generally, without risking censure or worse. But, if the press cannot provide details, who will? Yet, when, according to the CPJ, Pakistan’s military “restricts reporting by barring access, encouraging self-censorship through direct and indirect acts of intimidation, and even allegedly instigating violence against reporters” (Hashim, 2019), how much can we ask journalists to do?
Discussion Questions:
- Are journalists obligated to be the public watchdogs of governmental institutions even when it puts them at risk?
- Should social media companies participate in state censorship of journalism in adherence with national laws, or should they refuse such government control of information?
- What is the best way for journalists to fight state censorship of the press?
- Is there an ethical obligation for non-journalist citizens to intervene on behalf of the press? Put another way, is the reading public compelled to defend the freedoms of those institutions from which we benefit?
- What concerns might be raised by approaches that protect journalists by relying upon readers to gather more information outside of a vaguely-reported story?
Further Information:
Umer Ali, “The Pakistan government’s financial squeeze on journalism.” Columbia Journalism Review, December 20, 2018. Available at: https://www.cjr.org/analysis/journalism-pakistan.php
Suddaf Chaudry, “Pakistan: Censorship by stealth.” New Internationalist, November 15, 2018. Available at: https://newint.org/features/2018/11/15/pakistan-censorship-stealth
Kathy Gannon, “Pakistan’s journalists complain of increasing censorship.” Associated Press, December 26, 2018. Available at: https://www.apnews.com/09e9a7466e9c4c6f878e424833e5f03c
Asad Hashim, “Pakistan’s Cyril Almeida named IPI’s World Press Freedom Hero.” Al Jazeera, April 24, 2019. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/04/pakistan-cyril-almeida-named-ipi-world-press-freedom-hero-190424094705064.html
Authors:
Dakota Park-Ozee & Scott R. Stroud, Ph.D.
Media Ethics Initiative
Center for Media Engagement
University of Texas at Austin
October 15, 2019
This case is supported with funding from the South Asia Institute at the University of Texas at Austin. Cases produced by the Media Ethics Initiative remain the intellectual property of the Media Ethics Initiative and the University of Texas at Austin. They can be used in unmodified PDF form without permission for classroom or educational uses. Please email us and let us know if you found them useful! For use in publications such as textbooks, readers, and other works, please contact the Media Ethics Initiative.
Press Freedom and Alternative Facts
The Center for Media Engagement and Media Ethics Initiative Present:
Press Freedom in the Age of Alternative Facts
David McCraw
Senior VP & Deputy General Counsel
The New York Times
March 13, 2020 (Friday) ¦ 1:30PM-2:30PM ¦ Belo Center for New Media (BMC) 5.208
What is the role of journalism and the press in a time when the truth is malleable, fake news is on the rise, and journalistic freedom is being put into question? How can our democratic society find real and sustainable solutions to our problems of disinformation, political polarization, and new media technologies? In this talk, David McCraw will draw on his experiences as a lawyer and as the Deputy General Counsel for The New York Times to explore the ethical challenges awaiting journalists and the American public that arise at the intersection of law, ethics, and technology.
David McCraw is Deputy General Counsel of The New York Times Company and serves as the company’s principal newsroom lawyer. He is the author of the recent book “Truth in Our Times: Inside the Fight for Press Freedom in the Age of Alternative Facts,” a first-person account of the legal battles that helped shape The New York Times’s coverage of Donald Trump, Harvey Weinstein, conflicts abroad, and Washington’s divisive politics. He has been at The Times since 2002. He is a visiting lecturer at Harvard Law School and an adjunct professor at the NYU Law School. He has done pro bono work in support of free expression in Yemen, Russia, Montenegro, Bahrain, and other countries around the world.
This talk is co-sponsored by the LBJ School of Public Affairs and the UT Ethics Project. The Media Ethics Initiative is part of the Center for Media Engagement at the University of Texas at Austin. Follow Media Ethics Initiative and Center for Media Engagement on Facebook for more information on future events. This presentation will be introduced by Rebecca Taylor (UT Austin Ethics Project).
This event is free and open to the public.
Parking Information (nearest garages: SAG and TSG) can be found at: https://parking.utexas.edu/parking/ut-parking-garages
#/media/File:%22The_Circle%22_(poster).jpeg){kind=link}