We've
already talked (mostly in conjunction with a discussion of Elements
of Journalism) about some of the issues raised by "infotainment"
or the blurring lines between
news
and
entertainment
media,
particularly
on
television.
Here's a
different take on both the negatives and the positives of infotainment.
The
main ethical arguments against infotainment can be summarized
this way:
* When
news is mixed with entertainment, the audience becomes
confused.
We
have increasing difficulty separating fact from fiction.
As a result, we are misinformed. |
* Because
media time and space are limited, we also are uninformed.
Infotainment
takes up "room" that could have gone to other
important
topics. Remember
agenda-setting theory from the Social Scientific class?
(Sure you do!) Media do not tell us what to think, but
they do tell us what to think about (and, often, how
to think about those things).
What aren't
we thinking about while we are pondering who the next American Idol might
be ...? |
* Infotainment
tends to generate or reinforce powerful stereotypes.
It
also plays on -- even creates -- fear, anger and hatred. Issues
tend to be oversimplified into "us against them." |
|
But
there also are a number of arguments to be made about the benefits
of infotainment. (Think about what philosophical approaches
underlie these arguments.) Here are a few:
* Get
real! The fact is that many people will not seek out info
they "need to know."
Infotainment
focuses attention on major issues in a format people
will watch. Society
benefits from more citizen involvement and interest in
these issues. |
* Infotainment
can provide a voice to those whom more "serious"
journalists sneer at.
It
allows more sides of a story to be heard – a
more multi-faceted “truth.” |
*
It also can attract public interest
about important subjects, which responsible journalists
can then investigate.
|
* Infotainment
connects us with one another.
Such
shows are the colonial taverns or Main Street barbershops
of our time, a focal
point for discourse. |
|
|
The
ethics of sports journalism is a seriously
under-covered topic in the media ethics literature. What few studies
exist have focused on boosterism (problems that
arise when sports reporters are either fans themselves or are extremely
tight with sources who control access to events, key personnel and,
thus, stories) and freebies (taking
free meals, free travel, free gifts, free tickets ...).
Those and
other issues primarily involve issues of independence and conflicts
of interest, real or perceived. The 2005
study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism of newspaper sports
coverage, titled "Box
Scores and Bylines," also focuses on ...
* The
range of views in sports stories, which is narrow.
Only about 12 percent of sports stories presented a mix of views;
most sports stories were one-sided and considered fewer stakeholders
than news stories in other papers of the paper.
|
* The
nature of the stories, which are overwhelming about scheduled
events (mostly games and press conferences).
| * Enterprise
reporting (reporting that covers something other than a
scheduled event) accounted for only about 10 percent of
the sports stories, with some
variation
by
circulation
size. |
* Coverage
of issues
accounted for barely 4 percent of sports stories.
|
| * Baseball,
basketball and football dominated the sports covered. Most
of this coverage was of hometown teams. |
|
* The
gender imbalance in sports coverage. Despite Title IX, female
athletes were the main character in sports stories only 5 percent
of the time; stories about female teams made up just 3 percent
of the sports coverage in the newspapers studied.
| * Sources also were overwhelmingly male. Only 14 percent of the sports
stories had at least one female source, far less than the
percentage in other news sections |
* Sports
staffs also are dominated by men. About 13
percent of the journalists working in sports departments
are women; fewer than 6 percent of the Associated Press
Sports Editors organization (of, obviously, sports
editors) are women.
|
|
| * The amount
of opinion and speculation in sports stories, which
was relatively high compared with the amount on other section
fronts. (However, this is probably at least partly because sports
columnists typically get section-front play, while news columnists
are rarely on A1.) |
|
Most
of the specific guidelines provided in the
Associated Press Sports Editors code
of ethics deal with freebies. Basically, it says that sports journalists
...
* Should pay
their own way.
This
includes paying for travel, meals, hotels ... whatever. It means
accepting nothing of more than token value. Anything that cannot
be refused or returned should be donated to charity. |
*
Accept only things that are required
to do the job, such as press credentials, game tickets
for personal use or parking passes.
(Accepting
such things for friends, family
or anyone else who is not covering the game ... well, no.) |
A bit more
about freebies ...
| * In
her study published in 2005 in the Newspaper Research Journal,
Hardin found that more than 40 percent of sports editors do not
believe objectivity is compromised by such perks. |
* An earlier
study, back in the 1980s, cited several advantages of freebies
for sports departments:
| * Smaller
news orgs can cover more events. |
* Reporters
may get inside info at "insider" events.
|
| * Ego
/ morale boost for the journalists. |
The
biggest disadvantage of freebies is that there is no free lunch.
Freebies leave you indebted to those who provide them, compromising
the journalistic principle of independence.
Even
if you firmly believe the freebies aren't actually influencing
your behavior
or your stories,
you
risk creating a public perception of a conflict of interest.
(From "Ethics in Sports Journalism: Tightening Up the Code,"
Tim Wulfemeyer, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 1985). |
|
Boosterism
is another major ethical issue for sports journalists. Journalists
who essentially serve a role as boosters or promoters of local
teams also compromise the principle of journalistic
independence.
* In
her 2005 study,
Hardin found that more than a third of sports editors -- larger
numbers at smaller papers -- believed sports pages should cheer
home teams.
Younger
editors were especially likely to support boosterism. |
* The 1980s
study looked at why boosterism exists. Some of the reasons have
to do with economics:
* Sports
teams are good for the local economy.
What's
good for the local economy is good for the local media. |
* Viewers
and readers are fans. They want (not necessarily need)
to read about team successes.
|
| * Sometimes,
the media company even owns the team its reporters cover. (Go,
Cubbies!) |
In
addition, sports
writers may be "fans" themselves, or at least least
enjoy being insiders at sporting events. (This may be especially
true of younger sports journalists, as Hardin's study points
out.) They also like hanging out with athletes, who are celebrities
and
even
heroes
in our
society.
But
perhaps the biggest reason is the extent to which being
nice to sources determines your success as a sports journalist.
In sports, perhaps more than on any other beat, the source can
(and often does) control the story. A reporter frozen out because
of negative stories is going to have trouble
doing his or her job.
(From "Ethics
in Sports Journalism: Tightening Up the Code," Tim Wulfemeyer, Journal
of Mass Media Ethics, 1985).
|
|
Here
are a few other ethical issues that arise in sports journalism, highlighted
in that same 1985 article:
*
Moonlighting.
Journalists,
particularly at smaller outlets, often get opportunities to do
such things as serve as an official scorers or statisticians
during a game;
do
commentary
or write stories for other media; and write for game programs
and highlight films.
Among
the advantages:
* More
money to supplement low salaries.
* Prestige
and other bennies that come from reaching a potentially
wider audience.
|
And
the disadvantages:
* Reporter
is also a PR practitioner.
* Being
a scorer can cause problems with source … and makes
it hard to report on the game.
* Divided
loyalties. |
The
APSE ethics guideline on moonlighting:
* No
outside employment that affects anything that is being covered.
* No
official or quasi-official connections with any sport. |
|
* Community
involvement. Sports journalists may want to join groups
affiliated with athletics, such as alumni associations or booster
clubs.
Among
the advantages:
* Access
to sources outside team itself.
* Aid
to local community (fundraisers, etc.)
|
The
main disadvantages are -- you guessed
it -- a real or perceived conflict
of interest, divided loyalties, lost credibility.
|
The
APSE ethics guideline on this one is equally
predictable: Avoid involvement that would create conflict
of interest -- or impression of one.
|
|
* Commercial
sponsorship. In covering sports, journalists often
refer, directly or indirectly, to corporate sponsors of stadiums,
uniforms
and other elements of the game.
The
APSE guideline urges sports journalists not to mention sponsors
in their story unless the event cannot be properly identified
without them.
(Of
course, since 1985, sports sponsorship has increased exponentially,
from stadium names to dozens of major
events -- college football bowl games, tennis matches, stock
car races, you name it. Then there are the logos on athletic outfits,
such staples as "the Aflac trivia quiz" and ... well, the list just
goes on and on, doesn't it?) |
|