NUJ Extension Task

Law and Ethics

I personally believe that there should definitely be some sort of

limit on what a journalist should do in order to research for a
story and gain their information for it. Many journalists think that
it is fine for them to participate in phone hacking, paying people
for private information and even using private investigators to
receive the information or evidence that they need to write their
story. I dont personally believe in this as a method of good
journalism or count it as them just doing their job as this is
invading someones privacy entirely and being very sneaky and
dishonest in order to just write a story. I dont think this is really
journalism as you arent investigating you are breaking a lot of
rules and sometimes even breaking the law just to get
information or evidence instead of doing the work yourself and
finding out the information in the most honest way. I think that
phone hacking is a very dishonest and potentially damaging way
of finding out information that breaks the law and can land you in
a lot of trouble and it is definitely a method I would never use to
get ahead in a story or to find out information. It has been a
major story in the news recently when a list of celebrities names
were released to the media and told that everyone on the list
was going to have their photos released, many of which nude or
private images that some of which were faked. This affected stars
such as Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton as the hacker had
hacked their phone and icloud to get the images. Even people
such as Prince William have been affected by phone hacking
along with the Duchess. The Duchess, Kate Middleton had her
phone hacked by the News of the World revealing voicemails that
had been left for her by Prince William. I personally think this
breaches what should be done in order to receive information
and write a story and I think it is unnecessary. It goes beyond
what a journalist should be allowed to do and is a clear violation
of someones privacy. With things like paying public servants I
think that this is very sneaky and a dishonest way to get
information for a story which I dont personally believe a
journalist should be able to do, it is classed as a bribe, meaning
this is a very low way to get information and isnt even
necessarily honest as money is involved and there is no evidence
that someone wouldnt lie for money. Using private investigators
although may seen extreme and very over the top to a lot of
people, however this is the one that I can see sense in. I
understand why people do all of these things, as they are
methods of receiving information that you need for a story and I
also understand that they are just doing their job. However I just
personally feel that there are better ways of doing so and this
isnt a reliable or trusting thing to do and it also isnt a good way

to build a positive reputation for yourself. I feel that being a good

investigative journalist all relies upon whether you can get this
information without conducting any of these methods. When it
comes to journalists setting up stings to catch people out
whether its celebrities or politicians I think in some ways it can
be really effective and a useful method for a journalists to show
people their story and give evidence of what they know. I think
this just depends on what kind of sting you are doing and the
reasoning behind it. An example of an on-going sting operation
has been named fast and furious which involves the U.S
government running a gunwalking operation at the Mexican
border, which they have now been doing since 2006. It was a
high-stakes sting operation where the bureau of alcohol, tobacco,
firearms and explosives opted to not stop purchases of weapons
that they had suspected where intended for smuggling across the
border by traffickers. Their goal was to let them buy these
weapons letting them believe that they have got away with it and
then catch them out at the border. If you are doing it to destroy
a persons reputation just because of your personal dislike for the
person then this is where I dont support this method. However if
you are doing it because you think that this is a way to help other
people for example, if you are setting up a politician to show that
they are lying about all the positive things they are promising are
going to happen to people and you are setting them up for the
welfare of other people, this is where I dont see any real problem
in it. There is a point that if they didnt want to get caught then
they shouldnt have done it and if they werent doing anything
wrong then why should it take a journalist to figure it out and to
set them up for it to be found out, if it were the right thing to do
then there wouldnt be any problem and they wouldnt be hiding
it.

Credibility

I think that when it comes to ready news and tabloid stories the
truthfulness can be debatable as not everything can be trusted
and depended upon as fact. A lot of the time newspapers do print
the truth and the stories they print can be backed up with factual
evidence, however this is not always the case so this cant be
depended upon and necessarily be trusted by everyone. When it
comes to magazines on the other hand I think that you have to
read it with the knowledge that not everything you are reading is
true and also that the article has been written with the aim of
entertaining their audience not informing them of all the facts
and figures. Magazines sometimes feel the need to lie in order for
people to pick up their publication rather than others that target
the same audience and in order for people to pick it up the
stories have to be exaggerated and have to look more interesting

or exciting that other magazines. In this case I definitely think

you have to read it knowing that it isnt factual, unless the person
they are writing about is there and has had an interview and all
of the quotes are in proper quotation marks not just
apostrophes. I think that so many magazines out there
exaggerate whether they are adding to the truth or completely
making it up so none can be defined as truthful or honest in my
opinion. I dont really see anything especially wrong with
exaggerating or setting the story up in a dramatic way as this
adds comedy and entertainment for the reader, which is a
massive factor that the writer must consider. However I no longer
agree with it when it becomes a complete lie and the whole story
has been made up to create sales. This is when it becomes
completely untrustworthy and becomes about breaching privacy
of the people they are writing about and also potentially ruining a
persons reputation at the expense of an article. If a newspaper
has a political bias I dont believe they can be fair when writing or
debating an argument related to this topic. No matter how hard
they try to keep it equal there is always going to be that obvious
bias and the article will no longer be fair or even accurate as they
could lie about another politician or another political party in
order to get their readers to side with them. This in my opinion is
wrong and something that shouldnt be done in journalism as a
result of it affecting other people in a negative way and also that
it isnt fair or justified and you have no way of knowing the truth
and the lies in the story which becomes unfair for the reader. This
doesnt just occur in print publications but also on news channels
on TV. FOX news has been involved in many political debates
over whether their reporting contains bias for example;
In September 2009, the Obama administration engaged in a
verbal conflict with Fox News Channel. On September 20, 2009,
President Obama appeared on all the major news programs
except Fox News, a snub partially in response to remarks about
the President by commentators Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity
and general coverage by Fox with regard to Obama's Health Care
proposal. Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace called White
House administration officials "crybabies" in response. Following
this, a senior Obama adviser told U.S news that the White House
would never get a fair shake from Fox News.

Social and Cultural Awareness

The media can be very powerful and at times has the power to
change a persons opinions about groups of people as it tends
to categorize and stereotype a lot of the time. Whether it is
purposely done in order to create media buzz or controversy
or if it wasnt even something they intended on doing it still
has the ability to change your opinion on a group of people.

An example is the TV show benefit street this can easily sway

a persons opinion on a group of people, even by the title. It
stereotypes this group of people and presents them often in a
very negative way showing their flaws, highlighting the bad
parts of these people rather than the positive. The show
follows a group of people that live on benefits and shows how
they live their life. The name of the show states what it is but
in a sort of degrading way categorizing the whole street as
being on benefits whether some people arent or not. This kind
of thing is done to increase the amount of views they get for a
start as it strikes an interest with people as many like to see
how other people live. Many already have a very negative idea
of people who are living off benefits and this show increases
the negativity surrounding them and for others who didnt
have an opinion on them can then develop a negative one. I
think this can at times be an unfair portrayal of this particular
group of people. Also other shows such as big fat gypsy
wedding do exactly the same and really highlight the
negatives rather than showing these people in a positive way.
The name of the show can already carry some offense for
some, as they actually prefer to be called travelers. The
show follows the travelers around showing what life is like for
them. The way the show is done shows some really negative
qualities that these people hold which is obviously going to
sway the audiences opinions. Things such as showing them
fighting in the street, protesting and shouting at police, or
even visiting relatives in prison. These things, although for
some may not even be a problem or be seen as all that
negative, for others this can easily make them develop a
really negative perception of travelers as the show is only
showing the negative aspects of their lives. I think that the
NUJ guidelines are a good way of ensuring that journalists are
sticking to the rules when writing and it can help them to
avoid lawsuits or any controversy in their writing, ensuring
their reputation isnt harmed. However I do not agree that
everyone should be made to follow these guidelines. As it
stands the guidelines are only applicable to those that are a
part of the NUJ and even they dont have to follow the
guidelines exactly and can break them with almost no
consequences. I think that it is good to let journalists be free
in their writing and making it essential to follow them wouldnt
even help all that much as they would be allowed to break
them anyway. On the other hand I do see the other side to the
argument as making all journalists follow the NUJ guidelines
would save the reputation of a lot of publications and
journalists and would help to ensure that there were far less
controversies in the media industry as a journalist would be
able to check to see if their writing is appropriate. Overall I
dont actually see a valid reason as to why this would actually

work in the long run as there is no guarantee that all

journalists would abide by these guidelines meaning they are
useless and would have no point as people would still break
them. I think there is the definite possibility that there would
be the risk of hindering freedom of expression if there were
restrictions put in place. If writers and journalists were
restricted as to what they can write about and what different
topics or opinions they can have and include in articles it
would cause massive controversy and a lot of problems in the
media. I believe it would end up causing more problems than
solving any as so many writers and journalists would
completely disagree with it. I personally think that a person
should be able to write about whatever they wish, however
they should consider others whilst writing and the
consequences if they were to write controversially. This way
everyone would be able to write about whatever they want,
however it would be appropriate and if not they already know
and understand that they have to face the consequences. I
personally think that currently the way newspapers run is
absolutely fine and changing it to make it more equal or
balanced would cause a lot of problems for these publication
including a huge loss in their following and readership as each
newspaper/magazine specializes in a specific topic including
only relevant information and articles that they know their
readers will enjoy. Making all newspapers include balanced
coverage would risk all publications just being the same or at
least very similar in the way they are written and the content.
I think that each person knows their own interests and
opinions and also what you each enjoy reading and as it
stands this works really well and makes each publication
individual and unique in its own way.