Ethics 3rd Media Monitor (Social Media 3) : Regular or Bonus post
The 3rd media monitor post, either regular or bonus (either/or : only one will be credited) can be posted here with deadline extended to Thursday Feb. 27, 2020 at 4pm.
REGULAR MEDIA MONITOR: The regular media monitor is a review of a social media post (time frame Oct. 2019-Feb. 2020) that violates the following standard: Language, images, expression that foment prejudices or organized hate against certain groups and minorities by reason of gender, race, creed, beliefs, religion, physical appearance, etc. (are not allowed).
If the user/ author is a private individual (not a public official or not a public figure) : DO NOT POST THE URL / LINK. DO NOT POST REAL NAMES. Indicate the date, the nationality/country, and the number of friends or followers but conceal the url, conceal all real names in the content and the url and and state “url redacted”; “name redacted” for each concealed real name.
Or…
The BONUS POST: In view of the OSG motion for a gag order to prohibit discussion on the franchise of ABS-CBN by ABS-CBN and all “persons speaking on their behalf” (“on behalf” means in favor of): The bonus post is: Using social media standards (FB community standards, Twitter Rules, Instagram community guidelines, etc.), an evaluation on whether or not a specific social media post should be banned of a user/person/party who posted/ tweeted/ wrote/ published in favor of any of the rights involved in the ABS-CBN franchise. (if the user is a private individual, i.e., not a public figure, please redact the url and all real names). (time frame: starting from the date of the quo warranto petition, Feb. 10, 2020.)
Advance Happy Anniversary of the EDSA people’s uprising!
UPDATED. Ethics 9th Media Monitor (the News Media 3) The Broadcast Code
The 9th Media Monitor is on the KBP Broadcast Code provisions, annotation, and discussion.
Class members are required to review pertinent broadcast media content (time frame August 2019-December 2019) (Fair, Foolish, or in a Fix: good practice, violation, or dilemma), and to post the evaluation here, either regular or bonus (but not both), using the provisions of the KBP Broadcast Code. Points will be awarded on a “first-posted-first-credited” basis, i.e., class members are not allowed to copy or base their work on another class member’s post.
Baseless rants will not merit any points – the commentary should use, cite, and quote the pertinent provisions of the KBP Broadcast Code.
The deadline is on Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2019 at 11:59pm. Late posts will not merit any points.
BONUS: A review of any broadcast media content covering the 2019 SEA Games or SEA Games preparation and related events, issues, and topics (time frame: November 2019-December 2019) using the provisions of the KBP Broadcast Code.
UPDATE. Additional BONUS for five points: On broadcasting statements and quotes accurately:
Question: Is there a difference in the following statements of conclusion based on data from clinics that there are more reported cases of depression:
a)Statement of conclusion most often made by researchers: “There are more actual cases of depression in the last five years compared to the years before that, according to hospital records. ”
b)Another statement of conclusion that’s not used: “There are more reports of actual cases of depression in the last five years compared to the years before that when they were probably not being reported, based on hospital records. ”
1.What is the difference, if any, between the two? Explain. 2.Which statement would be more accurate? 3.Are there other possible theorization / explanation for the data? Explain, then state why it is important to offer all possible explanations and analysis for the data (for five points). (On the other hand, cases of suicides and suicide attempts may be a more accurate measure of the qualitative change in the phenomenon of depression in the last five years compared to years before that, and used as jumping point of the study, i.e. absent more accurate data, the data on the increase in suicide cases and suicide attempts may support the conclusion that there are more cases of depression in the last five years compared to the years before that — more quantifiable — rather than general reports of depression)
Ethics 7th Media Monitor (The News Media 1) SPJ Code of Ethics Deadline Nov. 14
The seventh media monitor (The News Media 1) (Fair, Foolish, or in a Fix: good practice, violation, or dilemma), can be posted here, either regular or bonus (but not both), using the first half of SPJ Code of Ethics (2014) as discussed in class, with deadline extended to Thursday Nov. 14, 2019 at 5pm.
The post can either be an embedded, or a pasted link leading to the student’s own site. Only a review of events that are current (a review of media coverage starting Nov. 2, 2019 up to Nov. 14, 2019) will be allowed.
Late submissions are considered a forfeit for the week and would not be credited.
Instructions have been given in class. (As stated before: Students may use pseudonyms or pen names, and conceal their faces, and may also use their own platforms and simply paste the links in the comments section. (If pseudonymous, pls provide the department assistant with your pen name).
Pls use the comments section of this post. As stated, the media monitor commentary may either by typed as text in the comments section or as a link leading to the post in the platform of the classmember/ post author. Pls type in the first line whether the post is a regular media monitor (7th Regular Media Monitor, The News Media 1) or a bonus post (type the Bonus Title) to aid the checker in locating and categorizing each box. Tnx). The title of the Bonus topic for this window is the SPJ provision, “Giving Voice to the Voiceless”
Baseless rants will not merit any points – the commentary should use, cite, and quote the pertinent provisions of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics as taken up in class this week. For the succeeding weeks, members of the class should be able to cite also the Philippine Journalists Code of Ethics (PPI Code of Ethics and PPI Expanded Code of Ethics), the KBP Broadcast Code, etc.) Failure to provide the pertinent provision will result in a score of zero. The SPJ provisions have been provided in the handouts online. The first half of the SPJ code was also discussed in powerpoint in class. BONUS: Giving Voice to the Voiceless. For double the points, a class member may evaluate any news media content that illustrates the following SPJ code of ethics provisions: “-Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.”
“-Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.”
“-Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.
