The 4th regular media monitor or 2nd bonus can be posted here. The 2nd bonus consists of the following (the student can choose one, for ten points, two paragraphs) 1)a review of the media coverage of the killing of three Lumad leaders in Surigao del Sur and the plight of the Lumad evacuees, in particular: pls review the position given to it in relation to other stories from Sept. 1 (when the murders were perpetrated) to today: was there under-reporting? Use provisions of the SPJ, PPI, PPI expanded, etc. … or 2)a review of the media coverage of the UAAP from last Saturday to today: were the stories colorful enough, at the same time, balanced? Use provisions as stated.
The evaluation of all media monitor content, from now on, will consider whether or not the author is able to point out what ethical principle (specify from which code of ethics) or provision is involved (specify the provision): such as: (from SPJ): accuracy; context; correctness; identifying sources; evaluating sources’ motives; seeking response to allegations; avoiding undercover or surreptitious methods; giving voice to the voiceless; serving as watchdog of the public; telling the story of the diversity of the human experience; avoiding stereotyping; distinguishing & labelling opinion; never distorting facts; not plagiarizing… or: treating subjects as human beings; balancing need for info with potential harm; showing compassion & sensitivity for minors, victims of sex crimes, subjects unable to give consent; considering cultural differences; balancing suspect’s right to fair trial vs. public’s right to know… or: avoiding conflict of interest; refusing gifts, favors; distinguishing news from hybrids… or: explaining ethical choices & processes; responding to questions; acknowledging mistakes; exposing unethical conduct… Or, from PPI: Avoiding “improper emphasis”; “distortion of truth by omission”; “Airing all sides to a conflict”; “Correcting substantive errors”; Avoiding “degrading any person by reason of sex, creed, religion, belief,” etc; being cautious when accusations affect a private person; observing the presumption of innocence; honoring the confidence reposed by sources; using fair and honest methods; not accepting cash, gifts; not taking advantage of fellow journalists; maintaining dignity of the profession; …etc.
Please specify ethical principles involved, as stated above, (“good practices”; “violation”; “ethical dilemma”), cite whether from SPJ, PPI. or PPI expanded, instead of engaging in generalities, in order to show the parameters, or the standards or criteria you used for making your commentary. Deadline is up to Saturday 7pm. tnx.
