Media Hype video

Apart from adjusting the lightness or darkness of an entire photo, it is never ethical to alter a photo or video to accompany a news report. This doesn't mean its ok to lighten or darken the skin of someone. I am only talking about a poorly lighted picture that needs to be lightened to show the content in the picture. It is never ok to add or subtract subject matter to a picture like the University of Wisconsin did for its brochure. The picture accompanying a story in a newspaper is usually the first thing the reader sees and altering it gives the reader a false idea of the story. If a news outlet doctors a photo and then people find out, it will not only hurt the outlet's credibility, but it will lose the trust of its readers.

I believe it is ok to choose stories based on reader demand or interest, as long as all the facts are told. In the shark attack news it needed to be stated in every account of each attack that there is not a higher risk of shark attack from other years. If all the facts are presented, I have no problem with giving shark attacks more coverage if that is what the reader/viewer wants to read/see. However, if there is a more important story that may not have the same impact on readership/viewership, it needs to be presented closer to the front story or earlier in the broadcast than the shark story. The number one priority for news outlets is to get out the truth and give the entire story, even if it isn't the most exciting or interesting story to begin with.

"Freebies" and "junkets" are always morally and ethically wrong and no journalist should ever accept a gift from the company/individual/group they are covering. An all-expenses paid trip to Spain to test drive a BMW gives off a bad impression to readers. Even if nothing unethical is going on, and the reporters are not swayed in their opinions, it still can and does give off the imprssion that something shady is going on. Trust between reader and writer is essential in maintaining a strong relationship and if that trust is compromised, unwarrented or not, it is really hard to get back. It is so much easier to just say no and pay your way to cover a car. If no one accepted the free trip, the car companies would change the way they go about presenting a new vehicle and make the trips more economical for the news outlets to cover and report on them.

I think "The Fat Squad" hoax faked out so many news outlets because once one outlet picked it up, the rest followed suit because of the unusualness of the story. People jumped in to the coverage and didn't do the background research it normally would have because they didn't want to fall behind. Some media outlets must have had some reservations about "The Fat Squad", but falling a day or two behind in coverage would have cost them thousands, if not millions, of readers/viewers who went somewhere else for their coverage. The internet news media will fall for these pranks at a much higher rate than traditional news outlets. Anyone can start a blog and write whatever they want regardless of their educational background or knowledge and that will lead to unqualified reporters reporting on the hoaxes without checking any of the facts beforehand.