Seeking Relevance

Domestic Violence … sponsored by TMZ

In the media, exploitation continues to be big business. Although creating profit and seizing marketing opportunities that feed off suffering is nothing new in our culture, every so often an example arises that reminds you just how grotesque it can be.

 

The celebrity/gossip website known as TMZ.com, a part of AOL, recently snared an exclusive when it got a hold of what is reported to be an evidence photo of Rihanna, showing the result of an alleged domestic violence incident at the hands of Chris Brown. The caption with the photo on TMZ’s site simply reads: “TMZ has obtained a photo of Rihanna taken after Chris Brown allegedly beat her.”

 

Although the Los Angeles Police Department is still investigating the leak,  it is pretty clear that a police officer or someone associated with the domestic violence investigation gave the photo to TMZ – most likely for some cash. Now most respectable media organizations, even if handed the exclusive, would choose not to run a photo of a domestic violence victim. But TMZ not only ran the photo, but went one step further. They actually watermarked their logo over the top of the victim’s face and put their logo quite large at the top (see photo above). Why? So that when myriad media organizations around the world wanted to run the photo, it would be sure to have the TMZ logo on it, lest anyone forget who got the exclusive. The result? Exploitation of a domestic violence victim for branding and marketing purposes.

 

There used to be a time when journalism professors had to come up with hypotheticals to teach ethics to journalism students. But these days there is no need to make up egregious examples when editors armed with huge Web audiences are providing real examples -- anecdotes that should offend most non-journalists, not to mention those in the media.

 

But of course the TMZ example of branding violence for marketing purposes is not the first or even the most egregious example of such practices. That “honor” belongs to NBC News. Two days after a gunman killed 32 people on the campus of Virginia Tech in 2007, the killer’s manifesto showed up in the mailroom at NBC News.  The package contained photos, videos and writings from the killer. Now there was much opinion in the news media about how NBC News used the content from the killer – but that is not the issue here. NBC ran some of the content as they should have as it was a vital part of the news story. It was right to run a portion of that content given the importance of what was the deadliest shooting by a sole gunman in U.S. history.  However, NBC News went one step too far by branding the photographs of the killer with a full-color NBC News logo (see photo at left) – forcing many large media outlets (including The New York Times) to run the photo of the killer with the NBC News logo. Once again, ethics go out the window in order to further a brand. Even if NBC News had gotten this exclusive with hard-nosed reporting and investigation (as opposed to the manifesto just showing up in their mail), it still should not have released the photos with their logo. NBC News could have released the photos on the wires with the stipulation that any news organizations simply credit the photo to NBC News with basic type – perfectly acceptable and reasonable.  But a full-color logo within the photo itself? Huh?

 

The situation begs the question: does associating your logo with violence really further your brand? Does violence-infused marketing really work?

 

Apparently it does. What a shame.

Where in the World is ... Credibility

And to think it is now a very short trip from this photo to the anchor desk at CBS News. Edward R. Murrow would be so proud.

Maybe Matt Lauer should do his next interview with President Obama wearing that "Snuggie."

Why is everyone an expert on the media?

For everyone that is convinced that newspaper reporters that cover straight news are bias, this New York Times article by the Public Editor explains things that I have been talking about for quite some time …  at least it is a start …

Some important points to consider on the topic of news bias ...

1.       Journalists are humans, not robots. Hence all humans have opinions. It is only natural. BUT …

2.       News reporters are TRAINED to be objective and fair to all sides – it is their job.  Just like plumbers are trained; just like Wall Street investors are trained, etc. If journalists do their job badly, they are fired.  If news reporters’ biases or opinions creep into their work, they are fired.  I feel it is vitally important to our society to have a hard-working, smart press as a watch-dog; most journalists also feel that way. It is more of a calling than a job. But, if that wasn’t enough incentive, many journalists have a family and a mortgage and since journalists don’t make a million dollars a year, it behooves them to do their job well and keep the income flowing.

3.       In addition to journalists taking their job seriously and holding objectivity high, each piece of content coming out of most major media properties has many checks and balances to ensure that one person is not the sole gatekeeper of a story or facts.  A newspaper article, for instance, goes through multiple line edits, at least one copy edit and then post-review by senior editors.  “Checks and balances” is an important concept in this country’s governing system ---  and it works in journalism, too.

4.       Every single profession has their examples of bad apples or corruption. Journalism is no different.  So, there will always be high-profile examples of bad journalists making major mistakes. Just like there will always be high-profile examples of elected officials making major mistakes (read: Eliot Spitzer).  Is there any profession in the world that doesn’t have bad examples?  Just look at the stream of stories that come out about bad doctors and nurses that actually kill people with bad training or bad mistakes.  Does anyone remember a President that had to resign amid scandal?  No trade or job or profession is without examples.

5.       Let’s be clear on one thing: Screaming (talking) heads on many of the Cable TV “news” channels are not journalists. They are opinion pundits with a bias and are paid to “dispense” that bias (usually quite loudly). Let’s not confuse people like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Bill O’Reilly and the like as objective journalists – they are not.

6.       When you read a story or engage with media, are you aware of your own biases or opinions that you bring to the article?  Does anyone ever read a news story that they totally agree with and say: “The reporter is bias; I won’t read him anymore.”   That is a point the NYT Public Editor tries to make above.

I have heard a ton of media bashing in this election and I think some folks need to think more about how journalism works and why it is so important to this country.  Can you imagine what would go on without a strong and free press in this country?  If you think there is corruption and deceit now, it would be 10x worse.  Why do you think that after a coup in some other nation that the first thing the coup leaders do is take over the media outlets?  Why do you think China spends so much time monitoring and censoring its media outlets?

 

Also, one thing to note: I generally think Local TV News and Cable TV News is pretty crappy. The old saying “if it bleeds, it leads” is still alive and well in that medium.  The major exception being “60 Minutes.”

 

Anyway, this is meant to be the start of a dialogue. Would love to hear your thoughts on this issue …

 

Coming soon: How do you learn about a topic or profession you know nothing about nor have any formal training in?