Media Hype Video

Altering images in news reporting is only ethical if it helps clarify the photo in some way. This could be highlighting a relevant part or making the image brighter or higher contrast-but only if it's done with the intention of improved visual legibility- never to change the fundamental character of something (like making OJ darker on the cover of TIME). Alterations should always be noted as well.

In an ideal world, people would naturally be interested in the things that most affected them. However, that's just not true. People do love hearing about shark attacks (and arguably this fact implies that it IS important to them at some level)...but when it causes irrational fear in the mass population, it has gone too far. The media should cover everything that needs to be covered in order for society to be properly informed about relevant issues that may affect their lives, but if this means that no one buys the paper or watches the news, and they consequentially fail as institutions- then perhaps a minimal amount of "shark attack" stories should be included. These stories are in fact part of the world and people do want to know about them and the media DOES need to pay the bills too. However, to put sensational, overblown, fear-based stories on the front cover and intentionally glamorize them for profit is just wrong. There needs to be a balance where the real news is the focus- but it shouldn't be so dry that no one wants to hear about it.

Freebies and junkets are particularly troublesome when it comes to journalists doing product reviews. It's easy to imagine that if the publication supports buying a product, it will do better in the market-a better market will serve the publication because their will be more advertising dollars coming back to them. When there is such a direct correlation between content and revenue the journalist is put in a position of a lot of responsibility. Maintaining integrity despite the free trips and special treatment becomes more difficult- the unbalanced reporting that may arise is ultimately a real disservice to to the consumers.

I think the Fat Squad and the other stories created by Joey Skaggs are so widely believed because of how the media works- they are on autopilot. They get news releases and follow them up and print what they find. There is really no one else pulling these kinds of pranks so the media's guard is down. Also, they WANT to believe these stories, this is stuff that is totally entertaining, instant ratings. A diligent pursuit for the truth falls wayside to mere laziness and desire to entertain. I think internet reporters may be less susceptible to these kinds of things because of how much garbage is one the internet already. They are used to having to be a little more discerning in their coverage so i think they would see through it. Also, they seem to be more in touch with readers and i think this keeps them in check. With more direct feedback they are scrutinized more and made more aware of their own fragile credibility. I also don't think internet news outlets are as dependent upon high ratings as TV...a lot of times they are just individuals (who often act much more sensibly than group entities) and they are not even really trying to make money so they're not so eager for sensational stories to fuel ratings and readership.