The video rolls on the
television. It was a dark and stormy
night, or was it? A good video editor
can change the sky to alter the perceived time of day as quickly as he or she
can click a mouse. But is it ethical to
change the sky, or any other portion of raw video for that matter, in order to
make the video match a journalist’s words?
The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics is, according to
their website, “a resource for ethical behavior that is used by both newsrooms
and classrooms.” The code directs
journalists to, “never distort the content of news photos or video.” The society does, however, acknowledge the
use of video and photographic editing software, saying it is ethically sound to
edit an image, solely for technical clarity.
Video editors and journalists need to be certain they do not cross the
line between making something more clear for the audience and manipulating the
story into something that was not actually there. A journalist should always strive to report
the news in a truthful and accurate manner, and that includes video. In my past positions in the editing department of a news station, we would always run a piece as it was shot...even if dark or too light. Then if deemed necessary for the audience for clarity, we would run the part again with the crucial portion enhanced but always made obvious to the viewer whether the anchor says it is enhanced for better clarity or ran with a super stating the enhancement. My personal feeling is this was an ethical way to alwasy be honest in what we were airing. Inform the audience and be truthful.
RTDNA Code of Ethics includes this: “professional
electronic journalists should not manipulate images or sounds in any way that
is misleading.”
Ratings and the advertising
dollar can bring their own influence to the newsroom. The race for a bigger, more dramatic story
can lead to crossing that ethical boundary in the editing session.
Tibet/China protests with CNN's altered story:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/manipulating-video-images-sloppy-journalism-or-war-propaganda
The video used near the end of the story is from India, not China. I just found another site with video from an Australian tourist in Lhasa. His footage aired in Australia and shows the violence and rioting unlike the CNN story.
In 2011, WBBM Chicago aired a shooting story with an interview with a 4 year old that had been cut to give viewers the preception that he wanted a gun too. The portion of the interview where he said he wanted a gun because he was going to be a cop was cut out of the story. First it is wrong to interview this kid without his parents and second, to alter his true feelings is most certainly unacceptable.
Should apologies for misleading and dishonest stories always be given on-air?
How should stations handle employees manipulating video?
What would you do if you were asked or told to edit something a certain way?
I think you should NEVER edit or manipulate video unless it is to show how it really looked, like in photos. If the scene was darker or brighter but your camera fails to show that, then I think it's ok to mess with those settings. However, you should never try to make your audience believe something that didn't happen or isn't true. If I was asked or told to manipulate video, I would refuse. I also think that if a story accidentally turns out to be misleading, an apology should be given. Also, if an employee manipulates video knowingly, I think they should be fired or at least strongly reprimanded.
ReplyDeleteThanks Allison. I agree. I would tend to seriously consider quitting over being ordered to something so untruthful. Money and a job is so important but your ethics are much more valuable
ReplyDeleteHow about when a reporter goes undercover? Could that video just by its nature be considered manipulated video? I mean, the person has to use a hidden camera and has to decide where it is placed, the shot it is recording and who the target is. What about the rest of the location that cannot or won't be captured while getting the story?
ReplyDeleteI think if the misleading story was presented on air, the apology should absolutely be given on air. It doesn't make sense to apologize to a different audience. I really do not see anything wrong with some video manipulation as far as making it presentable. If you can edit the picture without changing the content I think it is alright. I would definitely not edit something to portray someone else's opinion or view points. As far as the follow up question about going under cover, I don't think it should be considered manipulated video. We are always going to choose our shots and targets whether we are undercover or at a press conference.
ReplyDeleteI think the biggest hurdle for me is context. We live in an age of soundbytes. It's so easy to just cut the fat, so-to-speak, because we only have time for that one good quote. But does that quote accurately represent what the person meant overall? I run into this all the time in radio. So far, the constraints have been limited. It's easier to fit the whole "paragraph" the person said. But if I was asked by an editor to trim a video clip for time, I know I would be tempted to keep the juicy bits. Even if it didn't really have anything to do with the context of the news story. Accuracy over sexy I guess.
ReplyDelete