How's this for ethics ... TV edition

PC said it - staging usually gets you fired.

If I'm reading this thread right, she intended to use the footage as b-roll in a feature, which is still unethical-- but depending on how she presented it-- it's a sliding scale of how bad an offense it is. But from what I understand, it ended up in the hands of the main sports guy, who used it as highlights of the action. That's horrible.

If I were Rhody, I'd have written it up as notes, a brief or a small sidebar.

In so doing, I'd call the reporter and ask her to comment! Then call the station *news* director and ask for a comment. I don't think it's Rhody's business to inform the station what went on "as a public service." But what she did is noteworthy, and if Rhody's asking for comment on a story-- and that's how the station finds out what she did-- then that's how the chips fall, kwim?

FWIW, I've had print people write about something I did-- or a story I was working on-- and take shots at me. One problem, though. They never asked me for comment. There was a good reason I was doing what I did or working on that story line. So in calling out your TV brethren, don't be lazy.

All that being said, I never staged news. That's just awful. Poor stupid kid.

 

If a cop sees another cop do something wrong, should he just speak to the other cop and let it go at that?

If a doctor sees another doctor botch a procedure (or do an unnecessary procedure), do they only mention it to the other doctor and not to higher ups?

Should they be worried that their colleague might be disciplined or fired?

And, I don't know why the small time nature of the event or the city makes a difference. it's a cardinal sin.

 

Disagree completely. This is how one newspaper would deal with another newspaper: You wouldn't go to the plagiarist or fabricator, your boss would deal with their boss. The person who did this is probably not authorized to speak for publication about station policy anyway. In fact, I think it would be irresponsible not to seek comment from the management if you are going to report it.

 

If you do the story, I think you have to seek comment from everybody, even the golfers.

Since when does a TV station's policy affect how you cover a story?

Done right, as a brief, I think readers would find the story comical and very 'sign of the times.'

 

Don't be ridiculous. On any story involving a local business, you would seek comment from someone who can speak for the company.

 

Actually, I agree with Luggy. If you were doing a story involving a local business, you'd want a reaction quote from a customer, no?

 

That is pretty far removed from the point. You wouldn't interview the french-fry cook without talking to the Burger King's manager. You wouldn't interview the TV reporter, you would talk to the TV reporter's boss who can speak for the station.

 

How do you know who is "allowed" to comment if you don't ask for a comment? You can't just assume.

 

It's about asking questions and not making assumptions. You want to talk about cardinal sins. Making assumptions and jumping to conclusions are also cardinal sins no? What you think you see is not always what it appears to be. So, yeah, in any of those examples and in any line of work, you ask questions before you go running to any higher-ups half cocked.

To add, I don't think anyone is saying don't talk to the boss at all. Point is do your homework first.

And I personally think there's a huge difference between going to the station director for comment for a story, speaking to him on the record....and just calling with the story in a "just to let you know" kind of way.

 

Yes... Agree. Well said, Jimmy.