In our Patterson/Wilkin's book, the ethical concerns of "eyewash" was dicussed in the visuals chapter. Eyewash involves using a stock or file photo to accompany a recent story. It can be particularly deceptive to the audience, and is best to avoid. It also can make you look really, really stupid.
FOX News was criticized for using eyewash on a story about the protests in Wisconsin that took place not too long ago. While a reporter commented on the Wisconsin situation, B-roll video was playing of previous protests in California, of which included palm trees. Last time I checked, there aren't any palm trees in Wisconsin.
A FOX News executive producer defending the segment by stating that it was not misleading becuase it never claimed the image to be protests from Wisconsin. This is wrong, and made FOX News only look more stupid than they already did. There is no transperency when using eyewash visuals, and it is deceiving to the audience because it is going along with another story that has no relationship to the eyewash piece.
This is similar to the OJ Simpson cover shot in which the image was manipulated to appear much darker. There was no mention of it being a photo illustration on the front page. Just becuase they aren't claiming the image to be the actual truth, doesn't give journalists an ethical pass to use eyewash or maniuplate images in anyway. That is acting without transparency, and of course, is unacceptable.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/no-fox-news-did-not-lie-with-wisconsin-palm-tree-violent-protest-video/
No comments:
Post a Comment