AEJMC Network

Networking Home for Divisions and Interest Groups

Shared web space for AEJMC DIGs

New study shows how journalism ethics developed

by

[September 11, 2009]

Three commissions that investigated violence in the 1960s had a significant impact on the development of widely accepted views about journalism ethics, according to a study published in the summer 2009 issue of Journalism & Communication Monographs.

In a monograph titled “Two Visions of Responsibility: How National Commissions Contributed to Journalism Ethics, 1963-1975,” Glen Feighery says it was not just the work of the Hutchins Commission or the Watergate investigation that prompted media organizations to focus more on social responsibility, but that the work of three commissions, The President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, and the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, offered significant advice on how journalists should ethically approach their work. The media responded with revisions of codes of ethics, the creation of news councils and journalism reviews, and increased employment of minorities.

Feighery argues that through this challenge and response, a heightened sense of media responsibility arose. Part of the evolution within journalism ethics at the time forced journalists to consider the relationship between their independence and their responsibility, Journalists valued their freedom from entities of authority, such as government, special interest groups, etc., but they also recognized a duty to adequately inform the public about existing problems. This strong sense of responsibility required journalists to go a step beyond minimizing harm and provide people with information that would allow them to make an informed decision.

Feighery argues that journalists struck the balance between freedom and responsibility by developing the approach of “autonomy,” which meant that journalists would follow self-imposed restraints. As a result, journalists could maintain their independence and work for the greater good of the public, creating an ethical approach that continued to influence the media in the decades following the 1970s .

Feighery is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Utah.

CONTACT: Glen Feighery, University of Utah, Office Phone: (801) 585-7521, Email: glen.feighery@utah.edu.

<<RYCU

Monograph Explores Cultural Politics of Colorism in India

by

[December 16, 2009]

Magazine advertisements and television commercials for cosmetics and personal hygiene products in India illustrate a cultural bias toward lighter skin, according to the findings of a study published in the fall 2009 issue of Journalism and Communication Monographs.

In their monograph, “Melanin on the Margins: Advertising and the Cultural Politics of Fair/Light/White Beauty in India,” Radhika Parameswaran and Kavitha Cardoza first provide context for “colorism,” or skin color discrimination, in India. They explain that the nineteenth century colonial attitudes that considered the science of race looked at physical characteristics of natives in order to prove their inferiority. Likewise, colorism has roots in the caste system of India, as well as in the country’s ancient history when lighter-skinned tribes invaded around 1500 B.C.

The authors argue that colorism affects women more than men, and non-white women consider light-colored skin to be an asset that can improve one’s social and economic status. Magazine advertisements, matrimonial classified advertisements, film and music industries, and fashion magazine editorials promote skin-lightening cosmetics and personal products by taking advantage of this cultural perspective.

In their study, Parameswaran and Cardoza identify the themes of transformation, scientific authority and heterosexual romance in the rhetoric of the advertisements they analyze. These themes suggest that a woman can change her skin color; that she should trust the products developed by western science; and that she can gain a successful, fulfilling relationship with a man as a result of having lighter skin.

Parameswaran is an associate professor in the School of Journalism at Indiana University, Bloomington, and Cardoza is a senior reporter at WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C.

CONTACT: Dr. Parameswaran at the School of Journalism, Indiana University. Phone: (812) 855-8569. Email: rparames@indiana.edu

<<RYCU

Enhancing Student Segmentation Skills and Targeting Knowledge

by

[July 25, 2009]

In the advertising world, it is becoming ever more important to justify advertising expenditures. In order to more effectively assess the impact of advertising investments, a popular strategy is to divide the market place into meaningful segments, evaluate the responsiveness and profitability of each segment and then select the “best” segments to target. Given that there are numerous methods for dividing the market place and as a result, numerous potential segmentation schemes, it is necessary to utilize an effective metric that will allow for the evaluation and selection of the most beneficial segmentation scheme.

The Direct Marketing industry has long used decile charts, gains tables and lift charts to demonstrate and evaluate response differences between market segments and to compare competing segmentation schemes. As the number of schemes increases, the complexity of comparison also increases using these methods. For the most part, marketing analysts rely on “eye ball”” inspection, without any rigorous statistical measurement. If scheme A “looks” better than scheme B (higher highs, and lower lows), then scheme A is deemed superior and recommended for incorporation. If there are numerous competing schemes, the “eye ball” method becomes difficult, making it even more challenging to select the optimum segmentation scheme.

The Gini coefficient, a statistic developed more than 100 years ago ago for evaluating disparity of wealth within a population is recommended as a useful metric for comparing competing segmentation schemes or for comparing competing response models. The Gini coefficient rages from 0 to 1. Once the Gini Coefficient is computed for each segmentation scheme, a decision can be immediately rendered by selecting the scheme with the highest Gini coefficient. For a more detailed description of how the Gini coefficient is related to other methods currently used to evaluate response performance, please refer to the author’s article in the Journal of Advertising Education.

CONTACT: Henry Greene, Ph.D., Central Connecticut State University, greenehej@ccsu.edu.

<<RYCU

AEJMC Statement on Open-Access Electronic Journals and Nuisance Lawsuits

by

April 9, 2013 | The Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) is committed to unbridled scholarly inquiry and criticism. Academic freedom is essential to building the applicable theory that adds to journalism and mass communication knowledge. Evaluation is requisite to this scientific method. And the integrity of journalism and mass communication research should be rigorously evaluated before its publication in peer-reviewed journals.

Such integrity is currently challenged by the recent proliferation of open-access electronic journals that charge author fees for publication, including those that have been described as “predatory.” The standards of manuscript acceptance for these predatory journals may lack rigor, and the quality of their articles may bear scrutiny.

Librarians who monitor the integrity of scholarly journals and bloggers who criticize the predatory nature of some open-access journals have been intimidated with unmerited lawsuits by some of these journal publishers.

Abusive attempts to muzzle unfavorable scholarly evaluations and criticisms carry grave ramifications for librarians and scholars who may express negative opinions about the quality of these journals. Such attempts pose a real and perceived threat to those in the scholarly community. Most likely to be gagged are those who assess professional journals and the institutions that employ journal authors and editors who may criticize these predatory journals. Equally susceptible are the journalism and mass communication programs that employ the communication scholars who may question these publication venues.

AEJMC reaffirms its fundamental belief in the compelling need for academic freedom that underlies evaluation and criticism of the quality of research and of the journals for this research. AEJMC pledges its unwavering support and defense of those who face litigational intimidations in connection with their candid evaluation of research and journals and whose assessment is essential to journalism and mass communication scholarship.

<<PACS