The debate is over this cover for the May 21, 2012 issue. The story behind the photo, is about attachment parenting and the anniversary of Dr. Barry Sears book.

The debate was two-fold, one over the photo and one over the story.

As a journalist, I’m wondering could I tell the story same story in a less sensationalist way? Would you run this photo as the cover for this story in Time or any other magazine?

1. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-timecover-20120511,0,4753231.story

The news broke a little after 3 p.m. Wednesday.

Watch to hear his remarks:

Do you support gay marriage?

What makes you engage with a news organization’s content on their social media websites?

As a human, you look at some of the images and you play the moments, blip-by-blip trying to understand how  something like that could happen.

Today, a car crash took the lives of 3 people. Social media played a role in sharing and telling the story about what we were seeing and learning from our photographers and reporters. The photos that came back were from a distance. You could see how badly damaged the vehicles were that involved in the crash.

As I was sitting at my desk this morning, waiting for information – I remembered my ethics class and the strong debates we had over whether controversial images should be posted or not.

In this case, there was nothing gory, nor was anyone identifiable in the photos. However, what troubled some people on our Facebook page was the fact that there were tarps on the ground. It was unclear what they were covering and some speculated they could be covering bodies. Police took great care to ensure that the identities of the bodies were not revealed until they notified next-of-kin.

The Internet makes it easier than ever before to share this content. Despite this, we cannot assume that just because it’s out there, people will be snapping pictures and videos. Even if they do, just because they do it does not make it okay.

I’m a firm believer of explaining, not matter what position you hold. This will allow your viewers and audience to understand why you chose to post or not to post.

What do you think?

Live Video streaming by Ustream

“Medical experts believe that broader awareness about organ donation could go a long way toward solving this crisis,” a press release from Facebook said. “And we believe that by simply telling people that you’re an organ donor, the power of sharing and connection can play an important role”¹

Mark Zuckerberg made the announcement this morning on ABC’s Good Morning America.

Follow these steps to let your friends and family know on Facebook you’re an organ donor:

1. Click Life Event at the top of your timeline
2. Select Health & Wellness
3. Select Organ Donor
4. Select your audience and click Save

1. http://newsroom.fb.com/News/Organ-Donation-Friends-Saving-Lives-15f.aspx

According to the New York Post, Hulu is moving toward a new business model where they will require a user to confirm cable subscription before being able to stream shows¹.

This means if you are not a cable subscriber then you will either have to pay for cable or subscribe to Hulu’s premium service called Hulu Plus.

Hulu is not the only service that is thinking about charging to stream televisions shows. The Post also reports that Comcast is also considering starting a new online video service called TV Everywhere.

What do you think about this?

1. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/tv_in_real_dime_ph0GiKk7rC9agDUEkHae2I

According to CNet.com, “Facebook would keep many features, such as the ability to post to other social networks, and even the the ability to not share your Instagrams on Facebook if you want”¹

Instagram is a mobile photo service that allows you to edit photographs and upload them to a variety of social media websites.

Facebook plans to build Instagram separately from Facebook.

Instagram is a 2-year-old startup with 33 million users. The start-up launched an Android version of its program last week.

What do you think about this?

1. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57411339-93/facebook-likes-instagram-with-$1b-price-tag/

This issue is not as clear cut as it seems and every case is different. Misrepresentation of an individual’s actual message, no matter how large or small the issue is, is not good journalism.

If we look at this practice on a larger scale, media consumers must realize that content is edited. Time or space constraints can also leave comments and details generalized or trimmed down to fit in the confines of broadcast or print spaces.

With that said,  it’s not okay to deliberately leave things out with a purpose or an agenda. I’m not saying NBC had a particular agenda for editing the video and audio in the way that they did, but the bottom line is it was a bad ethical and journalistic decision.

What do you think? Looking at the broader picture outside of this case – how should journalists produce media content that fits in their journalism product without leaving important details?

Watch a clip from a press conference held at the White House Monday:

[youtube id="wH3E6lL61dw" width="560" height="315"]

What do you think about his comments?