Brief 4: Plagiarism in News Media

Buzzfeed. You know, the "listicle" site, and those numerous, sub-cateogry channels on YouTube with all the completely relate-able videos for young adults? Yes, that's the one. Buzzfeed sets the bar of flexibility high in the non-traditional media, but this sociability would certainly  bring the company a juicy scandal at some point!

On the About section of the company's site, Buzzfeed describes itself as:

"A cross-platform, global network for news and entertainment that generates six billion views each month. BuzzFeed creates and distributes content for a global audience and utilizes proprietary technology to continuously test, learn and optimize."

Despite "creating" exuberant amounts of original content, in July of 2014 Buzzfeed found themselves publicly apologizing for the misconduct of one of their most popular political journalists, Benny Johnson.  

Newsy Video

From an article titled Top Plagiarisms Scandals of 2014, journalist Johnathan Bailey said Johnson, "Was a series of firsts. He was the first to be targeted by Our Bad Media, he was the first major plagiarism scandal to only affect non-traditional media and he was the first to have the pall of plagiarism cast upon him, but to find new work so quickly."

Benny Johnson

Buzzfeed had originally stood by him, but the evidence continued to pile up. The company ended up conducting an investigation of its own. It found that of nearly 500 posts by Benny Johnson, 41 contained blatant plagiarism. According to the Washington Post, Johsnon had taken material from other media outlets such as The Guardian, Wikipedia, and even Yahoo Answers. He hadn't properly attributed his sources, and his boss was shocked to find that 10% of Johnson's "original" work (as he had called it) was indeed plagiarized. 

Excerpt from the Washington Post article Benny Johnson Got Fired From Buzzfeed. You Will Believe What Happened Next:

"On a blog called Our Bad Media, Blippoblappo and another Twitter personality, @Crushingbort, named three examples of Benny’s work that cribbed from Wikipedia, Yahoo! Answers, and other sources. “It was so easy to spot this stuff, you have to conclude that there was essentially no editorial oversight,” they wrote in an e-mail to The Post."

Buzzfeed had to be crushed to lose such a hip, young personality. The company revered him for his ability to make politics into a form of click-bait. Benny Johnson was exactly what the new generation wanted in a journalist. To be fair, however, Johnson didn't really do anything the current generation attributes much criminality to. In fact, his ability to bounce back after the scandal surprised the media. Bailey wrote:

"Other famous plagiarists such as Jonah Lehrer and Jayson Blair were essentially blackballed from the industry and have been unable to quickly find new work. However, Johnson not only had a new job within three months, but he was reporting again within four. This has led many to wonder if attitudes toward plagiarism have changed and if, in journalism, it isn’t being treated as seriously of a transgression as it was just a few years ago."

According to the Washington Post, Johnson had made himself into a "Washington media-insider" in under two years. He brought viewers to the boring side of Buzzfeed, and according to the man himself, "Somebody’s got to make the first Joe Biden GIF listicle.” 

Maybe his "listicle" journalism is scoffed on by traditional media, but people want to be entertained by their news. If people want their politicians to be summarized into a photographic/GIF list similar to “The 25 Most Awkward Cat Sleeping Positions”, then that's just what Benny Johnson is going to continue to give them. 

You can read Buzzfeed's apology here
*Articles linked within blog entry

Brief 3: Advertising Ethics

One of the most important things I learned studying Mass Communications is the hierarchy of needs to which advertising caters. There are 15 of those, but when speaking of advertising ethics, there's really only one that does a ton of feather-ruffling: No. 1is the need for sex. Perhaps one of the best possible advertisements to use as an example are the racy Carl's Jr. (AKA Hardee's) ads.

"BBQ's Best Pair" 

Even I can get a good chuckle from Hardee's ridiculous manipulation of the first need. It's commercials like these where an audience really has to stand back and ask what's really being sold: A heart-stopping cheeseburger or something way more provocative? I was really hoping what the advertisements were going for was exactly this element of comedy, but I may have been wrong.

An article on Fox News station KTVU claimed, "The 64-year-old chief executive says the ads "cut through the clutter" and make an impression on the younger men the burger chains court."

While it cannot be denied this statistic may hold merit, it's surely not true that no one of the opposite gender or of a different age eats at this restaurant. With these particular ads, some of us may not be sure we haven't stumbled upon the triple x channel whilst channel surfing.

"Borderball" 

When I witnessed my first racy Hardee's commercial, it did come on late at night, however, I could have been mistaken as to what the ad was promoting had I not watched til the end, or God forbid, have gotten distracted enough not to see the cheeseburger. There is a difference between selling pornography to an audience and selling something completely unrelated when using the same concept. This is especially true if that something is for all ages. There is no mistaking a late night advertisement for pornographic material, unless there are ginormous cheeseburgers involved.

This is a great ethical concern. There is the ongoing argument against regulation of sex in media, so there is censorship. The problem with censorship is asking what is considered inappropriate to what viewers. Indecent and pornographic are hardly the same thing, but where is the line drawn?


Using an overt sexual theme is not the only advertising method used by this fast food chain. Advertisers use all sorts of methods to appeal to certain audiences. One of those is the use of celebrity endorsements. It seems to work well with all ages, but Hardee's is not only riling feminists everywhere, they're also making celebrities left and right!

"Drive In"

According to CEO Andy Pudzer, "We have a history of picking these young women before they hit their peak. We put Kate Upton in an ad a month before she got the cover for Sports Illustrated. At the time we picked her, we just said, "This is a beautiful woman." . . . We get a lot of actresses, whose names I won't tell you, who contact us, who we don't end up using in the ad because they're not right for the brand."

Another article from Fox News, Hardees Ad Steaming Up TVs and Tempers:

Article

Upton wasn't the only one "right for the brand." Kim Kardashian got her very own customized ad as well, and Pudzer had this to say about her:

"We used Kim Kardashian in an ad. But Kim really couldn't eat the burgers. Luckily, we had a salad we were promoting, so we used Kim in the salad ad. But if we had not been promoting a salad, we probably never would've done an ad with Kim, because she wasn't good at eating the burger. She's too tiny. She's really little."

"Getting Clean"

Yes, she sounds perfect for the brand. None of the other women in the previous ads were "tiny" or "little", it wasn't ridculous at all to see them holding and opening wide for a behemoth cheeseburger, but I digress.

Perhaps, the issue should not be summarized by how little these women are wearing, but by what they're selling while not wearing it. I personally find it as comical as it is ludacrious, but I can see the deception of the ads. I'm not so sure what it is. I do know this, however: Eating fast food is more likely to land those "younger men" with congestive heart failure than Kate Upton. Also, women of such stature probably don't pound down burgers bigger than their heads. Not to say they couldn't or even wouldn't.

Brief 2: Tabloid News - Redefining a Murderer

Smoking hot in tabloid news is the decade-old case of Steven Avery. After spending 18 years in prison for a wrongful conviction of sexual assault, Avery was sent back after a mere four years as a free man. In 2007, Avery was convicted of the murder of Teresa Halbach. A controversial documentary titled Making a Murderer hit Netflix in December of 2013, and since Avery's name has become a headline hit. 

I've followed this case, not as adamantly as some, but one tabloid in particular that can't keep Avery's name out of their mouth is People Magazine. Just when the Avery-craze began, People posted an article about the topic fresh on viewers mind's: the jury. On Jan 5 the publication posted an article titled, Dismissed Steven Avery Juror Tells PEOPLE Jury Members Were Related to a Local Cop and a County Employee. To date, the article has been shared 23k times. The source of information was a juror from Avery's murder trial. Richard Mahler had been dismissed during deliberation for a family emergency. He told People:

"After the trial, I found out....[one juror] was the father of a Manitowoc County Sheriff's deputy. . . Another juror, his wife works for the Manitowoc County Clerk's Office."

The article begins and ends on a controversial note. The source says he spent four hours deliberating with fellow jurors, whom he claimed were at this standing: 7 innocent, three guilty, and two undecided. 

Another article on Jan 30 includes a snapshot of a letter Avery wrote to his supporters. People states what the note reads, and mocks Avery's handwriting. This is to be expected of tabloid news. It's just another reason why it's often taken with no more than a grain of salt. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop people from reading it. 

This publication has continued to follow the buzz, posting articles that intentionally ruffle the feathers of both anti and pro-Avery readers. Although the source for this article wouldn't be considered to distant from the case, the same cannot be said for that of another article from Feb 02. 

Steven Avery's Brother Gives New Details About Night of Teresa Halbach's Murder in First-Ever Interview, opened as expected. The article begins by claiming Earl Avery, the brother of Steven Avery who I was completely oblivious to, "has some unanswered questions." First of all, what kind of credibility can be given to a brother who didn't ask his questions almost a decade ago when Avery was facing murder charges? This tabloid article is the epitome of this new form's downfall. The hogwash presented here is laughable at best. 

"We drove right through [where] that car was supposed to be," Earl told People in regards to the vehicle of Haibach. "It wasn't there that night of the 31st. We were rabbit hunting." 

Apparently this confession deserved no merit when Steven was on trial. People calls this an "alarming statement," while prosecutors sit back and continue to roll their eyes. Meanwhile, in an article by the National Enquirer, the same story carries a bit more weight. It adds that Earl, "said he hasn't see his brother in a decade -- thanks to Steven accusing Earl and other brother Chuck of having some role in Teresea's death -- but the siblings spoke for the first time last week."

"He told me that his lawyers told him to say that . . . and he told me that he was frustrated that we wouldn't talk to him or go up to see him. . . I guess blood is blood, and you can't change that. Life is too short." 

This is an interesting addition to the already massively controversial case. However, it was well documented in the docu-series that the Avery family aren't strangers to backstabbing. It's a good thing, as I have said before in regards to this case, that speculation alone is not grounds for conviction.


Sources
Avery Juror
Avery Supporters
Avery Brother (People)
Avery Brother (NatEnq)