Jacey Sills Merkl
Professor Hill
AJRL-100
9 December 2024
Capstone Assignment
1. I think Daryl Lembke did what he thought was right at the time. I do not
necessarily think it was ethically right or wrong. There are certain nuances that
need to be taken into consideration. On one hand, it was a completely different
time. San Francisco may have been a haven for people that belonged to the queer
community at that time, but even so, Lembke wasn’t considering how people
would react to Sipple’s sexuality being included in his news story outside of that
haven. I do understand why he did it and that he thought the reason Ford had not
personally reached out to thank Sipple for quite possibly saving his life and for
what he did and I do think it was important that he helped expose that seven
months before this event had happened, Leonard Matlovich was kicked out of the
Air Force after coming out that he was gay despite being a decorated war hero. In
this sense, I truly believe that Lembke thought he was making a point and
bringing attention to how unfair this treatment was and putting a spotlight on
Ford’s treatment towards the queer community, or lack thereof – but at the time –
Sipple made it clear that he did not want the story to become about is sexuality. It
was his to keep private if that was what he wanted, and he did, but ultimately his
wishes were disregarded. I also think Lembke was counting on the shock value
that writing about Sipple’s sexuality may have brought to the story, so ethically, I
think it’s a gray area. I personally don’t think he was right in choosing to include
it in his story, but at the same time, I can see that he was wanting to draw
attention to something and give people a chance to pause and think about whether
Sipple’s sexuality had anything to do with how Ford chose to respond and not
reach out to him, either publicly or behind the scenes. I also think there was a bit
of importance in the public having the right to know, because it did have the
chance to change the way queer people at that time were looked at and thought of.
2. I think the general standard that reporters should be using when it comes to
respecting the privacy of individuals who had been private figures before being
unexpectedly thrust into the public eye is to first consider any and all possible
consequences – both harmful and hurtful – that could befall the individual they
are writing about. It’s an incredibly intimate and delicate thing to be writing
about, and at the end of the day, that individual deserves respect and to feel safe.
What’s being written should not threaten their livelihood or families, and it should
not jeopardize family relationships the way it did with Sipple. He had no say in
his private life becoming so public and such a big part of the story that it almost
overshadowed the completely selfless action he took quite literally putting his life
on the line to protect the President of the United States. However, I also
understand that the amount of privacy an individual is afforded will likely depend
on the story that is being written and what they’ve done. For instance, if it is
someone who has committed a triple homicide and the reporter is sharing things
about that person's background that may be helpful in furthering the investigation
or helping to get the word out to others that may know something or have some
information they feel could be useful, then I think the privacy thing largely flies
out the window. This, of course, could potentially put family and friends of the
individual at risk, which I would never be for, but I see the upside of it, too, even
if they shouldn’t be held responsible for someone else's choices just because they
are related or involved in that person’s personal life in any capacity. If it’s a story
about someone choosing to end their life by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge
or something as personal as that, I think that names and the more intimate details
should be spared as much as possible unless the family has given express
permission. I think the best way reporters can draw the line between reportable
information and information that is best kept private, the best way to measure it is
how to keep that individual safe by being mindful of what distress could come
their way as a result of how they choose to report a story and what the purpose is.
Any information that could be considered compromising should never be written
about, and intimate details such as the workplace, where they are living, and
things like that aren’t necessary. Only information that is absolutely necessary to
get across and important to the story being told should be shared, and it should be
shared mindfully and under careful consideration.
3. For me personally, I was surprised by how considerate Abumrad, Krulwich, and
Nasser were towards Sipple and the fallout he experienced from Lembke’s
including his sexuality in his news story. I thought that the way they spoke about
it was really respectful and pointedly different from the tone of mainstream
journalistic standards. In that way, I think it really enhanced the story and we got
to experience the more human side of how quickly and drastically Sipple’s life
changed, and how that affected him long term. It was devastating to learn about
his passing and the way his family turned on him and things were never really
repaired even if they came to accept him. It was never fully, and there was
always a certain amount of strain there, to the point that his life ended much
earlier and in a far darker way than it should have. What he experienced and was
put through fundamentally changed him as a person and stayed with him for the
rest of his life and the way they spoke about that and understood how complicated
the whole situation was really impressed me. They were able to kind of look at it
from all angles, not just as a story that had underlying political or social
motivations, but in a human and personal way, too. I also think it was different
from mainstream journalistic standards in the way they spoke critically about the
discourse surrounding Sipple’s case regarding invasion of privacy. They took the
time to recognize that Sipple was a sacrificial lamb, from all sides, as they even
said. It was heartbreaking to hear that after all he went through, people turned on
him because they felt he was trying to go back into the closet. They handled a
really delicate and complicated story with such empathy and understanding that
we don’t really see much in mainstream journalistic practices anymore.
4. I listened to this story first and then I went back and listened to it again while
following along with the transcript. For me, sometimes that helps me digest and
understand the whole story completely in a much easier way. With that being
said, I do think that audio journalism does have its advantages, mainly in terms of
the emotional response it can evoke. It’s a really great way of making a story
more captivating to an audience, and not only that, I think it makes it more
personal, too. You’re not just reading it in this kind of robotic voice in your head,
you’re hearing it being told by someone who can put emphasis on certain parts of
the story that reading something that was just written can’t necessarily do. You
can hear and feel the emotion better and in that respect, I think it helps you
connect better, too. It humanizes the story in a way. Another great advantage of
audio journalism is you can listen to it anywhere, anytime. You’re not limited to
just having a few distracted minutes while you’re having breakfast or in the
evenings to read and catch up on the news. It’s literally at your fingertips and you
can just listen. As I said, for someone like me who can sometimes struggle with
reading longer and more technical things, it helps you make sense and be able to
grasp the concept or what the story is about a lot easier, as well. Unfortunately,
like with anything, there are also disadvantages. One of the biggest ones in my
opinion can be the cost. I’ve noticed that more and more news sites are requiring
you to have a subscription to access their content, and that can sometimes cost a
lot of money over the course of a year, so you’re limited on which stories you can
access and how often.
5. This course has been really eye-opening. I had never really taken the time to
consider how biased my top news source was. I’m not really even sure how it
became my top news source. I think I can better see that it isn’t completely
unbiased after learning about how the media tends to lean one way or another
despite its best efforts not to appear that way through this course, but I would say
that overall, yes. I do still think my top news source keeps me reliably informed
about important societal issues. In my case, the Huffington Post has specific
sections on their website, ranging in everything from what’s going on around the
world, to US politics, entertainment, the arts and culture, to opinion pieces, a
section they call “voices”, which features many stories and articles written by
people that belong to the queer and indigenous communities, as well as being
specifically women's voices, or black voices, or Latina and Asian voices. I do
enjoy the sometimes snarky tone when it comes to the more political stories, but I
like that they also include a section that is devoted to crime and what is going on
in that world, as well as what is going on in the parenting and relationship world.
There is such a wide variety of stories being told and voices and opinions being
given a space to speak freely, which I haven’t really seen anywhere else I’ve
consumed my news.