I saw this video and apart from it being a ridiculous story that reminds me of some of the storys we would get in the tabloid papers in England, I was astonished that a news company used Urban dictionary as a legitimate source.
Is it ethical to use a source like urban dictionary to make your story more exciting?
Well, I love this little problem for all sorts of reasons. First - and I'll be provocative here - what do you expect out of local TV in the US? Local TV in particular thrives on the sensational. That said, it's a legitimate story - if reported in the detail even a cursory print story would allow. I mean, there's no mention of talking to - or trying to talk to - any of the students who held it up, much less created it. Very thin. Not, I would think, useful.
ReplyDeleteSecond, as for using the urban dictionary, since it was identified as Wikipedia-like, I don't have trouble with that, though in a print story you would confirm what the UD says. It's just ... TV, and one of the reasons I watch so little local TV news. It would seem that the technical limitations of TV and the conventions of TV create immediate ethical challenges.
And one other thing: The question the reporter should be asking is is this just another example of white kids trying to talk black and just not getting it right?
To answer your question about Urban Dictionary--Yes, I definitely think it is ethical to do this. I'm not sure if the local news did this to be more "exciting" per se, but to be accurate. Although Urban Dictionary is a wiki, it is pretty legit and for the most part, accurate; as it is a go-to source to find out the meaning of slang words and phrases. Where else would one go to find out the phrase's meaning? To me it was more ethical that they did this than surveying the students, because either side would have argued the meaning that supported their personal belief of the phrase. Urban Dictionary was the only accessible and most importantly, neutral source.
ReplyDelete