Visual Editors
Visual Editors, NFP was incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit in 2004.
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Does this NASCAR graphic cross an ethical line? |
| Yes. |
|
36% |
[ 36 ] |
| No. |
|
63% |
[ 62 ] |
|
| Total Votes : : 98 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
charles apple
Superhero
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 3734
Location: Norfolk, Virginia
Posted:
Fri Mar 25, 2005 7:08 am
|
|
| |
Mark Friesen passed along a bit of a bombshell last night on his NewsDesigner blog...
Visual Mente -- a mostly Spanish-language visual journalism blog -- reported Thursday that the Dallas Morning News had won a silver award for a NASCAR graphic last month's SND judging. While the information was being transcribed into the record, however -- according to Goertzen -- a judge happened to notice that the artist had worked into the piece a NewTek logo.
NewTek is the maker of LightWave, a 3-D drawing application and the co-sponsor of the 3-D conference held the past two years at the Dallas Morning News.
The judges considered it an ethical lapse and disqualified the entry.
Judge Jeff Goertzen of the St. Petersburg Times:
| Quote: | | At first we were all stunned, but as reality sank in, we knew the implications this would have on the entry. |
Another judge, Richard Curtis, a managing editor at USA Today, as quoted by Goertzen:
| Quote: | | If one of my artists had done this, he or she would have been fired. |
Response by Chris Morris, presentation director at the Dallas Morning News:
| Quote: | | ...It was an image that DEMANDED colorful, logo decorations and the NewTek logo was one of many we placed into the graphic. But we did not do so with any motives other than splash of color and corporate identity "feel"... There needed to be a sense of reality, and identifiable logos helped. We just picked the one logo that was identified by one judge as a software logo and thereby we must have had nefarious intent. We did not. |
Read Mark's synopsis of the story -- and see the graphic itself -- at NewsDesigner:
http://www.newsdesigner.com/blog/
Read the original account at VisualMente:
http://visualmente.blogspot.com/2005/03/ethics-of-journalism-must-apply-to.html
Read Chris Morris' detailed response at VisualMente:
http://visualmente.blogspot.com/2005/03/about-hauler-graphic.html
Edited to make it clear it was Jeff Goertzen who is quoting Richard Curtis.
Edited again to remove "immediately" from before "disqualified."
Edited AGAIN to correct a misspelled word. *sigh*
Edited one more time to make clear some attribution.
_________________
-Charles
Last edited by charles apple on Sat Mar 26, 2005 5:28 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jtelford
Contributing editor
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 145
Location: St. Louis
Posted:
Fri Mar 25, 2005 9:10 am
|
|
|
| |
| charles apple wrote:: | | The judges considered it an ethical lapse and immediately disqualified the entry. |
Heard about this a couple of weeks ago. Thought it was a little extreme then. Still do.
| Quote: | Another judge, Richard Curtis, a managing editor at USA Today:
If one of my artists had done this, he or she would have been fired. |
I think this is INCREDIBLY extreme, especially when you weren't involved with the graphic even remotely and have NO idea of the persons motivation for putting the logo on the truck. What about all the other logos on the truck? Are those fireable offenses too?
After reading Jeff Goertzen's take on the matter, he mentions one judge who suggested NewTek might have paid to have the logo put on the truck.
Yeah, I guess anything is possibile, but in light of the fact that 99% of the population has no idea what NewTek is much less what their logo looks like, how realistic is that? Heck how many people in the newspaper business could have identified that as NewTek's logo?
We have a copy of this graphic hanging up in our department. I didn't notice the logo until I went back to check after hearing the story, and I'm VERY familiar with NewTek and it's products.
If they did pay for the spot on the truck, I think they need a new marketing strategy 'cause they wasted their money (at least on me).
Is it good to have the discussion? Absolutely. But I think the reasons for disqualifying the graphic were sheer conjecture and based on A LOT of assumptions.
_________________
John |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whitley
Michael Whitley
Joined: 10 Mar 2004
Posts: 86
Location: Venice Beach (Los Angeles)
Posted:
Fri Mar 25, 2005 12:33 pm
|
|
|
| |
I'll try to clarify a couple of things here. First, it was never awarded a silver medal. It was in the discussion process for a medal that precedes the awarding. Every one of the judges agreed it was silver medal quality and comments were being made to support it as a silver medal. That's what was being recorded - the discussion about if it would be a silver medal.
But no vote was ever taken. In the SND contest, you do not receive the award until there is a vote. So this entry never was awarded a silver medal. The problem the judges had was noticed during the discussion and derailed the medal vote. When a vote was called for there were no supporting votes.
For a time, the judges left it at that. It was not a silver winner but it was not kicked out of the competition at this point, either. But they had concerns that continued to build.
So at some point later the same day, the judges asked to review the graphic again to reconsider the award of excellence. Since under the rules of the contest you can't just take back an award of excellence, the judges’ only option was to consider disqualification.
The disqualification discussion lasted for nearly an hour. Strict parameters were outlined for the judges and they were given a burden to meet in explaining why they wanted to disqualify the entry.
| jtelford wrote:: | | especially when you weren't involved with the graphic even remotely and have NO idea of the persons motivation for putting the logo on the truck. What about all the other logos on the truck? Are those fireable offenses too? |
Regardless of what the judges say or feel now, the intent of including the icon was not something that could be considered since we had no way of knowing the artists' intent. Anything about intent was dismissed by the contest coordinator (me) on its face in the discussion. The judges were also asked to prove that it was the Newtek logo and given internet access to do so.
Basically the question of disqualification came down to this: Was it an ethical breach to include the logo regardless of intent or other circumstances? Knowing that inclusion of the icon was the only thing they could consider the judges answer was yes.
| jtelford wrote:: | | What about all the other logos on the truck? Are those fireable offenses too? |
I think the judges speak better for themselves but I can tell you the decision hinged on the fact that while there were other logos on the graphic, they were, according to the judges, logos that would reasonably appear on a NASCAR hauler or car, while the NewTek logo was not.
| jtelford wrote:: | | In light of the fact that 99% of the population has no idea what NewTek is much less what their logo looks like, how realistic is that? |
The judges used this fact as a negative. They asked, if no reader would know what it is, why include it at all? What was the editorial benefit? The judges felt it's inclusion, regardless of intent, promoted an editorial software that was used to create the graphic. The judges related it to product placement in movies.
It required six votes (all five judges and the generalist judge) to disqualify the entry. After an hour of proofs and discussions, all six voted to disqualify the entry for 'inappropriate promotion of an editorial software in an editorial product."
Jtelford, I hope you take no offense at my use of quotes from your post. It simply provided an opportunity to answer reasonable questions that people probably all have, and share some information.
Just for clarity, I am not on a side here. I neither agree nor disagree with the action. I am explaining what happened. I stand by the judge’s right to jury the competition as they see fit, and they followed the rules as we have outlined them. Hope this is helpful.
Now back to the discussion.
(edited once for spelling!)
Last edited by Whitley on Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jtelford
Contributing editor
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 145
Location: St. Louis
Posted:
Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:41 pm
|
|
|
| |
| Whitley wrote:: | | Jtelford, I hope you take no offense at my use of quotes from your post. It simply provided an opportunity to answer reasonable questions that people probably all have, and share some information. |
No offense taken, but your post raises a couple of other questions in my mind.
| Whitley wrote:: | | Regardless of what the judges say or feel now, the intent of including the icon was not something that could be considered since we had no way of knowing the artists' intent. Anything about intent was dismissed by the contest coordinator (me) on its face in the discussion. |
I can't believe that intent wasn't considered at least on some level especially when one of the judges is quoted as saying, "If one of my artists had done this, he or she would have been fired."
You can't tell me you'd fire someone just for slapping a logo on a car. It's the intention behind putting the logo on the car that gets someone fired. Clearly some on the panel were considering intent on some level, and had made up their minds about the answer to that question.
| Whitley wrote:: | | I think the judges speak better for themselves but I can tell you the decision hinged on the fact that while there were other logos on the graphic, they were logos that would reasonably appear on a NASCAR hauler or car, while the NewTek logo was not. |
To me this argument doesn' hold water. How can it be said that NewTek's logo wouldn't reasonably appear on a NASCAR vehicle? Who would have thought that Viagra would sponsor a team? or Tide? or NetZero? or Kelloggs? or Office Depot? or U.S. Micro Corporation (huh?)? or Centrix Financial?
Or maybe this sponsorship announced today:
| Quote: | Bra-maker teams up with driver Shawna Robinson
The Associated Press
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A lingerie maker has signed up to sponsor a Busch series racing car in a sport that's dominated by traditional guy stuff like beer, tools and auto parts.
The deal links bra-maker Vassarette with Shawna Robinson, the only full-time female driver in the NASCAR Busch Series. The company's name and stylized "V" logo that evokes cleavage are emblazoned on the hood of Robinson's car. |
As an aside, I can't wait to see THIS car and I HATE auto racing.
I guess what I'm saying is there ar a TON of companys that have absolutely NO connection to auto racing that have their logos plastered all over these cars. Why is it so absurd to put a software company's logo on one?
| Whitley wrote:: | | If no reader would know what it is, why include it at all? What was the editorial benefit? The judges felt it's inclusion, regardless of intent, promoted an editorial software that was used to create the graphic. The judges related it to product placement in movies. |
My question is what is the harm of including it? Product placement in movies works because people who watch movies recognize the product. If your product or company is so obscure that no one who sees it recognizes it, I'm not sure how that influences anyone. Did the judges actually believe The DMN was trying to help NewTek sell more product? Anybody know if there was a run on NewTek software in the Dallas area right after this graphic came out?
Again, I do think the discussion is a valuable one. Should we be vigilant about this issue? Without a doubt, but I think we sometimes go too far as journalists and take ourselves too seriously.
(edited once because I too cannot spell, or type, or form complete sentences)
_________________
John |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Previous topic
Next topic
