Followers of some of the oldest religions on this planet have told variations of this parable. It goes something like this:
Six persons are blindfolded and led into a large room that has, without their knowledge, an elephant. Each one is then asked to describe a different part of the animal by what they can feel. One puts his hands around a leg and proclaims that it is a support column for a balcony. Another feels the tail and is sure the object is a rope. After touching the elephant’s trunk someone else is sure that it is the limb of a tree. A fourth person feels its ear and is positive the thing in question is a hand fan. Hands on the beast’s belly feel like a ceiling to another. And finally, the person who grabs a tusk is positive the object is some kind of solid pipe. (With my luck, I would put my hands in a big pile of its excrement and conclude that whatever it is, I want to get the hell out of the room.)
Each of the six thought the conclusion was correct based on a limited examination. The parable is typically used to illustrate how a limited perspective based on a subjective experience can be distorted. It is used to teach the lesson that false conclusions are often reached when there are few data points and little communication between participants. It is also the perfect story to illustrate documentary work and the concept of objectivity.
As reported in the prestigious Columbia Journalism Review by writer Brent Cunningham, Michael Bugeja, director and professor of the Greenlee School of Journalism at Iowa State University said, “Objectivity is seeing the world as it is, not how you wish it were” (Cunningham, 2003). Nothing to it, right? To be a successful visual communicator simply turn off any preconceived notions of how you think people, places, and things around you are and view scenes within your visual array with the cold metal hardness of a camera. Then, record those actions with the aloof, unblinking eye of a lens and interpret those stories with the detached calmness of a memory card. That procedure is fine for a security camera fastened to a corner of a store’s ceiling or a GoPro attached to yet another annoying buzzing drone, but the obvious truth is that as people, we filter everything we experience through our previous interactions whether they are successes, failures, or somewhere in-between. As a result, our predetermined mindset, that we might not be fully aware of, often leads us to make conclusions, which are often wrong, and engage in stereotyping, that is often harmful.
Rejoice and celebrate that we are humans and not machines. But where does that leave the concept of objectivity? Hopefully, it goes in the trash bin where it has always belonged. We have never been objective, it is impossible to be objective, and no matter how hard we try and are aware of our shortfalls in this area, we will never be totally objective. No wonder that in 1996 the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) acknowledged this dilemma and dropped “objectivity” from its ethics code (“SPJ Code of Ethics,” 2014). Perhaps that’s because for all the talk about the need for reporters with words and pictures to be impartial, detached, unbiased, unprejudiced, and dispassionate (can you tell I love using my Thesaurus?), the concept is simply not possible.
Journalism Values
In 2002 Patrick Lee Plaisance and Elizabeth A. Skewes (2003) asked 600 newspaper reporters and editors to rank 24 values (they couldn’t find one more?) collected from previous studies. They did not have “Objective” as a choice. The researchers analyzed 352 returned surveys and determined that the value “Honest (sincere, truthful)” was Number One. Second place was “fair (treating others as you want to be treated)” (notice the golden rule in practice) while the bronze medal went to “responsible (dependable, reliable).” In case you’re interested, “Clean (neat, tidy)” was the catfish of the list (you know, because catfish are bottom feeders). Interestingly, “accuracy” was not included as a choice. Perhaps the authors thought that the concept was professionally problematic. You might use accurate quotes from a newsmaker, moral agent, or stakeholder, but find out later that the source was misleading you or even lying. Similarly, a visual reporter might accurately record a scene, but the truth might be something completely different. And so I must (seemingly) digress.
Way back when, I was a student photojournalist working for my university’s newspaper. My assignment was to take pictures of a protest rally in front of the governor’s mansion. Forgive me, but over the years I’ve forgotten the reason for the demonstration. When I arrived at the fancy house surrounded by an elaborate and imposing metal fence at the appointed time, I was disappointed to see few at the scene who were enthused, energetic, and therefore, visually interesting about this important issue. My problem was that I had pre-visualized the situation and thought there would be hundreds of livid, screaming, demonstrators on both sides of the issue with many carrying signs and police and state police officials busy keeping the two groups separated. Imagine any area near where Donald Trump speaks. However, my frustration at not getting a good picture for my portfolio did not prevent me from continuing with my role-related responsibility of bringing back to my picture editor something useful for the next day’s paper. Finally, the organizers decided that those in attendance would be the total number of participants for that day and commenced the protest. It consisted of about ten students, three with signs, walking up and then back in front of the main gate. I do remember that I had no doubt at the time that this group wasn’t going to change the world as we know it. And so, I had two choices. I could use a wide-angle lens and from a high perspective several feet away from the walkers and take a picture that featured the sad, ineffective turnout or I could use a telephoto lens, again from several feet away, and take a close-up frame of a particularly emotional and vocal protestor carrying a sign along with other compatriots filling out the tight composition. In one, the viewer would know how few showed up. In the other, the viewer would have no visual idea (the low number might still be reported in the story or caption) how many attended the rally. Which perspective do you think I chose (descriptive ethics)? What do you think I should have done (normative ethics)?
Back to the topic. The list of 24 values provided by Plaisance and Skewes in their research article should be cherished and fostered as character traits regardless of someone’s profession or situation: Aboveboard, Ambitious, Broadminded, Capable, Cheerful, Civic-minded, Clean, Courageous, Empathetic, Fair, Forgiving, Helpful, Honest, Imaginative, Independent, Intellectual, Just, Logical, Loving, Minimizing Harm, Obedient, Polite, Responsible, and Self-controlled. It’s a good list to keep in mind, even though I have always had trouble with being obedient. Regardless, I’m pleased that empathetic made the list because of the obvious Rawls’ connection.
Four of the values included with the survey have similar traits that can be related to being neutral in the treatment and coverage of stories and their sources. These are fair, independent, just, and logical.
The well-known slogan for Fox News is simply “Fair & Balanced.” Introduced in 1996 by founder Roger Ailes, the organization took an ethics hit after Ailes and popular “Factor” host Bill O’Reilly were forced to resign after several women employees complained that the two were the least fair of them all. The Fox News saying was conceived from the perception by some that other print and broadcast media outlets, particularly The New York Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC, and on occasion, CNN, emphasize a liberal agenda. Fox News leans to the right in its coverage and commentaries to even the political playing field. Understand the Fox News’ position: Those responsible for the news justify their biased and unbalanced story selections and presentations in order to correct their perception of biased and unbalanced reporting by other media outlets. This hedonism-inspired argument shows the thinness of an ethical tightrope. In 2017 Fox News changed the motto to “Most Watched. Most Trusted.” Stay tuned, or not.
One of the most dangerous myths that comes from this illusion of balance is that opposing sides of an argument should always be represented when reporting a story. Think of the main cause for global climate change and the possible link between vaccinations and autism as two controversial storylines made more newsworthy by spokespersons with agendas both pro- and anti-scientific. An old-school, journalism, objective reporting procedure would be to interview and photograph two persons with opposing opinions. Pat yourself on your pre-1990s back as your role-related responsibility would be satisfied. However, would the harm caused by delivering misleading information to the public be justified by an insistence on such fair and balanced coverage?
The Myth of Objectivity
Where the issue of objectivity is most interesting is in a discussion of photojournalism and documentary photographers and filmmakers. Photojournalists for paper and online news entities almost always make visual messages intended to be single-picture records of that day’s news, sports, features, and so on. Visual reporters also spend from a few days to several months to produce picture stories that sometimes contain as many as 25 images with stories and captions and/or videos with interviews, wild sound, and music. Whether for a 20-minute assignment or a 20-week project, balanced reporting should be the norm as no stage-managing or content manipulations of any kind are ethically permitted. Documentary photographers and filmmakers work exclusively on long-form, multi-image and/or multi-scene presentations for websites, books, television, or motion picture screens. A key to the difference with photojournalists is that they often are visual reporters with few ties to news organizations or journalism schools. Photojournalists and documentary image-makers select the same types of stories, they use the same procedures to cover their subjects through in-depth ways, they use similar equipment to produce still and moving images with audio, and they both devote a great deal of time to produce quality work.
The last factor – time – is critical in this discussion of objectivity. With daily assignments, there is not much time to find, take, and deliver images to an editor. Consequently, objectivity is easier to master. But when there is no time limit for a story, complications can ensue. If a project takes several months or years to produce, for example, an emotional bond forms between the documentarian and the story’s source that often makes objectivity impossible. Human emotions should trump robotic actions.
Nevertheless, when either forced to complete an assignment in a matter of minutes or given the luxury of an open-ended deadline, objectivity is a myth that sounds good on paper but in reality impossible to achieve. As Julianne Newton (2000) wrote in her classic work, The Burden of Visual Truth: The Role of Photojournalism in Mediating Reality, subconscious and willful aesthetic, technical, and content-driven decisions made by an image-maker dictate the end result. Every choice one can imagine made by a visual communicator is based on subjectivity. Visual reporters often fool themselves, their editors, their subjects, and their viewers into thinking that they are objective and careful recorders of reality. The truth is, as always, difficult to determine because an image in a frame is a fabrication created from multivariate decisions based on previous experiences, current mood, political attitude, cultural background, expectations, technical knowledge, and ethical sensitivity.
The deuce you say. When you take pictures you make truthful, accurate, complete, and timely recordings of what occurred in front of my camera without embellishment, enhancement, and manipulation of any kind. Good for you. However, my argument is that such documents are not only philosophically impossible, but also physiologically unfeasible. If you don’t believe my take on the subjectivity of objectivity (and why should you, really?), then take the words of British theoretical physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking (2010) who wrote with the help of Leonard Mlodinow, an American physicist, The Grand Design. According to the two scientists and philosophers, classical science gave us the notion that there is an actual world outside of our own perceptions. That’s an easy concept to accept, right? As I sit in a café writing these words I see the capital letters on my computer’s keyboard, feel the soft cushion on the couch I’m sitting on, hear two women discussing the benefits and costs of Buda Juice, and I smell chicken tortilla soup simmering on a burner in the kitchen. All of this sensual information is happening outside of me, right? Wrong. As the Scottish philosopher David Hume noted, “Although we have no rational grounds for believing in an objective reality, we also have no choice but to act as if it is true” (Morris, 2013). Of course, we think what we sense is real, but Hawking and Mlodinow (2010, p. 46) put the concept into sharper focus when they write:
There is no way to remove the observer – us – from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception is not direct, but rather is shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains.
In other words, we are the observer and the observed. This relationship between the reality perceived in the outside world and the reality generated within our minds is the same – the literal definition of subjectivity. A better argument against objectivity could not be made.
However, a speech to the Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE) conference in 1995 by the learned educator and author Philip Meyer comes close (Meyer, 1995). He stated:
Objectivity, as defined by the knee-jerk, absolutist school of media ethics, means standing so far from the community that you see all events and all viewpoints as equally distant and important – or unimportant. It is implemented by giving equal weight to all viewpoints and assertions – or, if not, all an interesting variety within a socially acceptable spectrum. The result is a laying out of facts in a sterile, noncommittal manner, and then standing back to ‘let the reader decide’ which view is true.
When you start caring about how public debate goes, even if you don’t prefer a particular outcome, you start making subjective decisions about what to focus on and when. Journalistic passivity is abandoned. One solution is to draw a line somewhere on the slippery slope, be subjective up to that point, and then stop.
For Meyer, data-driven, scientific, journalism methods combined with the passion to tell stories as exhibited by citizen journalists is the future for the profession and a hedge against subjectivity that degrades into outright manipulation (see Chapter 4).
Admire, emulate, and tell others documentary failures and successes you have seen. You can learn as much from examples from those who have slid down the metaphorical slippery slope as you can from notable successes. Take the time to view the first stage-managed, naïve, and exceedingly dull documentaries from the French brother team of Auguste and Louis Lumière, the first to think of showing movies within a theater, in such literal titles as Workers Leaving the Lumière Factory and Fishing for Goldfish (“Pioneers,” n.d.); the imperfect first try at documenting Native Americans in Alaska by the American filmmaker Robert Flaherty in Nanook of the North (1922), brilliantly parodied by writers Fred Armisen, Bill Hader, Seth Meyers, and Rhys Thomas in Kunuk Uncovered for the “Documentary Now!” (2015) television series; the picture stories of much too happy natives and locals within the pages of early National Geographic, Picture Post, and Life magazines; and the work of the Farm Security Administration photographers (“Photographers of the FSA,” n.d.), some of the most revered names in photographic history that included Walker Evans, Dorothea Lange, Russell Lee, Carl Mydans, and Arthur Rothstein to produce propagandistic images in order to assist those most affected by the Great Depression.
For critically acclaimed documentaries produced by award-winning visual journalists, study the winners of the category in various photojournalism contests – Alexia Foundation, Best of Photojournalism, Pictures of the Year International, World Press Photo, and many others. Study the methods, pacing, and techniques of documentary films that have emotionally moved, profoundly educated, and spurred change among viewers. For example, watch anything produced by Les Blank (2012), Barbara Kopple (n.d.), Albert and David Maysles (“Films,” n.d.), Errol Morris (n.d.), and Frederick Wiseman (2017). Study the way complex stories are told in the work of director Gabriela Cowperthwaite of Blackfish (2013), in Davis Guggenheim’s An Inconvenient Truth (2006) and its follow-up, An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power (2017) directed by Bonni Cohen and Jon Shenk, in Lauren Greenfield’s The Queen of Versailles (2013), in Werner Herzog’s Cave of Forgotten Dreams (2013), and in Louie Psihoyos’ The Cove (n.d.). You should also watch, listen, and recommend to your friends documentary films and miniseries as presented on Showtime, HBO, other cable channels and sources. For example, the Peabody Award winning podcast, “Serial,” (2017) an offshoot of Ira Glass’ “This American Life” radio show co-created by Sarah Koenig and Julie Snyder, is a clinic in how to conduct complex investigative journalism pieces with positive results. Andrew Jarecki’s “The Jinx,” (2017) a six-part series on HBO about the life and crimes of real estate heir Robert Durst is a workshop in how to conduct interviews. Appreciate the editing expertise evident in Brett Morgen’s Kurt Cobain: Montage of Heck (2017). Marvel in the brilliant work of director and producer Ezra Edelman for ESPN Films in his five-part, 8-hour documentary miniseries, “O.J. Made in America” (n.d.). Compare it with FX Networks’ “The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story” (2017) with actors playing key roles. Although both works are well produced, the Edelman effort, using interviews from actual participants and news footage at the time, feels more authentic.
The above suggestions for further viewing come from sensitive and thoughtful photojournalists and filmmakers who acknowledge their biases – their inherent subjectivity with their subjects – but manage, despite the flaws in capturing reality, to produce work that make a difference.
So where does that leave you? What should you do to control your own biases when on an assignment? How do you remain fair and balanced? What can you do to combat your subconscious and conscious subjectivity?
A story told about G. Gordon Liddy, the morally bankrupt chief operative of President Nixon’s White House Plumbers unit that broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters in 1972 located in the Watergate building, involves him holding a hand over a candle flame until the flesh on his palm burns in order to prove his toughness. When asked how he did it, he answered, “The trick is not minding.” The original quote actually comes from the 1962 epic, Lawrence of Arabia when Lawrence, played by Peter O’Toole performs the same “trick” over a lit match and says, “The trick is not minding that it hurts” (“The trick is …,” 2007). Simply put, no matter how high you regard the golden rule philosophy or how much empathy you feel related to the veil of ignorance philosophy, it is impossible to rid yourself of your biases, prejudices, and sympathies. So, don’t mind.
Use your moral sense to know the difference between right and wrong and act to produce work that punishes the wrong and elevates the right (but perhaps not necessarily in the political meaning of the word). Be subjective. Care. Don’t be a robotic camera stuck up on a selfie stick. And by all means, do your best. Here’s a secret about the conclusion for every case study described in this book – do your best. That’s all you can do. As stated previously and more succinctly: Do your job and do not cause unjustified harm. And if sometimes you err because you’re human, try not to mind too much if your hand gets singed.
By the way, for the governor’s mansion assignment, I turned in both versions to my editor – a wide-angle shot that showed how few protesters were at the scene and a telephoto frame that zeroed-in on one person holding a sign. After a brief discussion, it was decided that both pictures would be used.
See Appendix A for a professional’s approach to documentary and advocacy.
Case Studies
Case Study One
Michael Moore is one of the most controversial documentary filmmakers of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Among his most controversial films is Bowling for Columbine, which explores the lead up and events surrounding the 1999 school shooting at Columbine High School. The film won the 2003 Academy Award for Best Documentary-Feature. Fans of the film contend that it nicely portrays how a “gun culture” in the United States that celebrates gun ownership and easy gun access leads to more violence and criminal activity than is true of other Western democracies where these kinds of gun practices are not the norm. Critics contend that Moore manipulated both facts and – even worse – images to make an untruthful argument about gun safety. The problem is not guns, but bad people, they said, and Moore’s film unfairly framed the National Rifle Association (NRA), its leader Charlton Heston, and other individuals associated with the pro-gun movement.
Documentary films are both films in the regular sense, and arguments for a particular point of view. What is the obligation of filmmakers to fairly present all sides of an issue? How much editing is too much? Is it enough to simply tell the other side: Find someone to make a movie for you?
Farber, S. (2002). “Michael Moore’s ‘Bowling for Columbine.’” Documentary Magazine. Accessed June 28, 2017 from http://www.documentary.org/magazine/michael-moores-bowling-columbine-2002.
See Appendix B for the 10-Step Systematic Ethical Analysis Form.
Case Study Two
Public relations professionals are allowed to “fix” quotes for the people they work for, to make them sound smarter, pithier, or more articulate than they might really be. Imagine now that you’re working as a public relations person for a company, and your CEO goes on a safari, and his jeep accidentally runs over a giraffe. He has video of his voyage, and he’s very excited to post some of the footage, but he asks you to leave out any mention of his mishap, and to edit out the part where the jeep hits the animal (he was driving). But you know this is the part people will be most interested in – after all, he wasn’t supposed to be behind the wheel. He wasn’t licensed to drive in that country.
See Appendix B for the 10-Step Systematic Ethical Analysis Form.
Case Study Three
In the middle of the 1990s, some producers at ABC News got a tip about possible unsanitary food handling practices at Food Lion, a national grocery store chain. Thinking that they probably wouldn’t be allowed to bring their cameras inside the store to investigate, the producers decided to go undercover as employees. They made up fake resumes and got themselves hired in the meat department of a local Food Lion store.
Using hidden cameras, these producers captured evidence of bad behavior on the part of the supermarket, including repackaging and reselling meat past its “sell-by” date. This footage was subsequently aired on the ABC newsmagazine program “PrimeTime Live.” Soon thereafter, Food Lion sued ABC for both fraud and trespass, eventually winning jury verdicts on both counts.
Rasmussen, K. (2012). “The landmark Food Lion case.” Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Accessed June 28, 2007 from https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-spring-2012/landmark-food-lion-case.
See Appendix B for the 10-Step Systematic Ethical Analysis Form.
Annotated Sources
Constantine, G. (2016). “Nowhere people: Exposing a portrait of the world’s stateless people”. TEDxEastEnd. Accessed June 28, 2017 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9DD6MZj5Z4.
Greg Constantine is a photojournalist who exudes empathy for the people he photographs in troubled and impoverished locations around the world. Listening to his passionate speech should convince you of his sincerity and commitment.
Freeman, C. (2012). “Fishing for animal rights in The Cove: A holistic approach to animal advocacy documentaries”. Journal for Critical Animal Studies, 10(1), 104–118.
This article explores how documentary works to argue for something – in this case, to encourage viewers to take seriously animal rights. The writer of the essay, Carrie Packwood Freeman, takes the documentary film The Cove as her point of departure. The Cove won the 2009 Academy Award for Best Documentary, Feature Film, for its portrayal of dolphins and the need to protect their lives, habitats, and freedoms. Freeman argues the film can also be read as an argument for applying these same ethical values to creatures across the animal kingdom.
Kristine, L. (2013). “Shine a light on modern day slavery”. TEDxOrangeCoast. Accessed June 28, 2017 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMLoxLUPWhw.
Lisa Kristine is billed on her website as an “international humanitarian photographer.” Her portraits of persons trapped by modern-day slavery are stunning, insightful, and technically brilliant. But does her website, although informational, look too much like she is trying too hard to profit from the misery of others?
Rose, G. (2014). “On the relation between ‘visual research methods’ and contemporary visual culture”. The Sociological Review, 62(1), 24–46.
As with text, images work to create shared meaning. This feature results in visual research methods that cannot merely be applied in social science. They are performances that help create the very worlds they study and explore. As such, photographs are not merely examples of objective evidence waiting for researchers to discover and endow with cultural significance, but are communicative tools that are open to interpretation.
References
“Barbara Kopple.” (n.d.). Cabin Creek Films. Accessed June 28, 2017 from http://www.cabincreekfilms.com/barbara_kopple.html.
Blackfish. (2013). Dogwoof. Accessed June 28, 2017 from http://www.blackfishmovie.com/.
Cave of Forgotten Dreams. (2013). IFC Films. Accessed June 28, 2017 from http://www.ifcfilms.com/films/cave-of-forgotten-dreams.
The Cove. (n.d.). Oceanic Preservation Society. Accessed June 28, 2017 from http://www.thecovemovie.com/.
Cunningham, B. (August 2003). “Re-thinking objectivity.” Columbia Journalism Review. Accessed June 28, 2017 from http://archives.cjr.org/feature/rethinking_objectivity.php.
“Documentary Now!” (August 27, 2015). Internet Movie Database. Accessed June 29, 2017 from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4823560/.
“Errol Morris.” (n.d.). Errol Morris. Accessed June 28, 2017 from http://www.errolmorris.com/film.html.
“Films.” (n.d.). Maysles Films, Inc. Accessed June 28, 2017 from http://mayslesfilms.com/films/.
“Frederick Wiseman.” (2017). Zipporah Films, Inc. Accessed June 28, 2017 from http://www.zipporah.com/.
Hawking, S. and Mlodinow, L. (2012). The Grand Design. New York: Bantam.
An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power. (2017). Internet Movie Database. Accessed June 28, 2017 from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6322922/.
An Inconvenient Truth. (2006). Internet Movie Database. Accessed September 13, 2017 from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/?ref_=nv_sr_4.
“The Jinx: The life and deaths of Robert Durst.” (2017). HBO. Accessed June 28, 2017 from http://www.hbo.com/the-jinx-the-life-and-deaths-of-robert-durst.
Kurt Cobain: Montage of Heck. (2017). HBO. Accessed June 28, 2017 from http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/kurt-cobain-montage-of-heck.
“Les Blank films.” (2012). Les Blank Films. Accessed June 28, 2017 from http://lesblank.com/.
Meyer, P. (1995). “Public journalism and the problem of objectivity.” University of North Carolina. Accessed June 28, 2017 from http://www.unc.edu/~pmeyer/ire95pj.htm.
Morris, T. (2013). “David Hume’s life and works.” The Hume Society. Accessed June 28, 2017 from http://www.humesociety.org/about/HumeBiography.asp.
“Nanook of the North (1922).” (December 16, 2012). YouTube. Accessed June 28, 2017 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4kOIzMqso0.
Newton, J. (2000). The burden of visual truth: The role of photojournalism in mediating reality. New York: Routledge.
“O.J. Made in America.” (n.d.). ESPN. Accessed June 28, 2017 from http://www.espn.com/30for30/ojsimpsonmadeinamerica/.
“The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story. ” (2017). FXNow. Accessed June 28, 2017 from http://www.fxnetworks.com/shows/american-crime-story.
“Photographers of the FSA: Selected portraits.” (n.d.). The Library of Congress. Accessed June 28, 2017 from http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/fsa/sampler.html.
“Pioneers, The Lumière brothers.” (n.d.). EarlyCinema.com. Accessed June 28, 2017 from http://www.earlycinema.com/pioneers/lumiere_bio.html.
Plaisance, P.L. and Skewes, E.A. (2003). “Personal and professional dimensions of news work: Exploring the link between journalist’ values and roles.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(4), 833–848.
The Queen of Versailles. (2013). Magnolia Pictures. Accessed June 28, 2017 from http://www.magpictures.com/thequeenofversailles/.
“Serial.” (2017). Serial. Accessed June 28, 2017 from https://serialpodcast.org/.
“SPJ code of ethics.” (September 6, 2014). SPH.org. Accessed June 28, 2017 from https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp.
“The trick is …” (2007). YouTube. Accessed June 28, 2017 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYNElueJj_w.