Is Animated Tiger Woods Incident the Future of Journalism?

Back in 1994, O.J. was arrested on charges for the murder of his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson. Both TIME and Newsweek used Simpson's police mugshot on their magazine covers. Newsweek used the original image; while TIME used technology to alter the image, making it darker. At once, journalists like myself realized that technology could blur the lines between truth and fiction.

Well, technology's at it again. This New York Times article describes how a media company in China used computer graphics software to animate what might have happened between Tiger Woods and his wife Elin the night that he crashed his SUV into a tree. This is NOT a re-enactment, since the events are unknown by anyone other than Tiger and Elin.

MSNBC host Keith Olbermann, told the NY Times that although he was appalled by the animation, he was convinced it was the future of journalism.

“Yes,” he wrote in an email, “this will be done by somebody, in this country, within six months.”

Back the truck up!

Wouldn't a news outlet get into legal trouble by fabricating a video what-if? Surely there are ethical issues here, perhaps more serious than those having to do with manipulating a photo. I called up Lee Wilkins, curator and teaching professor and an expert in media ethics at the Missouri School of Journalism, and asked her if technology was once again blurring the lines between truth and fiction.

"For me it’s a bright line. This is not okay. This is fabrication. This is what we don’t do," said Wilkins. 

You can probably guess why they did it in China.

"The Chinese don’t have our standards with regard to this," said Wilkins.

No. Although, thankfully the city government in Taipei fined the animation company, Apple Daily, $30,000 for exposing children to obscenity on the Internet.

"There’s a second bright line," said Wilkins. "Why are we so fixated on Tiger Woods and his wife? This is private. In the ethics business, 'want to know' is the least compelling rationale for printing or broadcasting  something. And that means the truth is not something you make up on your computer screen."

I asked Wilkins what would happen if an American media outlet created such a video. She said that because Tiger Woods is a public figure, he would have to be able to prove malice. And he might think twice about pressing charges in the first place because a court battle would dredge up events that he would rather see be put to rest.

A regular person like you or me might have a case. But a verdict might prove difficult for the courts.

"Our technology is running so far ahead of what the courts are able to rule on."

Bottom line, though: "Ethics says you do the right thing, and we don’t lie to viewers, readers or listeners," said Wilkins.

Agreed.