1- Each one of you will work out on a Case Study, You will use the SAD formula for your moral reasoning process. Take 45 minutes to work on this. Do not be hasty. Think it well. Go through the process without jumping or skipping. Elaborate on your responses.
Please read the case study fully and carefully. There’s two parts for each case study. First it starts with the number of the Case and a title, that’s where the story is told in details. Then it’s followed with “The Case Study”. It’s the part of the discussion where you’re assigned the role of a specific moral agent. And they have some helpful discussion that could form the basis for your first part “The situation definition”. So please read it carefully.
Also, don’t forget to refer to the appropriate code of ethics at the end of the book (the Appendices after page 226) to identify the values and principles.
2-Then in the remaining 35 minutes, you should look at one of your colleague’s responses and comment on his/her decision.
Do you agree with the decision? If not, why? How would you think differently? What would you do differently? If you agree with the decision, you should go through the process, and note sections that could be questioned. What is the weakest part of the process? What is missing? Why and how would it be criticized? How could it be thought differently?
To make it easier, I will assign you your case study (from chapters 4 and 5 in the book). And I will also assign you the person you’ll be responding to.
Note that this work has to be done during our regular class time. 9:30 – 10:50. If you don’t do it you’ll be counted as absent. Also, I will additionally count it towards your blog contributions.
I will be commenting where I see a need to comment. Some notes and feedback will be discussed in class on Tuesday (hopefully if there wasn’t a strike). And on Tuesday we’ll carry on with out syllabus as is. (Please refer to the syllabus to refresh your memory).
Case 4-1 Asma – Respond to Dima
Case 4-2 Daoud – Respond to Haneen
Case 4-3 Haneen – Respond to Anwaar
Case 4-4 Hasan – Respond to Hayat
Case 4-5 Rafat – Respond to Huda
Case 4-6 Hayat – Respond to Hasan
Case 4-7 Huda – Respond to Nada
Case 4-8 Malak – Respond to Saba
Case 5-1 Walaa – Respond to Shahd
Case 5-2 Saba – Respond to Sarah
Case 5-3 Nada – Respond to Daoud
Case 5-4 Sarah – Respond to Rafat
Case 5-5 Anwaar – Respond to Malak
Case 5-6 Dima – Respond to Asma
Case 5-7 Shahd – Respond to Walaa
Media Law & Ethics - 9114104 
Case 4.2: The Careless Chaperons and the Unbridled Teens
Situation Definition:
This case is about a 15 year old girl who sleeps with a classmate at a party and gets pregnant. Her parents, the Martins, are currently suing the chaperons (the Pikes) of the party for negligence, claiming that they were being careless and nor properly supervising the party. The Pikes argued that they cannot be expected to oversee the actions of sexually active teenagers, especially because there is no legal duty of them to.
Now, Columbia Gazette, was asked not to publish the story by the15 year old girl’s family, the Martins. This is because the Martins are highly concerned with having their daughter identified and known to the media. While her name will not be mentioned in the article, it will be obvious because her parents will be identified within the article. While this court case will be on public record, the issue still arises as to whether or not Columbia Gazette have the duty to report on this story and publish it? Is the story newsworthy, a public interest, and a public concern? The involved parties within this story are the 15 year old girl, the Martins, the Pikes, and the general public. Our job, acting as Littenfield, is to be a moral agent on this case and decide whether not we should publish this story.
Analysis:
PROS OF PUBLISHING STORY: This story is a matter of public record; therefore it can be subject to publicity. Teenagers’ parents will be highly concerned of this story. If it were published, it would be able to deliver the message to the community and to the parents of the community, which will serve as a warning.
CONS OF PUBLISHING: If this story were published, the girl will easily be identified through association of her parents. Her life and decisions will not only be a public interest, but she may subject to harsh scrutiny by the community and further victimize her more than she already has gone through. And while this court case is a matter of public record, it was not her who made the decision to sue. It was her parents. The story here clearly does not about a public person, politics, or corruption.
Through a deontological lens, the Gazette has the duty to report on stories and also “Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience, boldly even when it is unpopular to do so.”(pg 227) And while they have the duty to report on stories, they also have the duty to be sensitive and show affection when dealing with those individuals affected, and try to minimize the harm as much as possible. They also have the duty to recognize the rights of a private person, who has more of a right to control private information about them. They are not public officials who have power and influence on the people.
Through a teleological lens, the positive consequences of not publishing the story outweigh the consequences for publishing the story. The fact that the underage will girl be exposed to the public and re-victimized gives more of a reason not to publish the story.
Decision:
As a moral agent in this case, I argue that while the story is a public record, this does not make it a public newsworthy story. Through both the deontological and teleological perspective, there is no justification here for publicizing the story. Also, the community does not need to know this story. The cons of publishing this story are far graver than the pros, which is why the story should not be published.
LikeLike
In the situation definition you stated facts, but you did not articulate the conflicting and colliding principles and values clearly. Note that principles and values are different than possible actions. Although actions are driven by the values and principles.
Also you simply named the parties involved, without making it clear who will be affected by which action.
Also, when you identify affected parties, most of the time you need to draw distinction between reporters and editors, or reporters and the newspaper itself.
In the analysis part, it’s not simply about stating pros and cons. You need first to evaluate and weigh the values and principles (many of it could be taken from the conversation between editors and the reporter). Then weigh in any external factor. Then analyze the moral duties owed by the moral agent. Then discuss moral theories and how do they apply to this case (deontologist, teleologist, etc..) (you’ve done that before weighing up and evaluating the values and principles, external factors or moral duties sufficiently.
Thus, your rendering of the decision came through a bit weak.
LikeLike
Situation Definition:
At Greensboro Regional Medical Center, Arlen Corbett is the hospital’s administrator. He hires Katrina Evans as the public relations director, even though she does not have much experience. However Evans does a great job at Greensboro, until she decided to make public with their AIDS testing program. This program will test all of Greensboro’s employees. Most employees saw this as an intrusion of privacy. For four years there had been no positive results, until Dr. George Mason was tested. He was tested positive. Mason was one of the best cardiac surgeons of the center. Once he was tested positive, his operating room privelages were suspended. He was still allowed to treat patients, but with limits. Dr. Robert Boutwell, the hospital’s chief of staff, also did a “lookback” on all of Mason’s recent surgery patients. Matt Dunn, a reporter for Greensboro Gazette, says he heard about George Mason and wants confirmation. If Katrina Evans comments on this then she will violate her policy of “no commenting” on individual cases. If they avoid Matt Dunn and don’t comment then there may be an inaccurate story that scares the recent patients of Greensboro. If the story is confirmed then the public will be unsatisfied to know Mason is still working, even if he is unidentified. Then there will be a pressure to fire Dr. Mason
Analysis:
Pros: If Evans comments on the story then there will be a reassurance to the public. She will also be able to confirm to Mason’s Previous patients that they did a “lookback” on them. This will also make Greensboro Medical Center look better.
Cons: If the story is confirmed then there will be pressure to identify Mason. When the public learn that he still working, there will be pressure to fire him. The public will not be happy to learn he still working. This will break Evans policy of not commenting on individual cases.
From a deontologic point of view and according to the code of ethics “Identify sources whenever possible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on source’s reliability” This means since either way the story is breaking out, Evans should be as open and honest about the situation. That it is the public rights to know who the employee is and that he has been tested positive for AIDs.
From a teleological point of view and according to the code of ethics “Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage.” This means that Evans is in a dilemma to confirm the name of the employee.Releasing his name will have extreme consequences for Mason, he could lose his job and even his career. However, the public must know who the employee is because there could be consequences for not doing so. For example if he gets another job, he may infect someone with the virus.
Also Evans is a PR Practitioner and has an allegiance to the truth. This code says “A member shall not knowingly disseminate false or misleading information and shall act promptly to correct erroneous communications for which he or she is responsible”
Decision:
Evans will decide based on a teleological and deontological point of view. It is a duty for Evans to confirm the story because it is the public’s right to know. It will also be a teleological reasoning to confirm the identity of the employee who tested positive for AIDs, so that any time he gets a job somewhere else or interacts with someone they will be aware. It is also the public’s right to know the identity. If the name is not released there may be a consequence of public outrage. They will think the medical center is hiding something. The public will also be reassured that they have done “lookbacks” at his previous patients. Mason is not working as a surgeon anymore and has limited interactions with patients. That is also something the public should know. Mason should be able to keep his job at Greensboro and hopefully once this information is released the public will be understanding.
LikeLike
You’re skipping the same steps Haneen skipped.
LikeLike
Hidden Cameras and the journalist as social conscience.
Define the situation.
The main people:
Wilson, a conservative lawmaker and perennial opponent of a big government. He wants to stop the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico. He wants to deny the illegal immigrants access to the cutting off most social service as the educational opportunity.
Manny Fernandez : is a journalist – he knows that this kind of proposition will exacerbate the growing of ethnic strife in the city. He feared a violent uprising by the Hispanic community.
Ron Mackey: the producer of Channel 5, which reports some of the immigrants’ problems; poverty and other struggles that they face in their work without clear fairness and balance ethics.
Jose: a young photographer who will gather visual evidence for the story by using deception.
Andera Cobb: an assistant for the story, he suggests to interview the employees and mask their identity.
Marci Andrea: an editor, he is with the idea of using hidden cameras to gather information by masking the faces of the employees.
Analysis the situation
The main question here should Fernandez agree to use hidden cameras to document the working condition of the workers. So, the main issue here is the evidence and the right of the public to know and see the real condition of the workers. But, in this case, the evidence cannot be gathered in a credible way. The workers won’t agree to do any interview or reveal their names for the sake of protecting their job; that’s way deception is a way to gather information from them and inform the public on this issue with visual materials.
The issue of the workers is so important, especially the working condition in Alton. Alton is a company for cheap ready-to-wear garments that make the illegal immigrant workers under 18, who work without having any working law and rights. This issue must be informed to the public and to the government as well.
So, should they use deception ways to cover this issue or not ?
Decision:
I am Manny Fernandez. Will I approve the use of misrepresentation and hidden cameras to document the working condition of the illegal immigrants in San Jacinto?
In order to make my decisions, I will weigh the pros and cons of using misrepresentation and hidden cameras.
So,
1- Facts will be presented with visual material, but in a deception way.
2- Truth, it will be more credible, but it will lose the degree of integrity in human communications by using these deception tools.
3- The autonomy of the individual will be invaded along with the privacy issue. Going back to the society of Professional Journalist code of Ethics. The identity of the sources whenever it’s possible; whenever reflects the importance of the identity but when there’s a real chance to reveal it.
4- The same code, Professional Journalist code of Ethics,emphasizes on avoiding undercover methods of gathering the information from the sources.
5- Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, ethnicity … This is exactly is the issue here showing the worker condition from ethnic aspect which will stereotype this piece of news.
6- This also what Louis Day says in this chapter that I definitely agree with ““demonstrates a respect for persons as ends rather than as tools to be manipulated.”
So according to these ethics; I will not use misrepresentation or hidden camera. But, I will try hard to convince the workers to speak to the media; they are under 18 meaning that they are ignorant and don’t know how to defense themselves and have some of their working rights. If convening all of them don’t work, I assume that convince one person, at least, to talk will work. I will do it with masking their identity and giving descriptions of the people and their working condition that will replace the use of hidden cameras, kind of.
In this way, the channel will keep its audience with its trustful and credible way of dealing with news.
LikeLike
Case 5-2: The Massacre at Langdale High and Laura’s Secret Diary
Situation Definition:
Laura Devlin, a high school senior, was looking forward to her graduation until her brother was caught in an act of crime on May 16th. During lunch period her 15 year old brother, Jeffrey Devlin, pulled out a gun and started shooting at people, killing 4 people and wounding 4 classmates. Jeffrey was taken into custody; he was charged as an adult with first degree murder and was not allowed to be bailed. The police got a search warrant and found more weapons in his rooms and during the mean time Laura and her mother rejected any interview with local and national media. Shayn Lassiter who was also shocked by the shooting is a police and court reporter for the Andersonville Tribune. She wanted to write about the case but wasn’t satisfied with just the facts; she wanted detailed answers to satisfy her readers too. Laura Devlin and her mother wouldn’t talk with anyone about the situation so Lassiter tried to get information about Jeffrey from people he knew or who knew him. And she also interviewed Lieutenant Andy Cherry who was in charge of the Devlin investigation. From the sources she found out a small part of the Devlin’s life, Jeffrey and Laura in all were good students but when Laura turned 10 she had become gloomy and withdrawn and at the age of 13 after their father abandoned them, their good nature changed and Jeffrey grew an interest with weapons. Some of the details were confirmed by lieutenant Cherry. But what made Lassiter’s curiosity grow was Laura’s diary that had been seized by the police for investigation. Lassiter got access to her diary and while reading her diary she found out that their father was bossy but also thoughtful and that their mother was loving but cautious around the way their father acted towards her kids. She also learned that Laura was sexually abused by her father until she was 15 but her brother was ignorant of it. There were signs that she was suicidal and took drugs. Her diary showed signs that her brother was estranged from the family and especially their father. Jeffrey did get depressed after their father abandoned them and he would take drugs. It showed that he had lived a quiet life of desperation. Lassiter was allowed to take notes and photocopy pages for her story but her story would be scrutinized by the managing editor, Douglas Hawthorne. She met with Hawthorne and city editor Marcia Mackenzie. Hawthorne was ethically concerned but Lassiter tried to argue that the story would be a human interest story. Many questions arose from their discussion. Should Lassiter be allowed to post Laura’s personal diary information on the newspaper? Is it ethically correct for her to do so? Is the information important for the readers to know? Would Laura’s diary even be counted as private?
Analysis:
The main question here is whether Lassiter’s story should be authorized to be included in the newspaper even if Laura’s diary information is a part of it.
Pros of Authorizing the Story: By using Laura’s diary information the public will have an understanding of why Jeffrey acted the way he did and instead of having anger or resentment towards the Devlin’s family, they will feel sympathetic towards them. So basically, it is kind of an explanation as to why Jeffrey did what he did, it would mean that there is something psychologically wrong with him. Also, if the diary information is posted it can awaken the society to pay attention to kids who are troubled because although some troubled kids might not act differently or not talk much about their troubles; it doesn’t mean that they aren’t going through something. With Laura’s diary we get into her thoughts and learn something about what happened to her that might have stayed a secret if it weren’t for her brother’s murderous actions.
Cons of Authorizing the Story: By posting Laura’s diary information she could get emotionally affected by it because she still might not be ready to open up about being sexually abused by her father. It might even be something that her own family doesn’t know. Imagine if she wakes up one day to find out that everyone in her society knows about it. It won’t just anger her but might also have a psychological effect on her.
Decision:
Although the pros may beat the cons of authorizing the story, Laura’s diary information is her own privacy and Lassiter shouldn’t be allowed to post one’s personal information on a newspaper without his/her consent. Laura being sexually abused as mentioned is something her brother did not know of thus his actions has nothing to do with that. And if the public did not have the chance to protect her brother Jeffrey, the people in the case study still have the chance to protect Laura and her mother with the information they now know of. By posting her personal information without her consent it might just harm her and her mother even more causing one or the other to act the same way Jeffrey did. Therefore her personal information should not be posted and thus the story should not be authorized either.
LikeLike
Case 4.2: The Careless Chaperons and the Unbridled Teens
Situation Definition
A fifteen years old girl got pregnant by her boyfriend during a party. While her parents filed a lawsuit on the pikes claiming that their careless and negligence, is not properly supervising their teenager’s charges, and was the reason for the pregnancy of their daughter.
The Pikes respond; was that they were not expecting like these actions from the teenagers, and the parents have the full responsibility for the sexually actives for their teenagers. Meanwhile they argued that these is no legal duty of the kind alleged. “The expectations reflected in this lawsuit unreasonable in that parents cannot be expected to oversee the unbridled passions of sexually active teenagers. These is simply no legal duty of the kind alleged in the plaintiffs’ complaint”.
While the media now started to take its’ job by publishing a story can attract the people. The Gazette will not publish the name of the daughter, otherwise it will identify the name of the family, the Martins, as an assure that the Columbia Gazette had given to the Martins family to reservation the name of their daughter.
the issue arises here as that the gazette has the duty to publish it or not? And what about the potential harm is it will be greater upon the girl?
Analysis:
No one can deny that the gazette has the right to publish the story, for many reasons to get some attention to their gazette or even to warning the teenagers and their parents about this time of the human life where the body goes through a physiological and physical changes. “the media are in the business of revelation, not concealment”
But what about the consequences on the Martins family and their daughter?
The potential harm will be much greater than the news value specially on the girl, while her reaction from the feeling of shameful will lead maybe to hurt herself or the baby or a nervous breakdown because of what she will pass though from the pressure of the society and the view of her classmates on her. “but in sense, the martins’ daughter has been victimized once in that she had an unwanted pregnancy. A story on this lawsuit will just victimize her again”
Decision:
While as a moral agent these is no way to publish a story like this, because the consequences on a 15 years old girl will be high and it may lead to kill the child or suicide the girl.
Otherwise to respect the family and the girl and estimate what they are passing through is better than use the story as a tool to get the attention and even to be manipulated
LikeLike
Case 5-6 the right to die with dignity:
The story starts with Dr. Michael Dvorak who insist in helping his patient with terminal disease to end their lives by their own choice, however in the late time when he helped 54 women to end her life District attorney Nix obtain murder indictment against Dvorak and after the trial as the national and local media get involved the jury acquitted him. The second time he helps another patient Helen Tate to end her life nix file a case again but this time with a potential evidence that Dvorak end Helens life not by her will , and full understanding of her choice , her children claim that in some sense she changed her mind and that backed on her wish to end her life and that Dr. Dvorak did not listen in defense Dr. Dvorak attorney uses a tape that was made by Helen2 hr before her death stating her desire to end her life in response to the release of the tape Helen’s children asks the media to not publish the tape because it manipulate the public opinion and invades their mother privacy and the family as a whole . Fienstain basic ethical dilemma whether to publish this tape in the channel was outweigh the family request of privacy or is this tape necessary for the audience to understand the context of the story. Due the competitive environment with other 2 channels that may publish the Video tape Sandra Fienstain is about to make a quick decision. In may opinion there is a thine line from transferring a murder case of Helen Tate to an opinion matter and the origin of intersection of the public opinion/interest and the privacy of Helen and her children which is euthanasia this video is about Helen and her choice as an individual the tape is originally a private tape for her children and should not be broadcasted because it could be interrupted later on differently by the jury when the time of the trial comes, in this sense the family request for their right to privacy out weigh the public interest in the case. The motives of releasing the tape first hand by Dvorak attorney is obviously for defense and as an evidence therefore invading Helen and her family privacy by broadcasting on air show over publicize the matter and may effect the public opinion about the original idea of merciful killing
LikeLike
Case 5-5: Courtroom Cameras and the Right to Privacy
Situation Definition:
Susan Crawford was twenty nine year old and was convicted in the court of public opinion because she had accused of seducing one of her students who was Ronnie Carson and he was only fifteen year old, then murdering the offspring of this illicit relationship. She was described as collegial, a competent if not perfect teacher, and eager to overlook some of the school’s diverse extracurricular activities as her colleges described her. In addition, she was married to Jeff, thus her first pregnancy after five years of their marriage, had been a source of joy and celebration among both her teaching colleges and staff, and they shared the blessed event in Crawford’s life. They were confused by her lack of radiance that usually accompanies motherhood, and instead of being happy and glad of her becoming baby, her moodiness and depression were increasing. Allison Perkins was one of Crawford’s colleges and a witness for Crawford’s actions. Before the birth of the baby, she learned that Susan and her husband had been separated for a little over a year, a fact that the young teacher had skillfully hidden from the school’s faculty and principle. When she concerned about Crawford’s illegal relation with her student, she faced her with this information. Thus, Crawford admitted that she had been having an affair with Carson, and that he was the father of the baby not her husband.
Crawford also revealed an additional details of her relationship with Carson, that she begged her colleges not to share this information with anyone because she was afraid about what would happen to Carson and his family, and because she was afraid that Perkins would regret on the witness stand. Thus, Perkins agreed on the condition that Crawford won’t think of abortion and following the birth of her child. Moreover, six weeks after the birth of her baby, she took him to the emergency room of St. Mary’s Hospital. She told the attendant physician that when she went to hold the baby from his crib, he did not respond to her touch, and then she took him and rushed for the hospital. The physician told her that the baby was dead, however, the suspicious doctor discovered a bruise at the back of his neck and immediately called the police.
During the police’s investigation, Crawford denied that she had been responsible for the baby’s death, but she accused and put the guilt at her paramour in the high school. She admitted that she had nine month affair with Ronnie, and then he had broken off the relationship when he knew that she was pregnant. Because he was too young to be a father and had responsibility, thus did not want to be responsible on involved in the baby’s life. But, after the birth of the baby, she still connected emotionally with him, and then she phoned him and told him that she wanted to see him one last time. He agreed and came to her house, thus, she threaten him. She forced him with a warning that he must resume their relationship or she would tell his parents about their affair and request for child support. In addition, she told her investigators what had happened when he came to their home, thus he became violent, and while she was holding the baby, he hit the baby across the back of the neck. But, he had a different version from her. At first, he denied his involvement with his teacher but he admitted his paternity of the child. He also admitted his visit on the day of the alleged murder of the baby but denied that he had any responsibility for his death. And he told the investigating officers when she gave him a warning, he begged her to reconsider, then he was frightened, and quickly left. After so many investigations, the police decided that Carson’s version was more convincing than Crawford’s version, and then they arrested Crawford, charging her with second- degree murder and statutory rape.
Judge Alonzo Sasson was selected to head over the trail, the jury would be protected from on-camera appearance, with the camera focusing on the attorneys, the judge and the witness. Perkins was not an eager witness, she would be summoned as a prosecution witness because of the confidential conversation that she had with Crawford before the birth of the baby. Despite Perkin’s compassion with Crawford’s love affair with Ronnie, she was also repulsed of Crawford’s unexpected pregnancy. In addition, Perkins was a private person, and valued her privacy and that of her family. Thus, she told the attorney that having her face on camera would make her nervous and unrelieved. Although she knew that she can’t hide her name from the witness lest, at least she insisted to keep her face and her name off the nightly request. Thus, the judged accepted her request. The director of the station’s news, Cassandra Smith, in contracting a meeting of the three main gatekeepers who would be directly involved in the televised pool coverage: reporter Maurice Mangum, assignment editor LeAnne Rivers, and Louis Andrews. The rules are cleared, there will be two remote controlled cameras, and there will be a complete video of the attorneys, the judge, and the witness. However, the witness had asked for anonymity and will be digitally masked when she’s on the stand.
But Mangum said that “we know who she is”, her name is Allison Perkins, a colleague of the defendant. She’s a prosecution witness.” Basically, that she knew and witnessed on the affair love with the teenagers, and possibly Crawford’s motive in killing the baby. Thus, she’s central to this case. Whereas Andrews said that he has some reservation on Perkin’s request that she does not want to be involved in this case. She is a hesitant witness, and had requested a privacy as she is a prosecution witness because she can guarantee her request under the circumstances. Also, the DA’s office said that she’s emotionally fragile and would prefer that her name not be reported at all. Then Mangum replied, the she might be a hesitant witness, but she’s newsworthy because of her main connection to this case. They knew that Crawford trusted Perkins, thus, Perkins must be able to show some light to this case. On the other hand, Rivers the assignment editors agreed with Mangum, but he is also wondering whether it is fair to name the other witnesses names and not Perkins, because her name will be a matter in the public record. In addition, Andrew also said that Perkins was the only one who asked for anonymity. It is obvious that she wants to avoid the media spotlight as much as she can. Thus, she did not ask to become a public figure, because her name would become a matter of public record. Her colleagues probably know that she will testify or probably she won’t, but the general public won’t know unless they report her name. Is her identity essential to this story? What would happen if they only take her testify with guaranteeing her privacy?
All of them were argued whether they should report her name or not. And if their ethical judgments will affect their journalist work. But eventually, Smith’s decision concerning her desire for anonymity was the only one that mattered in this case. As we know from this case, the affected parties are Ronnie and his family, and Alison Perkins and her family.
Analysis:
The main question her is whether they should report Perkins’s name in the public record or not to be knows to the public figure when she gives her testify, because her colleagues and most of the people already knew her and her name well. And because she is the central witness in this case.
Pros of reporting the witness name: the first thing, as Rivers mentioned before, that whether it is fair to name the other witnesses and not Perkins, because as her name considered a matter of public record. Secondly, it is their duty to say or publish her name because she has to accept that in a high-profile murder case there is no place to hide.
Cons of reporting the witness name: first, she has requested for anonymity from the jury because she gets nervous in front of the camera, and the jury accepted her request. Secondly, when her name is published, she won’t be relieved anymore, because she gets caught up in events and becomes newsworthy through no fault of her own. Thirdly, she would have never be befriended to Crawford, she will be part of media circus for a while, and she and her family won’t be left alone.
Andrews said that, our ethical judgments should not be determined by what our competitors do. If that their standard, then they may admitted that their ethics are nothing more than a function of the market place. Then Smith decided that her stuff had nearly exhausted the ethical arguments concerning Perkins’s appeal for anonymity.
Decision:
Although the cons might defeated the pros of reporting the witness name. The decision is not reporting her name. According to ethical judgement, her name should not be known because she had asked for privacy and her privacy should be respected, and because she has emotionally fragile in front of the camera. Besides, they need her testify in the court against Crawford. And as Smith ended that her decision concerning her requested for privacy was the only one that mattered in this case.
LikeLike
Case 5-3
Situation definition:
This story is about 21 year old girl who was riding a bike in the park of rock creek, when later on she was raped and beaten by six black men, the senator blamed the police for showing no care, then the story was published in the newscasts for days, the suspects got arrested, as well as their names were reveled in the public media, the story was twisted then by a racial case. The African American leaders accused the white dominated news media of racism because they mentioned the offenders as blacks, some black minister accused the victim of a fake story and nothing happened with her but had a rough sex and only needed a justification for her pregnancy maybe. The managing editor Jacobi of afro American beacon, wanted to cover the story, the journalist Jacobi felt that the racial issue is just made to not let people focus too much on the real crime, at the same time Jacobi was not with publishing the names of offenders, as there is no value and justification for doing so, as it may have effects on them, and could harm their privacy. Jacobi was pressured by his constitution and some advertisers to publish the name of the victim, some black journalists blamed the establishment media of being with whites and not publishing the offender’s names, but publishing the blacks. The beacon does not publish the names of rape crimes, not Jacobi feared of not publishing the name of the victim, and intervene into her privacy.
Analysis:
When the story was first known by the senator, the network newscasts published it for several days, they released the names of the suspects and they got arrested. African American leaders accused “the white dominated news media” of flaming the racism by publishing the name of the offenders as black and not publishing the name of the victim, the managing editor Jacobi saw that it is not good to publish the name of the offenders, as it harms their privacy, or the name of the victim, but his constituency insisted on him to publish the name of the victim.
The struggle here is related with Jacobi, if he did not name the victim, then he is going to be accused of applying the journalistic standards of white media, as well as he would be accused of doing a racial action for the white community, and if the published the name, then he might face attacks on their privacy, and these two cases are the cons of publishing the name of the victim. The issue here is to find an ethical way in order to solve the problem without causing harm to the white or black community.
Decision:
In my opinion, the managing editor has to publish the name of the offenders, because they deserve for it is considered a sexual crime, but not publishing the name of the victims, because the privacy of the victim is the most important of all the cons and the public does not need to know the identities of all the parties. But in this case, the cons are bigger than the pros of the story, thus Jacobi does not have to publish the name of the victim, because that would harm her privacy, although in not naming the victim, he would face racial problems with the black community, but this is the better solution, in this way, Jacobi has to behave as a responsible person of the journalistic community at large.
LikeLike