A colorful source in a feature story is quoted extensively using incorrect grammar and poor word choices. What are the ethical dilemmas involved in editing this story?
When editing this story it is important not to change too much. You want to keep the story true. That being said I think that you can change some of the poor word choices and still get the point across. Just don’t over due it. I think that as an editor you are ethical responsibility not to change too much of the grammar used by the source. If you change too much you could be taking away from the story.
In a lengthy article on teen-aged drinking and drug use, several students refuse to talk to the student reporter on the record unless they can be promised anonymity. What are the ethical concerns here and what should the reporter and editor do?
As the reporter and editor of this story it would be completely unethical for them to name any of their sources if they said they would not use them. If you tell someone that you are going to do one thing and you do another. That is not ethical. On the other hand, if you have unnamed sources throwing other students under the bus would that be considered ethical? I feel that this could go either way.
Chapter one of this book really got me thinking about ethics and morals. Just because something is ethically right that does not mean that it is morally right. Ethics and morals are two different things. ethics is the overall conciseness of all people. Morals on the other hand can vary from one individual to another. Some peoples morals can have a lot to do with their religion and the way they were raised. In the first chapter of a book there was a picture of young girls falling from a fire escape to their death. A picture like this can tell a story all by itself. It gives readers the chance to fully understand what happened. Without that photo being seen, I don’t think the reader could fully understand the significance of what happened.
When looking at the Kim Kardasian Super Bowl ad for Sketchers I would have to say that it definitely does not pass the TARES test. For one the add has absolutely no credibility at all. If anyone can watch this add and believe that a par of shoes will give you the body that Kim Kardasian has, they are nuts. In my own opinion this add is making the viewer look like an idiot. If anyone actually buys into these shoes, they need help. I have played football in college and have worked out a lot in my time. I understand that it takes a lot of hard work to make a noticeable amount of changes to your body. The fact that they are saying that all you have to do is wear these shoes to get a body like Kim is absurd. That being said this add is obviously aimed towards woman and they need to understand that this is a gimmick.
When looking at the three Moral Development models, all of them are different but also very similar. The first person I would like to focus on is Jean Piaget. Piaget believed that there were four stages of development. The first stage is the sensorimotor stage. This stage takes place from birth to two years of age. During this stage children learn things through their senses. The second stage is the preoperational stage. This stage takes place from age 2-7. During this stage children do not use logical thinking. His third stage is called the concrete operational stage and takes place from age 7-11. During this stage this stage children begin to think logically and accept rules but don’t really understand what the rules mean. The last of Piaget’s stages is the operational stage. During this stage children can think logically in their mind. The second person I would like to take a look at is Lawrence Kohlberg. He believes there are six stages of development with three levels, two stages in each. The three levels are: Pre-Conventional, Conventional, and Post-Conventional. The six stages are: 1. Obedience and punishment orientation, 2. Self-interest orientation, 3. Interpersonal accord and conformity, 4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation, 5. Social contract orientation, 6. Universal ethical principles. The third person I would like to take a look at is Carol Gilligan. Gilligan she found that all of these theories cannot simply be based on age and that gender has to play a part. She found that boys are more mature than girls.
The photo that I had to read about was the one where the young mother gave birth to a pre-mature baby in her dorm room and then put the dead baby in a dumbster. When police found the baby wrapped in bloody towels and inside of a garbage bag, they layed it outside of the jumpter and continued to search the scene. When a reporter for an independent school paper took a picture of police searching the scene, a picture of the dead baby laying on the ground was in plain sight. When asked the question of whether or not this photo should have been published, I strongly feel that it should not have been. I think the baby could have been edited out of the picture to where you could only see the police searching through the dumpster. Anyone who reads the paper can understand what happend simply by reading, they do not need to see a picture. I think that if it was a grown dead person laying there things might be different. The fact that it is a baby is just horrible and should definitely not have been displayed. Also, by showing a picture of the dead baby it makes it look like the mother killed her child when that might not necessarily have been the case. So, the photo should not have been published.
When looking at the first question of whether or not the paper should have accepted the announcement, there are a few points that must be looked at. The first thing that must be considered is that the paper is privately owned. The owners of the paper can put whatever they want in it. On the flip side, the paper’s job is to report the news. If two woman decide to announce that they have chosen to be life parters and want people to know about it, then so be it. So, I feel that it should have been allowed. The second question was whether or not the paper should publish announcements that have no legal status. In this case I feel that it should be published if the couple want it to be. The two woman wanting to spend there lives together is not harming anyone. If a straight couple gets to have there partnership announced then I feel the lesbian couple should too. Its not hurting anything or anyone. The last question dealth with the paper and religious beliefs. When dealing with this issue I feel that the paper should not follow guidlines of religious beliefs. The job of the paper is to tell the news. The news and religion are two seperate things.
This movie goes against everything that journalism stands for. When Miss McCaw purchased the news paper it seemed that her motive was simply to have a hobby. She immediately gave all of the writers working for her a list of people she liked, and people that she didn’t like. When you are the publisher of a news paper your job is to tell the news, not your opinion. It seems that if she wanted to get her opinions out there for the public to read, she should have started a magazine. It was a shame that nothing was done about the situation sooner.
As Chris Hanson I have seen a lot of crazy things over the past few years as the host of “To Catch a Predator”. When it comes to the internet people need to realize that anything they say or do can be for anyone to see. That being said people should not expect a high level of privacy when it comes to things they do on the internet. People need to realize that this show is basically investigative journalism. Thing is, it is broadcasted on television for the world to see. By us working in conjuntion with law enforcemnet we are able to accomplish so much more than we would otherwise. In my eyes our show is simply need to know information. Anytime you have children, sometimes as young as 13 years old having sexually explicit converstations with grown men on the internet something must be done. I have young childeren myself and if they were having some of the conversations that some of these men were having with them it would be something that I would need to know. I feel that people are drawn to our program because of some of the outrageous things that take place. Anytime you see a 50 year old man trying to have sex with a 13 year old boy, people are going to tune in. I also know that there are a ton of people who tune in so they can see what to look out for and the type of people the exist in this crazy world. There are a lot of good things that can come from our program. Our program helps people understand that everything in life is not peachy. There are bad people in the world that everyone should be aware of. The only harm of our program and others like it is what it has the potential of doing to the predator’s families. Not only are the predators effect, but so are their families. This could really ruin peoples lives. The most important thing is that these childern are protected against these sick individuals.
I want to begin by saying sorry. I am sorry that anyone would have to go through what this little girl and several other African American people have had to go through. Its just horrible that an inocent child would have to go through such pain. When asked if Benjamin Fine did the right thing by trying to help Elizabeth Eckford I would say yes. I believe that he did do the right thing. Even though Fine is a reporter he is still a person. When something like this is happening I feel that it is a must to put your work aside and do what anyone would do in that situation. You must do what is morally right. I would say that there are a few things that a dangerous about a journalist becoming a part of the story he is she is reporting on. For one there is some physical danger. The people in the mob could see that he was trying to help the girl and physically hurt him. He is also in danger of hurting his reputation as a reporter. When people see that he is taking a side they may question his validity as a reporter. I feel that when David Halberstam said that Fine had, lost “his cool” he was simply saying that as a reporter you must stay nuetral. I believe that Fine would agree to an extent and from a professional standpoint but not as a person. there comes a time when you must put work aside and do what is morally right. This is what Fine was doing. I believe that the “Times” did do the right thing by replacing Fine with another reporter because he was so emotionally invested in the story.
When trying to decide what is ethical and what is not concerning the story of the Pimp, the Prostitute, and the Preacher there are a lot of factors that need to be considered. The Potter Box, a tool used for helping people make ethical decisions, can be used in this situation. When looking at the sitution here you must look at the facts first. You have a Preacher who was paying a prostitute for sex. The Prostitutes were under age as well. The prostitute’s pimp was then arrested and the Preacher’s name was then listed as one of the clients. When the Preacher realized that he was on this list he asked that the media not list his name in the paper. He did not want his name listed because he had a family and a town that would no longer be behind him. If it was me covering this story I would list the Preacher’s name in the story. I would list his name because I feel it is the right thing to do. I believe in being honest and doing what is right. If this was my Preacher I would want to know if he was involved in something like this. I also feel that the public should know because of what this man does for a living. He is not just a regular Joe, he is a Preacher. For example if a college football player at the University of Missouri gets arrested for drunk driving, the media is going to expose them. On the other hand if it is just a regular student at the Universtiy of Missouri who gets arrested for drunk driving nobody would care. I also have to think about what I am loyal too. I believe in the law and am loyal to it. The preacher broke the law. So, as you already know. I believe that the Preacher’s name should be listed in the story.