Response to the following discussions:
1. Ethnics and Journalism
In "cooperating with the Government," the two prisoners held two officers hostage with prison-made weapons. The Government made a phone call to the state to inform them not give away specific data. The state agreed and held off on releasing the names and other essential evidence. There are many risks the state wanted to take because they tried to report everything. However, I do not consider this safe or reasonable. There are many ways ethics are challenged in this case, for example, for this particular situation if there are hostages, which are considered threatened lives, the state should listen to the Government and do not state any names or any other sources that is taking place at the prison. Therefore, the state should wait out the detrimental circumstance and do not publish the story as they considered. I think it is smart to close off the scene and block the reporters from receiving any information they can release. Furthermore, freedom of speech is challenging because the state wants to release information, but the Government told them to hold off on particular reports. The Government is protecting the prisoners, their families, and most importantly the guard's lives. The Government also worried that there would be foil negotiations towards the inmates. I believe this can make the inmates halt or make them more aggressive in the given situation. The state can attempt to negotiate, and their challenged speech can make the convicts feel more exposed, which the two of them will immediately make an unethical decision.
Reference:
Society of Professional Journalists. (2011). Ethics Case Studies: cooperating with the government.
2. Ethics and Journalism
Society of Professional Journalists
Ethics Case Studies - A Congressman's Past
The first amendment protects many different things, two of those things are our right to free speech, and it also protects the rights of the press. In this case study, "A Congressman's Past," both of these aspects to the first amendment come into play. To make a long story short, this case file talks about how a sitting congressman was accused of sexual assault some 28-years ago while in college, by an ex-girlfriend at the time. Their statements were taken yet the ex-girlfriend decided not to press charges when it happened, fast forward 28 years and the (Portland) Oregonian spent months trying to discover the truth about this persistent rumor. Neither the congressman, who would be seeking reelection, nor his ex-girlfriend and accuser wanted to bring it back up and discuss it since it was an incident that happened so far in the past, and even then, both parties chose to move on. The Oregonian decided to run the story anyway without concrete evidence or corroboration in which some of their readers did not approve and went as far as to end their subscription to the newspaper.
Just because you can does not mean you should, a phrase we have all heard and possibly have used a time or two in our lives. Yes, as a journalist it is our job to find the truth but not to create our own truth. If this were my story and I could not come up with concrete evidence, other than hearsay, then I would choose to move on from the story until the time came that one of the two parties wanted to voice their opinion and side of the story.
I believe that the journalist and the newspaper acted unethically here because they deliberately knew the repercussions that the story would bring and even though the evidence wasn't concrete, in the eyes of the public, the congressman could be seen as guilty by association. Rumors have a way of ruining someone's life whether it's a high school student or a sitting congressman.
3. Offensive Images
As journalists, freedom of speech is the most fundamental of our rights, and using that freedom is something that we do on a daily basis. Freedom of speech has been interpreted many ways, and what it protects has been defined many times over. Does it protect only words, or are images and videos protected as well? In the case of Europe's Islamic community getting upset of a cartoonist's depiction of Muhammad, that question was asked worldwide. Some governments said that the journalists had the freedom to use the images to enhance the story. Others however, disagreed and put a countrywide ban on all depictions of Muhammad, some going as far as threatening to jail or behead anyone who used such images. This subject drew the attention of more than just journalists worldwide, as the popular cartoon "South Park" dedicated an episode to the issue, going as far as using what some would feel were offensive depictions of Muhammad just to get a larger point across. The point being one of worldwide concern, should journalists and other professions have their freedoms protected even when they use their platform to challenge the status quo? Although rioting broke out due to the issue, it was a small percentage of the Islamic community, possibly showing that some societies don't find the same things as offensive as others, proving that political correctness has gone too far, and that governmental suppression of ideas and images will always be an issue.
Society of Professional Journalists: Ethics Case Studies - Offensive Images .