Central Park Assault Victim: We Know Everything But Who She Is

ž What Happened?

¡  Woman’s head savagely banged against the concrete in Central park in broad daylight. Skull fractured in multiple places and assailant left her for dead.

¡  Entered a coma for weeks before she began to recover. Was believed to have been sexually assaulted.

¡  New York Times ran a story about her condition the third day she was hospitalized about how the staff cared for her but they did not know her name. No wallet found.

¡  Eventually she was identified, but news organizations did not release her name because the police thought she was sexually assaulted.

¡  Viewers and readers followed the unfolding of the entire story and learned all there was to know about the woman – except her name. They learned that she was Armenian, was a passionate writer and pianist. Soon, relatives discovered her and came to visit while she was in the coma.

ž Ethical Dilemma

¡  News organizations report all victims of crime except victims of sexual assault.

¡  This is because society continues to stigmatize victims by blaming them for the attack.

¡  Releasing the name will prevent people from coming forward about attacks they have survived, allowing assailants to roam freely.

ž Stakeholders/Loyalties

¡  Victim of assault (stakeholder)

¡  Her family (stakeholder)

¡  Reader interest (loyalty)

¡  My paper (loyalty)

¡  The public (loyalty)

Theories To Consider

ž Kant’s Categorical Imperative

¡  Kant would treat all cases equally and describe them fully. He would not leave out information because it is unfair to do so. The journalist is not responsible for the outcome, only for bringing it to the public’s attention. Rape is a serious offense and it should not be sheltered.

ž Rawls’s Veil of Ignorance

¡  The alleged victim of rape is an equal member of society and the society of victims of criminal activities. If everyone else’s legal troubles are published with their names, so should the victim of rape’s.

Final Decision

ž Publish the name

¡  Withholding the names of victims of rape furthers the idea that they are partially at fault and that rape is not equivalent to any other violent crime. Traditionally, newspapers have withheld names to “protect the victim” creating a double standard in which the suspect is identified, but not the victim. In any other case, both the alleged victim and accuser would be identified because it is not certain whether either of them is telling the truth, and trials are public record. By refusing to name victims the media is validating the myth that rape is not a serious offense, although victims of other assaults experience the same repercussions as rape victims. This is discrimination and allows misogynistic treatment of women to continue. It must be stopped.

 

 

When the Law Asks for Help: What Is an Independent Journalist to Do?

Background of case:

This case focuses on Lisa A. Abraham. Abraham was a reporter for the Warren Tribune-Chronicle, which is located in Ohio. She was reporting on a scandal involving James Fiorenzo. Fiorenzo was the county engineer who was being investigated on the amount of money he spent on remodeling his office. The law states that any amount over $10,000 had to be put out for bids, and Fiorenzo spent $25,183 on the renovations.

The first time Abraham interviewed him, Fiorenzo stated he hired three different contractors, who had all done less than $9,000 worth of work (Knowlton and Reader, 114). With no job doing more than $10,000 worth of work, the law was not broken, so there seemed to be no issue. After skepticism and public scrutiny, investigators found that there was actually only one contractor. This contractor had his friends submit fake paperwork to make it look as though he was doing work for under $10,000. Fiorenzo then changed his story. He tried to act ignorant about the situation, and blamed the contractor for being a crook. According to Knowlton in “Moral Reasoning for Journalists, Abraham then wrote a news analysis pointing out the inconsistencies between the first interview she had with Fiorenzo and his new defense (Knowlton and Reader, 115).

 

Abraham goes to jail:

Due to the amount of inconsistencies in Fiorenzo’s story, prosecutor Jonathon Rosenbaum stepped into the case. Rosenbaum and the sheriff’s office asked Abraham to help them with the case by discussing her stories and their preparation with detectives (Knowlton and Reader, 115). Abraham stated, “It’s not my job to go out and catch criminals.” After continual refusal, she was called to testify in front of the grand jury, where all proceedings are kept secret. Abraham refused to discuss the case while in the grand jury room and was taken to jail. After Abraham was released from jail, she was called to testify again in an open courtroom.

Empirical Definition:

For this new open court room trial, Abraham had to decide whether or not she should testify?  Should she maintain her independence from law enforcement as a journalist? Should journalist only be watchdogs for society?

Stakeholders and Values:

• Be faithful to the readers
• Respect the law: the state of Ohio says that by law, the citizens can be required to give evidence.
• Think about how the police sources help you and if testifying would benefit your source relationships with them
• Yourself: Think about your role as a journalist
• What is best for your newspaper (Warren Tribune-Chronicle)

Ethical Principles:

1. 1. Kant’s Deontological Ethics: Kant states the truth is always right. Kant WOULD testify. He would say if Rosenbaum and the sheriff’s wanted information, it would be the reporter’s responsibility to tell them the truth.
2. 2. John Stuart Mill’s Principle of Utility: Mill’s wants to consider what will produce the best results for the greatest number of people.           

–       Testify: It would benefit your source relationships with police, and could prevent you from going to jail.

–       Not to testify: Would keep the reader’s trust, uphold journalist’s principles, wouldn’t deceive society, and would not go against your beliefs (Abraham did not want to testify).

The amount of people who would benefit from not testifying outweighs those who would benefit from testifying.

1. 3. Aristotle’s Golden Mean: Making your decision based on moderation.

–       Janet Roger’s case in the chapter uses the Golden Mean. Rogers was in the same situation as Abraham. She was reporting on the Fiorenzo case and asked to testify in front of the grand jury. Rogers knew she was not above the law but did not believe in the secrecy of the grand jury. She threatened to do a story on what goes on behind closed doors of the grand jury room. She still testified (obeying the law) but she was allowed to do so in an open court room.

Loyalties:

–       Your newspaper: The Warren Tribune-Chronicle

–       The readers

–       Society: Helping to uphold a free society

–       Yourself as a journalist

Decision:

I came to the conclusion that I would go along with Aristotle’s Golden Mean just as Janet Rogers did. I believe in following the law, but I also believe that journalists are only watchdogs.

 

Do you think that journalists should help law enforcement, or keep their role as only watchdogs?

 

Fairness and Balance- The Graffiti Artists: Turn ‘Em In, Get the Story, or Both?

Description of Case/Background:

In Steven Knowlton’s 2^nd edition of “Moral Reasoning for Journalists,” Chapter 28 revolves around a case that details a story of a 19 year-old teenager whose Harvard University admission has been rescinded due to a rehashing of her troubled past. In 1995, the Boston Globe published a story about teenagers overcoming adversity. The article included a story about Gina Grant and presented her story about being an orphan who had beat the odds and achieved many academic and athletic achievements as well as receiving early admission to Harvard. However, after the story was published, newspaper clippings and photos of Grant were dropped off at her high school, various newspapers around Boston, and even at Harvard. The stories in these clippings were nearly five years old and recounted stories of Grant and how she brutally murdered her alcoholic mother as a teenager. This resurfacing of Grant’s troubled past led to a great deal of unwanted media coverage about the story as well as Harvard rescinding her admission due to “false information” that Grant had allegedly providing in her application.

Ethical Dilemma:

Knowlton raises several ethical dilemmas concerning Grant’s case. Primarily, should the newspaper that had originally covered Grant’s case five years ago have used Grant’s name in their article? In addition, should the newspapers in Boston who got wind of the incident nearly five years later, after Grant had paid her debt to society and had become a very different person, republish that information? Knowlton also points out the issue that although the Boston Globe did not include errors or misprints in their first article, they face the dilemma of whether or not they should follow-up on the story that did not include Grant’s past. Additionally, the dilemma of Grant’s status as a minor when she committed the violent act, and the subsequent sealing of her records, questions the validity of the journalists decision to rehash a part of Grant’s life that has been legally sealed.

Stakeholders

The primary and perhaps most important stakeholder in this situation is Gina Grant herself. In addition, the editors and writers of both the South Carolina and Boston newspapers as well as their audiences are participants in this case. Grant’s high school and Harvard also play a role.

Potter’s Box/Ethical Analysis:

John Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance:

According to John Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance ethical theory, to achieve fairness one must look at the case and remove any social distinctions and then make a decision. Rawls advocates taking the “original position” where roles and social differentiations are removed to allow the researcher to make a decision based on objectivity. In this case, we would remove the idea of Grant being a “minor” while at the same time also removing her role as a “childhood criminal.” Looking at Grant’s case from this objective point of view allows us to see that Grant is a good student with amazing credentials who is deserving of her early admission to Harvard. Removing her social distinction as a criminal and the label that it gives her allows one to see that she is no longer that person she used to be and is instead an upstanding member of society.

Kant’s Deontology

In Kant’s deontological approach, Kant stresses the absoluteness and universality of laws and rules. In deontology, actions are either always right or always wrong. Therefore, in this ethical approach, journalists are not responsible for the consequences of their actions but rather the truth. In this case, the journalists of both the Boston newspapers as well as the South Carolina papers are responsible for printing the story with Gina Grant’s name and potentially ruining her future. Kant would justify this in saying that lying or omitting the truth is always wrong and must be avoiding in order to be ethical.

Aristotle’s Golden Mean

In Aristotle’s Golden Mean, Aristotle stresses on the idea of moderation and temperance. Aristotle believes that an ethical decision can be reached when one determines the extremities of the case and makes a decision that is in the middle of both sides. In this case, one extreme would be publishing the story and disclosing all of Grant’s information, including her name and the details of her troubled past. The other extreme would be to not publish her story at all. A good medium would perhaps be to allow the papers to publish her story but remove her name and any affiliation to Grant.

Decision:

Incorporating Rawls Veil of Ignorance, Kant’s deontological approach, and Aristotle’s Golden Mean, I would make the decision to publish Grant’s story but not to publish her name or any information that would lead to incriminating Grant. Grant was a minor at the time of her violent act and was suffering a great deal under the care of her alcoholic mother. Five years later, Grant has shown that she is a completely different person and has grown to be a very exceptional individual. The fact that an article published by the Boston Globe highlighting her achievements happened to bring up her past was a coincidence that ultimately interfered with Grant’s promising future. For informational purposes, I would publish Grant’s amazing story but not publish her name and thereby ruining her future. Publishing Grant’s name only would still entertain the audience by showing a young child overcoming adversities but it would remove any chance to ruin Grant’s changed and extraordinary future.

 

Connie Chung: Did She Sandbag the New Speakers Mom

Description

Connie Chung, a worker for CBS, interviewed the Newt Gingrich’s, the new Speaker of the House of Representatives, mother and father-in-law on her show Eye to Eye with Connie Chung. As the interview went on she asked them both what the Speaker thought of the active President Bill Clinton. They both said that he had said nothing about the president, but Newt’s mother did say that he had said something about First Lady Hilary Clinton. When Connie asked the mother what her son had said though she responded that she couldn’t say out loud. Being a cunning reporter, Connie told Newt’s mother to whisper what she couldn’t say out loud to her, “for it to be just between the two of them.” Newts mother ended up telling Connie in a whisper that Newt though the first lady was a “Bitch.” CBS ended up running the program with that in there as well as making it the trailer to promote the program,

The Dilemma

Should CBS have run the program as is or was running what Newt’s mother said unethical?

Stakeholders

• Connie Chung- her reputation as an ethical reporter
• Newt’s Mother- being ambushed on National TV
• Newt Gingrich- his words could be used against him
• Hilary Clinton/Bill Clinton- words were said about her
• CBS- have authority to release or not to release the story

 

Theories Applied

• Mill’s Principle of Utility- greatest good would be not to report Newt’s mother said because it personal preference and could cause problems between the White House and House of Representatives
• Judeo-Christian Tradition- love thy neighbor, if someone told you that a conversation would be just between the two of you and she released it still to the public it would hurt you.

 

Decision

When looking at the story I would have kept what Newt’s mother said out of the interview. Connie is a trained journalist and is well practiced at getting people to tell her stuff. Newt’s mom is just a private figure and is vulnerable to journalistic tricks. Although the comment was made while cameras were rolling doesn’t mean it is fair game. Connie had told her in confidence that it was just between the two of them and just to whisper it to her. By using the quote still you are breaking the trust, which is unethical. This also causes way more bad than good. We want the White House and the Speaker of the House to get along. This could only cause bad things to the relationship and hurt are country in the long run. For these reasons I would not have aired that part of the interview.

 

Deception Case 1

Terms to think about before reviewing the case:

• Passive deception – reporters using this approach simply do not identify themselves as reporters; they let others assume they are just members of the public; similar to a lie of omission because it’s not an outright lie, but it also avoids telling the complete truth
• Active deception – reporters using this approach deliberately pose as someone other than a reporter; they purposely use deceitful tactics to acquire quotes or facts they may not otherwise be given

 

The case: Nuclear Terrorists on Campus

• I’m surprise to learn that a large state university in my area has a nuclear reactor, and I’m wondering how hard it would be for a gang of terrorists to get access to the reactor and steal enough nuclear material to make a harmful device.
• As a journalist, my first thought is to grab my camera, call for a tour and see if I can document just how easy it’d be for terrorists to get into the facility and learn enough to be able to compromise its security; however, I find out that the university offers tours of its reactor facility only to current students.
• I figure I can Google ‘nuclear reactor’ and learn enough to actively deceive the guard and weasel my way into the facility to gather more information.

 

Ethical analysis of the case using Potter’s Box:

• My problem: I’m wondering if those with bad intentions would be able to easily access this reactor and steal enough materials to make weapons and cause harm to a mass number of people, so should I use active deception to further investigate?
• My loyalties: As a journalist, they lie first with myself and my paper, but they also lie with the public and their right to know if whether or not this nuclear reactor is sufficiently protected or not.
• My values: Is this story important enough for me to lie to others and investigate on my own? Or should I take the university’s word that the site is adequately guarded?
• My ethical viewpoints: I examine utilitarianism and communitarian ethics.

 

John Stuart Mill’s Principle of Utilitarianism

• I must evaluate the consequences of all options I have and choose the one that maximizes value or minimizes loss.
• Let’s say I choose to sneak into the facility and find a lot of alarming things that pose a threat to the security of the site; I would write a story and hope the university takes my accusations seriously enough to look into and fix the situation. This could potentially prevent a lot of harm to a lot of people.
• Let’s say I choose not to investigate and write a story. If I don’t give it a second thought and down the road someone gets into the facility with intentions of causing danger, I would regret not listening to my instincts.

 

Communitarian Ethics

• I must find a balance between individual freedom and the greater social order and base my decision on shared values.
• Community values are basis of my moral compass

 

My decision

• Based on those two theories, yes, I would use active deception to find out if whether or not the nuclear reactor site is secure enough to prevent terrorists from entering – but this is after I’ve already exhausted all other resources to find adequate information.
• My loyalty to the community and to the well-being of the greatest number of people is important enough for me to sneak in and uncover the truth behind how secure the site really is.

 

 

Anonymity in Feedback from the Public: How Open Should Forums Be?

Overview

This study focuses on the relationship between advertisers and the news media. It is not a myth that newspapers and broadcast stations receive most of their income from advertising revenue. As a result, many believe that advertisers can “buy” positive coverage of a story and therefore corrupt honest journalism with the power of money. While this is clearly a valid concern, the following case study shows that this may not always occur.

Summary of Case

In January of 1995, the New York Times wrote a front-page article discussing long-distance telephone services. The article essentially analyzed the big three telephone companies (AT&T, Sprint, and MCI) to see if the companies’ claims about cheaper long-distance phone calls was indeed truthful. The paper even went so far as to hire an outside consulting firm to examine the claims. The conclusion of the article was that AT&T was “almost certainly more expensive for most customers.” The article also found that the two other companies did not fare much better. The writer noted that, “if you are one of the tens of millions of people whose long-distance bills are typically less than $10 per month”, the smaller-cut carriers are clearly less expensive.

Now here is the point of explaining that article: AT&T, along with the other two companies, were huge advertisers in the New York Times. Considering this, one would think that the Times might be hesitant to publish an article that negatively exposes one of their chief advertisers. AT&T is, after all, a huge source of income for the paper. However, the Times did not hold back any of their ammo and published the article unfiltered. There are several issues at stake here though: Was it right for the paper to publish the story, knowing the negative impact it might have on the paper’s relationship with AT&T? Also, where do the NY Times loyalties ultimately lay? Is it with the advertisers who support their company or with the general public? In this instance, the Times sided with the public.

Knowlton makes an interesting point in the article. He believes that AT&T advertises in the Times not because they like the paper, but rather because the company feels that advertising in the paper is the most “cost-effective” way to promote the company and sell products.  In the long run, Knowlton points out, “ the advertiser needs the papers or stations as much as the news outlet needs the advertiser.”

Ethical Theories

One of the theories that we have gone over in our Media Ethics class is the “social responsibility of a free press”. The key components of this theory are that journalists must be truthful and accountable. This theory would show that the Times made the correct decision in being truthful about the big long-distance telephone companies being more expensive to most people.

Another theory to look at is Kant’s Categorical Imperative. The main point of the theory is that journalists are solely responsible for telling the truth, and not for the results that those truths might reveal. Similar to the social responsibility theory, this would point to the Times being correct in their decision to publish the article about the big three phone companies.

Conclusion

This case can be seen as an example of how journalists are not affected by the advertisers who support them. Unfortunately, just as many examples can probably show the opposite effect. Regardless, the Times made the morally correct decision in this case. My loyalties, along with Knowlton’s, are with the readers of the paper and what is good for society as a whole. I am for truthfulness and accountability from the free press. The New York Times has a rich reputation in America and the paper lived up to their record in this instance. While I am sure the paper has made some ethically inappropriate decisions in the past, this was not one of them.

I, along with Knowlton, agree with the New York Times decision.

Questions to consider:

What kind of influence do advertisers have on the media in Ukraine?

Does the government sponsor or financially support any of the Ukrainian media?

How would this case have been handled in a Ukraine newspaper? Any differently than in the states?

 

Secret Sources Case 3: Copyright Violators (part 1)

Description

A local university decides to shut down school computer labs and require students to purchase laptop computers. Most of the laptops are made with only basic software into their system.  Therefore students must purchase the more expensive software. The software the school requires for the their work is designed so that it can only be copied once. However, two computer science students figured out how to make copies. They burn copies of the software on CDs and pass them out to students for free. Through a friend I find out the names of the students, and I want to do an interview with them. The students do not want me to post their names or pictures if I do the story.

The Dilemma

Should I post the names and/or pictures of the students when running the article?

Stakeholders and Values

• The reporter (me): value providing a full comprehensive story for the public
• The university: value legal activity among students and honesty
• The computer students: value their reputation and dignity
• The student’s families: value the their kids and want to keep them from facing punishment and fines
• The student body: value the continual flow of free software

 

Loyalties

• Public
• University
• Fellow students
• Parents

Theories Applied

• Kant’s Categorical Imperative- run the story with pictures and names
• Mill’s Principle of Utility- run story without names and pictures
• Judeo-Christian Tradition- run story without names and pictures

 

Decision

Run the article and include the names and/or pictures of the students.  Although, I would feel bad, I have to make the most ethical choice.  If I run their names, the students will be subject to punishment by law, but they were fully aware of their actions when they decided to commit the act. Once the article is published, it will undoubtedly get plenty of notice, and there is a chance that someone in law enforcement will see it.  If the names weren’t posted in the article, there is a good chance the police would find me and question me.  Lying or withholding information would be unethical. Journalism is meant to provide information that individuals can use to benefit themselves and society. By posting the names I would hope that the students actions served as a lesson and reaffirmed to the public that copyright violation is a serious offense.

 

Working With Sources

Description of Case:

 

Caroline Lowe was a police beat reporter for WCCO-TV in Minneapolis, Minnesota. After returning from vacation, she called her sources in the department looking for a tip for a good story. An officer informed her of an area of town called Hennepin Ave. where debauchery was known to occur. Lowe decided to look into it and took along photojournalist Nancy Soo Hoo who placed a camera in the area to investigate. They soon found out that their source was right and crime was rampant. However, instead of doing a report to bring awareness to the crime in the area, she wanted to know where the police where the police were that are to patrol the area.

By investigating this angle, she soon discovered officers were not upholding the law and instead were found elsewhere sleeping in movie theaters, hanging out in strip joints, and working other off-duty jobs while still on duty. Lowe wanted to bring this to the public’s attention but first realized she faced a personal dilemma as the police beat reporter.

 

Ethical Dilemma:

Should she report the story and risk losing her contacts in the department or choose not to investigate further?

 

Loyalties:

The decision was increasingly difficult as Lowe remembered how in the past, the police had provided her with an advantage over the competition by having exclusives on stories, including a major story about drunken pilots on a Northwest Airlines flight. Lowe had spent 15 years developing sources and had worked hard to earn trust and loyalties at the police department. She knew that if she pursued the story she would threaten some of these relationships. However, as a journalist she also had a responsibility to inform the public especially when their safety was a concern.

 

Ethical Toolbox:

Communitarian Ethics– States responsibilities lie with the values shaped by the community. Individual rights and decisions are influenced by these shared values. By applying this theory, Lowe would reason that even through her individual interests may be harmed it is her responsibility to the community to inform them that the police were not doing their jobs. The safety of the community was at stake and if the police, who were hired to serve the community, were not doing their jobs then the public has the right to know.

Social Responsibility– The press has responsibility to uphold this theory. They have obligations to the public to provide a truthful account of the day’s events by responsibly stating goals of the society and providing full access to the day’s intelligence. If Lowe were to utilize this theory, she would also come to the same conclusion to run the story. As she works in the news media industry dubbed “the fourth estate” she is to serve as a watchdog not only for the public but those who serve the public as well.

Judeo-Christian Tradition– To love thy neighbor as thy self. All moral decisions are based on respect. The notion of agape means to love someone is to accept them for who they are. Theory states not to expose information about others that portrays them in a negative light. If you were in the same situation, you wouldn’t want this information published about you. Using this theory, Lowe would not publish the story. The work she has put in to earning the police department’s trust is too great to risk losing. As a result, she is to be loyal to the department and not risk the jobs of these police officers. If she were to put herself in their shoes she wouldn’t want to have this information leaked to the public either.

 

Decision:

Faced with the same ethical dilemma, I would have arrived at the same conclusion Lowe did. By following the social responsibility theory, a journalist’s ultimate responsibility is with the public. The article states that there were assaults happening right near where the police were supposed to be patrolling. As the safety of the public becomes a factor, the decision between my personal sources and the public interest becomes an easier one to make. The police are hired to serve and protect the public, who are the one’s responsible for paying for these very services. As the blue wall of silence is prevalent in close knit fields such as the police department, it is possible that without uncovering these officers’ misconduct while on the job, the story may never have surfaced and corrective measures may not have been taken. Therefore, as a responsible, ethical journalist I would see it through and report the story regardless of what damage occurs to my own professional interests.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Avoid Deception- The Exploding Truck: If It Doesn’t Have Pictures, It’s Not Good TV

In the late 80s to the early 90s, more than three hundred people were killed in pickup-truck fires. General Motors faced lawsuits because of the pickup trucks they built between 1973 and 87 had a design flaw that prone them to burst into flames when hit from the side in an accident. The allegations were focused on the trucks two gas tanks, which were placed outside the truck’s frame, making them vulnerable to rupture.

NBC’s Dateline broadcast a fifteen minute segment called, waiting to explode, on the case against GM. NBC tried to expose GM for still making the pickup trucks knowing that the trucks had a fatal flaw.

They also included in the last fifty-five segments a demonstration of what would happen if a vehicle hit the GM pickup truck in the side.

To ensure that an explosion would happen once the gas tanks were hit they, Robert Read, the producer of the segment placed igniters under the fuel tank on the side assigned to be hit.

NBC got what it wanted in the demonstration with the gas tank exploding into flames upon impact.

GM wanted to sue NBC because they made up part of the story. GM felt that NBC was deceiving the public into thinking their trucks were dangerous.

VIDEO OF DEMONSTRATION

http://history.gmheritagecenter.com/wiki/index.php/GM_vs._NBC,_a_New_Wave_of_Employee_Pride

POTTER’S BOX

Problem: NBC’s demonstration

Values: families involved in the lawsuit against GM, auto safety experts, as well as current and former GM employee’s

Theories: John Stuart Mill’s Principle of Utility and Judeo-Christian.

Loyalties: NBC is loyal to the people purchasing these vehicles and GM.

Decision: run the demonstration.

What would I do? I wouldn’t run the demonstration. I would of put together the story with all the facts and interviews from victims affected by the trucks.

Deception Case Study: Flowers in the nursing home

Description

On her 70^th Birthday a prominent business woman and former member of city council announces to her family that she is getting married. However, she is engaged to a 25 years old car salesman that works at one of her used car lots. Her daughters are not happy with this decision and the woman refuses to get a prenuptial agreement. Without a prenuptial agreement, the woman’s fortune will be inherited by the husband upon death. Two days before the wedding, the woman is admitted into a hospital and is transferred to an elderly facility thereafter. While at the facility, the woman’s daughters will not allow her fiancé to visit. A reporter wants to cover this story but knows that he will be asked to leave if he tells the receptionist that he is a reporter. He then decides to go to the nursing home with a bouquet of flowers and simply ask for the room number of the elderly woman. The receptionist gives the reporter the room number without asking any questions and when the reporter goes to the room he reveals his identity and directly asks to interview the woman.  Is it ethical to conduct the interview? Should the material then be used in the story?

Stakeholders	Loyalties
The reporter	Public, His station/the News Editor
Elderly Woman	Fiancé, businesses, her personal life
Daughters	Their personal life, family
Fiancé	His personal life, family
Public

 

Ethical Toolbox

Aristotle’s Golden Mean:

Since the reporter revealed his identity and then asked for the interview, he would conduct the interview and then use the information to cover the story. He would use the information in a way that would truthfully represent all parties associated with the issue. If possible the reporter should try to also interview people in the community that know these individuals and could provide background in order to keep from reporting one side of the story.

Social responsibility of a free press:

Since the goal of the media is to provide a comprehensive and truthful account of the day’s events, according to this theory the reporter would definitely conduct the interview. Also, since this issue deals with a prominent person in society it is even more important for the media to cover this story.

Decision

Go ahead and conduct the interview and also use the interview when composing the story. Since the reporter revealed his identity and intentions to the woman before conducting the interview, I do not view this as a deceptive practice or wrong doing. According to Smith in “Ethics in Journalism” this should only be one part of the investigation and it is important to conduct broad research before releasing a story. In order to do so, the reporter should try to get information and possibly interviews from the daughters and fiancé, as well, in order to understand their motives and relationship with the woman.