There are several ethical concerns to keep in mind in this scenario. The most glaring is the need for the journalist to keep the story fair and unbiased.  At this point, the accused man’s point of view is not represented in any way.  Since charges have been filed formally, he can be named in the story, but he, his family, and/or his lawyer should be interviewed to give their views of the events that transpired.  The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics emphasizes the importance of doing this, by urging one to “diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.”

It is also important that the reporter and editor “show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage.”  If a child was harmed or a sex crime was committed, this means handling the victim’s identity with caution.  Even though it seems obvious there is a “good side” and a “bad side” to this story, it cannot be conveyed as such.  The reporter must remain neutral, and the editor should use discretion when determining which sound bites, photos, and video to use in the finished product.

…

“A reporter for your newspaper conducted a lengthy interview with a teacher for a news article using a tape recorder and did not take notes.  After the interview, the student realized that the tape recorder did not work and that the quotes he needed were not recorded.  The student thinks he remembers the exact wording that the teacher used regarding the important questions he asked.  Should he go with his memory?  What are the ethical issues involved here? What should the student do?  What If the source was a member of the community outside of the school and not likely to read the article in the school newspaper?”

Without any doubt, I believe the student should immediately call the teacher back or write him an email, explaining the situation to him and asking him to please repeat what he said before, either over the phone or in a written response (even easier because it could not be forgotten again).  Since the student now knows which questions were answered with the best information, he can skip to them and avoid the surface-level fluff.  If his memory is as good as he claims, the student could remind the teacher of what he said at the time.  There is no way he could ever remember the “exact” words, so that excuse will not fly.

If time is an issue, there’s no reason why he could not paraphrase the teacher’s words, just so long as he does not write them as a direct quote.  It does not matter whether the source reads the article or not, for if someone else reads the paper who knows him, word of his quotes could still reach him indirectly.  The SOJ Code of Ethics addresses this case, saying, “Make certain that…soundbites and quotations do not misrepresent.”  Also, “avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information.”  Those words seem a bit harsh to describe this relatively minor example, but getting away with close approximations of quotes rather than the quotes themselves is still sneaky, not to mention lazy, when there are several other courses of action still available.

The first model is Piaget’s Stages of Cognitive Development.  In the 1930’s the Swedish theorist Jean Piaget studied little boys playing marbles.  Fear not, it’s not as creepy as it sounds.  From this research, he deduced four different stages of mental change that happen in children.  Essentially their focus shifts from “selfish” egocentricity to abstract, others-centered awareness.  This all happens between the age span of birth to about age 11.  Along the way, they discover responsibility, internalize rules, and emphasize the importance of justice.

The second model is the Six Moral Stages of Kohlberg.  American Harvard psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg interviewed college students in the 1960s and determined that people fall into one of six categories.  Most people start out fearing punishment and desiring reward (some may keep this basic mindset their entire lives).  As people get older, their motives shift to gaining approval.  They are indebted to a sense of duty and also feel guilt.  Post-conventional reasoning, the rarely reached ideal, emphasizes following one’s beliefs despite the influence of outside cultural forces and the risks they may pose.

Finally, the third model is Gilligan’s Stages of the Ethics of Care.  People claimed Kohlberg’s model was sexist because men consistently scored higher when undergoing his examinations.  Leave it to Carol Gilligan to create these gender-friendly stages in 1982.  Age is not a factor, and community determines a person’s level more than reactions to individual conflicts.  Pre-conventional people are fully concerned with themselves and their own survival.  Once they feel responsibility for others, conventional people recognize the importance of self-sacrifice.  If they devote their efforts to the pursuit of truth rather than simple goodness, post-conventional reasoning definitely prevails.

The photo brought with it a lot of controversy.  The victim’s family filed a lawsuit and believed its publication was an invasion of privacy.  A fellow union worker noted that the man’s face was shown in the shot, uncovered and easily identifiable.  Over 580 people contacted the paper about the photo, with most complaining about it.  For all the criticism it generated, the Courier-Journal defended the photo by saying it emphasized the “full consequences of gun violence” and the “reality of what assault weapons are capable of.”

If I had to decide whether to print the photo, I would choose not to run it.  This is not a moment that should be made public.  It certainly proves a point, but there are far less intrusive and gratuitous ways to prove it.  As the victim’s family stressed, the photograph sent them into further trauma.  I would hate to be responsible for that.  However, I’m not saying no photos should be taken of the event.  There could have been alternate angles that would not show the man’s face, or perhaps there were other sections of the crime scene that could illustrate the atrocities committed.  As it stands, the photo submitted does not show compassion or sensitivity.

The paper’s reasoning for the picture is noble, and it is clear the staff used it as a means to an end.  Indeed, automatic weapons have been a cause of much debate, and such a photo would supposedly sway people to fight against their legalization.  However, I think the average reader would be more likely to examine the ethicality of the graphic corpse picture itself than to consider the pros and cons of assault weapons.  Statistics, interviews, and other effectively written means could be used to alert the public and provide enlightenment without generating unwanted negative publicity, as this photo did.

The quality of a college newspaper is only as good as the people running it, and overall The Legacy does a decent job accounting for campus life.  I imagine faculty and staff are not too pleased when a front page story details an expensive theft or an attack on campus (I know I would be frustrated, especially if prospective students see the paper while touring the school).  However, the student body has a right to know this information, and I, for one, am thankful for the high level of transparency that exists between the administration and the paper.

As far as a “digital divide” goes, Lindenwood University does not have to worry about that.  The school provides universal Web access to all students, regardless of social class.  This access is included in a student’s tuition cost.  I would imagine most other universities follow similar policies.  In this day and age, the Internet is a necessity, particularly for young people.  If a college does not provide this service to students, it simply cannot prepare or educate them in the fullest way possible.  It also doesn’t hurt that Lindenwood is one of the few colleges not currently in debt.  It has labs full of computers, and many students (particularly foreigners) readily use them, especially if they do not have laptops of their own.  Communications majors in particular can take advantage of the Internet resources made available to them.

Finally, no one can force students to acquire the habit of consuming news, but colleges should at least make an effort to ensure it is there to consume.  It is irrelevant to me whether the news is in either print or Internet form, as long as it is available.  One of the best perks about going to Lindenwood is the fact that every morning I can pick up the USA Today, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, and the New York Times for free and read them while at breakfast.  I’m not sure how many other students take advantage of this opportunity because the stacks of papers are always piled high.  However, I enjoy learning about the world every day.  If Lindenwood hoped to reach even one person with these papers, at least they succeeded with me.

In the documentary, former News-Press editor Jerry Roberts comments that “journalists are in the truth business.”  How difficult it must be to uphold the truth when a publisher like Wendy McCaw exerts such momentous pressure on reporters to do things her way, regardless of whether such actions are honest or objective!  For instance, when the editorial page editor Travis Armstrong was arrested for drunk driving, many reporters felt it was their obligation to report the event to the public.  However, McCaw quickly moved to suppress the news, and tensions grew between her and her employees.

Because McCaw was an avid animal rights enthusiast, she constantly ordered front page stories about critters being saved from harm.  A Thanksgiving story even urged people to eat beans and rice instead of turkey.  Articles like these were hardly beneficial to the public, and staff members got increasingly upset with her unwanted interference in their jobs.  In the past, the editorial page served as her official outlet for these types of stories; however, when she became the owner of the paper, she soon discovered she could do whatever she wanted with any part of it.  According to the film, over 100 reporters resigned or were fired from the News-Press since 2006 because they dared to question her authority or wrote about hot-button issues.

It’s ironic that the paper’s motto is “without fear or favor, friend or foe.”  McCaw’s reluctance to report on powerful people and her desire to make a profit certainly contradicted her paper’s stance over and over again.  The “truth” she presented was often slanted. Sometimes conflicting viewpoints on an issue were not even represented or given a chance to comment.  The ethics code adopted by the Society of Professional Journalists frowns upon all of these behaviors and stresses the need for reporters to be free of any obligation except to the readers themselves.  McCaw’s example emphasizes the dangers of sole ownership of a newspaper, particularly if one does not have a journalistic background.

“I love to watch ‘To Catch a Predator.’  Not only is it entertaining and suspenseful, but it also shows karma and justice in action.  Wicked people are punished just like in movies, and the show’s host is portrayed as a hero who dares to bravely confront these creeps.  I feel gratified knowing that sex offenders will be put behind bars, away from the children they prey on.  I wish media outlets would work together with law enforcement to police these sex crimes.  The pulling of resources and cooperation between the organizations would lead to more arrests and increased public knowledge, resulting in a much safer world.

Programs like these qualify as investigative journalism.  Everyone should watch the show because people need to know that sex offenders don’t always look like the stereotypes typically portrayed in the media.  Some are friendly-looking middle-aged teachers, while others can be young college students.  The trick is to not let this show make you paranoid of every person you see.

In this Internet age, privacy does not exist, secrets are made to be discovered, and an individual’s words and actions are increasingly tossed around in the public domain at their own expense.  Exposing one’s true sinister nature on television for all to see is a valid consequence that predators should consider before engaging in their illegal, immoral activities.  The threats of public humiliation and jail-time could be enough to stop them from breaking the law.”

Radio host Steve Roberts and his guests discussed this issue at length on NPR not long ago.  They explained that this practice resulted from three factors: the impact of the recession on families’ abilities to pay, the decline in state support for colleges, and the rocky stock market’s impact on endowments.  Brian Fitzgerald, CEO of Business Higher Education Forum, argued that the tendency for colleges to favor the wealthy is a “reality” that has just “spread more broadly” now.  I must say I agree.  From a financial standpoint, it would be hard to pass up immediate free money especially when so many students have to take out loans that may last for decades.  This is hardly a new tactic.

Personally, I am fortunate enough to not have to worry about money interfering with my college education.  My parents swore that they would get me through college without taking out a single loan, so they started saving from the time I was born.  I went to a private grade school and high school, so I have no idea what the atmosphere of a public school is like (aside from what I glean from television).

All I know is I had a rigorous Jesuit-taught college preparatory education.  I worked diligently and ultimately graduated with a 4.0 GPA and numerous scholarship offers.  Lindenwood University immediately took interest and showered me with free money to go there.  (It does not hurt that they are one of the few universities in the nation that are not in debt.)  Impressed with the facilities, faculty, and the communications program, I effortlessly made my choice, and I still stand by it today.  What little tuition I have to pay is easily affordable without the need of a loan.

Other people are not so lucky.  There seems to be no easy way to fix this admissions problem in the short term, unless either colleges make sacrifices to keep qualified students or new legislation is passed easing the burden of loans on poor families.  That is easier said than done, and like the panel, I have no overarching solution for the problem.

In this time of economic uncertainty and job competition, I need every small advantage I can get when I emerge onto the job market.  Having a college education without the worry of debt is definitely a step in the right direction for my future.  However, it would not have been possible without my family’s frugal spending habits, my high school accomplishments, and a little bit of luck.

It must have been very difficult to be a journalist during the civil rights movement, especially an objective one.  An article I read this weekend gave a New York Times reporter’s account of his experiences during of the desegregation of Little Rock schools.  The man, Benjamin Fine, watched a little black girl get harassed by a mob and finally decided to intervene.  He sat and comforted her by putting his arm around her.  He then escorted her to a public bus with the help of another woman.  As you can bet, the mob was furious and wanted to beat him, but eventually they let him be.  The national guardsmen just stood by during the entire incident, neither helping nor hindering anyone.  Rather, they wanted to arrest Fine “for inciting to riot.”

Champions of objectivity would praise the guards for staying out of the situation, but I do not.  I think it was important for Fine to throw aside his mantle as a reporter and instead act with his emotions.  It takes real bravery to sacrifice one’s own comfort and safety for the sake of someone else.  His intercession may not be the “proper” thing for a journalist to do, but it was the right thing for a human being to do.

If I was faced with a similar scenario to Fine’s, I would act as he did.  If I was fired from my job or persecuted myself, I would not care.  I believe my actions are justified by following God’s law of compassion for one’s neighbor.  For me, that shall always take priority over man’s laws.  At least I could live (or die) knowing in my mind that I did my part to protect the vulnerable at the time they needed it most.

Everyone was thinking it, so I’m just saying it.  Now that the obligatory Harry Potter reference is out of the way, it’s time to discuss some serious matters.

Chapter 4 of the text introduces another model for ethical decision-making called the “Potter Box.” I don’t really see the need to call it a “box” because it is essentially a list of four steps one must follow to determine how to respond to an ethical dilemma.  At the very least, I think one should think outside the box when tackling these sorts of issues. Anyway, the best way to explain said box is to go through an actual dilemma step-by-step.

The text presents the example of a pimp being convicted for running a prostitution ring involving 14-year-old girls.  Sick, I know.  Where is Liam Neeson to save the day when we need him? On the first day of the trial, the prostitutes testify as witnesses, and I write a story for the newspaper not disclosing their names. On the second day, the men caught paying the girls for sex testify too.  One of them is a supposedly conservative Protestant minister who later pleads with me not to divulge his name to the public.  He says his marriage will crumble, his children will disrespect him, and he will lose his job.  So what do I do?

The first step of the box is to “understand the facts of the case.”  The book lays out these facts well, and my above summary lists the most relevant.  Okay, so far so good.

The second step requires me to “outline my values.”  If I value something, that means I am willing to make sacrifices to uphold it.  In this case, I value truth (remember, I hate censorship), justice, and keeping my job.  Some people might also value privacy, but I don’t believe it exists anymore.  If someone wants to figure something out, it will ultimately be made known.

The third step is to “apply philosophical principles” to the dilemma.  What do great minds think about the problem?  Utilitarians champion the outcome that has “the greatest good for the greatest number.”  In other words, as the esteemed Mr. Spock would say, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.”  William David Ross would say I have duties to both the newspaper’s readers and the preacher, but one must outweigh the other.  Aristotle would have me write a compromise story that includes some facts but omits other, more sensitive ones.  Finally, Immanuel Kant would have me do unto others as I would have them do unto me.  He would not approve of divulging the preacher’s name.

The fourth and final step requires me to “articulate my loyalties.”  I have several different loyalties to the truth, the community, the preacher, and my job.  However, not all loyalties can be satisfied in this instance.  The preacher is outweighed three to one.  I will not cover up the truth, nor will I allow myself or the newspaper to lose credibility in the event his actions were ever made known in the future.  These high-profile cases of sexual misconduct with minors or mistresses happen all the time, whether they concern Catholic priests, congressmen, or Tiger Woods.  The public deserves to know information has been hidden from them, especially if parents have children who have hung around this minister in the past.  I personally harbor no sympathy toward this sick hypocrite who cheated on his family and lied to his congregation.  He should have thought about the ramifications of his actions beforehand.  What becomes of him after I publish my story is of no real concern to me.