In the article “Anonymous Sources,” the author explains how to go about writing with anonymous sources. The article discusses how although anonymous sources are necessary, they can also be harmful. I completely agree. At times, it may harm people to have their name in the post, so when they want to come out with their story, they would not  be able to without anonymity. But, on the other side, anonymity can cause doubt in readers as it is hard to confirm the give details. Overall, a journalist should only work with anonymous sources if absolutely necessary. But, what happens when there are no sources that wish to come forward? This was an issue for Jamilia Gates, the former news editor Marshall University’s student newspaper, The Parthenon. When writing an article about the racism in the Greek Life’s “thug and gangsta” party, she could not get any of the sorority or fraternity involved to comment on the situation, leaving an inadequate amount of sources. But because the paper wanted their voice heard, they posted this article in the letters column of the paper. I have a hard time ethically with this story, as it is mentioned how Gates saw the pictures from this party, but did not print or save the evidence. If Gates was so outraged and planned on writing about the party, in my opinion, she should have collected more evidence.

In Beth Winegarner’s article “5 Tips for Journalists Who Want to do a Better Job of Cultivating Sources,” she talks about how to gain relationships with sources. She discusses how to speak with a potential source: show interest, check in with them, so not break their trust, ask for other potential sources, and to not get too friendly with them. I found this arrival particular helpful as I am majoring in business and the first two tips of Winegardner’s article can relate very closely how to act with potential employers/ business associates.

Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.

Two ABC producers got jobs at Food Lion grocery stores by submitting fake applications in order to go undercover in their meat departments. ABC used undercover cameras to record Food Lion’s unhealthy and illegal practices. Food Lion sued ABC in federal court alleging fraud, breach of duty of loyalty, trespass and unfair trade practices. A jury found ABC guilty of fraud, trespass and disloyalty. ABC’s appeal lead to a rejection in the fraud charge as it did not cause injury, but they did conclude that the  ABC producers trespassed as they did not have the right to video areas that were non-public areas.

The hidden cameras is what got the ABC producers in trouble. Bob Steele of Poynter.org writes how hidden cameras should be used rarely and only as the last resort. They are getting used so often that they are becoming dull and losing their impact. Steele also discusses how ethical lying is when trying to report in the best interest of the people. Personally, in this case, I feel very biased, as thinking about the handling of food, I believe the people should know what happens to products they ingest, but I also can see where ABC went wrong. Although ABC may not have acted in the most ethical manner, I do not hold anything against them as I believe their story informed the public of the health issues of Food Lion. When it comes to the ethics of How to Catch a Predator people run into the same issues. As a society, we try to protect our young in anyway possible, so shows like this are popular so people can be aware of those who do not have the best intentions. The issue with this is, the people on this show, and those like it, have not been convicted in a court of law, yet automatically are seem as guilty in the eyes of millions of Americans. Yes, the “predator” is walking into a situation he himself set up, but there still seems to be an issue as it is not as if the cops set this up to catch him, there is an huge entertainment aspect involved.

Curtis Publishing Company v. Wally Butts

The Facts: In 1967 the newspaper Saturday Evening Post published an article claiming that Wally Butts, the head football coach for University of Georgia, and Bear Bryant, Alabama’s head coach, had conspired to a major game. Wally Butts sued for libel and won. After New York Times v. Sullivan was decided, Curtis Publishing requested a new trial.

The Issue: Can the public official clause in the First Amendment, that protected others under New York Times v. Sullivan, be extended to public figures?

The Rule: Ruled 5 – 4 for Wally Butts

The Holding: A public figure may collect damages if they can prove there was a lack of reasonable credibility in the published work.

The Rationale: The court did not believe that Curtis Publishing Company met the journalistic standards for backing their claims and were reckless in their story.

The disposition: The Supreme Court upheld the previous decision, but lessened the 3 million dollar  pay-out to $460 thousand dollars.

The Facts: A Montgomery city commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, filed a libel action against New York Times and four black ministers  due to a full-page ad in the New York Times that claimed the arrest of the Martin Luther King Jr. for perjury by Montgomery police was part of a campaign to destroy King’s civil rights effort.

The Issue: Can a public figure receive damages in a libel suit, if malice cannot be proven?

The Rule: The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 for the New York Times.

The Holding: One cannot receive damages in a libel action suit unless actual malice can be proved.

The Rationale: They ruled in favor of the New York Times as the First Amendment covers free publication of all statements as long as they are not made with malice .

The disposition: The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Supreme Court of Alabama’s decision.

In the article “Why journalism professors should teach accuracy checklists”, the author, Steve Buttry, makes a point of why it is importunity for journalist to use checklists, similar to those of other professions. Buttry then gives his own checklist. If this checklist, or one similar, would have been utilized by all journalist, then mistakes like Sabrina Erdely’s Rolling Stones article would not have happened. It seems very unethical for one to not use on because of the time it takes. Something small that someone can do to make sure they do not mislead readers seems like an obvious thing to do. But with media today, everything is updated within hours of the event. The competition to have stories up before their [a news organization] competitors is more prevalent than ever before. The author of the article of “Column: Dangers of Speed vs. Accuracy” brings up the loopholes of the Communication Decency Act. To me, as a reader, this is terrifying. How easy it is for news outlets to put out information that can easily be so incorrect. Criag Silverman of Poynter.org seems to be saying, it is alright to make mistakes as long as journalists correct themselves when they find out that they posted something inaccurate. Although I agree that posting corrections in a visual way is important, it is more important to do the research, make sure everything is as accurate as possible before one posts an article.

While reading this article, written by Sheila Coronel, Steve Coll, and Derek Kravitz, I kept thinking, “wow, could this be anymore of a blame game?” It came off to me that everyone from Rolling Stone was giving a reason why they were not at fault for their inaccurate article being published. For how many people read it, one person could have pointed the clear ethical issues in the article. That ethical issue being the Rolling Stone staff purposely misleading the readers, in not just one instance, but many times in the the article about Jackie’s rape. The authors of “Rolling Stone‘s investigation: ‘A failure that was avoidable'”, pointed out many ways Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the author of the Rolling Stone’s article in question, could have done to make sure her article was as factual as possible. This includes finding who Jackie’s friends were, by checking Facebook and/or asking around, and fact checking that there was even a party at the fraternity during the night of the supposed rape, neither which Erdely did. Readers can believe this is true through the evidence that the Columbia Journalism Review collected: notes from the conversation, reporting records and interviews with Jackie, police interviews, and bank records.

As a reader, I question Erdely’s morals as in the beginning of “Rolling Stone’s investigation,” it states, “Erdely said she was searching for a single, emblematic college rape case that would show ‘what it’s like to be on campus now … where not only is rape so prevalent but also that there’s this pervasive culture of sexual harassment/rape culture.'” By beginning the article with this, it automatically gives people the impression that Sabrina Erdely was not objective and she was looking for a story to shock the world. The question of how far would Erdely go to keep her story comes to my mind. Could Erdely have purposely not have gone the extra steps to check how true Jackie’s story was in order to protect her big story? Although there is no evidence to prove this, readers could see reasons to believe so. Unfortunately for Erdely, her strong will to unveil what is happening on college campuses may have backfired. Her false article could lead people to believe that many women make up their rape.

Overall, I believe the authors acted in an ethical manner while writing and publishing this article. It was written to point out the mistakes made by Erdely,  and the rest of Rolling Stone’s, while still giving the people in question the chance to explain their side of the story.