Ethical Challenge 2: Sony Hack Scandal

Computer and account hacking has become a prominent issue for many high profile public figures as well as corporate companies. From nude photographs to customers’ financial data, it seems like nothing saved on a data program is safe. However, when a corporate company such as Sony has their executive emails hacked, leaking embarrassing and degrading correspondence, how should everyone respond? Many felt that they deserved the embarrassment of being caught in their judgment and inappropriate language in regards to celebrities and political figures, such as President Obama.

1. As the CEO I would have issued an immediate apology to the public, the individuals who were involved in the emails and the uninvolved Sony employees. However, I also would have stepped down from my position as a Sony executive, because it is a tarnishing reflection on the company and on one’s professionalism. As a journalist, I would have still published the information even though it was technically stolen, as most news outlets undoubtedly found out about it after it had been published on an individual website. Once information is out, it is automatically news. While the republishing of hacked nude pictures would be not only obscene but also unethical, the reporting of corporate executives insulting some of the best know public figures in western culture is not a story you bypass.

2. I reached this decision because as I said, once accounts of public figures or companies are hacked, the information is almost immediately published on independent sites. It only takes a few thousand site clicks until it becomes news, it is not the type of information that established news outlets allow to be absent from their own sites. Even reporting on the hack itself is relevant and intriguing news, everyone is fascinated by these cases and how they keep occurring.

3. I decided based on these factors because journalists and members of the media are taught from the start, “If it bleeds, it leads” when choosing what stories to publish. While I don’t believe in publishing scandal stories simply on the basis of exploiting the parties involved, hacking scandals such as this are fair news because they can bring down an individuals reputation and company’s credibility in the public eye and the industry. Also, the hackings themselves of private and professional accounts is definitely unethical, but still arguably gray in regards to whether it is illegal. The theft of private property is definitely illegal, but what about when these materials have been deleted off of devices and hackers are operating solely through data, who does the information belong to when it has been deleted? Like the proverbial trash that police and media members go through when a high profile individual is in the limelight, can these third parties go through discarded property we have and/or create?

Justice Byron White

I’ve embodied the American Dream, being from the greatest generation America has ever experienced. I was an all-star athlete in high school, an Ivy league student and a veteran. I have served my country in every aspect possible and hold fast to my beliefs of how our country should look. I may be staunch in my beliefs, but I serve as a justice whose “…mandates will be clear, crisp, and leave those of us below with as little room as possible for disagreement about their meaning.” Now I’m brought this case of BROKERS’ CHOICE OF AMERICA V. NBC UNIVERSAL, INC.; GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. over an accusation of libel and specifically, defamation of character.

BCA V. NBC details a lawsuit on the basis of NBC and their employees taking exclusive footage of a two day “Annuity University” seminar. NBC titled the segment “Tricks of the Trade” and focused the story on how these seminars teach brokers how to scheme and commit fraud, using a small doctored excerpt of Clark’s lecture to pad the argument against the event. While BCA originally filed this lawsuit in the form of defamation of character, it has already been dismissed once per the request of NBC. However it has been appealed by BCA as “It contends the district court failed to credit its allegations as true and improperly made factual determinations to reach its conclusions.”

As with Miranda v. Arizona when I declared the court to be inventing their own version of the fifth amendment rights, ruling on this case to restrict the press’ freedom to publish their information, would be an overreach of the court creating their own version of the amendments. As a conservative voice in this court, I stand that our initial rights as Americans should remain in tact as they are and not be bent by corporate quibblings. The reviewing of the segment video, which has already be reviewed once, will undoubtedly result in the same conclusion as has already been upheld by the court in the past. While Clark and BCA may feel their seminar was taken out of context, it does not null the fact that by restricting this material taken at liberty while shooting by invitation at the seminar, would strip first amendment rights and dangerously narrow the liberties of not only citizens but also, journalists. The liberal political force has been aiming to increase government involvement with social and political liberties, and I think there needs to be a detachment of governmental involvement in societal matters that overlap into politics.

Sources: http://osu.worldcat.org/title/man-who-once-was-whizzer-white-a-portrait-of-justice-byron-r-white/oclc/38024106&referer=brief_results

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-1042.pdf

http://osu.worldcat.org/oclc/4578904478&referer=brief_results

Ethical Challenge 1: Rolling Stone Rape Case

Rolling Stone magazine sent shock waves through America in November when they published an article based on the alleged rape of a University of Virginia student. The student accused multiple brothers of a Fraternity house and claimed that her university friends found her outside of the house, after she ran out without anyone noticing her battered state, but instead of finding solace and support she was told not to report it.

The article spread like wildfire, there was such in depth detail included that it held a morbid fascination for people as does most sensationalist journalism. Once people looked past the crude detailing, the main question began to flow: Was it true?

1. I read this article when it was initially published and while it read as sensationalist then, what bothered me the most was how it was one-sided. If this were my story, I would not have included every detail as I don’t believe it is necessary to include all of them in order to still contribute to the higher purpose of exposing sexual assault on campuses. As journalists we can facilitate societal discussion without exploiting our subjects. Also, while I sympathize with the victim, I still believe in innocent until proven guilty and it is simply good journalism to research all sides of a story. I would have interviewed the accused rapists, or at least the fraternity board members, to at least give them a chance to respond to the allegations.

2. I believe the loopholes in this journalist’s style read as a pseudo manual for what not to do when investigating a criminal case for a major publication. The break in this case, with more thorough research and objective interviews, would have been a career changing project but the way it was handled speaks not only to the journalist’s victim bias but also, her short sightedness as a professional. No one pursues a career in writing with the goal of publicly exposing their weaknesses. I reached my decision by evaluating the skill and integrity this piece was written with, and while we cannot fully know what the journalist’s motivations were for writing this piece in the manner she did, I personally strive to keep a more objective perspective on news and crime related articles.

3. I reached this conclusion based on the fact that as soon as the article was published, the fraternity issued a public statement denying any involvement with the young woman and insisting that there was no official event that night. While the truth has may have been warped by either or both sides of this issue, it does not null the fact that both sides deserve to be given the chance to provide their side of the story. Even if you personally favor one side over another, as a journalist it’s imperative to stay as objective as possible. It’s dangerous to fall in love with our subject or story, we lose sight of what our duty really is to the public.