At the end of last year, Sony Pictures was the victim of a hacking severe enough to cause them to officially cancel “The Interview” for a short time. Reporters around the nation wrote stories about the event to varying degrees. Ethically speaking, it isn’t wrong to publish a story stating that it happened. People would want to know if a hyped-up movie is being cancelled, and furthermore, they want to know why It’s being cancelled. Writing that Sony was hacked answers that question, but furthermore, the event itself is newsworthy and memorable.

It would be wrong, however, to publish any of the information that the hackers made public. The information that the hackers obtained came into their hands illegally is surely one argument. Had Sony published that information, it would be okay to publish. But the reality is not the case. Additionally, journalists should always be aware of what they publish, how it affects others, and how others perceive it. Publishing such sensitive information could harm Sony employees.

Secondly, the information doesn’t serve a particular purpose other than a sense of fleeting curiosity. No one can argue that the Pentagon Papers had no social importance, but it’s fairly easy to argue that people don’t need to know some Sony executives’ passwords, phone numbers, and bank account details. Publishing such information doesn’t feed to the watch dog metaphor for journalists but more the nosy paparazzi looking for any story to publish as “clickbait.” “Clickbait” stories aren’t inherently unethical (at least, in the grand scheme of things), but the fact that they involve such personal, illegally obtained information makes it far more unethical.

People have called me the “Lone Ranger” or “Lone Dissenter,” but I’m perfectly fine with that. I have always had the guts to stand for my own opinions rather than resign myself to siding with a majority. I’ve had controversial opinions in my time in the court, one of the more famous ones being my views on federalism. I’m a staunch believer in states’ rights for most issues. For example, in United States v. Lopez, 1995, I helped overturn a federal act that made carrying a gun in a school zone. It’s unconstitutional because that’s a kind of law for the state of California to decide, not the federal government. I became the chief justice of the Supreme Court in 1986.

In the upcoming case, AP v. United States, the Associated Press is challenging the government’s right to invade AP’s editors’ and reporters’ privacy and obtain their telephone records. They allege that it is a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into news gathering. The ongoing case of Jewel v. NSA could hold some precedent, despite it not being settled. The government frequently alleged that Jewel’s allegations–similar to the AP’s in terms of privacy invasion–involved “state secrets,” wanting to dismiss the case with that. It was pointed out, however, that the government couldn’t use that excuse regarding electronic surveillance after the creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The AP case is similar to the Jewel case. People had their private information, such as phone call logs, taken by the government without any warrant. The allegations made by both AP and Jewel are only reinforced by recent NSA whistleblowers, most prominently Edward Snowden. What has happened so far in the Jewel case could provide a hypothetical framework for what is to come in AP v. United States.

Sources
http://www.biography.com/people/william-rehnquist-9454479#supreme-court-justice
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=william_rehnquist
http://www.anb.org/articles/15/15-01350.html
http://www.uscourts.gov/Multimedia/Cameras/NorthernDistrictofCalifornia/08-cv-04373.aspx
https://www.eff.org/cases/jewel

The Rolling Stone’s rape case was a huge, sensationalized story about the supposed rape culture in the University of Virginia. That issue of the magazine sold out over the hype of the story broken by Sabrina Erdely about the gang rape of Jackie, who was assaulted in a fraternity house as a freshman. After its release, however, other groups investigated the facts of the case and how it was conducted. It was found that no other sources corroborated many facts in Jackie’s story, and Erdely didn’t get any other sources to talk. The editor still chose to run the story, wholeheartedly believing in the story.

Although the editor says the responsibility lies on Rolling Stone’s as a whole, I’d argue that the fault lies on the editor himself. Will Dana, who issued an apology on the article after the fact, should have attempted to check the story in the first place. He should have asked Erdely how many sources she talked to, how reliable they all were, and other questions to screen the validity of the story, especially with how sensitive and important the story would be.

Despite the sensitive topic of dealing with a rape victim, it’s still the journalist’s responsibility to make sure they’re reporting an unbiased truth. People go to the news for what really happened, not for what one person believes happens. I would have found a way to contact other sources willing to talk about this story to compare their facts of the story to Jackie’s.

Welcome to u.osu.edu. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!