The first article read this week was accessed from poynter and discussed a fairly recent news story, on a newspaper publishing all the names and addresses of people who held gun permits. The article posed an argument and a counterargument discussing both the pros and cons of this article as well as the reasons in which it can be justified or not. One argument for the publishing of the article in concern, is that the paper did not leak classified information, it solely publicized a public record, while others argued that although it was public information, the paper had no reason to publish this information that wouldn’t have otherwise been accessed. There were arguments on both sides about how the article could pertain to citizen safety where one argued it would allow parents to know if their friends parents had guns in the house, while the counter was that it can provide a false sense of security and is misleading because it only shows houses with gun permits which may not include guns like shotguns.
Personally, I don’t think the paper had a good reason to report the information because I don’t see what purpose it serves, but I also don’t think it necessarily harmed anyone either, unless a noteworthy person may have been on the list. I mean, what does the common gunowner care if others know he/she has a gun in their home? It may even defer criminals, and if one does have a gun they are most likely proud of it and support gun rights. The only reason I am not fond of what the paper did is because it’s a privacy thing, this may not be a huge deal, but what might they publish next, and some people may not want the world to easily have access to their address.
The next article which was published on spj.org discussed whether children who are victims of sexual assault be named in the media. This piece was particularly concerned with two key points of ethics “seek truth and report it” and “minimize harm”, and while these points can seem cloudy at times they are important to remember, especially when dealing with minors.
The article itself points out 4 different sexual assault cases that were covered by the media, and in all of them the victim was identified and I found this naming very justifiable. I understand that children of rape have already been traumatized but often times, their stories are ones that are hard to hide. In cases like the ones mentioned where the sexual assault is amongst a kidnapping or other newsworthy episode that has already been made public and the child’s name has been released then, to me, it seems impossible to cover up the name once it’s been determined they’ve been sexually assaulted. In other cases, where the rape may have occurred in the home, and wasn’t otherwise known by the public then I think it should be the victims choice to be named if they are old enough to weigh the consequences and if they are too young, say under 10, then there name be kept private if it will not endanger others by doing so.
I know others may disagree with my opinion on this and the article does say how difficult and cloudy cases like this can be, but they do become very public very often, and trying to cover up something that has already been said just causes more speculations from the public in my opinion.
After reading the next piece which was about reporting on suicides, I can really see the “minimize harm” code of ethic coming into play in a more broad way that doesn’t exclusively include the victim and those related but also members of the public who may be at risk of suicide. Like rape and personal information which we already read up on, suicide seems to be a very touchy issue in the public today, as it should be. This paper published by several organizations concerned about suicide addresses the media in the proper way to report on it without making it to sensational or covering it up to much. Like with anything, a newsworthy story will make the news, and suicides are often one of these things that can’t be hidden.
The paper emphasizes that the media shouldn’t use sensational words, or link suicides to trends, but rather discuss causes, signs, and ways to get help. They are concerned if the media uses exciting terms or shows graphic images it may encourage other mentally ill people to join in and continue “the trend”. The paper recommends not showing the family grieving but rather a police officer or other professional speaking about getting help and the signs to look out for. Just like with any reporting I think that this emphasizes using good reporting, clear and concise facts, and only information that is pertinent to the public.
For the most part I agree with what this article says and I don’t think the media should make suicide look cool, cause it’s not, but I also think that the media should show grieving families and such because it may show people at risk for suicide that it hurts other people.
http://reportingonsuicide.org/Recommendations2012.pdf
The second article from poynter we were to read this week told the story of a reporter in the 1980’s who sought to report on something not very accepted in public and her journey of deciding what was ethically justified and the best way to humanize a very ugly disease. Jacqui wrote about AIDS in the Heartland, two things that aren’t commonly paired and she followed two gay men in a time when being gay, and having aids wasn’t very fashionable. Being that both topics were so touchy Jacqui faced many ethical dilemmas and urged her editors to watch her very closely, which I thought was a very noble thing to encourage since often times writers are afraid of editors crushing their ideas. Jacqui also struggled with what was too personal to show, as she did follow these men for about a year and experienced some very personal things with them, she even fought for a picture of the two men kissing to show readers what it was truly like even though editors discouraged it in concern of losing readers. Ultimately Jacqui and her editors referred to the following three rules of ethics:
– Seek truth and report it fully
– Act independently
– Minimize harm
With regards to these three points, Jacqui arranged some deals with the subjects such as not publishing health records before the one man received a loan, and going over what she planned to write even though she wouldn’t show them her copy. She also agreed to leave certain quotes and people out as she, and the subjects deemed them too vulnerable.
Ultimately I think what Jacqui did was incredible! Not only did she report on such a touchy subject so eloquently but she also did it in a time where the themes of the story were quite controversial. Jacqui used her own personal morals, and the journalism code of ethics hand in hand and crafted a groundbreaking story that brought light to a terrible disease that required attention without causing harm to anybody.
The final article we read was on intrusive newsgathering and differed from all the other articles we read in terms of it regarded the actual gathering of news and not the publishing of news, although I’m assuming if one were to go to those lengths to gather news they would most likely publish it too. Honestly, I had no idea there were anti-paparazzi laws in some states since I’ve never been concerned with such laws, although I do see their importance. I guess they are important because where do you draw the line between collecting pertinent facts and stalking if such laws weren’t in place. I can see where this article is especially important to journalist who cover very high profile people, like actors, politicians and people who are just famous (like the Kardashians) because these are the ones we constantly see on the cover of tabloids. This article was fairly brief and didn’t go in to great detail on the law, but I’m curious to know if it applies strictly to journalist or if it covers people like private investigators too, and where this line is drawn?
I think that the discussion in this particular class was very engaging. I enjoyed hearing everyone’s differing views on whether its ethical to disclose names, especially those of minors and I think that a lot of people provided valid points. I stand with, in high profile cases it is often impossible to hide names because everyone knows what’s already going on, therefor it’s kind of pointless to try and hide names. I also think that in any case where disclosing names and identifying details can lead to safety and justice for the victims than it should be done without a second thought regardless of age or situation.