Assignment V: Ethics II

The ethical dilemma is illustrated well by the fourth tenant in the NPPA Code of Ethics: “Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see.”

The dilemma here is between treating the juvenile subject, in her time of immense grief, with respect and dignity, or intruding on her private moment of grief. Does the public have the right to see the image? If they do, do they have the need to see it. That’s the moral dilemma.

As with our last ethics assignment, I don’t see much room for middle ground. You either publish the photo or you don’t. Maybe the photographer took another picture that was less intrusive, or that cropped out the face, which could be used. Blurring out anything in the photo wouldn’t work either. Maybe you could publish the photo on the inside of your paper, rather than the front page. It is a very terrifying and striking image, vivid with emotion and candor. Some may find it disturbing, so perhaps there’s a compromise when displaying the image.

I would publish the image. From what we learned in class, the State Department reformed their policy to curb events like this in the future. That’s probably a benefit that couldn’t have been entirely predicted at the time the image was published, but something I’d consider. Killing innocent civilians is never acceptable for the American public, even when it was accidental or caused by the fog of war. Hopefully the image will lead to some kind of change, stopping needless bloodshed in the future.

I think the image is extremely powerful because of its candid nature. It really gives the reader a sense of the tragedy at the scene, and gives a glimpse into what is really going on on the ground in Iraq. This powerful horror is something I don’t think can be conveyed in writing. Saying “the girl stood screaming, drenched in blood, a look of pierced the darkness beside her shrill screaming,” is not as powerful as just seeing the image.

As for the identity of a minor, and consent, I don’t think a five-year-old understands either concept. This is another ethical gray area that I’m hung up on. Because she doesn’t understand identity or consent, she’s in no position to assess the ramifications (for her) of the photo being published. She is entirely dependent upon media to weigh her interests against the social gain or truth that would come out of the image.

When Samar saw her photo six years later, she looked horrified. However, the article didn’t focus so much on how the photo had affected her life, but how the death of her parents still haunts her. The scars on her hands and psyche would still be there without the picture. I think that’s what really matters. Also, if she hadn’t seen the picture in the six years it had existed, it doesn’t seem like it impacted her in a hugely negative manner.

The tragedy happened whether or not the picture was taken. The SPJ code of ethics tells us to pursue the truth, and to show both sides of a story. This photo is absolute truth. In a war where a majority of the media is tightly controlled by US military interest, this is a brief and intense look from a different angle. A view through a small window pane at tragedy amongst tales of triumph. The image is so truthful, and so brave, it may be hard for the public to swallow. That’s why it needs to be published.

Assignment IV: Editing Adderall

To start, the story begins with a bunch of redundant paragraphs. It says students are buying Adderall from students with a prescription for the drug a few different times with different words. It also says Adderall is used to combat ADD/ADHD 5 more times than it needs to. In addition to cutting out the redundant information about its use, I think the article should go into more depth about the drug itself. Maybe include the actual chemical compound (Adderall is dextroamphetamine and amphetamine). What the molecules do in your brain, and how prolonged use can cause the averse side-effects that were mentioned When you're interviewing a doctor, it's probably a good idea to get more than just "Adderall is a mixture of amphetamines," from him. Getting the doctor to tell you about the side effects will add credibility to the article as well (rather than a Washington faculty website).

At the end of the story, the reporter botches the story in my opinion. He says Adderall is being abused at WSU and will continue. The whole article is spent saying it's a problem, and then the last quote makes it seem like it's not such a big deal, that the abuse of a prescription drug isn't as bad as others. I think it was good that the reporter got someone else's side of the argument, but I think it was too abrupt. Either insert that argument higher in the article, or flesh it out beyond one disruptive quote at the end of the paper.

Also, I don't think the reporter should have tried to explain the effects of the drug (as he tried to do many times). Saying "Adderall works as an energy enhancer" would be more credible if attributed to a real source.

I think the reporter should have spoken to Police as well, and maybe got their take on the abuse, penalties and regularity of the abuse.

Assignment III: A hidden life.

The thing that makes the West ethics case study so interesting, is that it could be argued in either direction. However, in my opinion, there were some ethical breaches in investigating the story. Before, during and after the Savalli interview, I thought the story was unethical in areas.

Though the messages between West and MotoBrock are public domain, as they were held on a public forum, it doesn’t mean they need to be broadcast to the world. Savalli said the Spokesman released the entire transcript of the messages to be transparent, yet, not all of the transcripts were released in their entirety. 

“Later, after small talk about sports…”

The transcripts say things like this all the time. Their purpose is to cut out what isn’t relevant to the investigation (in the Spokesman’s opinion). If the Spokesman was truly concerned about complete transparency, I think it should have released the talk about sports and the inane details, not just the juicy ones.

The way the transcripts were released is where I think there was an ethics violation. The Spokesman included details about West’s mutual masturbation with MotoBrock, which occurred after MotoBrock had claimed he was 18. The FBI conducted its own investigation and pressed no charges against West. He did nothing wrong chatting with an 18 year old in that manner, especially after the investigators had tried to bait West into illicit activity with a minor (by having MotoBrock be age 17). When performing an undercover operation, you have a duty to try and observe rather than bait your subject into illegal activity. It’s pretty clear to me, the spokesman tried to bait West into that activity. I think that type of investigation is unethical.

I don’t expect too much privacy online, or rather, I know not to expect any privacy online. I’m not sure of the technical legality, but I think the lack of privacy is a shame. MySpace and Facebook are private businesses that create a very public forum (but I don’t know if online areas are considered actual public forums under the first amendment…), so it’s difficult to tell how much privacy should be allowed. Clearly you shouldn’t post anything online you don’t want the world to see no matter how private you think your content is.

That reality is what led West’s downfall.

West thought he had privacy online, or rather, he was lulled into a sense of privacy. The frontline piece notes that West was very guarded in his initial interactions, protecting information about his position and identity. However, as West began to trust MotoBrock and others, he slowly released more information about himself. West would have done well not to release any information whatsoever, however, I think he was a closeted gay man struggling with his identity, and these chat conversations were his release.

Newspaper policy prevents reporters from pretending to be someone they are not, but I don’t think hiring a computer expert to provide the deception makes any difference. It’s like saying hiring a hit man to do your dirty work doesn’t equate murder. It may be legal, but it’s not ethical. I don’t think the Spokesman could have got the story without the online consultant, but I do think that they tried to bait West.

I tend to agree with the New York Times. I think the Spokesman’s intentions were pure in the beginning, but the final product looked like a “witch hunt.” In the Savalli interview, she said there was no reason to write a story about West’s sexuality in relation to his anti-gay political agenda before the investigation had begun. I wonder then, why it was necessary to release so many sexually graphic details about West when the investigation supposedly focused solely on West’s abuse of power (handing out internships, etc.). Do we need details about West’s mutual masturbation to know that he offered an internship to a young man? I don’t think so.

I think the conflict between West’s voting policies and his sexual orientation would have made a separate story earlier on, but apparently it was not of importance until graphic details were available.

In the frontline piece and the Savalli interview, the editorial staff of the Spokesman maintains sexuality was not an issue. I think this is not true whatsoever. I don’t think the Spokesman harbored any sort of anti-gay agenda, but it’s impossible to say the investigation didn’t center on West’s sexual orientation.

Clearly, West abused his power, and there is a story there. Although, I think it is a small abuse. West wasn’t siphoning money from tax-payers or committing fraud. He offered unpaid internships, which cost the city nothing to young men he had romantic interest in that he had met in a gay chatroom. I think that was a story that the public needed to hear, but the graphic details that didn’t pertain to that story should have been left out.

Assignment II: Ethics I

Assignment II: Ethics I 

The dilemma centers on the ages of the children being prosecuted. One side will say that the children are too young to be named. As children, they have a right to privacy not enjoyed by adults. In most state law (and I think the Public Information Act) children tried as juveniles can’t have their names released. Because these are being charged in a juvenile court, they have certain rights to privacy. Also, as the investigation is ongoing, the police can’t legally release the names of the children in question. 

The other side will say that since the names have already been released by that blogger, and then confirmed by your research, you should release them. According to the SPJ COE, reporters should seek truth and report it. Here, you have sought the truth, and now have the opportunity to courageously inform the public. Since the prosecutor is planning on prosecuting them as adults anyway, you can release the names as they will not be shielded under the PIA and law after the trial. Releasing the names would also be profitable for your paper in ad revenue and notoriety. 

I’ll get into both sides a bit more in my justification. 

The problem here is the children may be tried as adults. I read a bit about how juveniles are tried as adults ( http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/juvenile-justice/when-minor-commits-crime.html ), and they have to go to juvenile court first. If they have been charged, but not appeared in court for prosecution, then they are still minors, and not yet tried as adults (even if the prosecutor said she will). 

I don’t think there are many alternatives, you either release the names and pictures or don’t. You can either release a story without the names or with them. Perhaps I’m not thinking creatively enough, but I don’t see any feasible compromises with this issue. Maybe you could release the names but get the children’s side of the story, however I don’t think any defense attorney in their right mind would let a reporter do that.

I would not release the names of the children. The paper could legally produce the names of the minors if they have been released on a blog and confirmed by police. As long as you attributed that information to the correct sources, the paper couldn’t be held libelous or legally liable. According to the SPJ code of ethics, you’d be producing truthful information in your story. It would also be very profitable for your paper to release information on what is sure to be a national story. However, neither the fiscal benefits nor the narrow ethical debate make releasing the information moral (in my opinion). By releasing the names and pictures of minors that have not been fully prosecuted in the court of law, you are ruining their right to a fair trial, especially in a small community. If defendants are to be evaluated by a jury of their peers (usually people from their area/background which is a very small town in this case), the impartiality of any jury selected will be tainted by your story.  Releasing the minor’s names in a small town might create retribution for their families before a guilty verdict has been given. If the children turn out to be innocent, your article may harm their reputation permanently. In this case, I think you have a duty to the legal system, which will protect the rights of the children and create a fair trial. According to the SPJ code of ethics, we should minimize harm:

“Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.

Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.

Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.”

That last one in particular is what I was trying to get at earlier. If you release the names, it will disturb the judicial process for those children. You can give plenty of information to the public without ruining the right to a fair trial for the kids.

bar fight story ethics

1) The dilemma is that this guy who was in a bar fight and pled guilty to a crime seven years ago feels his reputation is being damaged by an archived article from a school paper. Each time his name is googled, this article comes up, which lessens his chance for employment. As a journalist, you have a duty to the truth, and the article is true.

2) Maybe you could ask google to move the story down the list or find a way to remove it from search results for this guy's name without removing the article from your online archives.

3) I think I would remove the article, and keep the hard copy alive. Sure the guy committed the crime, but if an employer wants to see the guy's criminal background, it is easily accessible elsewhere. By pulling it from your online archives you're not deleting the

Dangling Modifiers

1. The dangers of the drug are increased when the patient is not properly diagnosed.

2. Facing such a large competitor as Wal-Mart, other stores in Pullman may lower their prices.

3. Jones had to sit out practice for a week after struggling with ankle injury for a week.

4. Newspapers devoted significant coverage to the hurricane, which was the most spectacular event in the nation.

5. By reversing the color scheme, it captures your eye.

6. Claiming to be a simple man, Smith leads a life far from ordinary.

7. If Obama is elected, his main opposition will not come from Republicans.

    * Includes examples from Ben Yagoda and The New York Times.

first assignment

In short, the story is a bit of a train wreck. To begin, much of the language in the story is in passive voice. I would start by changing the sentence structure around to make it more active. There were also many style errors, which were corrected on the sheet itself. Style errors of major concern were the use of exclamation points and phrases like “he asked rhetorically,” which interject the writers impressions of the scene onto the story. This ruins the impartiality and transparency of the article, creating a biased piece. Rather than saying “police,” it would be better if a specific officer was attributed. The story is unethical because it frames the man who is suspected (charged but not prosecuted) of arson as an arsonist. This will cause legal issues for the writer as it is libelous, and will also cause damage to the suspected arsonist’s reputation. To have a fair and ethically reported article, the reporter needs to get the suspected arsonist’s side of the story too, as well as quotes from the children if possible. Only one side of the story is presented, and it’s not a fair one at that. Organizationally, the suspected arson should probably come higher up in the story, if not in the lede, as well as the deaths recorded at the scene. A logical error in the story might be a house which burnt to the ground only doing $14,000 in damage. 

Re-worked lede: Three children died in a suspected arson at 140 E. Wilson Ave. on Sunday night, causing more than $14,000 in damage.

Osama Ethics Dilemma

1) The dilemma is that if we publish the photo there may be some kind of retribution by radicals in the US or abroad. It is controversial because much of the public is skeptical of his death, as well as many organizations abroad and Osama's family. The concern is more moral than anything as your ratings will increase significantly (though you might also face legal repercussions imposed by the US gov't for sharing the picture).

2) I don't think there's many areas for compromise. You can't run the picture in a limited publication because it would be all over the place in a matter of hours. You either run the photo in this case or you don't.

3) I would publish the photo. The likelihood of retaliation in this case is extremely small. I also think the American public and his family have the right to know if he's dead. It would also quell alot of mistrust and conspiracy theory. Pictures have the most lasting impact on our memory and recorded history, I think the picture is too important not to publish. I'd say that makes the decision driven by value, rather than sensationalism. This makes the government and media more transparent as well.

Parallel Construction

1. Exercising and a good diet promote health, the doctor said.

A good diet and exercise promote health, the doctor said.
2. YouTube is a popular space for uploading videos and to view videos.

YouTube is a popular space for viewing and uploading videos.
3. The prosecutor charged him with driving drunk, carrying a concealed weapon, and possession of marijuana.

The prosecutor charged him with possession of a concealed weapon, marijuana and driving drunk.
4. He won the election because of his knowledge, education and because of his honesty.

He won the election because of his honesty, knowledge and education.
5. The senator voted to modify the bill, to extend the tax credit, and in favor of passing the new budget.

The senator voted in favor of passing the new budget, to extend tax credit and to modify the bill.

Online Publication

The reader of my publication is your typical college student. They don't care much for politics, although they do need a semblance of cultural knowledge to keep up their facade as a pseudo-intellectual. Stories about protecting the environment, fighting "the man" and saving endangered species in tongue-twisting foreign jungles are of utmost importance. There needs to be at least one article about marijuana legalization published each week, if not each day. Their viewing habits include reruns of family guy and weeds, though a majority of their time is spent stalking people on facebook.

To choose from the list you provided:

cutline: Bob Marley would 'legalize it'

1) Headline: We celebrate a life, on the 30th Anniversary of Bob Marley's death.
30th Anniversary of Death of Bob Marley/WSJ.com

The first time I saw Bob Marley perform I was eight years old. It was 1971. A Saturday afternoon. I was sitting in a Danish couch with beige cushions and maple arms in a new development of pre-fab homes in Kingston. He was a glowing presence on a 13-inch black and white Sanyo.

His bandmates Bunny Wailer and Peter Tosh were on either side of him, I guess. They must have been; but memory hasn’t saved their bodies, only their sound–their falsettos whinnying as Bob cantered through “Duppy Conqueror,” voice rearing wildly at the end of some lines.

photo cutline: hunters will literally be killing these adorable animals.

2) Wolf slaying in Idaho now legal.
 Wolf Hunt in Idaho/Statesman

Idaho’s Republican lawmakers know what they want to do now that the state has regained control of wolves.
“We need to put as much pressure as we can on those wolves, pin them down and drive them back into the wilderness,” said Republican Sen. Monty Pearce, chairman of the Senate Resources and Environment Committee. “I think we need to thin them down rapidly.”

Officials at the Idaho Department of Fish and Game believe about 1,000 wolves are in Idaho, though the official number is 705. The agency will begin work to establish a new population goal this month, with a new hunting season for wolves expected this fall.


3) Democrats refuse to cut taxes for "the man."
 Tax breaks for oil companies?/WashingtonPost

Senate Democrats unveiled a plan Tuesday to save $21 billion over the next decade by eliminating tax breaks for the nation’s five biggest oil companies, a move designed to counter Republican demands to control the soaring national debt without new taxes.
                   
With the proposal, Democrats sought to reframe the debate over debt reduction to include fresh revenue as well as sharp cuts in spending. For the first time, Democratic leaders suggested an equal split between spending cuts and new taxes — “50-50,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.).

clutter

1. He pleaded guilty in federal court.

2. The baseball player's first hit was a home run


3. Several items are on the agenda

4. That night he was exhausted

5. The president didn't mention the hostages at the press conference


6. Tools for breaking into cars are illegal


7. He smiled as she scooped the ice cream.

8. The hurricane slowed traffic in Miami.

9. The professor admitted he fabricated the data.

10. Critics said this movie will change her life.

That vs. Which

1.  The painting, which was hanging in the foyer, was stolen.

2. The painting that was hanging in the Louvre was stolen.

3. Next week, they will visit Nampa, which is in southern Idaho.

4. “Leaves of Grass,” which was written by Walt Whitman, is a beloved collection of poems.

5. The one book that Harper Lee wrote is my favorite.

6. A large tree branch that had been blown off by the storm was lying across the road.

7. You need to find another student that can give you a ride to campus from now on.

Embed video