Editors Should Evaluate All Possible Outcomes

Don P. Jason III
Dj320306@ohio.edu

Chapter 17 in “Moral Reasoning For Journalists” is extremely relevant to Ohio University because it gives an example of a situation that occurred in a university setting and the press coverage that followed.

I feel it was wrong to publish the name of the individuals caught having sex in the elevator because it served no purpose. The event was “interesting,” but not news-worthy. Hypothetically speaking, had there been a rape in the elevator the school paper would not have published the names even though that story would be more newsworthy. Also the editor should not have been so quick to publish the names. What if the situation had been investigated further, and then later called a rape.

Also, the people who were caught in the elevator were not famous or members of the university staff so I truly cannot find the relevance for publication in the story. In college just as the school gives journalism majors a forum to practice their craft it also gives everyone the chance to grow socially and emotionally. By putting an unnecessary story in the print, it essentially ties this embarrassing fact to the two people involved for the rest of their academic careers and possibly through their professional careers. To me, a few laughs and giggles is not worth jeopardizing someone’s future.

The author also had an immature attitude about why she included the names in the story. However, she did admit when interviewed years later that she would have thought longer about publishing the names. To me if a decision requires a huge thought process, it might be my conscience telling me I am about to make a mistake.

I feel that The Post here at Ohio University would have covered the same story and ran the names. The book makes a good assertion when it says “Audience attitudes can be a powerful influence on journalists trying to make ethical choices… An audience that is generally tolerant of embarrassing information about individuals in their midst may give journalists a sense of license to publish such information" (p. 139).

Basically journalists give the audience what they want. Instead of the public blaming journalists for prying into people’s lives to find the juiciest pieces of gossip, the public should blame themselves for wanting this kind of information to begin with.