ce271812@ohio.edu
As journalists, we are continually told that our main job is to inform the public about what is going on in the world around them. Sometimes that involves releasing information that falls in a gray area underneath the ethical codes of journalists. That instantly means that there is a potential conflict with releasing any sort of information relevant to the story.
With all that being said, our job as journalists is to tell the public the truth and keep government employees or high-ranking officials in check. But what happens when that media is kept under wraps?
As we are seeing, especially lately, is that more and more news stories are being broken by people and publications that aren't the first place you would expect your news to come from.
TMZ has broken multiple NFL stories, the most recent being the Ray Rice elevator video, but was anyone expecting this news to come from TMZ? Plus, how many people or NFL officials had seen the video previously and done nothing about it?
Yes, it is the public's right to know but clearly that view isn't represented by everyone.
We watched this interview with TMZ's executive producer, Harvey Levin, earlier this year in class. However, only at the beginning of the interview do they discuss how the video got out. Levin talks about how employees of the casino finally wanted to do the right thing.
Yes, this particular instance it was definitely the right thing to do. But that certainly isn't always the case.
On top of all that, why was it only TMZ and recently laid-off casino employees who felt it was 'right' to release the video?
What is considered, Right?
That's the question. Is it right to tell people? Do people need to know and is it the public's right to know?
In most scenario's, yes, it is. But, when it comes to controversial information, ex. military secrets, such as the WikiLeaks, how to we know what information helps the public?
As the most powerful military in the world, leaking any sort of information can have disastrous effects. Which is why it is so important for journalists to balance that power of leaked information and what effects that could have on compromising military actions.
If it's going to compromise more lives in the field, than it isn't worth leaking the information until it is safe to do so.
The Society of Professional Journalists ethical codes lay a great foundation to how journalists should feel ethically.
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
The code is a great standard as to how journalists should feel obligated to report everything ethically, as well as correctly.
Sometimes silence is a good answer
Nobody wants to aggravate the government. I know I would not be thrilled by the idea of making the world's most powerful government angry but, sometimes we have no choice.
If, by our own standards, we deem something important for public knowledge than it should get out. It should be released and the public should be made aware.
Silence is the smart decision when you don't know what to say. But, if you have the means to expose anything and you have thought it through, silence allows that same ethical dilemma to potentially happen again.
Sometimes you can't afford to stay silent.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment