As a student in a Journalism class my assignments are fairly clear cut and there are no ethical decissions I must make before publishing any of my pieces because I am not writing for the 'real world' to hear. However, I have been prepared for scenarios in which I must make a choice regarding what is morally correct, not legally.
After watching the movie 'Absence of Mailce', I have created a much more firm base from which I would come to conclusions as a journalist. I feel that although the man had intended for Meg to read the file, it would have been much more responsible of Meg as a journalist to not 'snoop' and read the folder. Besides that, I think that Meg's decisions were not unethical because they did not have a negative effect on society in a permanent way being that the character's had moved on. Journalists' jobs might be to 'report news' but that title comes along with many ethical choices and decisions as well.
For example, if a student in your school committed a crime and it was your responsibility to report the story. Do you publicly mortify the student and print his/her name, or sacrifice the publicity and do him/her a favor? If the writer would do the teenager a favor and not mention the criminal's name he would receive praise. On the other hand, the criminals reaction would be restricted because it is the truth, but still embarrassment and publication of his/her personal life. Sometimes, like in Meg's situation, it can be taken to an extreme when the person being written about takes their life. IT is each journalist's decision what to
No comments:
Post a Comment