Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000179 EndHTML:0000010591 StartFragment:0000002717 EndFragment:0000010555 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/cameronmiller/Desktop/alissaJRNL105.doc
Alissa Montgomery
JRNL 105
Assignment 2
Feb. 24, 2010
- Cooperating with Government
Other prisoners
Prison and other state officials
Media outet
Involving this type of situational danger, I would not be hesitant to report the names of the captured prison guards or the two inmates themselves, regardless of the governor’s suggestions. It is a journalist’s duty to society to inform its citizens of occurrences taking place, especially life-threatening events. It is also a journalist’s duty to advise the family and friends of the captured victims, that they simply are being held hostage. Referring to a deotological ethical approach, “Do Unto Others;” it is easy to assume that anyone would want to know if there friend or family member was in severe danger, by who, and the criminal histories to understand what these people are capable of, and how we can possibly help. If I was asked to follow the orders of the state, with no situation in front of me, I would obviously do so. However, a journalist is not able to foresee the events that will happen in the future, so a teleological approach seems to fit better here. It is the public’s right to know where crime is occurring and to who, and if this situation would have escalated more so, the public should have been warned from the start to take all necessary precautions. I feel that my primary obligation to tell truth would outweigh the potential harm in this situation; how likely would it be that the inmates would discover their story on the news and just decide to kill the hostages because they were angered by the media? They are criminals, they are going to do harm no matter what is reported and what is not. Keeping this information from the public would not stop anything from happening, it does not seem as if it would do any good. I do not feel that they inmates would have killed the guards because of their story being reported, there would have been other motives and reasons for killing those people. I believe that it is always morally right and beneficial to cooperate with any individual no matter what their status. However, when lives of loved ones are at stake, it would be hard to simply sit there and act like you have no knowledge of what is happening and could possibly happen.
- Offensive Images
This ordeal did not occur in the United States, so I feel that as a journalist I would most likely not show the images to the public. I could merely describe the images, but this event is not concerned with our nation, so how much can people deeply and genuinely feel a need to see a cartoon? Yes, they were offensive and caused many riots and killings, but displaying the caricatures led to more riots and killings, so what is the necessity in instigating more danger? The story can be told without the use of illustrations so the people are still informed. It seems as if Americans would want to see the cartoons out of curiosity, not out of concern. The Islamic world has already been offended, so why offend and anger them more and possibly cause more deaths? The first Amendment declares freedom of expression which would allow a newscast to publish the cartoons, but in this scenario this seems as if it is unnecessary provocation. There is a need to tell the story, but no need to actually show the visuals for it would just anger the Islamic community even more. The acceptable middle ground is to report the story, describing what was so offensive with these caricatures.
- What’s fair game?
Although I believe actions speak louder than words, and actions in a relationship can show what type of person someone is, this care was irrelevant because it happened nearly 30 years before David Wu ran for congressman. He was seeking a fourth term, so he clearly did an excellent job on the three terms prior to 2004. It was a low blow of Wu’s opponent to use this in her campaign; how does this show his weaknesses as a congressman? Clearly as a significant other, but in the professional setting. Furthermore, Wu was never arrested of a crime and she only reported this “forced sex” to the police, when he cofirmed it was consensual, after he broke up with her. The woman did not pursue criminal prosecution or file a formal disciplimary complaint; obviously is this truly happened she would want justice and would not just disregard the event. There is no proof that this actually occurred, the woman could be simply making this up to get revenge on a former boyfriend or for publicity. So, this supposed event might not even be real. What is the sense in wasting time, money, and effort trying to figure out if Wu really did force his then girlfriend to have sex with him 28 years ago? Stanford students, university officials and professors, law associates, and former campaign staffers and friends should never have been contacted. This does not fulfil any duties of a journalist, the public did not need to know about this. This is simply gossip, a media obsession, scandal. This time could have been spent on substantial stories or the congressman’s actual campaign, issues, and stances instead of personal faults that occurred decades ago. This may have altered the opinions of the voters, but it was 30 years ago in college and the story may be completely false. I still would never have reported this story regardless of its popularity and appeal, this has nothing to do with the actual campaign.
Use deontological and teleological terms!!!
