|
|
|
|
#1
04-19-2003, 02:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Was this an ethical thing for a newspaper to do
Hope this link works
I think what the newspaper did was unethical and unconscionable. It ranks right up there with Janet Cooke's fabrication of "Jimmy's World in the Washington Post back in September 1980. I agree completely with the statements in the story made by Michael Parks and Aly Colon. Thoughts? 
|
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#2
04-19-2003, 03:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Was this an ethical thing for a newspaper to do
Quote:
|
|
#3
04-19-2003, 03:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sorry, link doesn't work. Are you talking about this?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...sherer18e.html Quote:
Nevertheless, this seems more than a bit short-sighted on the part of the newspaper involved. If I were a reader, I'd have to ask myself whether I could ever again believe any of its local news items.
__________________
I love you, El_Kabong
|
|
#4
04-19-2003, 03:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
For when the Times takes the page down and sticks it in the unaccessible archives. At El Kabong's link.
Quote:
|
|
#6
04-20-2003, 01:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'd say that declaring it "patently unethical" is going a bit far. Yes, it is a generally acccepted principle that lying, especially by an organization such as a newspaper, is a bad thing. Nevertheless, there are other interests involved. While a journalist, qua journalist, certainly has a responibility to tell the truth, he or she also has a responsibility, qua a member of the community, to facillitate justice.
When two legitimate interests are mutually exclusive, as here, the actor should make a decision based on the specifics of the case at hand. I think we'd all agree that a newspaper should print (and quickly retract) a comparable falsehood if doing so would save thousands of lives. In the matter at hand, I don't think either possible course of action (lying or not lying) would have been unreasonable (though I, personally, would not have run the story).
__________________
_____ "You hear the expression ‘lie like a dog’ often enough that it is almost a cliché. But more often than not, if someone is lying to you, they are a person." -- Peggy Hill
|
|
#7
04-20-2003, 01:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I wouldn't agree to run the false story to save thousands of lives, as a student journalist. I can concieve of no situation where thousands of lives could only be saved by a newspaper destroying all of its journalistic integrity through the publication of a lie.
|
|
#8
04-20-2003, 01:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
How difficult/expensive would it have been for the newspaper to print only one copy of an edition with the additional article? I mean the guy's in prison - it's not like he's going to encounter undoctored editions lying on the bus. All they needed to do was create one fake which they send off to the guy in order to get him to spill the beans, and no-one else need know about it. The newspaper has helped the police, the public hasn't been deceived and this bloke gets what he deserves.
|
|
#9
04-20-2003, 01:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Big, that would be doable, but probably fairly expensive, and hard to do quickly. I suppose you could just take one of the stories on the front page, and print one issue with that story replaced wit the one you want. But to run a web with a different front page for just one issue would be very time consuming and costly.
But far more ethical than the other option, and I could support that.
|
|
#11
04-20-2003, 02:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
spectrum:
Quote:
"Prisoner x has told cohort y (on the outside) to blow up an unknown apartment building. x will rescind the order if and only if he receives from his lawyer a copy of a newspaper story telling of bad act a." You could easily nitpick this scenario, but, in the end, there are still lots of plausible ways that telling lies in print could save lives. That they're not very likely is irrelevant -- it's meant to be discussed merely as a hypothetical. Quote:
In the case being discussed, the community in general has an interest in an attempted murder being punished. A journalist (and, to a somewhat lesser extent, also the rest of the community) has an interest in not perpetuating a falsehood in print (even if only temporarily). My question is this: why does the journalist's interest necessarily trump the community's, which is what you seem to be saying? Chaventh: I hope you enjoyed your time here at the SDMB.
|
|
#12
04-20-2003, 02:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Therefore, I can only find that attitude repugnant as well as ill-informed. If that is what you truly belive (the journalistic integrity is more important than one life, let alone thousands...), please go handcuff yourself to something far away from any populated area. As far as I can see, if the Newspaper says something false with the purpose of saving lives, & especially if it is indeed successful, there has been NO ethical breach. Your "ethics" are also failing to take into account that no one hates a hero, and the world loves a winner. At least that's how it is out here in the real world. I for one would take seriously a Paper that has proven itself to have a vested interest in the community of its readership that way. But I guess I am weird like that...
__________________
~~Il n'y a aucune infection ici. Nous ne sommes pas infectés.
|
|
#13
04-20-2003, 10:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#14
04-20-2003, 11:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#15
04-20-2003, 01:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I sure am glad that the newspaper has more respect for human life than some of you.
There's no question I'd risk the integrity of my newspaper to save the lives of these children. Apologies were made in a later issue. Everyone knows the truth. These children haven't been mercilessly murdered as intended, and I'm sure very few readers give a damn if they were misinformed about one story for a short period of time, given the situation. I know I wouldn't.
|
|
#16
04-20-2003, 02:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#17
04-20-2003, 02:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have no problem with it at all. It's not like they were printing a lie to boost their sales or anything. How would you have felt if you were the editor and had decided not to go along with the plan and the boy and his grandmother had been murdered? Perhaps there is even grounds for a lawsuit had that happened?
|
|
#18
04-20-2003, 03:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have no problem with the newspaper wanting to help prevent arson and murder. I myself would feel compelled to prevent such a thing, if I knew about it and could reasonably prevent it. None of this is at issue.
What is at issue is that the paper decided to knowingly print a false, entirely invented story, crafted specifically to deceive its readership. There was no need to do this - big_yellow_kingswood's solution would work. It would be expensive, time consuming, and a logistical nightmae, but it would work - and after all, the important thing is that one wants to prevent arson and murder, correct? Instead of doing that, they chose the cheaper and simpler alternative of lying to each and every one of the readers who pays them not to do so. That they felt they had good reason is not surprising - after all, everyone feels they have good reason for their ethical choices. What is damning here is that the "good reason" is economic. That's a fairly weak justification - and if the paper will once print a knowing falsehood, with all the weight of its reputation behind it, with no more reason than that, there is every reason to believe the will do so again, for any number of reasons. I cannot call such behavior ethical, nor can I put any trust in a supposed reporter of facts that has even once done this. I'm amazed that anyone would defend them in this.
|
|
#19
04-20-2003, 04:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#20
04-20-2003, 04:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm truly shocked at the Dopers who find nothing wrong with the newspapers actions.
A newspaper is supposed to report the facts. A newspaper is supposed to report the truth. A newspaper is supposed to provide news analysis/commentary. A newspaper is not supposed to knowingly disseminate patently false and untrue information, which the King County Journal most assuradly did. Michael Parks said it best, "It was a lie... The newspaper deliberately told a falsehood, not just to the guy in the prison cell, but to all its readers. There's no room in a news report for a false, made-up story. Parks said that to knowingly publish a false story "violates the canons of journalism." There have been cases where the government has requested that a newspaper surpress or not print a story, the Pentagon Papers, perhaps being the most famous case, but I can't recall of government officials asking a newspaper to print a lie. It's a sad day for journalism and for ethics.
|
|
#21
04-20-2003, 04:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I can't put this on the same level of heinosity as someone inventing a story to boost sales or win a Pulitzer. Only toddlers and Right-Wingers believe all lies under all circumstances bear equal weight. And I don't think the "print one edition plan" would have been feasible. All it would have taken would have been one confederate on the outside (or even an innocent comment from a fellow inmate) that all other editions didn't carry the story, for the game to be lost. So, to me, the newspaper was justified. Whether the prosectors, in conceiving this plot, acted improperly, that's another story.
|
|
#22
04-20-2003, 06:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#23
04-20-2003, 06:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#24
04-20-2003, 06:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think that printing only one copy is far too risky. I'd think prisoners would have access to this newspaper, and he could find out what was going on from a fellow prisoner or guard. It's certainly a possibility, one I wouldn't want to risk when lives are at stake.
Simply put, if my children's lives were at stake here I wouldn't want any added risk, period. I'm sure you'd feel the same. Has it really hurt anyone? I doubt it. I assume a message from the editor column was posted soon after explaining the situation. I don't think posting fake articles is a great thing to do, but this was necessary to ensure these five children remained safe.
|
|
#25
04-20-2003, 07:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From the point of view of the press manager, printing 1000 copies costs about the same as printing one of them. Furthermore, convicted criminals are not particularly entitled to timely news reports.
It hurt all of the people who purchased the paper on the assumption that it contained factual reporting. It also hurt advertisers, since there will inevitably be a drop in circulation.
|
|
#26
04-20-2003, 07:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nobody's life was at stake. The police already were aware of the attempt to solicit murder; this was only an attempt to strengthen a prosecutor's case with additional evidence.
Telling a lie to a suspect is one thing; for a paper to fabricate a story, no matter how small, is unforgiveable. Were I a subscriber to the King County Journal, I'd cancel my subscription and tell them I could no longer trust them to tell me the truth. As a copy editor for another paper who is in a position to use Journal stories that run on the news wire, I can say for certain that I won't run anything on our pages that first appeared in the Journal. We in the media have a hard enough time keeping our credibility. This short-sighted attempt to curry favor with a police department is a disservice to the paper's readers, to other newspapers and media outlets and to news consumers in general.
|
|
#27
04-20-2003, 08:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
How often to papers unintentionally report things which aren't true? I can't tell you how many erronious articles on the war I've read. The paper gets some info from a third hand source and don't bother to verify. Only thing is, the paper never apologizes for these errors, and many go on believing it.
I find that much, much worse than this situation.
|
|
#28
04-20-2003, 09:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#29
04-20-2003, 10:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Unintentional errors do happen, which is why you should use some skepticism with anything you see on TV, hear on the radio or read in newspapers and magazines. Newspapers do, when they are aware of errors, run corrections. No, they aren't run as prominently as the original story, but that's another thread.
Gotta disagree with you, Splanky: An intentional lie is much more disturbing than an honest mistake.
|
|
#30
04-20-2003, 10:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I agree wholeheartedly. An example: suppose it's discovered (and proven) that the Bush administration told all the major news organizations to publish/air lies and exaggerations about Iraq prior to and during the war for reasons which "would save thousands of American and Iraqi lives." Would printing and airing of those lies and half-truths be justified? Heck no. Journalists aren't paid to be police, or military strategists, or government apologists, etc. Once government agencies start asking the media to print/air certain things, just so the agencies can do their jobs better, we've begun our slide down a slippery slope. Happy, speaking as a journalist
|
|
#31
04-21-2003, 05:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
in my opinion, this is a slippery slope. when you bring in a question of greater good, at what point should the media say no?
i agree that a newspaper is ethically bound to report facts and offer analyses. anything else and it ceases to serve its purpose. however, confronted by a situation where media deception would lead to a thousand lives saved, i admit i would much feel much better about those people being safe than about being told the truth. again, the question comes up: what if only one life was to be saved? would it still be worth it? on the whole, regardless of my feelings, i believe the media should remain a discrete (and discreet) entity. their purpose was and is information dissemination, and so it should remain. related: when the government begins to interefere too much with the media, one begins to lose one's trust in it. refer to singapore's censorship of the media by the government (People's Action Party). below is an excellent article that gives a good picture of what happens when the media is controlled. http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=1442
|
|
#33
04-21-2003, 06:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
