Yeah, go tell that to the four people (at the very least) whose lives this “deception” saved. “I’m sorry, but your lives, and the continued happiness of those who love you, were not worth violating the canons of journalism.”
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.
Sure. And a citizen is supposed to promote public safety and facillitate the prosecution of criminals. Again, if you believe that what the newspaper did was absolutely wrong, then you have to explain why the interest of journalistic integrity trumps the interests of justice and public safety. I’m not saying you can’t choose the former over the latter in this case, but the situation certainly calls for some equivocation.
But other Dopers in this thread have already put forward one good alternative, that may have been more financially costly but certainly less destructive to their journalistic integrity. What’s wrong with the idea that maybe they should have rethought this strategy?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.