Week 2: Student Response to Discussion One and Two

ThursdayJan 18 at 6:25pm

Manage Discussion Entry

This scenario is quite a complicated one and should be handled very carefully to avoid damages on both ends, meaning the journalist’s career and friendship. In this case, I think reporting the story may be something that should not be done simply because you may not be objective in your report and could be troublesome if anyone finds out that you are friends with the auto club advisor. Our text states “The challenge of sustaining journalistic independence and objectivity, sticking as closely as possible to the facts in news reporting, is an essential adjunct to the primary moral obligation of professional journalists to maximize relevant truth-telling in the public interest”(Jacquette,2007).In order maintain our moral integrity as journalists we have to steer clear of things that could give us a biased view or lose our objectivity. If we choose to report on this we must be truthful, giving the factual information which may lead to our friend being upset or removing themselves from the friendship. Being that there is no other alternative to reporting this story, I would report facts but leave out specific names of individuals in the story, simply to avoid civil court, because it can be considered defamation and I am almost certain that Riley would lose his job. In this case, I would not interview Riley unless he were to tell me he had no clue that the money was not being used properly, in that situation the publishing of this story could be vindication for Riley giving my story a boost while also giving my friend Riley a helping hand. Lastly, delivering facts to my readers would be just that and separating my job from my relationships something that would have to be at the forefront of anyone who wants to be a journalist at all.

Jacquette, D. (2007). Journalistic ethics: Moral responsibility in the media. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.