Discussion 1 and 2 Response to Classmates

ThursdayJan 11 at 1am

Manage Discussion Entry

Upon hearing about the robbery at the church the main moral consideration that comes to mind is to get the information correct without falsely accusing anyone. The first of the truth telling imperatives states: “It is morally obligatory for journalists to the best of their abilities to tell the truth in reporting the news and to avoid both deliberate, and, to whatever extent possible, inadvertent falsehoods” (Jacquette, 2007). The main moral concern is staying honest and giving information that is known to be true.

When writing the story, I would mention that there is a suspect, since this is true. The neighbor who spoke to me clearly suspects W.L. Jorgensen, which is the very definition of suspect. I would leave Mr. Jorgensen’s name out of the article, however, since including it may lead to defamation of character if he turned out to be innocent. I think that writing in this sense would be morally responsible, and would also match the known facts behind the robbery.

I would choose to interview the neighbor for the story, to see if he has any more useful information than his suspicions that the ex-custodian is the robber. Whether or not I quote him would be heavily based upon what he says. If he provided useful information on the church and the people surrounding it, then perhaps I would include some of that in the report, but I would not report his suspicion of W.L. Jorgensen because this could just be an unfair bias for all I know. Without more knowledge on the subject it would not be right to accuse this man.

Source:

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