Week 3: Student Response to Discussion One and Two

Jan 24, 2018Jan 24 at 1:44am

Manage Discussion Entry

As the editor of the Town Times, in my story regarding the school fire, I would choose not to include Damon’s name in Thursday’s edition. I believe that there is a good middle ground between trying to turn a profit and presenting the facts. While it would be factual to include Damon and the second boy’s names as suspects, I believe that this would damage my relationship with County Prosecutor’s office, as well as Roland Bradstreet, Damon’s uncle whom I work for. Including their names may also falsely incriminate them, as they have been accused but not yet convicted. This could lead to an unintentional bias towards Damon.

I believe that it would be in my best interest financially, and factually, to include that two students were suspected, but not to directly include the names of those students. “Since it is generally in the interests of journalists not to be forcibly censored or to be punished by the law for failing to meet the obligations to suppress information, professional organizations of journalists usually set voluntary standards for the kinds of news reporting in which they will or will not engage in” (Jacquette, 2007, p.150). This is taken into consideration here by the County Prosecutor’s office, as the newspaper has an unofficial agreement with them not to include anyone who is under 14 by name. Breaking this policy would surely lead to backlash from the community for me, which could endanger my career. Also, since Damon’s uncle is my general manager, I don’t think it would be a very good idea to knowingly break an unspoken agreement and accuse him before he is convicted by a court of law in my article. Under no circumstances, without altering the situation significantly, would I include Damon’s name.

Source:

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