1. Ethics What did you think of the test? Questions?
Don’t worry about it if you don’t think you did well. The nice thing about these tests is that a) there are three of them and b) they don’t make up a huge portion of your grade
PolitiFact: Did you explore? What did you find? What are possible down sides?
One of the other classes mentioned to Beth that they thought
Moving on to ethics. We’ll be talking about this quite a bit.
We already talked about the pentagon papers quite a bit

2. Who’s familiar with this photo? Did I talk about this?
Kevin Carter, photographer, sat in the shade and watched this girl crawling toward a feeding station. Waited 20 minutes for the vulture to lift its wings.
1993 sudanese famine
The St. Petersburg Times in Florida said this of Carter: "The man adjusting his lens to take just the right frame of him suffering, might just as well be a predator, another vulture on the scene.”
As a result, hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of aid flooded into the Sudan

3. Who has seen this photo before? What is it? Why is it significant?
Taken by photographer Nick Ut during the Vietnam War on June 8, 1972
Phan Thị Kim Phúc was running away with napalm on her skin
Is that one ok?
It became iconic because people had not truly seen the atrocities committed by US troops in Vietnam until then.
After snapping the photograph, Ut took Kim Phuc and the other injured children to Barsky Hospital in Saigon, where it was determined that her burns were so severe that she probably would not survive.[1] After a 14-month hospital stay and 17 surgical procedures, however, she was able to return home. Ut continued to visit her until he was evacuated during the fall of Saigon.
The two work together for the Kim Phuc Foundation, which provides medical and psychological assistance to child victims of war.

4. Published last year—
What is the story behind this?
someone pushed the man onto the tracks,jour

5. Publicizing shootings?
Putting the faces and names of shooters on the front page—good or bad?
Does it encourage more shootings and copycats?
Putting the faces and names of shooters on the front page—good or bad?
Some people think it encourages more shootings
Everyone recognizes James Holmes immediately. Well, everyone in colorado at least

6. “America puts killers on the cover of Time magazine, giving them as much notoriety as our favorite movie stars. From Jesse James to Charles Manson, the media, since their inception, have turned criminals into folk heroes. They just created two new ones when they plastered those dipshits Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris' pictures on the front of every newspaper. Don't be surprised if every kid who gets pushed around has two new idols.”
First of all, who is this talking about? Klebold and Harris were the two Columbine shooters
Do you know who said that? Marilyn Manson, whose music was partially blamed for the Columbine shooting.

7. Categorical Imperative/Deontology
Certain actions are always wrong, regardless of circumstances of individual situations: lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc. These are called “categorical imperatives.”
Right and wrong, not consequences.
A higher moral order (conscience) guides imperatives, rather than reason
What are some things that you think are categorically wrong?
Does anyone know who first wrote about the categorical imperative? Immanuel Kant
According to Deontology, Certain actions are always wrong, regardless of circumstances of individual situations: lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc. These are called “categorical imperatives.” In deontology, you care about the right and wrong of actions, not of their consequences.
A categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that asserts its authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in itself.
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law”
Meaning, you should only do something if you can apply it universally. So, if a man is flirting with his 18-year old coworker behind his wife’s back, he might thing that this is moral. However, according to deontology, in order for that action to be legitimately moral, it would have to be ok if everyone in the world flirted with teenagers behind their significant others’ backs.
Moral judgment is contained in the act alone
Non-negotiable moral code, universal: right it right, wrong is wrong
Actions must have universality: every person
Human must be an end, not a means to an end: no manipulation
A higher moral order (conscience) guides imperatives, rather than reason
What are some things that you think are categorically wrong?
Our society deems murder, rape, theft, and any number of other things categorically wrong
What if a person steals food for his or her starving children? Is that morally wrong?

8. Categorical Imperative - Examples
For example: One categorical imperative may be that lying is wrong.
Situations
Other examples?
For example: One categorical imperative may be that lying is wrong.
Situation: If someone comes up to you and says they want to kill your friend, then asks you where your friend is hiding, as a strict deontologist you can’t lie to them.
Can anyone think of other examples?

9. Utilitarianism
Ethical choices produce the greatest good for the greatest number.
The ends justify the means.
Majority
Greatest balance of good over evil
Requires an accurate assessment of consequences of an action: mitigate harm
The idea of utilitarianism seeks to delineate what action is moral and what is not, by considering usefulness of a particular action.
The ultimate morality, or the lack of it, is judged by weighing all the aspects of the action that seek to maximize positive utilities against all those aspects that seek to maximize the negative utilities of that action.
In simpler words, utilitarianism observes that an action may be considered moral if it has maximum positive and minimum negative utilities. 
Ethical choices produce the greatest good for the greatest number.
The ends justify the means (as long as the ends are for the good of the majority). The majority is key. This can be tricky because you can’t always predict the consequences of a decision or the detriment to some. Also, some things are still unacceptable even if they seem to promote the greater good.
Greatest balance of good over evil
Requires an accurate assessment of consequences of an action
Straight Utilitarianism can make things difficult because what is good for some may not be good for other. Therefore, utilitarianism requires an evaluation of consequences that will mitigate harm
For example, without that examination of consequences, early American slavery was utlitarian: slavery benefitted the white majority, but was really horrible for the minority of black slaves.
A utilitarian says that murder is wrong because it does not maximize good for those involved, but this is irrelevant to people who are concerned only with maximizing the positive outcome for themselves. 
Utilitarian examples from history: Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—many people say that more lives would have been lost, so it was for the greater good. (I don’t really think that’s true, but that’s beside the point.)
This would be the basis for John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham’s principle idea
Make the choice that is likely to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people AND minimize harm
Democratic and egalitarian impulse
John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham
Non-elitist
Originated among the growth of democratic republics in Europe
Don’t want those who lose, who don’t come out ahead, who don’t gain the most to be uncared for
Bad things can happen to those who are not the majority: mob rule can be bad for the minority
Never forget about the harm that might occur
Learn the truth and report them, but make sure you don’t do harm (don’t report rape victim’s names)
Investigative journalism may be good, may not be—benefits the greatest good for the greatest number… may not minimize harm? If it causes someone to lose a job, it might be ok. If it causes someone to lose their life, it’s not worth it.

10. The Golden Mean
The ethical choice is found between extremes, avoiding excessive practices. Finding the middle ground. BUT “Extremes” must still be based on an appropriate range of choices. This is best used when situations are complicated or layered with ambiguity and uncertainty. Problem: not all issues have an appropriate middle ground or center.
The ethical choice is found between extremes, avoiding excessive practices. Finding the middle ground. BUT “Extremes” must still be based on an appropriate range of choices.
This is best used when situations are complicated or layered with ambiguity and uncertainty.
The problem is, not all issues have an appropriate middle ground or center.
For example: Your roommate steals your Diet Coke from the fridge. Extremes might be to not say anything at all or to scream at him/her and storm out of the house (the middle ground would be talking calmly and asking them to replace it).
Remember, this was orignally aristotle’s thought

11. The Golden Mean - Examples
A TV station teams up with a hospital and a drug chain to promote a mass community health screening. It can be for cholesterol, colorectal cancer, vision, glucose or even drinking water.
A TV station teams up with a hospital and a drug chain to promote a mass community health screening. It can be for cholesterol, colorectal cancer, vision, glucose or even drinking water.
Is this ethical or unethical?
How can the Golden Mean be used to justify this?
The benefits of this form of newsmaking are clear:
The test kit manufacturer sells a lot of kits.
The drug chain, which buys and distributes the kits free or for a nominal charge, gets publicity and customers into its stores.
The hospital, which processes the kits, also gets publicity, and usually referrals.
The television station gets kudos for community involvement and can forge relationships with advertisers.
TV viewers get screened inexpensively for a health problem
Could be less ethical because it promotes the drug chain without critiquing it

12. The Veil Of Ignorance Social Justice/Egalitarianism
“Justice is blind.”
Looking at situations regardless of social or economic status
Put yourself in their shoes.
Fairness is considered a principle of justice
Egalitarianism is paramount
For example: Should you report on a politician who is rumored to be having an affair?
“Justice is blind.” Looking at situations regardless of social or economic status. Put yourself in their shoes.
Fairness is considered a principle of justice
Egalitarianism is paramount
For example: Should you report on a politician who is rumored to be having an affair? Would you want an affair reported about yourself? Probably not. But can’t be used all the time to let everyone off the hook either.
David Hume was the philosopher responsible for this theory
So the Veil of Ignorance is essentially a thought experiment. Let’s say there’s food production business. Part of their deal is that they ship food to a community of refugees in Somalia, though they also produce food for the continental US. Their primary factory is located upstream from a town, and they’re dumping pollutants into the water, which are giving the community cancer and causing a ton of birth defects and miscarriages. The town calls for the business to be shut down, but if they’re shut down, no one else is available to send food to the Somalian refugee camp. In order to make a judgment through the veil of ignorance, you have to put yourself in the situation from behind a “veil of ignorance,” so that you don’t know which of the tree parties—the business, the Somalians, or the townspeople, you will be. Therefore, to ensure that you receive the best possible outcome, you have to judge from every perspective. Justice is completely blind.
It refers to complete objectivity when judging a situation—which is a bit on the impossible side.

13. Veil of Ignorance - Examples
After a shooting spree at Standard Gravure by one of the printing company's former employees, The Courier-Journal published a front-page photograph of one of the victims. The photograph showed the dead victim lying on his back at the bottom of the stairs, his arms spread out and his body partially resting on a track used to move large rolls of paper. The photograph prompted more than 500 complaints and a lawsuit - won by The Courier-Journal - that went all the way to the Supreme Court. Readers quickly let the newspaper know that they disagreed and did not appreciate the vivid reminder of the previous day’s events on the front page of their morning paper.
Journalism example: After a shooting spree at Standard Gravure by one of the printing company's former employees, The Courier-Journal published a front-page photograph of one of the victims. The photograph showed the dead victim lying on his back at the bottom of the stairs, his arms spread out and his body partially resting on a track used to move large rolls of paper. The photograph prompted more than 500 complaints and a lawsuit - won by The Courier-Journal - that went all the way to the Supreme Court. 
Readers quickly let the newspaper know that they disagreed and did not appreciate the vivid reminder of the previous day’s events on the front page of their morning paper.
Put yourself in the shoes of the victims and the community – would you want the photo printed? Put yourself in the shoes of the news agency that saw the picture as one “that had to be used” – what would you do?

14. Agape/Judeo Christian/Care-Based
“Love your neighbor as yourself.” Other-directed care and love. Based on relationships. Personal instead of legal ethics. For example: Someone practicing Agape ethics might not print a rape victim’s name just because they can. They care more about protecting and caring for the victim than getting a story.
 “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Other-directed care and love. Based on relationships. Personal instead of legal ethics.
For example: Someone practicing Agape ethics might not print a rape victim’s name just because they can. They care more about protecting and caring for the victim than getting a story.

15. Judeo-Christian Example
You’ve known for months that the candidate is gay. And each time you raised the possibility of a story, everyone agreed: the man’s sex life was his business. But now it’s different. A local newscast led with a story that highlighted the candidate’s activities with the local gay community. Even though the candidate "declined comment on his sexual preference," the story is undoubtedly out.
You’ve known for months that the candidate is gay. And each time you raised the possibility of a story, everyone agreed: the man’s sex life was his business.
But now it’s different. A local newscast led with a story that highlighted the candidate’s activities with the local gay community. Even though the candidate "declined comment on his sexual preference," the story is undoubtedly out.
And you’re stuck between being moral and being misunderstood. You still think that the candidate should be allowed to keep his personal life private. But, you’ve got another factor to weigh in your news judgments: "They said it first."
If you don’t go with it, it looks as though you can’t develop that information on your own, or that you’re in the candidate’s pocket. And, what’s the sense of sticking to your scruples if the story’s out anyway?
"They said it first" can be a good reason for going with a story. But it can also be just an excuse for letting competition get in the way of responsible judgments.

16. Definition/Situation
Potter Box
Definition/Situation
Values
Principles
Loyalties
The Potter Box is a model for making ethical decisions, developed by Ralph B. Potter, Jr., professor of social ethics emeritus of Harvard Divinity School. It is commonly used by communication ethics scholars. Moral thinking should be a systematic process. A judgment is made and action is taken. How do we come to decisions must be based in some reasoning.
So you take an ethical principle/framework like we just described and apply it.
The Potter Box is not a solution- it is just a process that helps us think about our options more clearly. It focuses on ethical or moral issues, not pragmatic or legal ones, like whether you will get fired or sued. The Potter Box can help us think through what to do.
These four steps should be taken in order. According to Potter, the Potter Box can be utilized in any ethical situation.
Two different people analyzing the same issue using the Potter Box can arrive at two very different conclusions. In fact, the same person using the same issue could arrive at different decisions when using the box at two different times.
If you need to decided what to do in an ethically precarious situation, you ask…
What is the situation?
What are the values involved in showing this image to the public? What are the principles involved? What framework are you looking at? With issues of journalism, you also have to include journalistic principles.
What loyalties are involved? Who has a stake in these private photos being used/reprinted in the press?
Let’s try running Deep Throat through the potter box
The situation:
Deep Throat was secret informant who provided information to The Washington Post in 1972 about the involvement of United States President Richard Nixon's administration in the Watergate scandal. Thirty-one years after Nixon's resignation and eleven years after his death, Deep Throat was revealed to be formerFederal Bureau of Investigation Associate Director Mark Felt.
For more than 30 years, the identity of Deep Throat was one of the biggest mysteries of American politics and journalism and the source of much public curiosity and speculation. Woodward and Bernstein insisted they would not reveal his identity until he died or consented to have his identity revealed, but when vanity fair revealed him they confirmed it
Professional. Proximity, Firstness, Impact/ magnitude, Recency, Conflict, Human Interest, Entertainment, Novelty, Toughness, Thoroughness, Immediacy, Independence, No prior restraint, Public’s right to know
Moral Values. Truth-telling, Humanness, Justice/fairness, Freedom, Independence, Stewardship, Honesty, Nonviolence, Commitment, Self-control
Aesthetic. Harmonious, Pleasing, Imaginative
Logical. Consistent, Competent, Knowledgeable
Socio-cultural. Thrift, Hard work, Energy, Restraint, Heterosexuality
Not using anonymous sources (accuracy and truth)
Revealing his identity later is also quesitonable
Principles:
Choose one of the principles we talked about: Deontology, Utilitarianism, Golden Mean, Veil of Ignorance, Agape. Decide which is best.
Deontology: Categorical imperatives, social rules -- we don’t use anonymous sources; sources that are anonymous remain so
Utilitarainism: greater good, minimize harm-- revealing the corruption was for the greater good; revealing the source provided information to the public
Golden Mean: perfect balance
Veil of Ignorance: perfect egalitarianism
Agape: love your neighbor as yourself
Which works best? It’s opinion-based.
Loyalties:
Loyalties concern who the decision-maker has allegiances or loyalties to. For example, in journalism, the first allegiance is always to the public. Other allegiances a journalist might have would be to his or her employer, industry organizations or co-workers. Are we more concerned about being true to our own values or about the effectiveness of the campaign? Is the "greater good" more important than the "golden mean"?
To whom do you owe your loyalties

17. Potter Box: Situation Photojournalism Kevin Carter’s Sudanese girl
Written journalism
Showing faces/giving names of rape victims
Broadcast journalism
Fox news video
First, you ask what is the situation?
Examples of things that might cause an ethical dilemma
- Conflict of interest
- Confidentiality of names for minors/sexual assault victims
- Endangering police investigations
- What to do when you or someone else gets the story wrong
- Going undercover
- Getting the story
- Invading privacy
- Controversial photos
- Politics and the military
- Protecting sources
- Workplace issues (ie: when you and your editor don’t agree on how something should be covered or seeing someone you work with doing something unethical)
- Getting the story out first

18. Potter Box: Values Professional values Moral values Aesthetic values
Logical values
Socio-cultural values
Values:
At this stage the analyst should state and compare the merits of different values to acknowledge the influences on decision-making. By referring to the specific concerns of the individuals involved, it allows the analyst to identify differences in perspectives. We may judge something according to aesthetic values(harmonious, pleasing), professional values(innovative, prompt), logical values(consistent, competent), sociocultural values(thrift, hard work), and moral values(honesty, nonviolence).
You guys want to choose a set of values for your project.
Professional. Proximity, Firstness, Impact/ magnitude, Recency, Conflict, Human Interest, Entertainment, Novelty, Toughness, Thoroughness, Immediacy, Independence, No prior restraint, Public’s right to know
Moral Values. Truth-telling, Humanness, Justice/fairness, Freedom, Independence, Stewardship, Honesty, Nonviolence, Commitment, Self-control
Aesthetic. Harmonious, Pleasing, Imaginative
Logical. Consistent, Competent, Knowledgeable
Socio-cultural. Thrift, Hard work, Energy, Restraint, Heterosexuality(meaning gendered roles are more acceptable than non-gendered roles)

19. Potter Box: Principles
Deontology/Categorical Imperative
Utilitarianism
Golden Mean
Veil of Ignorance
Agape
Principles:
Choose one of the principles/thical frameworks we talked about: Deontology, Utilitarianism, Golden Mean, Veil of Ignorance, Agape. Decide which is best.
Deontology: Categorical imperatives, social rules -- we don’t use anonymous sources; sources that are anonymous remain so
Utilitarainism: greater good, minimize harm-- revealing the corruption was for the greater good; revealing the source provided information to the public
Golden Mean: perfect balance
Veil of Ignorance: perfect egalitarianism
Agape: love your neighbor as yourself

20. Potter Box: Loyalties To whom do you owe your loyalty? Citizens
Employers
Publications
Advertisers
Government
Those involved
You really have to consider all of these, but as a good rule of thumb, an ethical journalist always owes his or her loyalty to.... Citizens!

21. Definition/Situation
Examples
Definition/Situation
Values
Principles
Loyalties
For example, let’s try that Fox Video
Situation: Fox news is airing a live car chase. The driver stops, gets out of his car and shoots himself on live TV. They did not pan away in time and everyone watching saw it.
Values: Shepard Smith applies his professional values to the situation
Principles: He also applies deontology, saying that it’s NEVER ok to show video of someone committing suicide
Loyalty: His loyalty is to the viewers, who may be scarred by seeing the suicide; he also owes his loyalty to the station to mitigate any harm that might have been done to damage their credibility.
Let’s try running Deep Throat through the potter box
What’s the situation?
What values are involved? Professional, moral,
The situation:
Deep Throat was secret informant who provided information to The Washington Post in 1972 about the involvement of United States President Richard Nixon's administration in the Watergate scandal. Thirty-one years after Nixon's resignation and eleven years after his death, Deep Throat was revealed to be formerFederal Bureau of Investigation Associate Director Mark Felt.
For more than 30 years, the identity of Deep Throat was one of the biggest mysteries of American politics and journalism and the source of much public curiosity and speculation. Woodward and Bernstein insisted they would not reveal his identity until he died or consented to have his identity revealed, but when vanity fair revealed him they confirmed it
Values:
Not using anonymous sources (accuracy and truth)
Revealing his identity later is also quesitonable
Principles:
Choose one of the principles we talked about: Deontology, Utilitarianism, Golden Mean, Veil of Ignorance, Agape. Decide which is best.
Deontology: Categorical imperatives, social rules -- we don’t use anonymous sources; sources that are anonymous remain so
Utilitarainism: greater good, minimize harm-- revealing the corruption was for the greater good; revealing the source provided information to the public
Golden Mean: perfect balance
Veil of Ignorance: perfect egalitarianism
Agape: love your neighbor as yourself
Which works best? It’s opinion-based.
Loyalties:
Loyalties concern who the decision-maker has allegiances or loyalties to. For example, in journalism, the first allegiance is always to the public. Other allegiances a journalist might have would be to his or her employer, industry organizations or co-workers. Are we more concerned about being true to our own values or about the effectiveness of the campaign? Is the "greater good" more important than the "golden mean"?
To whom do you owe your loyalties

22. Potter Box Examples
Duggar Family Miscarriage Photos What is the situation? What are the values involved in showing this image to the public? To taking this image as a “celebrity” family? What values does this image support or negate? What are the principles involved? What loyalties are involved? Who has a stake in these private photos being used/reprinted in the press?
Let’s try a harder one
Situation: What is the situation?
The Duggar family is famous for having 19 kids
They had a miscarriage with their 20th
They had a funeral
The mom tweeted a picture of the baby’s hand and feet; TMZ got ahold of it; she later deleted it
(It got out to the press, people thought it was creepy, negative response at reprinting it)
Values:
At this stage the analyst should state and compare the merits of different values to acknowledge the influences on decision-making. By referring to the specific concerns of the individuals involved, it allows the analyst to identify differences in perspectives. Choose your value set.
Aesthetic values: It’s an alarming photo and dead baby pictures are sort of in bad taste
Also sociocultural: It’s pretty freaky in this society because we don’t generally see that kind of thing
Professional: from a professional standpoint, if you’re an entertainment journalist, you might feel obligated to report on something like this or you’ll seem ignorant and out of the loop.
Principles:
If I were an editor or publisher, I might evaluate this situation using deontology and say that I never publish photos of dead babies
Utilitarianism: Does it really help anyone?
Golden Mean: You could write about it without showing the pictures or putting them behind a jump with a warning that they may be disturbing.
Veil of ignorance: I don’t think this one applies as much because no one’s reputation is at stake
Agape: I’d probably not publish the photos because they will disturb people.
Choose one of the principles we talked about: Deontology, Utilitarianism, Golden Mean, Veil of Ignorance, Agape. Decide which is best.
Deontology: Categorical imperatives, social rules -- we don’t use anonymous sources; sources that are anonymous remain so
Utilitarainism: greater good, minimize harm-- revealing the corruption was for the greater good; revealing the source provided information to the public
Golden Mean: perfect balance
Veil of Ignorance: perfect egalitarianism
Agape: love your neighbor as yourself
Which works best? It’s opinion-based.
Loyalties:
Loyalties concern who the decision-maker has allegiances or loyalties to. For example, in journalism, the first allegiance is always to the public. Other allegiances a journalist might have would be to his or her employer, industry organizations or co-workers. Are we more concerned about being true to our own values or about the effectiveness of the campaign? Is the "greater good" more important than the "golden mean"?
To whom do you owe your loyalties?
Groups of 4? due two weeks from today.

23. Ethics Project
As a group, you will research an actual news story that was at the center of a journalistic ethical dilemma. You can choose which type of story you’d like to research – such as a sports, photo, political or crime story – as long as there is an ethical dilemma involved. You’ll analyze the situation using the various ethical theories we discuss in class. Then you’ll create a presentation about your dilemma, which you’ll present during lecture.
Turn in:
A PowerPoint presentation that summarizes/analyzes the ethical dilemma.
Each individual group member will write a one-page minimum, two- page double-spaced personal analysis of your group’s dilemma.
The group must turn in a quick run-down of who did what within each group.
I will you a thorough explanation of the project as well as post it on the blog.
As a group, you will research an actual news story that was at the center of a journalistic ethical dilemma. You can choose which type of story you’d like to research – such as a sports, photo, political or crime story – as long as there is an ethical dilemma involved. You’ll analyze the situation using the various ethical theories we discuss in class. Then you’ll create a presentation about your dilemma, which you’ll present during lecture.
What to turn in
1. A PowerPoint presentation that summarizes/analyzes the ethical dilemma. to me.
2. Each individual group member will write a one-page minimum, two-page maximum (that means that the whole first page should be filled and likely spilling onto a second page) double-spaced personal analysis of your group’s dilemma. Briefly remind me of the situation. Then launch into why you think it was handled well or poorly, using one of the ethical frameworks we discuss in class.
Grading
3. Each individual will give a quick run-down of who did what within the group. Please list each group member’s name and then a sentence or two detailing their participation. to me.
Presentations, 75 percent: Is the presentation orderly? Does everyone in the group have a chance to talk? Did you fully cover the eight criteria listed below? Are there links to on-line sources that might be valuable to your audience’s understanding? Other requirements: the presentations will each last 10 minutes to allow for questions and analysis; everyone must speak; dress for a presentation: no sweatpants, nappy t-shirts, etc.
Individual Papers, 25 percent: Did you briefly describe your ethical dilemma? Does your paper express your thoughts on the topic fully, critically and concisely? Did you explain the ethical approach you chose and why you chose it? Did you apply it directly to your example?  DID YOU EDIT YOUR PAPER FOR SPELLING AND GRAMMAR?
Timeline
Oct. 5 —Assign Ethics Project and groups.
Oct. 12 —Discuss ethical theories in class.
Oct. 19 —Turn in presentation, individual response papers, and description of who did what. Present project in class.
Oct. 15 —Deadline for ing me your choice of ethical dilemma.
Some examples of ethical dilemmas: (though this list is not exhaustive)
- Conflict of interest
- Confidentiality of names for minors/sexual assault victims
- Endangering police investigations
- What to do when you or someone else gets the story wrong
- Going undercover
- Getting the story
- Invading privacy
- Politics and the military
- Controversial photos
- Protecting sources
- Workplace issues (ie: when you and your editor don’t agree on how something should be covered or seeing someone you work with doing something unethical)
- Getting the story out first
Poynter Online: Has tips on how to approach ethical dilemmas, what it means to be ethical
Here are some useful Media Ethics Links that also have case studies you can choose from:
Indiana University
Society of Professional Journalists: Has helpful resources about ethics, case studies, trends in journalism, what it means to be ethical
In your project you should:
Summarize the story and what happened.
What was the dilemma and why was it a dilemma?
Who were the major players and what were their points of view? (What were their individual dilemmas? What were their options for dealing with the situation? Put yourselves in their shoes.)
What were the alternatives?
Based on the outcome, what was the ethical “school of thought” used by the decision makers (reporter or editor)?
Take each “school of thought” and describe what would’ve been done in this case. For example, “Based on the practice of utilitarianism, the reporter would’ve done X because Y …”
Now decide which ethical approach you would have ultimately followed. (You can either present this as one agreed upon course of action, or you can each choose what you would’ve done, and then briefly explain your choice.)
Look for other news stories that involved the same dilemma. Did they do the same thing?
Also make sure to:
Include web links to the original story/dilemma whether it is from a newspaper, photograph, a YouTube video, a blog, etc. Also include a works cited page listing all of the sources you used. Attribute any information or ideas that weren’t your own in the body of the project.
Why am I concerned about this story, photo or graphic?
Questions to ask yourself (from Poynter Institute) when thinking about ethical dilemmas in journalism:
What is the news? What good would publication do?
Is the information complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge?
Am I missing an important point of view?
How would I feel if the story or photo were about me or a member of my family?
What does my reader need to know?
What are the likely consequences of publication? What good or harm could result?
What are my alternatives?
Will I be able to clearly and honestly explain my decision to anyone who challenges it?