Scenario 1
It would be wrong to take the documents – this is theft. Given the magnitude of this story I would sneak a peek at the documents on her desk while she is gone. This may be ethically wrong but I think that the benefits would outweigh the harm in this case if the information is incriminating.
Scenario 2
This would be classed as deception and this is ethically wrong. Personally I feel that there is nothing wrong with undercover reporting in this scenario. If the nursing home has nothing to hide then they have nothing to worry about. If conditions are substandard then I would feel a duty to inform the public of this.
Scenario 3
This is a simple one; you have to credit any source you use in your story whether it is from print, on a web site or any other type of source. Not to do so would be plagiarism – taking credit from someone else’s work – and this is ethically wrong. Not to mention that it would also leave you open to legal action.
Article Libel Editing
The professor’s name should be removed from the article. If he is not identified in the story then there is no case for libel. The story is also crafted with bias. The bulk of the article is taken up with the student’s views and quotes, with only a brief comment about the professor’s response. The comment about the professor threatening the newspaper with libel should also be omitted. By including this it appears as if the writer is in support of the student; he/she wants to report this “crime”, regardless of the harm it does to the professor.
1 comment:
1) OK
2) You're right -- "going undercover" is unethical. It's also qualifies as misrepresentation...and you and your news organization could be sued. In fact, that's what happened in the Food Lion case.
3) OK
4) You're right to suggest removing the professor's name, but saying he's a chemistry professor would also probably be a dead giveaway. In fact, you should ask if she's filed a complaint. Until then, it's just an unsupported allegation.
14/15
Post a Comment