Re: Media Ethics Discussion -- COM101 Mass Communications

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 07:41:41 12/14/08 Sun
Author: Brittany Vumback
Subject: Re: Media Ethics Discussion
In reply to: Richard Lenoce 's message, "Media Ethics Discussion" on 17:59:45 11/21/08 Fri

Newspaper Joins War against Drugs-

There is a very thin line between right and wrong among journalists. Should they or should they not print something? Does the world have a right to know everything? Is it morally correct to tell everyone other peoples business? The �Standard Times� should have never posted pictures of anyone suspected to be using, selling, or buying drugs. These photos must have done severe harm to those that were pictured in them. Whether or not they in fact were involved with drugs the press is not the people who should be determining it.
The people posted in the newspaper may not have been involved with drugs. A reporter, who has no business accusing them in the first place, could have wrongfully accused these people. The suspected drug users, buyers, or sellers, should be accused and sent to trial by a person of the law. A person should have a right to privacy until the correct person accuses them of a crime. A reporters job is to report fact, not assumptions.
These photos in the �Standard Times� could have destroyed these people�s reputations in their community. It could destroy an innocent persons life, or a guilty persons. Jobs, families, and friends, are among the many things that could have suffered in the person whose picture was printed, life. If any of the people who were accused were actually not guilty of being associated with drugs a reporter ruined their reputation with facts that were not even accurate. How is this right?
The biggest thing that bothered me was the fact that the families in the community were actually happy about the article being published. It doesn�t make sense to me how a community can be happy about finding out there are drug users, buyers, and sellers in their community, that maybe friends, or family. The family and friends of these people are then also dragged into the whole situation. This could destroy the reputations of them too. People may wonder if they knew about it or if they were also involved with drugs. This reporter put an entire community of people out of display for people to see.
A reporter�s job is to report. Taking reporting away from a reporter would mean they would have no job, however, reporters should have to print facts. These people the reporter for the �Standard Times� printed should have not been considered criminals and involved in drugs until they were arrested for the crime. Their photos should have not been printed. I don�t think the reporters were helping anyone other then themselves when they printed this article. They pointed out the flaws in the community, and they made the law enforcement system in the community look like they were incapable of doing their jobs.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]