Journalistic Ethics

 

1) When it comes to publishing safety reports, it seemed as if a large majority of students interacting with the page were doing so with the goal of making fun of other students, and even possibly worsening the problem. It is important to encourage safe behavior, but in this case it would be better if specific events weren’t posted. If students think this kind of behavior is funny, and if they acted in the same way their actions could also be posted, it might end up encouraging more inappropriate and dangerous behavior instead of spreading awareness to discourage it.

 

2) Jessica should absolutely keep Adam’s name anonymous for his own safety. In order to avoid accusations of fake or bias news, she could specify the reason for the anonymity. Before talking about her interview, she could simply say that the source will remain anonymous in hopes of protecting his/her safety. If she focused more on her own status and decided to include his name, he could be deported and his whole life could be ruined. It is much more important to respect his privacy than it is to worry about your own reputation.

 

3) The staff should leave the publication as is. It’s important to report the full truth. Especially because the donor said these things criticizing the dean in a public speech, it should be included in the article. Many people would have already heard it and it is an important thing to note, so the audience members may wonder why it isn’t included in the article if they were to take it out. I don’t think that the staff members should take the publication down because administration threatens to pull funding. They could risk becoming completely overseen by administration.

 

4) I think that Analyssa should take Marcus’s name out of the article. He didn’t know technology would advance to the point where employers would be able to find this article with one search of his name, and it could have serious implications on his life. I don’t think that people would think Analyssa was being too protective of her source or not giving the full story, as long as she explains why the name was redacted. I think things would be different if Marcus was dangerous or a repeat offender that the readers needed to look out for.