Issue 2 - Juvenile Suspects
Click on this link for the story:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/25/teen.pimp/index.html
This article covers the recent indictment of two Arizona teenage girls who are accused of recruiting and pimping other teen girls. They are only 16 years old.
The issue this article raises concerns the actions of both the prosecutors and the journalists covering the story. The accused girls are only 16 years old, to be tried as adults, and the prosecutors made a conscious decision to release their names to the press. This case is one that will be following those girls for the rest of their lives, no matter the outcome of the case, and the decision to reveal their names is one that should be thought about before making, as it will most definitely impact the rest of their lives. Not only did the prosecutors use the names, but the journalists made the decision to reveal their names in their article. The pictures and names provided will make it easy for anyone to identify these girls and link them to the criminal behavior they have been accused of. A journalist must consider the harm they are exposing these girls to by providing this information to the world. This is an online article, not a community journal, and that means the normal geographical limitations would not apply on the internet. Anyone can access these articles. Two guidelines from the SPJ Code of Ethics best illustrate this issue: "Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects." The second reads, "Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes". Clearly, age can make a big difference when writing a story, and young children or teens, whether suspects or victims, should be made a priority when determining what informational elements should be included in the article.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Ethics in Journalism - Article 1
Issue 1 - Two Sides to a Story
Click on this link for the story:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/24/bank.hoax.indictment/index.html
The story here concerns a New Mexico man who has allegedly sent threatening letters to Chase bank offices and other governmental regulatory offices. He has been in federal custody since February 2nd and was indicted on Tuesday, Feb. 24th, 2009.
Journalism is primarily concerned with facts and making sure to verify the accuracy and fairness of the story. According to the SPJ, journalists should consider "diligently seek(ing) out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing". Some articles may not always have an opposing side to the story, but many times there are notes within the story that state the efforts that were made to obtain the other side of the story. In this particular case, the article does not seem to have any quotes from either the man indicted, or even his lawyer(s), family, friends, etc. There is no one to speak on behalf of the man who has been accused of sending threatening letters. Much of the story refers to the official indictment, which only speaks of what it "alleges" Goyette did, making sure to use his name several times instead of referring only to the document itself, and ends with the possible consequences Richard Goyette is facing.
This seems to indicate that the man has no other side, which brings many questions to mind. Were efforts made to contact the accused? How was the case investigated? What other information is there that might indicate it was not Goyette? The article uses sources that are obviously not in favor of Goyette, including the U.S. Attorney James Jacks and the official indictment. One phrase that caught my eye in particular: "Government documents cite an e-mail in which Goyette allegedly said he would "pursue any path to get the return of my investment."" This puts a real personal touch to the information - stating Goyette "allegedly said", and using "he" instead of just referring to the information in the e-mail. There might be better ways to phrase the last statement that could get the point across without making it seem as if Goyette himself did indeed write these things. Assuming we're still based on a system that presumes "innocent until proven guilty", this could potentially influence the reader to presume that Goyette is indeed guilty. As a reader, I would like to know what his position might be - and if no information can be gathered regarding his position, I'd like to know what efforts were made to contact reliable sources that could provide more information on the case itself. If a man is indicted, he's going to have some sort of position on what he has been accused of, and so will his lawyer(s), loved ones, etc.
Click on this link for the story:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/24/bank.hoax.indictment/index.html
The story here concerns a New Mexico man who has allegedly sent threatening letters to Chase bank offices and other governmental regulatory offices. He has been in federal custody since February 2nd and was indicted on Tuesday, Feb. 24th, 2009.
Journalism is primarily concerned with facts and making sure to verify the accuracy and fairness of the story. According to the SPJ, journalists should consider "diligently seek(ing) out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing". Some articles may not always have an opposing side to the story, but many times there are notes within the story that state the efforts that were made to obtain the other side of the story. In this particular case, the article does not seem to have any quotes from either the man indicted, or even his lawyer(s), family, friends, etc. There is no one to speak on behalf of the man who has been accused of sending threatening letters. Much of the story refers to the official indictment, which only speaks of what it "alleges" Goyette did, making sure to use his name several times instead of referring only to the document itself, and ends with the possible consequences Richard Goyette is facing.
This seems to indicate that the man has no other side, which brings many questions to mind. Were efforts made to contact the accused? How was the case investigated? What other information is there that might indicate it was not Goyette? The article uses sources that are obviously not in favor of Goyette, including the U.S. Attorney James Jacks and the official indictment. One phrase that caught my eye in particular: "Government documents cite an e-mail in which Goyette allegedly said he would "pursue any path to get the return of my investment."" This puts a real personal touch to the information - stating Goyette "allegedly said", and using "he" instead of just referring to the information in the e-mail. There might be better ways to phrase the last statement that could get the point across without making it seem as if Goyette himself did indeed write these things. Assuming we're still based on a system that presumes "innocent until proven guilty", this could potentially influence the reader to presume that Goyette is indeed guilty. As a reader, I would like to know what his position might be - and if no information can be gathered regarding his position, I'd like to know what efforts were made to contact reliable sources that could provide more information on the case itself. If a man is indicted, he's going to have some sort of position on what he has been accused of, and so will his lawyer(s), loved ones, etc.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)