NationStates Jolt Archive


Interesting scenario

Schrandtopia
10-06-2005, 04:15
I was watching a public TV show from the 80s that was debating moral issues regarding journalism and they came up with a pretty nice hypothetical. Lets say that (I can’t remember what fake country they used so I’m going to say Jamaica) is embroiled in a brutal civil war between a somewhat democratic south and a clearly communist north. the American government is providing the south with supplies, inelegance and some special ops units it their fight against communism. The northern government is a brutal communist politburo who has ordered their soldiers to carry out acts of genocide and immorality against the civilians of the south, the northerner Jamaicans claim that southern Jamaican and American forces have been doing the same. You are an American journalist covering the war from the north, northern soldiers offer to take you to the site of the yet non-verifiable acts of genocide the American soldiers and soldiers of the American backed south have committed. Being a journalist committed to seeking out the truth you agree to go with them, but you never get there; on the way a skirmish breaks out with the northerners and an advanced unit of southerners. The southerners radio for re-enforcements, you are standing in the front of the northern platoon when they set up a ambush. You see the platoon or American re-enforcements coming to you about to be ambushed, you could sit there, take pictures and later report on the story as they are cut to pieces or you could warn them – probably leading to your death but probably saving the lives of the soldiers. What are you morally obligated to do as a journalist? as and American?
Tactical Grace
10-06-2005, 04:37
Judging by the embeds in Chechen terrorist outfits in Chechnya, you'd probably end up filming the carnage.
Cafetopia
10-06-2005, 04:57
I would point and laugh.
Lovfro
10-06-2005, 05:37
I would shut the hell up and report what occured.

The reasoning behind this is that by warning the southern forces, I would defacto become a combattant and that is not the place of a journalist. I would not feel good about it, but my actions as a journalist reflects directly back on the profession as a whole. Who is to say that my interferring would not lead to some of my colleagues, also reporting from the north, being tortured or killed? The north could make a (fallacious) argument that I was a southern spy and that I might be in collusion with other reporters.

Therefore I would shut up.