NationStates Jolt Archive

Today’s media seems to have no firm hold on ethics. I thought I'd set up a few media ethical dilemmas and see how the folks here on the NS board stand in relation to the media. I'll start with a fairly simple one.

A journalist in the US working for a London publication gets a call one day. It is from a known rapist who is at large. The rapist agrees to meet with the journalist for an interview - where he will likely tell details of how he attacks women and his plans to continue to do so.

What is the journalistically ethical thing to do? Get the story or call law enforcement and risk losing the story?



(poll)

He would probably go, get the interveiw and think nothing of it..then agaion he may also get his scoop whilst having the police surround the building...

Today’s media seems to have no firm hold on ethics. I thought I'd set up a few media ethical dilemmas and see how the folks here on the NS board stand in relation to the media. I'll start with a fairly simple one.

A journalist in the US working for a London publication gets a call one day. It is from a known rapist who is at large. The rapist agrees to meet with the journalist for an interview - where he will likely tell details of how he attacks women and his plans to continue to do so.

What is the journalistically ethical thing to do?

(poll)

Ignore him. It's not ethical to give rapists the limelight and neither is it ethical to become law enforcement pawns.

poll is ready...

Get the story and have the police waiting outside afterward. :)

He would probably go, get the interveiw and think nothing of it..then agaion he may also get his scoop whilst having the police surround the building...

Can't have it both ways - you are saying the ethical thing to do would be to inform law enforcement. That would take prescedent over getting the story? He would have to risk losing the story to 'surround the building'. The perp could get wize...

Personally, I would turn him in. We'd set it up as a sting operation. I'd go to the interview, and once we knew it was him, I'd signal cops for the arrest.

poll is ready...

Yet another poll that doesnt cover all bases. I posted before you even put the poll up and you were still unable to come up with a poll that would cover all options. What is so difficult about including an option that says "other"?

Get the story and have the police waiting outside afterward. :)

Precisely.

Get the story and have the police waiting outside afterward. :)

you dont get to tell police what to do. Once you tell them, its out of your hands, they get to make up whatever plan they feel is best and it may not even involve you being there.

Yet another poll that doesnt cover all bases. I posted before you even put the poll up and you were still unable to come up with a poll that would cover all options. What is so difficult about including an option that says "other"?

Innaction could be a seperate choice - but esentially it would be on the same level as going ahead with the story - you choose not to inform law enforcement of information you gathered as media. The net result is similar - you set the confidentiality of your informant on a higher level than law enforcement or public safety.

Innaction could be a seperate choice - but esentially it would be on the same level as going ahead with the story - you choose not to inform law enforcement of information you gathered as media. The net result is similar - you set the confidentiality of your informant on a higher level than law enforcement or public safety.

Then why didnt you make the options reflect what you really meant to find out? You couldve made the options:

1. Inform law enforcement
2. Do not inform law enforcement

Either way, your poll does not cover all possibilities. It doesnt matter if its because you left an option out or because you phrased your options badly and didnt ask what you really meant to find out, your poll is still badly done.

Isn't "media ethics" a rather large oxymoron?

you dont get to tell police what to do. Once you tell them, its out of your hands, they get to make up whatever plan they feel is best and it may not even involve you being there.

True enough. That's why you meet high up in a skyscraper and after the interview, you call the police when the rapist is in the enevator on the way out. Even if the perp gets out of the building, the information you can provide would be useful for apprehending him. :)

Isn't "media ethics" a rather large oxymoron?

Like "military intelliegene"

if those are the only restrictions, you take the interview. the information you get from the criminal should be more than enough for the police to find him.

Like "military intelliegene"
Quoth Megadeth - Hangar18:
Military Intelligence
Two words combined that don't make sense
http://www.graspop.be/forum/images/smiles/headbang2.gif

Actually this is not really an ethical delima at all. It is a matter of law. The rapist is, "known" and "at large". There is no question in this case that the reporter is compelled by law to notify police as to do otherwise would be subjecting himself and his publisher to criminal charges for aiding a wanted felon. Inaction is not a legal option and could well result in criminal charges against the reporter himself, and without benefit of his publishers legal defense. In the code of ethics for even the most willing of publishers to skirt the line, this is clearly well over it.

As far as I understand would it not be illegal to not inform the police? I'm sure you could classify it under "aiding and abeting" or "harbouring a criminal" if you know where a wanted criminal is and you do not tell law enforcement it is a crime no?

If you benefit from the criminal by not telling the police could that be classed as taking a bribe from a wanted criminal in addition to the above?

EDIT: Damn - the guy above is a faster typer.

As far as I understand would it not be illegal to not inform the police? I'm sure you could classify it under "aiding and abeting" or "harbouring a criminal" if you know where a wanted criminal is and you do not tell law enforcement it is a crime no?

If you benefit from the criminal by not telling the police could that be classed as taking a bribe from a wanted criminal in addition to the above?

EDIT: Damn - the guy above is a faster typer.

It could be considered illegal, but historically speaking the government has never prosecuted such cases as long as the reporter gives all the information he has afterwards. This happens most often with interviews of "terrorists". The current political climate is different however, and reporters are being imprisoned for things the law once respected, so just because its been that way historically is certainly no indication it will continue to be that way.

Since he's just a serial rapist, I'd say that the reporter should tell the cops and get him owned.
If he was a terrorist, or some similar political radical I'd vote for doing the interview and telling the cops after the event.

Today’s media seems to have no firm hold on ethics. I thought I'd set up a few media ethical dilemmas and see how the folks here on the NS board stand in relation to the media. I'll start with a fairly simple one.
A journalist in the US working for a London publication gets a call one day. It is from a known rapist who is at large. The rapist agrees to meet with the journalist for an interview - where he will likely tell details of how he attacks women and his plans to continue to do so.
What is the journalistically ethical thing to do? Get the story or call law enforcement and risk losing the story?


intersting. The right thing to do as a citizen would be to contact the police to have the guy arrested and preferably see him castrated with a rusty spoon.

But if he promised to meet him and not inform the police then he has made a promise which he must uphold. Same way as ethically a reporter must not lie.
So really he should go to the interview, get the information + photos or the rapist, plus anything else to help the police.

If he did go straight to the police, what about in the future when other criminals are looking for attention. If they cannot approach the media, it could make it harder for the police to get that information.

I can't say I have a lot of sympathy for a journalist who puts his carreer ahead of putting a known terrorist/murderer/rapist in jail.

Today’s media seems to have no firm hold on ethics. I thought I'd set up a few media ethical dilemmas and see how the folks here on the NS board stand in relation to the media. I'll start with a fairly simple one.

A journalist in the US working for a London publication gets a call one day. It is from a known rapist who is at large. The rapist agrees to meet with the journalist for an interview - where he will likely tell details of how he attacks women and his plans to continue to do so.

What is the journalistically ethical thing to do? Get the story or call law enforcement and risk losing the story?



(poll)
Get the story, inform the police, set him up, perform the interview, capture him, get the story out. Everyone wins, except the rapist of course.

I dont understand why so many people think there is a story to get. Its a rapist, a common every day rapist. What's the story? there's nothing interesting about it, who really wants to hear an interview with a rapist? If this were a terrorist or other politically motivated criminal, then there might be a story there. But its a common everyday rapist, what story is there in that?

As far as I understand would it not be illegal to not inform the police? I'm sure you could classify it under "aiding and abeting" or "harbouring a criminal" if you know where a wanted criminal is and you do not tell law enforcement it is a crime no?

If you benefit from the criminal by not telling the police could that be classed as taking a bribe from a wanted criminal in addition to the above?

EDIT: Damn - the guy above is a faster typer.

Most states now have laws requiring citizens to notifiy police in criminal matters. Ironically, it is due to massive numbers of stories about people just standing around watching crimes like a spectator sport. This however does not preclude reporters who have resisted any attempts to certification of their profession which could possibly have exempted them from such laws.

It could be considered illegal, but historically speaking the government has never prosecuted such cases as long as the reporter gives all the information he has afterwards. This happens most often with interviews of "terrorists". The current political climate is different however, and reporters are being imprisoned for things the law once respected, so just because its been that way historically is certainly no indication it will continue to be that way.

Excuse me? I was a newspaper reporter for 10 years and never heard of anything like this. Reporters are being imprisoned for things the law once respected? Are you referring to the U.S. or somewhere else? If you are talking about the US you are sorely misinformed. If anything is true, in the US reporters are getting away with things they never before would have.

Liverbreath']Excuse me? I was a newspaper reporter for 10 years and never heard of anything like this. Reporters are being imprisoned for things the law once respected? Are you referring to the U.S. or somewhere else? If you are talking about the US you are sorely misinformed. If anything is true, in the US reporters are getting away with things they never before would have.

http://www.cpj.org/attacks04/americas04/usa.html

http://www.cpj.org/attacks02/americas02/united.html

http://www.cpj.org/attacks01/americas01/USA.html

http://www.cpj.org/attacks00/americas00/US.html

Today’s media seems to have no firm hold on ethics. I thought I'd set up a few media ethical dilemmas and see how the folks here on the NS board stand in relation to the media. I'll start with a fairly simple one.

A journalist in the US working for a London publication gets a call one day. It is from a known rapist who is at large. The rapist agrees to meet with the journalist for an interview - where he will likely tell details of how he attacks women and his plans to continue to do so.

What is the journalistically ethical thing to do? Get the story or call law enforcement and risk losing the story?



(poll)what would I do? get the interview and have the police nab him, then use the interview as evidence then print it along with the arrest, trial and sentencing.

why is a reporter interviewing a therapist anyway?

I dont understand why so many people think there is a story to get. Its a rapist, a common every day rapist. What's the story? there's nothing interesting about it, who really wants to hear an interview with a rapist? If this were a terrorist or other politically motivated criminal, then there might be a story there. But its a common everyday rapist, what story is there in that?

It is a sad state of affairs if you live in a place where a serial rapist is no more interesting than a mugger or jaywalker.

I bet the rapist calls up journalists and tells them that he'll let them interview him so that he could rape them.

It's a cunning plan, I must admit.

In a perfect world, the journalist will call the police.
But we live in a crap infested world, so there's bound to be some stupid idiot who will get the exclusive interview.

And get raped in the process. But then again, think of the article! It'll have a great emotional edge that only a victim can achieve.

Ignore him. It's not ethical to give rapists the limelight and neither is it ethical to become law enforcement pawns.
So the reporter would bear no responsibility for the rapes this asshole comitted after the reporter failed to turn him over to the authorities? Sounds to me as if YOU are the one with no ethics.

what's holding him back from doing both? Can't he interview the guy, then have police in the back wating to arrest him after the interview?

Isn't "media ethics" a rather large oxymoron?
Exactly.

http://www.cpj.org/attacks04/americas04/usa.html

http://www.cpj.org/attacks02/americas02/united.html

http://www.cpj.org/attacks01/americas01/USA.html

http://www.cpj.org/attacks00/americas00/US.html

hahaha! You call this a source? The committee to protect journalists? Hmm nothing bias about that is there?
There is absoultely nothing new in this other than journalists that think they should have some sort of special right to protect their source of information. A right that they have never had and hopefully never will. That would be one of the stupidist things this government ever did. Anyone can claim, oh but I am a journalist so I dont have to tell you that. That's a crock of crap and so is your propaganda source. jeez

Liverbreath']hahaha! You call this a source? The committee to protect journalists? Hmm nothing bias about that is there?
There is absoultely nothing new in this other than journalists that think they should have some sort of special right to protect their source of information. A right that they have never had and hopefully never will. That would be one of the stupidist things this government ever did. Anyone can claim, oh but I am a journalist so I dont have to tell you that. That's a crock of crap and so is your propaganda source. jeez

They havent always had that right on paper (though they do in some states), but the authorities have generally refused to use their power to force journalists to divulge information. That has been changing in the last few years and that is what I was reffering to. The fact they haven't used their power until now does not mean they wont do so in the future. If you dont like my source, then take the names they mention and type them into google so you can read the exact same stories from a source you do like, the facts wont change no matter who it is that presents them to you.

Anyone who voted yes to option 1 seriously needs to be put in jail....with the rapist.

Like "military intelliegene"



The irony is astounding :D

As others said, just interview him with loads of police waiting outside. I absolutely hate rapists.

That's a tough one. The natural reaction is to turn his ass in, damn the consequences.

But I worry about the precedent that sets. The world needs to be able to trust the people who can get one's story out. Sometimes a covert interview with an adventureous reporter is the only way to get a message out, and the world needs to hear the message of some we label criminals. Terrorists, freedom fighters, political dissidents, these are also criminals, but sometimes, indeed often they have a story to tell that the world needs to hear, a different side of the story that only they can tell. If we set a precedent that reporters will turn in those who try to come forward to tell their story, we will lose the stories of those who are criminals for a reason.

I can understand both sides, but in the end I'd say take the interview, rather than set the precedent that if you come forward with a story, your outlet to the world may suddenly turn on you and have you arrested. No one wil come forward then, and many valuable stories and other points of view will never be heard.

Well, I would really say that the journalists duty is to get the story. His interview might (incidentally) gather valuable info on the motivation of rapists in general, and might also give an invaluable insight into this particular rapist that might assist in his apprehension anyway.

The main reason I say this is that because if the journalist called the police and had the rapist apprehended, then next time no one would call the press and the whole point would become moot. An unfortuante fact is that if the press reveal sources, people stop going to the press with information.

That's a tough one. The natural reaction is to turn his ass in, damn the consequences.

But I worry about the precedent that sets. The world needs to be able to trust the people who can get one's story out. Sometimes a covert interview with an adventureous reporter is the only way to get a message out, and the world needs to hear the message of some we label criminals. Terrorists, freedom fighters, political dissidents, these are also criminals, but sometimes, indeed often they have a story to tell that the world needs to hear, a different side of the story that only they can tell. If we set a precedent that reporters will turn in those who try to come forward to tell their story, we will lose the stories of those who are criminals for a reason.

I can understand both sides, but in the end I'd say take the interview, rather than set the precedent that if you come forward with a story, your outlet to the world may suddenly turn on you and have you arrested. No one wil come forward then, and many valuable stories and other points of view will never be heard. There is another way… a line could be drawn. A violent criminal is quite different from a political agitator - deceiving and imprisoning rapists is quite different to arresting based on other things… the rapist should be in prison anyway!

That's a tough one. The natural reaction is to turn his ass in, damn the consequences.

But I worry about the precedent that sets. The world needs to be able to trust the people who can get one's story out. Sometimes a covert interview with an adventureous reporter is the only way to get a message out, and the world needs to hear the message of some we label criminals. Terrorists, freedom fighters, political dissidents, these are also criminals, but sometimes, indeed often they have a story to tell that the world needs to hear, a different side of the story that only they can tell. If we set a precedent that reporters will turn in those who try to come forward to tell their story, we will lose the stories of those who are criminals for a reason.

I can understand both sides, but in the end I'd say take the interview, rather than set the precedent that if you come forward with a story, your outlet to the world may suddenly turn on you and have you arrested. No one wil come forward then, and many valuable stories and other points of view will never be heard.

You said it better than I could. I agree with your reasoning completely except that I would not take the story. It is just a common rapist, there is no story there. What could I possibly ask him and what could he possibly say that would make the interview worthwhile? There is nothing interesting about a common rapist. Would people really wanna listen to him? I know I wouldnt be interested in what a rapist has to say, would there be many people who are interested? probably not. There is really no story here and, balanced against the fact that you dont want to give common criminals the limelight because calling attention to themselves may be exactly what they crave, I would not give him the interview. However, neither would I turn him in for all the reasons you explained. I would simply ignore the request.

You said it better than I could. I agree with your reasoning completely except that I would not take the story. It is just a common rapist, there is no story there. What could I possibly ask him and what could he possibly say that would make the interview worthwhile? There is nothing interesting about a common rapist. Would people really wanna listen to him? I know I wouldnt be interested in what a rapist has to say, would there be many people who are interested? probably not. There is really no story here and, balanced against the fact that you dont want to give common criminals the limelight because calling attention to themselves may be exactly what they crave, I would not give him the interview. However, neither would I turn him in for all the reasons you explained. I would simply ignore the request.

Well actually I thought something right after I posted - that an interview with this guy could actually help the police capture his ass, and still not set a negative precedent. I mean you are right, what is he going to talk about, except his motivation, his previous victims, his strategies, his technique and probably how/why he picks certain women. That's basically all he could talk about, being a common rapist - and all that crap could help the cops catch this guy. You wouldn't need to break the journalisitic pact, but you could still help get him off the street, because your article will put out more info that the cops can use.

Any journalist who pulls a stunt like that needs to go to prison as an accessory to this guy's crime. I'm pretty damn sure they will, too. This is not a new thing and the Supreme Court has already decided this matter as far back as 1972. Any jerk who thinks that getting your name on a lurid exploitative story is more important than catching a serial rapist needs to have the book thrown at them hard.

Today’s media seems to have no firm hold on ethics. I thought I'd set up a few media ethical dilemmas and see how the folks here on the NS board stand in relation to the media. I'll start with a fairly simple one.

A journalist in the US working for a London publication gets a call one day. It is from a known rapist who is at large. The rapist agrees to meet with the journalist for an interview - where he will likely tell details of how he attacks women and his plans to continue to do so.

What is the journalistically ethical thing to do? Get the story or call law enforcement and risk losing the story?



(poll)

Last year in college, I was an EE major, but at the beginning of the summer I switched to journalism...so that's what I'll be doing with my life (or at least I think so now). Anyway, one of the things that appalled me was that "Journalism Ethics" is an optional class...

That said, here's what I do in the situation.

Call law enforcement. I'm not sure how safe I would even feel in a one on one situation with the rapist, so...I would go to the Interview as if it were one on one, but really, law enforcement was nearby, like a sting operation. I would conduct as much of the interview as I could, but would have some sort of sign to signal the cops to move in, if I was finished or felt unsafe.

Arresting and detaining the rapist would be the number one priority, however, there's nothing wrong with getting a good story out of it.

And if I didn't get any of the interview with the rapist done, I would try visiting him in jail, claiming it was not me who tipped off the police, etc, and try to still get the interview.

Even if he answers no questions, the fact that he called me and offered to meet me somewhere for an interview, and the fact that, at the very least, I would have been right there when the cops arrested him, regardless of whether or not I got the interview. All that would have been MORE THAN ENOUGH to write a very, very excellent story.



By the way, this kind of reminds me of that part in the movie "15 Minutes" where they're going to show the tape of some murder on the News...

Last year in college, I was an EE major, but at the beginning of the summer I switched to journalism...so that's what I'll be doing with my life (or at least I think so now). Anyway, one of the things that appalled me was that "Journalism Ethics" is an optional class...

That said, here's what I do in the situation.

Call law enforcement. I'm not sure how safe I would even feel in a one on one situation with the rapist, so...I would go to the Interview as if it were one on one, but really, law enforcement was nearby, like a sting operation. I would conduct as much of the interview as I could, but would have some sort of sign to signal the cops to move in, if I was finished or felt unsafe.

Arresting and detaining the rapist would be the number one priority, however, there's nothing wrong with getting a good story out of it.

And if I didn't get any of the interview with the rapist done, I would try visiting him in jail, claiming it was not me who tipped off the police, etc, and try to still get the interview.

Even if he answers no questions, the fact that he called me and offered to meet me somewhere for an interview, and the fact that, at the very least, I would have been right there when the cops arrested him, regardless of whether or not I got the interview. All that would have been MORE THAN ENOUGH to write a very, very excellent story.



By the way, this kind of reminds me of that part in the movie "15 Minutes" where they're going to show the tape of some murder on the News...Another point is, that the Rapist can be caught after the interview. by helping the police (also supplying testimony for you are a witness) and publishing the artical in a fact based and non biased way, you gain support of the police who can feed you other stories and exsclusives as long as they don't interferre with investigations. Heck, they probably could also give you heads up and interviews if you're nice enough.

Another point is, that the Rapist can be caught after the interview. by helping the police (also supplying testimony for you are a witness) and publishing the artical in a fact based and non biased way, you gain support of the police who can feed you other stories and exsclusives as long as they don't interferre with investigations. Heck, they probably could also give you heads up and interviews if you're nice enough.
I would not allow my editor to publish the piece until after the rapist's trial.

Last year in college, I was an EE major, but at the beginning of the summer I switched to journalism...so that's what I'll be doing with my life (or at least I think so now). Anyway, one of the things that appalled me was that "Journalism Ethics" is an optional class...

That said, here's what I do in the situation.

Call law enforcement. I'm not sure how safe I would even feel in a one on one situation with the rapist, so...I would go to the Interview as if it were one on one, but really, law enforcement was nearby, like a sting operation. I would conduct as much of the interview as I could, but would have some sort of sign to signal the cops to move in, if I was finished or felt unsafe.

Arresting and detaining the rapist would be the number one priority, however, there's nothing wrong with getting a good story out of it.

And if I didn't get any of the interview with the rapist done, I would try visiting him in jail, claiming it was not me who tipped off the police, etc, and try to still get the interview.

Even if he answers no questions, the fact that he called me and offered to meet me somewhere for an interview, and the fact that, at the very least, I would have been right there when the cops arrested him, regardless of whether or not I got the interview. All that would have been MORE THAN ENOUGH to write a very, very excellent story.



By the way, this kind of reminds me of that part in the movie "15 Minutes" where they're going to show the tape of some murder on the News...


In other words, you would have no journalistic integrity. People could never trust you to keep your sources anonymous because not only have you proven that you will not do that, but you have shown that you are willing to betray your sources to their enemies. Btw, by doing this you are no longer a journalist, youve become part of the story.

I would not allow my editor to publish the piece until after the rapist's trial.I wouldn't even submit it till after the trial, after all, it's evidence until the trial is over. Don't what scum like that to get away due to a technicallity.

In other words, you would have no journalistic integrity. People could never trust you to keep your sources anonymous because not only have you proven that you will not do that, but you have shown that you are willing to betray your sources to their enemies. Btw, by doing this you are no longer a journalist, youve become part of the story.
I have not proven that I will not keep sources anonymous. I have proven that public safety is more important than getting the story.

If it were the same situation, but the criminal was non-violent, the situation may (or may not) be different.

I'm not even sure of how much I like the idea of confidential sources. When I begin work as a journalist, I will be EXTREMELY picky with my confidential sources and rarely use them. But then again, I'm not even entirely sure what type of stories I'm going to be interested in doing, and I'm not sure how many confidential sources would be involved (how many confidential sources do you see in sports writing, etc)?

Another point is, that the Rapist can be caught after the interview. by helping the police (also supplying testimony for you are a witness) and publishing the artical in a fact based and non biased way, you gain support of the police who can feed you other stories and exsclusives as long as they don't interferre with investigations. Heck, they probably could also give you heads up and interviews if you're nice enough.
Well, be that as it may, the thing to do would be to call the cops immediately. If they say "do the interview and then we'll grab him", then good for you. I could see that they might like to have a confession already sewn up before they take him in. But it's not really up to you and getting the criminal takes precedent over getting a story every time.

In other words, you would have no journalistic integrity. People could never trust you to keep your sources anonymous because not only have you proven that you will not do that, but you have shown that you are willing to betray your sources to their enemies. Btw, by doing this you are no longer a journalist, youve become part of the story.

Journalistic integrity is a joke. There is no such thing. The reader can rely on only the personal integrity of the reporter and his editors. I in fact left journalism because of the lack of it on the part of editors butchering my work to the extent that it didn't even resemble the truth. We live in a day and age that Corporate Media has turned "freedom of speech" into "The Right to Lie." Now that there is competion in the field and the addition of Bloggers to check them, they actually have to add, "responsible" to the front end of their job description just to be taken seriously. I find it absolutely amazing that the Media's answer to what they now face is not to develop a binding set of standards by which all journalists must abide, with an appropriate governing body to enforce the standards. Their response is a media campaign to grant journalists some sort legally recognized exemption from the law simply based on their own say so. The very concept is nuts! These are people who have largely proven that they are not responsible enough to be entrusted with the truth, yet you would allow them the additional right to invent fictional sources to support their fictional versions of whatever they choose to write about.
The world of JS has a long way to go before being given special exemptions from the law. In the meantime, if anyone thinks that someone seeking publicity for a crime will no longer talk to a journalist if the journalist has to notify the police, think again. They have been doing it for years and journalists have been notifying the police for years. There is nothing new here other than big media wanting a way to have their stories free from scrutiny once again.

I have not proven that I will not keep sources anonymous. I have proven that public safety is more important than getting the story.

If it were the same situation, but the criminal was non-violent, the situation may (or may not) be different.

I'm not even sure of how much I like the idea of confidential sources. When I begin work as a journalist, I will be EXTREMELY picky with my confidential sources and rarely use them. But then again, I'm not even entirely sure what type of stories I'm going to be interested in doing, and I'm not sure how many confidential sources would be involved (how many confidential sources do you see in sports writing, etc)?

Actually you find quite a few in sports, but be prepared to spend some time doing obits, and research for others. Also, be prepared to move fairly often.

Anyone who voted yes to option 1 seriously needs to be put in jail....with the rapist.

Typical reactionary judgmentalism from NR.

It is inconceivable that someone might have a valid, but different point of view or have thought of factors (or loopholes) of which NR has not considered and rejected.

Could it be a detailed interview of the rapist and his methods could help the police catch the rapist and/or protect women from that rapist and from those like him? Could it be that those that said "get the story" were among the many here that wanted to try to both meet with the rapist and see that he was caught? Could it be that not cooperating to some degree with the rapist might be counter-productive in that the rapist won't show up for the interview if you call law enforcement (ever consider he could be law enforcement) and that no criminal would ever make such a deal again and risk getting caught? Could it be that there are ethical ways to serve both interests?

Nope. Disagree with NR and you should be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.

How very "Christian." Perhaps instead of being raped, they should be crucified.

Liverbreath']Journalistic integrity is a joke. There is no such thing.

How very ironic from one that claims to have spent 10 years as a journalist.

Typical reactionary judgmentalism from NR.

It is inconceivable that someone might have a valid, but different point of view or have thought of factors (or loopholes) of which NR has not considered and rejected.

Could it be a detailed interview of the rapist and his methods could help the police catch the rapist and/or protect women from that rapist and from those like him? Could it be that those that said "get the story" were among the many here that wanted to try to both meet with the rapist and see that he was caught? Could it be that not cooperating to some degree with the rapist might be counter-productive in that the rapist won't show up for the interview if you call law enforcement (ever consider he could be law enforcement) and that no criminal would ever make such a deal again and risk getting caught? Could it be that there are ethical ways to serve both interests?
.

I guess the thing is, that MIGHT be a good way to catch him. But the police, who, you know, do this stuff for a living, would be the best judge of that. Keeping them out of the loop for selfish reasons is a bad idea, probably illegal and most certainly unethical.

Working with law enforcement, I'd go to the interview, get the story, and hang around for his capture, then broadcast the whole thing. :)

BTW, here is a link to the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists. (http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp) The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of writers, editors and other news professionals. The present version of the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months of study and debate among the Society's members. It is one of many such Codes.

Associated Press Managing Editors' Statement of Ethical Principles (http://www.apme.com/html/ethics.html)
Databank for European Codes of Journalism Ethics (http://www.uta.fi/ethicnet/)

B0zzy didn't bother with any such context.

Also, I wonder about the ethics of giving a serial rapist the mass media attention he so clearly wants, but I suppose that is a seperate issue altogether. The main one is that this guy is clearly a menace and your opinion on the best way to catch him is irrelevant unless you are a police detective.

NOTE: IN TYPICAL FASHION, BOZZY HASN'T SEEN FIT TO PROVIDE MUCH DISCUSSION OR RESPONSE HIMSELF TO HIS TOPIC.

Today’s media seems to have no firm hold on ethics.

1. Nice naked assertions with no support whatsoever.

2. What ethics?

I thought I'd set up a few media ethical dilemmas and see how the folks here on the NS board stand in relation to the media. I'll start with a fairly simple one.

1. How does this prove or illustrate anything about anything?

2. In typical fashion, you are pushing hot buttons, but providing no substance and no links between the things you are saying.

3. You are being very vague. On the one hand you are asking how "the folks here on the NS board stand" and, at least by implication, how "the media" stands.

A. What do how mean by "the media" and how it "stands"?

B. What do you mean the question posed to NSers? What they should do? What they would do? Or as you later ask "what is the journalistically ethical thing to do"? Do you see the difference?

4. WTF is the point. Are you illustrating/discussing/comparing/contrasting:
** journalistic ethics as they should be?
**existing journalism codes of ethics?
**existing journalistic practices?
**other or general ethics?
**other or general behavior/practices?

A journalist in the US working for a London publication gets a call one day.

1. Is it relevant that this is an journalist in the US working for a London publication?

2. Is this based on a true story?

3. Do different ethical codes/standards apply for US and British publications/journalists


It is from a known rapist who is at large.

LOL. What is "known rapist who is at large"? Are you implying this is a serial rapist whom the police have identified for certain and are looking for, but cannot capture? You later criticize LazyHippies on the ground that this is a serial rapist, but you don't expressly say it is.

The rapist agrees to meet with the journalist for an interview - where he will likely tell details of how he attacks women and his plans to continue to do so.

1. How do you know it is the rapist that called?

2. How do you know what the rapist will tell?

3. What does you editor, publisher, etc, say?

What is the journalistically ethical thing to do? Get the story or call law enforcement and risk losing the story?

Please, o' wise one, tell us the answer.

Chill out Cat, it's just a conversation. Did you forget to take your medication today or what?

Chill out Cat, it's just a conversation. Did you forget to take your medication today or what?

So, you have no answers to my questions. Just an insult.

An insult that is rather more serious than you may think. Please don't insult those with treatable mental illness in the future.

If I was a journalist, I wouldn't tell the authorities.

Why not?

Well, you're hardly likely to get any future exclusive interviews with wanted men if you have a known history of handing in your interviewees afterwards, are you?

Of course, I'd never actually become a journalist because they're not real people, so at the moment I'd just hand in the scumbag first chance I got.

you dont get to tell police what to do. Once you tell them, its out of your hands, they get to make up whatever plan they feel is best and it may not even involve you being there.


Obviously you have a problem with the police. If I had my dithers I would tell them shoot him in the balls and leave him to die or beat the living shit out of him and haul him away for the rest of his scumbag life. ((Oh the police arent the enemy -the criminals are. ;) )

Obviously you have a problem with the police. If I had my dithers I would tell them shoot him in the balls and leave him to die or beat the living shit out of him and haul him away for the rest of his scumbag life. ((Oh the police arent the enemy -the criminals are. ;) )
I didn't get that from what he said. I think his point was, "tell the police to do this for me" is not an option.

Today’s media seems to have no firm hold on ethics. I thought I'd set up a few media ethical dilemmas and see how the folks here on the NS board stand in relation to the media. I'll start with a fairly simple one.

A journalist in the US working for a London publication gets a call one day. It is from a known rapist who is at large. The rapist agrees to meet with the journalist for an interview - where he will likely tell details of how he attacks women and his plans to continue to do so.

What is the journalistically ethical thing to do? Get the story or call law enforcement and risk losing the story?
Well, first-off, he isn't a "known rapist" until he has been tried and convicted. So I can only assume that he has served his time and is out, in which case I have no problem with the Interview proceeding.

If, on the other hand, he is an "escaped prisoner," or an "alleged rapist who is wanted by police," then the journalist should assist police.

Liverbreath']Also, be prepared to move fairly often.
I was born in Memphis, TN. I lived there less then a year. Since then, I have lived in Iowa, Nebraksa, Louisianna, and numerous places in Arkansas. Moving often is no stranger to me...although I know I eventually will want to settle down.

I'm also partially considering joining the military anyway, so that involves moving...but it that would make for a good life experience.

So, you have no answers to my questions. Just an insult.

An insult that is rather more serious than you may think. Please don't insult those with treatable mental illness in the future.



I suppose there is only one thing I can say after reading that...
(http://bennyhills.fortunecity.com/seinfeld/473/martin.wav)



.

*snip*

I provided a substantive critique and asked serious questions regarding your original post.

You have never in this thread responded substantively to anyone's response or questions.

You responded to my response with nothing more than an insult about my mental status. I very politely suggested you should not do that.

Your only response is juvenile antics.

Your actions speak for themselves. No need for me to comment further.

I provided a substantive critique and asked serious questions regarding your original post.

You have never in this thread responded substantively to anyone's response or questions.

You responded to my response with nothing more than an insult about my mental status. I very politely suggested you should not do that.

Your only response is juvenile antics.

Your actions speak for themselves. No need for me to comment further.

There was nothing substantive in your post - it was rude, out of order and inapropriate. You did nothing but try to engage me in a pissing match.
Here - take some advice from Homer; Homer (http://website.lineone.net/~matthewbarr/sounds/failed_never_try.wav)

When you can participate in this thread in a manner which treats all participants with respect then I'll be glad to respond to your posts. Until then Homer knows best.