Decency should definitely trump news-gathering that invades privacy, interferes with criminal investigations. However, decency should not trump new-gathering if it has nothing to with serving a public good.
New-gathering is a way to collect information, it is not based off whether or not the information has to do with a public good. At end, of the day journalist are trying to make money and the scandals and schemes that are in the tabloids allows journalist to make money.
The reasons I say decency should trump new-gathering that invades privacy, and interferes with criminal investigations is because of the constitution, criminal charges, and common courtesy.
The fourth amendment states that ‘the people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This amendment applies to everyone including journalist. If a company is in violation of the fourth amendment, they could get hit with one hefty lawsuit. They journalist
…show more content…
Cornell Law states that “Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” Journalist have a right to new-gathering but interfering with a criminal investigation could hinder the officer or detective from doing their job. As journalist we should help the law instead of obstructing the law. There is no reason for a journalist to stand in the way or hinder the law from doing their job just to gather
On July 6, 2005, a federal judge ordered Judith Miller, journalist for the The New York Times, to jail. Miller was involved in the exposure of Valerie Plume as a CIA operative. In questioning, Miller invoked reporter’s privilege by refusing to disclose the identity of her sources, fueling fire to a heavily debated ethical issue in the field of journalism (Pinguelo, “A Reporter’s Confidential Source…Revealed?”). Successful journalism tells the truth to a public who has the right to know it. Journalists have the responsibility to tell us a story laden with facts and the more important responsibility of revealing the source of their information, right? Not necessarily. The right of journalists to keep their sources private has been a long-standing debate. The ethics in this debate are blurry. On one hand, it may be extremely important to the issue at hand that the source of information be known, as an argument could lose credibility otherwise. On the other hand, the source has the right as an American and an individual to remain anonymous. Isn’t it enough that he or she came forward with information at all? Judith Miller’s case garnered public attention and is just one example of many instances that raise the same, consistently debated question- how far can journalists go in protecting their sources and under what circumstances does withholding the identity of a source become unethical for either party involved? The answer to this question is obscure, but solvable. Journalists should have the right to protect to identity of a source unless the information they possess is for the greater good of the public or the situation at hand.
Self-motivation and determination are two of the main ideals of being journalist. If a journalist does not have the desire to find and report a story, he has no career. A journalist depends on finding the facts, getting to the bottom of the story and reporting to the public, whether it’s positive or negative. Janet Malcom states in the book The Journalist and the Murderer, “Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible.” (Malcolm, 3) Her starting words speak volumes about “the Journalist and the Murderer” and the lessons that can be learned.
Dr. Jennifer Greer need not verbally utter any detail regarding the extent of her success in journalism. By simply taking a look around her office in the Journalism Department at the University of Alabama, one can resolve that Dr. Greer’s journalism career has been nothing short of admirable. Adorning the walls of her fourth floor office, various plaques and certificates give undeniable evidence of Dr. Greer’s commendable success. Beginning with her Bachelor of Journalism degree from the University of Missouri-Columbia and continuing on to her Ph.D. from the University of Florida, Dr. Greer has achieved a long list of accomplishments, especially in the field of journalism. In fact, Dr. Greer has spent the majority of her life successfully learning to be a journalist.
...emain respectable in the journalistic field, it is imperative to abide by all constitutional laws and ethical values.
It is not a surprise that journalists go to extreme lengths in order to get “dirt” on a certain subject. These journalists are often given the title of “muckraker.” The term holds many connotations; some believe that they are journalists who go a bit too far, while others believe that they are simply people whose main goal is to expose any sort of misconduct. Many people disagree on whether or not being given the title of a “muckraker” is honorable, and it causes a lot of arguments in the modern era. Because of this, it is important that everyone eventually ends up on the same side to prevent further disagreement.
The right to gather news from a source is not limited to news media personnel. The
Hayes, chapter eight). There, it was ruled that there is no constitutional privilege for journalists. Justice Byron White wrote that the grand jury plays an important, constitutional role that outweighs any burden on newsgathering that might come from the occasional subpoena to reporters. In relation to the same case, three justices wrote a checklist for when the government should be able to require a journalist to reveal his or her sources. Those were: 1. That there is probable cause to believe the journalist has clearly relevant information regarding a specific probable violation of law; 2. That the information cannot be obtained in some other way that does not so heavily infringe on the First Amendment; and 3. That there is a compelling and overriding interest in the information. Even though these guidelines only were made in a dissenting opinion, they have been frequently used in state courts and lower federal courts. In criminal cases in federal courts, the defendant 's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial or the law enforcements ' need to conduct a full investigation is considered more important (chapter eight). At the same time, the majority of the U.S. states have shield laws that gives a reporter 's privilege, but there does not exist a federal shield law. When taking into consideration that journalists are not protected in federal law in form of a reporters ' privilege or shield law, it might take some of the feeling of freedom away when writing. A press is not free, if it cannot get sources to talk about controversial matters, because they fair to be revealed in court. The press should be able to write about matters such as governmental corruption without risking going to jail when refusing to give up the sources for the story. That the U.S. government is willing to punish journalists that do not reveal their sources jeopardizes the freedom of the
Some people view John Stuart Mill, and his theory of Utilitarianism, as having a negative impact on journalism. It has been argued that Utilitarianism is useless and ignores justice. Without John Stuart Mill contemporary journalists would be viewed as unethical and rude. The introduction of Utilitarianism to society in the late 1800s has allowed journalists today to relate closer to the public, and gain more of the public’s trust. A reporter that does not meet the ethical standards of the majority of his or her audience breaks this trust with the public, and loses his or her’s
Journalists are protected by freedom of the press that is mentioned in the first amendment to the constitution.
Gentlemen have to deal with their hats, their cloaks, their swords and their hands. They might kiss their own hand, and bow. Typically, a gentleman removes his hat from his head with his right hand and kisses his left hand. If he needs to use his right hand for something like, to take a ladies hand for a dance or to offer a gift, he may change his hat to his left hand and kiss his right hand or the gift in his right hand. A man usually goes through these operations as it is a polite thing to do and it shows that you are a wealthy and respectful gentlemen. The hat doffing is more meaningful and the bow is deeper, the higher up the social scale the other person is. Between equals, the shorter version might be more of a gesture to touch the hat
Comparing two newspaper articles, one from a tabloid and one from a broadsheet will convey the different techniques that tabloids and broadsheets use to present stories. Media in general, aim to inform and interest the audience which consist of many different types. Diverse emotions and ideas are created by the media; foremost tabloids. Tabloids are papers like ‘The Sun’, ‘The Mirror’, ‘The Daily Mail’, ‘The Express’ and ‘The Star’. In contrast to these are broadsheets like ‘The Times’, ‘The Guardian’ and ‘The Daily Telegraph’. Broadsheets are often known as the ‘quality press’ being more informing and formal in the manner they convey information and news stories.
2013 jan 04: B.1. Web. 3 Dec. 2013. . ProQuest Staff. "At Issue: Privacy and the Press."
This class is based on an ideology that suggests “everyone can be a journalist in the digital age” (Splichal, 2015) (Dahlgren, Splichal 2016). Along with
"Journalists and Social Media | The Changing Newsroom." The Changing Newsroom | New Media. Enduring Values. Web. 05 Dec. 2010. .