Viewing this case as unethical, may lead to a few potential disagreements. A person could argue that perhaps people need to be lied to because they are not mentally capable of handling the full extent of the truth or that the reporters are lying for the greater good. While both of these arguments do have some truth behind them, there are reasons that reporting false information is unacceptable and unethical. If a person were to bring up the disagreement that people need to be lied to because they are not mentally capable of handling the full extent of the truth, I would be able to see where their though process is coming from, but I would agree with their statement. While lying is sometimes acceptable if a person is trying to benefit a person …show more content…
If a reporter lies to the public though, the lie is unethical because the information not being told is important and even though some people may not be capable of handling the full impact of the report, many people are in fact able to process the truthful information correctly. Leading me to the idea that information should not be withheld if people can make educated conclusions with the knowledge provided. Why would information be withheld or falsified if some people are capable of using that information to form their own opinions? Simply put, we can not withhold information from an entire group of people if a few people in that said group are not capable of forming their own opinion and coming to …show more content…
While helping people by lying is sometimes acceptable, it is necessary to look at who is doing the lying and what their relationship is with the person being lied to. Looking at the adoption example again, it is ok for the parent to lie to the child about being adopted. The parent might have several reasons for withholding such information, whether it be that they want their kid to have normal childhood without questioning their identity, they do not want their kid questioning their authority, the kid is just too young to understand what being adopted truly means, or they made a promise to the birth mother. Any of these reasons are acceptable up until a certain point, eventually the parent will have to tell the kid, but it does not have to be immediately. The parent has the right to lie about the fact that their child is adopted because it is the parent’s sole responsibility to look after and care for the child and if it is in the child’s best interest the information can be withheld. A reporter publishing falsified information just does not fall into the same category. While the reporter may lie with the purpose of helping society, it is the reporters duty and responsibility to publish accurate, unbiased information, so that the public can form their own opinions. It is not the reporter’s duty to look out
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.
Clare Boothe Luce, an American journalist and politician, delivered a speech in 1960 to the Women’s National Press Club in front of the American press to criticize journalists for the misinformation they publish in order to challenge them to start publishing the truth rather than writing what the public wants to hear. Luce appeals to the audience of journalists using her role as a politician, comparison, and emphasis to persuade journalists to start writing the truth, no matter how dull, in order for American citizens to truly understand what is going on in today’s society. Throughout the speech, Luce speaks to the audience of journalists about how the information they release shouldn’t be falsified for a myriad of buyers or views. Although
Utilitarian ethics focuses on the maximizing the pleasure and the minimizing the extent of pain. The biggest factor to note here is that Utilitarian ethics are not act driven, but rather they focus completely on the consequences of an action. If lying in a situation was to create more Good than telling the truth, then by these ethics, lying is not only acceptable but the right thing to do (Philosophy- Ethics).
I wanted to save an example for the end, and the best one I can think of is this. Most true information about someone, someone else knows about, and therefore other people will soon learn. I pose this question. What would be worse? Digging up information and finding that the new mailman is really a rapist that the police have direct records of, or falsely accusing the new mailman of being a racist when in fact he is nothing of the kind? It's easy for me to say it is much worse to falsely publicize the news of the man than it is to give true information about him, even though you may have obtained in an unethical manor. Giving the truth is the most important aspect of the media and if we as a society cant believe what they say, why should we listen. I believe the media runs the world and people are going to believe what the media tells us. There is no way around it. In this overwhelming case, it is of utmost importance that it gives us the truth.
Richard Gunderman and Stephanie Ericsson each have written a piece explaining the impacts of lying on society. In Gunderman’s article, “Is Lying Bad for Us?” he outlines the health effects of lying, and how there are serious “mental and physical consequences,” (Gunderman 1). Ericsson’s essay, “The Ways We Lie,” focuses more on the different types of lying, and how each has a different impact. Although Gunderman’s and Ericsson’s pieces of literature both relate to the negative impacts of lying, their different thoughts of how lying impacts society, including types, health, and solutions, outweigh their similarities.
I am very aware that you are a journalist. It is your job to gather information and present new and exciting news stories. Whether for the good, bad, or ugly it is your duty to keep society updated. With that being said it is also important to seek the truth and report it, try to minimize harm, and act independently if you want to live up to the SPJ code of ethical standards.
Lying is morally forbidden under any and all circumstances. These are words that Immanuel Kant believed and preached. Kant did not believe a person should lie even if good consequences could result from the lie. According to Kant we are morally obligated to be honest. He was a man who was set in his beliefs and lying was simply not tolerated. Kant did not believe that there was any morally correct way to lie. He held that even in extreme cases of an “Inquiring Murderer” we must still tell the truth. Even if lying to that “Inquiring Murderer” could save someone’s life, telling the truth is the morally right thing to do.
The question of what constitutes morality is often asked by philosophers. One might wonder why morality is so important, or why many of us trouble ourselves over determining which actions are moral actions. Mill has given an account of the driving force behind our questionings of morality. He calls this driving force “Conscience,” and from this “mass of feeling which must be broken through in order to do what violates our standard of right,” we have derived our concept of morality (Mill 496). Some people may practice moral thought more often than others, and some people may give no thought to morality at all. However, morality is nevertheless a possibility of human nature, and a very important one. We each have our standards of right and wrong, and through the reasoning of individuals, these standards have helped to govern and shape human interactions to what it is today. No other beings except “rational beings,” as Kant calls us, are able to support this higher capability of reason; therefore, it is important for us to consider cases in which this capability is threatened. Such a case is lying. At first, it seems that lying should not be morally permissible, but the moral theories of Kant and Mill have answered both yes and no on this issue. Furthermore, it is difficult to decide which moral theory provides a better approach to this issue. In this paper, we will first walk through the principles of each moral theory, and then we will consider an example that will explore the strengths and weaknesses of each theory.
Publishing false or private information is not constitutionally protected by the first amendment. There are limits to publishing information on a popular news article or paper, “First, journalists are not allowed to knowingly print false information about someone—that’s called libel.” (Anastasia) . This shows that journalists cannot publish false information. If a journalist publishes false or private information he or she risks getting a lawsuit. Journalists can publish in any point of view they would like; whether it is biased or not. In an interview Lata Nott of the First Amendment Center at the Newseum Institute states,“The profession also has a history of self-policing to maintain fair and accurate reporting standards—such as
Lying may be defined as making false or misleading statements for purposes of deception. One may lie to protect one’s self or another, one may lie for personal advantage, and one may even lie to be humorous. Lying is generally regarded as unethical, if not sinful, because it destroys trust, the most fundamental basis for all peaceful human interaction. Be that as it may, lying is doubtless as old as civilization and because of the necessity for truth in social relations, it is likely that techniques for detecting lies are as old as lying itself. Although historical techniques for determining veracity doubtless met with some measure of success, most likely as a bluffing tool to coerce what at least appeared as truth, these techniques were of questionable reliability.
Healthcare professions have codes of conduct and ethics that address the issue of honesty and trust in relation to patient encounters yet truth-telling (or being honest) versus deception (or being dishonest) has been identified as an ethical issue in hospitals, particularly about diagnosis and prognosis disclosures. Dossa (2010) defines being honest or telling the truth as relating the facts as one knows them. Furthermore, Dossa (2010) states that deception can be an act of dishonesty but also can be without lies. In other words, forms of deception include not giving any information, not giving information of the truth, withholding information, selecting what information to give and not give, and giving vague information.
Works Cited "Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam" Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam - "Ad. Lander, a.k.a. The X-Men. Web. The Web.
...ethics” (185). A lot of a journalist’s ethics comes from his own personal values and ethical codes. One may say “do unto others as you would have done unto you.” Other journalists would say that if they can make money by posting something interesting that may or may not be the complete truth, do it because the risk is worth it. Codes of ethics are used to keep people and businesses out of the light of the law. Without an ethical code, people just have their own values, which may be problematic for some people.
The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) provides a very clear and thorough Code of Ethics, which serves as a good definition of ethical journalism. According to this code, an ethical journalist must try to minimize any potential harm done to people directly involved with the event being reported. Such a journalist should also act independently of any personal biases, and be responsive to any criticism of their work. Finally, a truly ethical journalist must seek to find and report the truth (Society). Common sense reaffirms these guidelines. When one thinks of ethical behavior, one usually thinks along terms of being truthful, appreciative of others, acting responsively and using fair judgement. All of these concepts are explicitly stated in the SPJ's Code of Ethics.
Telling the truth teaches one person self- respect for themselves and others as well. Telling the truth also sets a good example for others to do the same thing and make a “chain reaction”. People can make a “chain reaction” by passing on what they have done from one person to another, and before you know it, everyone is changing greatly, and the world is progressing tremendously. Lies are told all around the world, and they are told every day. One lie can often lead to another lie and cause you to be caught up in one big lie that will be hard to get out of if people do not tell the truth. If a person thinks that is okay to lie, they better think again, the truth always comes out no matter how hard a person tries to keep it in, or how much someone thinks that they can get away with lying. No person can keep in or hold a grudge with what they have done. After all, telling the truth is the right thing to do, and everyone should do it. Telling the truth is always much easier than the trouble of a