Spj Code Of Ethics Analysis
Harvey should not publicly identify the video poster in his story because revealing the identity of the poster would be breaking the SPJ’s code of ethics.
Background 1: Case Description
Harvey Roberts is a reporter at the Cloud Harbor Gazette, and he is facing an ethics dilemma. The new mayor of Cloud Harbor, the hometown of the newspaper, has become vocal about her disdain for the local newspaper because of the way it has portrayed her. A video, whose creator was anonymous, portrayed the newspaper’s building burning to the ground. Harvey, after minimal research, has found the video’s creator and interviewed him. If he releases the poster’s name to the public, the poster’s wellbeing could be threatened, but the story others in Cloud Harbor …show more content…
Private citizens are, to a certain extent, able to control their public image, and a news reporter does not have an obligation to revoke that right. Public figures and others seeking attention make every effort to thrust themselves into the public’s line of sight while private citizens do their best to preserve their reputation, even by withholding information. Everybody has some uncovered dirt in their life, and most people have a desire to keep it that …show more content…
The problem faced here is that one of the subheadings of this principle is, “Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere.” While the language in the first sentence of this statement technically leaves the condition of the poster’s anonymity up to Harvey, the poster could almost certainly face retribution or harm due to the video.
Conclusion
While Harvey faces a dilemma, he should reference the SPJ’s code of ethics to guide his decision. He must reveal to the public that he has contacted the culprit, and that the culprit is ashamed and remorseful for his actions. At the same time, he should refrain from naming the poster, instead explaining his reason for keeping him anonymous and let the public discover the his identity in their own time. By doing this, he is minimizing harm and acting independently while still seeking and reporting the
Background 1: Case Description
Harvey Roberts is a reporter at the Cloud Harbor Gazette, and he is facing an ethics dilemma. The new mayor of Cloud Harbor, the hometown of the newspaper, has become vocal about her disdain for the local newspaper because of the way it has portrayed her. A video, whose creator was anonymous, portrayed the newspaper’s building burning to the ground. Harvey, after minimal research, has found the video’s creator and interviewed him. If he releases the poster’s name to the public, the poster’s wellbeing could be threatened, but the story others in Cloud Harbor …show more content…
Private citizens are, to a certain extent, able to control their public image, and a news reporter does not have an obligation to revoke that right. Public figures and others seeking attention make every effort to thrust themselves into the public’s line of sight while private citizens do their best to preserve their reputation, even by withholding information. Everybody has some uncovered dirt in their life, and most people have a desire to keep it that …show more content…
The problem faced here is that one of the subheadings of this principle is, “Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere.” While the language in the first sentence of this statement technically leaves the condition of the poster’s anonymity up to Harvey, the poster could almost certainly face retribution or harm due to the video.
Conclusion
While Harvey faces a dilemma, he should reference the SPJ’s code of ethics to guide his decision. He must reveal to the public that he has contacted the culprit, and that the culprit is ashamed and remorseful for his actions. At the same time, he should refrain from naming the poster, instead explaining his reason for keeping him anonymous and let the public discover the his identity in their own time. By doing this, he is minimizing harm and acting independently while still seeking and reporting the