Ethics

A Congressman's Past

 A democratic member of congress is up for re-election, but he was accused of sexual assault from decades ago. Although there was no proof that it was true, nobody felt that now was a good time to talk about the case right before the big election. On October, an article was released explaining the situation and on that same day, the accused mentioned that he had done something regrettable in his past, which was used against him later that day by his opponent.

  I do not think that they should've published this story for the reason that all of this drama happened 28 years ago, but at the same time, the public feeds off of drama and would do very well for their business. For the most part, this wouldn't completely ruin the man, but it will leave a bad impression for the voters.

The Media's Foul Ball

    A baseball team was moments near elimination when a ball was coming from above, waiting to be caught to end the opponents streak. Except there was a proud fan in the way and he did not allow his team to not be in the World Series. So he caught the ball before the player, which caused a lot of chaos from the fans leading to him being escorted out of the stadium along with angry fans and thrown beverages and debris.

   From the man's perspective and those who care for him, absolutely should they not be identified in any article besides 'the man who caught the foul ball'. This title officially belonging to him could definitely ruin his reputation with future employers or companions who were fans of the opposite team. Although, from a journalists' perspective, this article revealing his identity could absolutely bring in attention, sell copies, be talked about and recognized. Except, in my perspective, they should not release his identity because I side more with humanity rather than money.

A Self-Serving Leak

  Two men, Mark and Lance, were known for their stories about sports figures including steroids, which they then made into a popular book. They got respect from fellow journalist because they were willing to get in serious trouble to protect their source who'd leaked testimony to them. Although, their source was not smart and leaked his information too. There was a large commotion because the man who had been leaking the news, kept quiet for two years until he truly confessed, but the first two journalist declined the case.

  I don't think they still had to protect the source, even after admitting to lying about it, because it was one article for one day two years ago, and unless it was their most sold copy of their work, I can't see it being worth spending the years lying about something like that for so long. They definitely should have confessed in the first place, but it would have caused a lot of drama and attention over them, making it better to just law low and keep quiet.