Journalism in Context

Thích Quảng Ðức, was a Vietnamese Buddhist monk who burned himself to death at a busy Saigon intersection on June 11, 1963. Thích Quảng Ðức was protesting the persecution of Buddhism by South Vietnam’s Ngô Đình Diệm administration. The photographer Malcolm W. Browne went on to win the 1963 World Press Photo of the Year for this image. Another reporter that witnessed the event, David Halberstam, remembers “As he burned he never moved a muscle, never uttered a sound” According to Browne ‘The idea of stopping the protest never occurred to me’. According to his colleague, fellow reporter Peter Arnett ‘We could have prevented that immolation by rushing at him and kicking the gasoline away. As a human being I wanted to, as a reporter I couldn’t’

Were the reporter and photographer right to be passive bystanders in this situation. Should they have acted to prevent this suicide?

Please refer to the ethical standpoints we have studied when replying to this post.

The photo in this post is the ‘Pulitzer Prize’ winning photo taken in 1994 during the Sudan famine. The picture depicts a famine stricken young girl crawling towards a United Nations food camp located a kilometer away.
The vulture is waiting for the child to die so that it can eat her.  No one knows what happened to the child, including the photographer Kevin Carter who left the place as soon as the photograph was taken.
It is claimed that he did frighten the bird off however, and his newspaper carried a statement a week later that it believed the child made it to the feeding camp (but that she could not be traced).

Was the photographer correct in taking the picture, but not impacting on what happened, apart from apparently frightening the bird away? Some of his critics referred to him as being ‘as much a vulture as the bird itself’ Was the newspaper correct in publishing it? What advice should the editor have given to the photographer and should it have taken action against the photographer? Or was his action exemplary given he was employed only to take pictures, and not to save lives?

Refer to any appropriate ethical standpoints when explaining your attitude.

Scenario 4. You are working in a country with little political democracy, covering an important political campaign.  It appears that the ‘peoples’ candidate on the brink of winning will transform the politics of the country, help the poor, and reverse decades of disastrous policies implemented by the previously corrupt leaders.  Three days before the poll, you discover that this same candidate has been unfaithful to his wife although he has campaigned on a moral ticket – supporting the sanctity of marriage. Both the candidate and his wife (who claims now to be reconciled to her partner’s previous marital infidelities), ask you not to publish these facts.What do you do, and from what ethical standpoint would you justify your action?

Scenario 3. You have set up a press agency and as your first job, you are hired by a major pharmaceutical company who ask you run a series of adverts for a new product based on the claims that they make for this medicine. You find out, just after the first advert is released to print (to much acclaim in the advertising world), that the claims are essentially false, and the medicine may indeed have dangerous side effects on 0.5% of those who take it. You are invited to a press conference that evening to celebrate the successful launch of the product and the advertising campaign, and are promised a bonus to run a successful second campaign.What do you do, and from what ethical standpoint would you justify your action?

Scenario 2. Similar to Scenario 1,   except that when you confront the original council official, he offers you the same deal – if his details are kept out of it, he will exclusively reveal the details of the greater crime.  He adds however,  that if his name is mentioned, he will be a ‘dead man’ as ‘dangerous people’ are involved in the misuse of the greater amounts of money, and they know he knows the details. Naming him would lead to them believing he is going to ‘spill the beans’ and they would therefore move to ‘eliminate’ him.What do you do, and from what ethical standpoint would you justify your actions?

Scenario 1: As a journalist you discover what seems irrefutable proof that a council official is involved in low level corrupt practices, involving several thousand pounds. You confront him with this fact, and he promises that these misdemeanours were in the past (and the money has been repaid anyway). He pledges that if you agree not to report him, he will give you information involving the misuse of several millions of pounds by unnamed senior officials and politicians.What do you do, and from what ethical standpoint would you justify your actions?

On this blog you will find 6 ethical ‘dilemmas’ which need moral thinking! Please state in a brief response (200 words max) what you would do in at least two cases and why. Please also briefly comment on your colleagues’ postings

HI All

Look forward to seeing your posts!