News Ethics

1).  Using the 'Holocaust' Metaphor

            - PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) launched a new campaign in 2003 called "Holocaust on Your Plate," which compares the slaughter of animals to the murder of 6 million Jews during WWII.  The campaign implies that, in relation to animals, all humans are Nazis.  In the campaign, two images are used:  One of animals in slaughterhouses and one of scenes of Nazi concentration camps.  The European Court of Human Rights banned the campaign, and the United States Anti-Defamation League continue to condemn the campaign as well.

            --Is "Holocaust on Your Plate" ethically wrong or a truthful comparison?

         "Holocaust on Your Plate" is both ethically wrong and a truthful comparison, but it being a "truthful comparison" does not make it okay for people to use it in a campaign.  The memory or thought of the Holocaust is painful for many people, and displaying it so bluntly and openly is cruel.  Blatantly comparing all of the human race to Nazis isn't morally right, in the sense that NOT EVERYONE slaughters animals for their own benefits.

2).   A Media-Savvy Killer

            -A killer who calls himself BTK (his own acronym for his method, "bind, torture, kill") killed six people from the years 1974 to 1986.  After sixteen years of silence, the killer sent a letter to the Eagle, apparently sparked by an entry about the thirtieth anniversary of the first killing.  His last letter was sent in the spring of 2004, in which he included photos of the 1986 crime scene, as well as a copy of that victim's driver's license.  Three writers from the Eagle were assigned to give DNA samples, in an attempt to find the killer, but did not succeed.  The killer almost seems to be using the paper as a means of communication, and some reporters are worried that BTK might target them as attention to him increases.

            --How should a newspaper, or other media outlet, handle communications from someone who says he's responsible for multiple sensational crimes?  And how much should it cooperate with law enforcement authorities?

         A newspaper (or other media outlet) should handle communications from someone who says he's responsible for multiple sensation crimes with great caution.  This person could be a threat to the person, or people, that he's talking to, but this could also lead to the capture of the killer.  As for how much it should cooperate with law enforcement authorities, it should cooperate as much as it can.  The killer suddenly deciding to communicate with a newspaper is a huge lead, in the perspective of the law, and they could use all the help they could get.

3).  A Self-Serving Leak

            -Two San Francisco Chronicle reporters were widely praised for their stories about sports figures involved with steroids.  Their investigation was even turned into a book called Game of Shadows, and they earned the respect of many journalists because they were willing to go to prison to protect the source who had leaked testimony to them.  The source itself, however, was not so noble--an attorney was using them.  He leaked the information, and then tried to get a major case against his clients dismissed on the grounds that information from the jury had been leaked.  He swore under oath that he was not the source, and the jury ordered the two reporters to be arrested.  In 2007 (three years later), he finally admitted that he was the source of the information, but the two reporters still refused to talk about it.

            --Should the two reporters continued to protect this key source even after he admitted to lying?  Should they have promised confidentiality in the first place?

          Yes, the two reporters should have continued to protect the key source even after the source admitted to lying.  The journalists had sworn confidentiality, and they intended to keep the facts of the source to themselves.  They were even willing to go to prison for the confidentiality of their source.  And, yes,  they should have promised confidentiality in the first place, if the source requested it.  Sources in articles can be put in danger if they are revealed, and keeping them a secret is an obligation if the source wishes as such.