Let's wrap up the weekly ethics discussions by returning to some of the central ethical values in journalism and strat comm:
- what are our new means of debate fact-checking? (accuracy)
- what should your profs get to say during elections? (skepticism)
- what is the line between journalism and non-journalism? (idealism)
- should we air interviews when a candidate needs to restart? (fairness)
- should consumers help define what is and is not reliable information? (transparency)
- when should advertisers avoid offense and rescind creative work? (independence)
- what happens when subjects fight back (courage)
- what stories and images are bigger than us? (humility)
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Weekly Ethics Roundup
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
With regard to shield laws, I agree very much with Cameron McWhirter in that the idea of shield laws may be dirty, they are required to have a functioning democracy. When people fear for themselves they are going to tend toward self preservation--they will not risk themselves to reveal information. Wisconsin does not have a shield law (how disappointing for we aspiring fourth estaters) but apparently there is precident in court cases that uphold our right to not identify sources, though the details are quite shady. Here is a good site about it: http://www.wisfoic.org/columns/2know2-08.html. Confidentiality is awarded to doctors, lawyers, and clergy, yet we are left out. Hopefully that will change one day soon.
Post a Comment