Summary: Publisher of the local newspaper in Anderson County, Kentucky created a policy in December of 1997 that beginning in the new year, all people convicted of DUI's would have their photo and information published on the district court page. This was the only newspaper in Kentucky to have this policy, and it barely affected the rates of DUI's. The question, "should the newspaper purposely embarrass individuals in an attempt to achieve" the goal of reducing drunk driving arose.
My Opinion: I think that it was a good idea of the newspaper to include photos of people convicted with DUI's. It showed the public that they would be exposed for committing such crimes. I don't, however, think that all the information of the arrest should be included with the photo. They should leave out the certain details, like age, place of residence, and blood alcohol levels.
2. The Sting
Summary: A show on television has developed a tactic to exposes suspected pedophiles. They had people pretend to be 16 year olds in chat rooms with men older than them. Once they lured the man to the apartment where they were supposed to meet, they would pop up with cameras and microphones to record the men and their reactions. One of the men featured lost his well paying job because the television network claimed the men were "Internet predators" who wanted to "have sex with underage teens." The network thinks people should be tanking them for serving justice.
My Opinion: I believe this is a very good tactic for catching the perverts who use online chat rooms to get in touch with underage teens inappropriately. I don't think it is a good tactic for a television network to be using to expose them, that should be the police's job. It may seem like a good idea to some people to expose the pedophiles this way, but it is very unethical and could get very sticky legally.
3. Reigning on the Parade
Summary: A 56 year old reporter for the Morning Call newspaper in Pennsylvania and his 25 year old partner were the co-grand marshals in a gay pride parade. The two of them helped organize and put on the parade. However, one of the rules of being on the newspaper's staff was that none of the employees were allowed to take part in "public demonstrations in favor of or opposed to a cause."His employers were unaware of his part in the parade until two days prior to the event. They warned him that his participation would be a conflict of interest and that there would be consequences, but he went through with his parade. The questions arose as to what, if any, would the consequences be for his participation?
My Opinion: I think it is completely unfair that his employers would consider consequences such as unpaid suspension. I think that their policy of not being allowed to take part in events like this in the first place is too much. It makes sense that the newspaper needs unbiased writers, but it doesn't explain how deep they are willing to go with that.
No comments:
Post a Comment