~~~An ethical question~~~

[thuspicy4u]

Hi,

I got this paper today about enthics, and I would really like to know what you guys think. I want to hear both sides of the arguments. You might want to read it twice and think carefully.

"A PBS show some years ago featured a number of prominent people talking about ethical issues. One issue was addressed to well-known TV journalists Mike Wallace and Peter Jennings. Jennings was asked to imagine that the United States was at war with a county named "North Kosan" and the enemy forces were permitting him (Jennings) to accompany them and film their military operations. On one such operation, a North Kosan unit was about to ambush Americans forces. Would Jennings merely tell his camera operator to capture the slaughter on tape, or would he do something to warn the Americans? Jennings answered that he would try to give a warning. At that point, Mike Wallace disagreed, asserting that a reporter has no "higher duty" than his job. Later, Jennings said that Wallace's answer had been better than his own."


Which view do you believe is more ethical and why?


THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO READ IT AND RESPONDING!!!

[crazytimes]

True they have no "higher duty" than their job.

But you would think as human beings they would try and stop others from losing their lives.

[gmvalentine]

This is a difficult question, because, the reporter is in an awkward position of being in an enemy camp in a situation where both sides are fighting against each other, hurting and killing each other. Warning "my side" against an ambush would be my gut inclination, especially if there were guys I knew amongst the ones that were going to be possible victims of an ambush. But would I feel so inclined to warn the enemy about a possible ambush by my side? I've got to be honest, I probably wouldn't feel so strong an inclination. But if I were totally respectful of human life, no matter what nationality it was under, then I should feel compelled to warn the enemy as well, shouldn't I?

I have a lot of trouble with the notion of putting duty to job above duty to preserve human life. I have heard of a situation where a photographer/reporter filmed fairly extensive footage of a chase and subsequent shooting, and did not drop his camera to get the suthorities to intervene. This is reprehensible. But in a war scenario, the situation is more complex. I guess one has to weigh the consequences, both immediate and long-term, of warning vs. not warning one side. And one had to also decide if it is ethical to warn one side while not warning another. In the end, it might be best to remain neutral, as difficult as that might be.

[chippers21]

I think we have reached a very sad state of being when it is acceptable to sacrifice human life for the sake of a job.

[AndersonGal]

I think they should not even go on such an *assignment* in the first place.

[Mouse7088]

I admit, I wouldn't be able to keep my mouth shut for anything. If there were rooftops, I'd be shoutin' from'em.

[Juliannaluv]

Originally Posted by AndersonGal

I think they should not even go on such an *assignment* in the first place.

I agree. No job should ever be put before human life!

[worshipfulheart]

My thoughts are that he is first a human being - therefore, hopefully, the sanctity of life is more important than his job, second, he is an American, therefore, the safety and protection of his fellow Americans and the support of the troops that serve in order to protect his life and give him the freedom to do his job would come before his job, then he is a reporter. Since without the first two, he would be nothing, I think there should not even be the question over whether or not it is ethical to warn the troops, of course he should!

God Bless!!
Angie B<><

[thuspicy4u]

Thank you everyone for you responds. My thoughts are exctly like yours. What good is my job when my county is at stake? I was wondering one more thing. Do you think the CIA is under same predicment as the journalist where they have to keep quite and because of it, many lives are lost. Or am I completely out of the ballpark?

[telos2000]

If you abhore the loss of human life, then how about being a journalist on an American patrol that is about to ambush North Kosan troops? Would your answer be the same?

[pandybat]

I think any journalist or organization that values their jobs over a human life will just have to live with the consequences of their actions for the rest of their lives, whatever the decision they make.

[gmvalentine]

Originally Posted by telos2000

If you abhore the loss of human life, then how about being a journalist on an American patrol that is about to ambush North Kosan troops? Would your answer be the same?

That's exactly what makes the ethical question so complicated. I'll bet most Americans would not warn the North Kosan troops in such a situation. So that means that most would value American lives more than North Kosan ones. Is that ethical? The only way I could even consider justifying not warning North Kosan troops is if they were fighting for a cause that was clearly evil or if their victory would lead to the repression or death of many people.

Then again, the job of a reporter is to not get involved in a conflict. He must remain impartial. Otherwise the enemy would not let him tag along. If a person, on moral grounds, cannot accept the impartial role of a reporter in a wartime situation, then he should not accept the role.

[AndersonGal]

Different Ballpark Thu!

If your CIA your trained to be in this position.
Where as media is trained in getting ratings and putting their slant on actual events.

[Rockabillie]

Originally Posted by thuspicy4u

"A PBS show some years ago featured a number of prominent people talking about ethical issues. .."

What show was it? I wonder if someone just wants to smear Mike Wallace and made this up. That is often the case when the story doesn't provide real details (like "on a show on PBS," not "on Frontline April 12, 2002," etc.) Such a startling quote that obviously struck this person strong enough to quote it and send around the world on the internet and he can't remember the name of the show? I'm skeptical.

also: ironic twist: Peter Jennings is Canadian, so if he put Country over Journalism, it would be to save Canada, not America.


Regarless, some interesting perspective here; thanks all.

In fact, I used to wonder this as a kid when I watched news reels from Vietnam. You could see people getting blasted sky high and I wondered why the cameramen kept filming; why didn't they go and try to save people's lifes?

[telos2000]

Actually Peter Jennings is now an American citizen.