Ashlee Young 29 March 2013 MMC3105-Lab Blog Post #2 FINAL An insider of a well-known public company discloses confidential information

to you on record, but then asks you to withhold the information until the press release is published. The information is correct, but the companys CEO wants to revise the wording of the press release before it is publicized. The insider will definitely lose his job if you publish the information now. He gave you inside information of a public company, which will result in fines or even jail time for him. This situation raises high ethical concerns for the journalist. According to the Associated Press News Values & Principles posted on ap.org, one of the ethical responsibilities of a journalist states, . ..we always strive to identify all the sources of our information, shielding them with anonymity only when they insist upon it and when they provide vital information not opinion or speculation; when there is no other way to obtain that information; and when we know the source is knowledgeable and reliable. Although the insider gave the initial consent to run this information, I would decline to publish it. Waiting will protect the source from consequences and avoid potential lawsuits. Journalists want to be the first to report breaking news, but competitiveness is not worth an innocent man losing his job.

REVISIONS: I changed words to make sense and make the story flow better. I broke up one sentence into two, because the clauses were both independent; and to make the story flow better. I wrote out Associated Press and not just AP because readers may not know what AP means at first. I did change my position on the debate, since we cannot say that the source is anonymous and shield his name, I would refrain from using the sources name. I checked for passive voice and subject/verb agreement.