ETHICS AND ETHICAL

DECISION MAKING
CASE 5: Must A Reporter Be A Ghoul?
(Journalism, Privacy, and the Publics Right to
Know)
Submitted to:
Mr. Gulliver Alawas

Submitted by:
As-il, Izon Eroll P.
Pacol, Carl Bryan P.
Arellaga, Rica Myriville T.
Solomon, Christiane Joy U.

Philosophy 2
2:00 3:00 MWF P-601
May 15, 2015

Must A Reporter Be A Ghoul? (Journalism, Privacy, and the Publics

Right to Know)
Review
This case arises from pressure from my employer (Woodside) to take
unusual steps in covering the news where three cars were entangled in the
middle of an intersection. My employer told me to capture pictures of the
injured child but the mother apparently overheard the instruction and started
yelling because she was begging at me to call an ambulance. This summer
job perfectly fits my interest in writing and this experience will give me a
broad view of journalism that would motivate and enrich my studies in
journalism school as a freshman at the state university in the fall. However,
being caught in a dilemma like this, Woodside should also consider the right
of the victims and not only thinking to be updated to cover the news. I know
what a reporter should do, to deal with the news and inform the mass about
it, but I dont think that it is necessary to be intrusive and to violate the
wishes of a distraught victim.
Ethical Problem or Issue
It is clear that my problem is not the woman! My problem is caused by
Woodsides order that is caused by their order that I should do the work as a
reporter when theres an attention-grabbing incident that needs to cover.
That is, my problem is how to react given the Woodsides instruction that
what I do may unfairly violate the right to privacy and do no harm principle
where the victims are concerned.
According to the case description, my employer demands me to get
pictures of what had happened in the accident. I am no clear obligation to do
exactly as they commanded because the womans begging for help. But
does the principle of fidelity mean that I owe it to Woodside to try, within the
limits of acting ethically and legally, to find a way to raise an output? And I
will have to find a way to explain my side to my employer effectively the
rationale for my decision. That decision will need to be one that Woodside
agrees with and that is best for the both factions.
Thus, it seems my main problem concerns whether to violate the
principle of fidelity to uphold the right to privacy and do no harm principle, or
vice versa. Other values will surely be involved as well.
Solutions
I could (1) do as what Woodside orders, take pictures of occurrence to
inform the public, or (2) resist Woodsides command and handle the case in
my own particular way. If I choose the second approach, I have several
options. These include my continuing several options. These include my

continuing to help the victims, particularly the mother who has an injured
child, and cooperating to them to poke around the case.
Outcomes 1
If I do as my employer orders and to take pictures of the injured child,
Woodside will surely be pleased that I am following their instruction. On the
other hand, the mother might get offended as Im covering the news thats
against her will.
Likely Impact 1
Following Woodsides orders would likely make the victims upset,
because instead of calling an ambulance first, we take advantage to capture
the scene. The whole thing could turn into demoralizing conflict. Casualties
could be harmed, I could be harmed, and the worker of Woodside could be
harmed by the conflict.
Values 1
Doing as Woodside orders would be a way of upholding the principle of
fidelity toward them. I would be respecting the chain of command and taking
steps to address a personal problem and increase efficiency. It could also
help the victims to look for support after we aired the news.
This first solution would violate the right to privacy toward the woman,
merely taking pictures of the distraught child and not considering her
request to stop capturing pictures. She will be more embarrassed and
offended if I will continue what Ive been told. Although it will give me an
experience in a broad view of journalism, but not giving the woman the
chance to calm or to be at ease after the accident violates the do no harm
principle and perhaps principle of autonomy.
Similarly, this strategy would violate the right to privacy toward the
woman by not respecting her decision. Rather than covering the news
smoothly for the publics right to know, this solution would have a single
purpose of making the victims suffer from trauma and making their life
miserable by going against them.
Outcomes 2
If, on the other hand, I implement the second solution, ignoring
Woodsides order and handling the case in my own way, my employer may
view me as stubborn and uncompromising. They may just get someone else
to do what they want. But if not, I can handle the situation more fairly.
Likely Impact 2

Ignoring the command could lead to my receiving poor job

performance review. But if my own method of handling the case is effective,
this might redeem me in the eyes of Woodside. The victims will likely not
suffer as much if I handle the situation well. Of course the woman will still be
harmed, as well as the child. I could be the one to be blamed for not getting
the output of the news, that is the picture, and for not doing my job well.
Values 2
Ignoring Woodsides order might be viewed as violating the principle of
fidelity toward my employer by failing to respond quickly to the lines of
authority that I was hired and accounted by my job to uphold. However,
uncertainties may still appear, as Woodside only order me and not
contemplate the concerns of the woman. If Woodside holds me responsible,
though, I can be harmed and will be receiving a poor job performance.
This solution upholds the principle of do no harm if I can handle it so
that the victim feels she has been treated nicely, and her privacy has been
respected. The principle of honesty, autonomy and right to know will all be
upheld by the casualties. My handling of the situation, if done well, will not
violate these values as solution1 did but rather uphold them by treating the
woman fairly, with respect and in a way that preserves her privacy. I will not
be harmed as well as the Woodside, and the victims concern will be
responded immediately.
Evaluation
The main problem with the second solution, ignoring Woodsides order,
is that doing so would risk my summer job and my training in journalism. It is
not significant violation of the principle of fidelity, as I am not yet a
permanent worker and my employer doesnt consider the wishes of a
distraught victim and only considering the publics right to know without
respecting the decision and right of the woman. However, there is reason to
doubt that any effort I make to solve the problem on my own would likely be
successful. This makes all the values upheld by solution 2. That is, if I cannot
find an equitable solution, I will end up violating them anyway. This second
solution would be personally risky, although not ethically problematic. But
what advantage is a moral solution if I cant actually let it happen?
The first solution, following Woodsides instruction, on the other hand,
has a number of profits. It might be best for the public to be informed by the
news by taking pictures of the injured child. However, not regarding the
privacy of the victim and perceiving the meanness of such an approach, I do
not believe it likely to have such a salutary effect on the victim. It would be
treating the victim in an outrageous manner, hacking her injured child by
taking pictures and only concern for the news would harm the victim,
infringing her privacy, right to safety and autonomy. Such treatment is not
ethical and fair. Moreover, as noted, this solution would be detrimental, not

only for the victim but also to me and to Woodside. This option is the worst
choice on all important grounds.
The main problem with the second solution, disregarding Woodsides
order and addressing the problem myself, is its threat to my career as a
future journalist because reporting the details of an automobile accident is
my obligation and the harm that would follow. There must be some
personally less threatening ways to deal with Woodsides order and thus
relieve me of my burden. Once I have done so, I would be free to address the
problem with the victim in some more creative and less ethically and
practically objectionable ways. Here I might be able to respect the victims
autonomy, privacy, avoid harming them and at the same time maintaining
the fidelity I owe to Woodside.
Decision
My decision would be first, call an ambulance for the injured victim,
and help her to get out in the car and responding to her concerns. After
addressing her need, I would still be able to take pictures of the significant
facts in the accident like the three automobiles that were entangled during
the accident without hacking the child by taking a picture of him being
injured. Still, I did my responsibility and obligation as a reporter, to inform
the public, to respect their right to know, and upheld fidelity toward
Woodside. This option is ethical in nature that I have taken the order
seriously, value their opinions, and am bent on addressing the problem in a
way that is best for the Woodside overall. I would stress strongly the principle
of right to privacy and do no harm as it pertains to the victim.
I think after we had offered the help to the victim, she would then state
the accident before it had happened. She would also return the favour by
giving facts and additional information about the automobile accident, this
option is the best as we respect all the values that are regarded.
Defence
The main weakness of my decision is taking journalism as my second
approach. The exact scenario for me to act as a real reporter is in front of
me, if I took the picture of an injured child, Woodside will receive a big rating
for informing the public. However, this will be very unethical to the victim,
and if Woodside turned out to be autocratic as this, no solutions would be
good for me personally. Clearly then, my best approach is to use every
means at my disposal to convince him of the benefits of my handling the
case in the best manner I know. However, I dont think that Woodside will be
irrational; they will consider the wishes of distraught victim and could still act
in less intrusive manner because the news will still be aired by gathering
other means of information without disrespecting their privacy.