Sonny Johnson

Professor Shine

Mass media ethics

20 April 2023

The Insider homework

1. Some people may say that the pressure Bergman puts on Wigand to agree to the interview

is unfair and unethical. Others may argue that Bergman's pressure was fair and necessary in order

to get an important story that served the public interest. Wigand already stated his hesitation to

participate and had concerns about the potential repercussions for himself and his family.

Wigand's Hesitation to participate in the interview should be respected, especially given the

potential consequences for his personal and professional life. Bergman could be seen as

manipulative and may have crossed boundaries in terms of respecting Wigand's right to privacy.

2. It is unacceptable for a journalist to break a confidentiality agreement or promise to a

source. If a journalist does this, it can harm the source's reputation, and career, or even put them

in danger. It’s important for sources to trust that the information they share with a journalist will

be kept confidential. Journalists should not disclose such statements or behavior to the public

because it can mess up the trust between sources and journalists.

3. The story had significant public interest and importance, given the potential health

implications of the tobacco industry's actions. Personally, I believe that sentiment is wrong for

CBS. It’s possible that the journalists at CBS might have been more focused on the story rather

than the impact it could have on public health. As for Wigand's thought that he was just a

commodity to the journalists is understandable because he might have felt that way given the
media attention that surrounded him. It’s not wrong for CBS to go after the story, as long as they

acted responsibly in their reporting.

4. Journalists have a responsibility to inform their sources of the potential consequences of

going public with a controversial story. It's up to the source to decide whether to proceed,

journalists have to ensure that their sources are fully informed of the potential risks and benefits

of going public. Bergman provided some level of support and guidance to Wigand, but it is

unclear whether it was enough or not. I feel as if CBS and 60 Minutes did fail Wigand because

he faced personal and professional consequences.

5. This would not be a valid reason to kill the story. If 60 Minutes believed that the

information provided by Wigand was newsworthy and important for the public to know, then

they could report it. legal action could be a concern for CBS, but it should not be the only thing

in deciding whether or not to publish the story. It’s possible that the pending sale of CBS to

Westinghouse played a role in the decision not to air the Wigand interview. They might have

wanted to avoid negative attention that could have affected the sale.

6. Mike Wallace comes across as someone who is willing to stand up to powerful

corporations like the tobacco industry. He seems like he has positive and negative ways and

intentions. His statement after the session with the lawyers tells me that he is confident in his

ability to control the situation. As for Bergman's action in tipping off the New York Times about

CBS's failure to air the Wigand interview, it's a complicated issue. He might have betrayed the

trust of his employer and potentially damaged the reputation of CBS.