If information became available to me that I could potentially release to the public and believed should be kept secret, I would have to first ask myself a few questions. Who are the people that believe the information should be kept secret, and how are they being affected? I’d next have to use the guidelines as previously discussed in class and in my first blog post. I would use Aristotle’s Golden Mean model and ask myself, “Is this the best decision for the population as a whole?” I decided to address the very recent controversy of the United States Marines urinating on perished Afghanistan bodies. I must preface this by saying that on all levels, the act was morally and ethically wrong. I thought it would be interesting to look at the situation on a different level than just the act itself. I’m using this as an example because there could be a conversation (mostly within United States Government) as to whether this should be kept a secret or not. It clearly reflects poorly upon the entire US, not just the military. In my opinion, the information in this case should not have been kept secret because it is unacceptable behavior, but I can see why the United States government would want to keep this a secret. Peace talks are already being threatened by this action and it can easily cause a backlash and retaliation from the Afghanistan population. I found this extremely newsworthy and interesting because the American public always seems to be informed on what war crimes the enemy has committed, but not ones from the United States military. Below is an article and video discussing the story.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/13/us/video-marines-urinating/index.html
Like I stated before, the actual act leaves no gray area to be discussed. “Even though we commonly call “wrong” or inappropriate actions unethical, doing so can obscure the fact that ethics is about how we grapple with the difficult gray areas.” The gray area in this situation is that it represents the US Military. It represents another negative connotation to an already failing war. It’s also a public relations nightmare for the United States military. I would use the criteria from Aristotle, Kant, and the theory of Ulilitarianism once again. “Kant’s ethical theory is based on the notion that that it is in the act itself, rather than the person who acts, where moral force resides.” Clearly this act was wrong. The theory of Ultilitarianism focuses on the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Looking at the consequences of this action and how many people would be harmed as opposed to how many people would benefit is a no brainer in this situation. The American public has the right to unbiased journalism and keeping a secret like this would jeopardize those freedoms. Anyone can disagree and say this is not an ethical dilemma because it is cut and dry, and it is universally wrong. I’ve just tried to look at it from a different perspective. I also know that war crimes happen on both sides more often than any of us civilians will know, and they are rarely reported on. As Ellsberg stated, “It’s not that whistle-blowers believe there is no need for some things to be kept secret. It’s that they believe some things are wrongfully kept secret.” By the release of this information to the public, the entire US Military finds itself in a tough situation. It was handled as well as a situation like this could be handled from the US General. He released a statement that said, "We must treat the living and the dead with dignity and respect. Troops must follow the rules of armed conflict and "act honorably at all times." The soldiers who committed the crime will obviously be affected and are being held to the highest standards of the law. Although I believe this information should be shared with the public, I don’t think anyone benefits in this situation. It’s already a very controversial topic, and it really only continues to shed negative light on the current situation in Afghanistan.
The fallout personally or professionally from using the media to share previously secret information would mostly be a loss of credibility. “If a communicator is believed to be deceptive or dishonest, unconcerned with others’ welfare, or oblivious to everyone’s obligation to use media in a socially responsible way, that communicator provides potential audiences with little or no compelling reason to pay attention to his message.” We receive so many media messages on a daily basis that it’s increasingly important to be credible and avoid losing long-term credibility in the midst of a crisis or damaging situation. In my opinion, if you’re biggest commitment as a journalist is to “seek truth and report it,” then it would be impossible to avoid getting entangled in secrets. I think this also is very dependent upon what one would be reporting on. Ultimately, if a journalist wants to uphold it’s ethical values and code of ethics, if they believe information must not be kept as a secret, then it is an inescapable ethical dilemma.
No comments:
Post a Comment