Situation Definition: On August 2014, Michael Brown was shot and killed in Ferguson, Missouri. The shooter was a police officer named Darren Wilson. As time went on, the news media reported on it giving in sight on everyone who was involved.
One of those news media was The New York Times. The New York Times brought two ethical issues to the table. The first was giving out the address of Darren Wilson. The making Michael Brown out to be a bad person.
Which brings up the question is it right to put out the personal information such as addresses of the people who are involved in a murder case? Also, is it ok to put information out about the victim to make them be seen in a negative light?
Analysis: Let’s first talk about the fact that The New York Times put Wilson his wedding license on a new paper article that could be seen by hundreds and thousands of people. The story was first about him getting married during the whole incident and trial, but he got married a month before the article was published. Why now did the article bring it up? It was posted a few months after the shooting, but the case was still going on.
People were already mad that they had lost another black young man to police violence. The Ferguson riots were also happening during this time when the article was published. It put Wilson and his wife in danger. Wilson also did not give the paper the “ok” to putting his wedding license in the paper.
Since then The Time has corrected themselves by taking the photo down leaving an editor’s note at the bottom of the article saying “An image of the marriage license originally published with this post was removed after concerns were raised over whether a home address was included on the license. In fact, the address was for a law firm’s office; the image did not show any home address.” (Times, 2014)
The second ethical issue was a reporter named John Eligon saying that Brown was “no angel” which put the victim being Brown, in a bad light. Eligon had talked to family and friends and looked through public records to make a story about Brown and his life before his tragic ending. He talks about Brown getting into drugs and alcohol and that he didn’t hang out with the right people.
The audience took it as a sign of disrespect to Brown. The people who read the paper thought that Eligon was trying to imply that Brown should have been shot. The times was also called out by other news platforms. The editor, Margaret Sullivan, ended up apologizing for Eligon lack of vocabulary. “That choice of words was a regrettable mistake.” (Sullivan, 2014)
Conclusion: In conclusion, I think The New York Times could have handle the Ferguson case better so they wouldn’t have to recant or take down things in their articles. I learned that you should double check how you word things in your article because you don’t know how other people could perceive what you are saying. It is important to discuss the issues I talked about because they are always happening and if we as journalist can avoid doing some of these things, we should.
Sullivan, M. (2014, August 25). An Ill-Chosen Phrase, ‘No Angel,’ Brings a Storm of Protest. Retrieved October 31, 2015.
Top 10 Media Ethics Issues of 2014. (2014, December 23). Retrieved October 31, 2015.
Bosman, J., & Robertson, C. (2014, November 24). A Quiet Wedding for Darren Wilson. Retrieved October 31, 2015.