Journalistic Ethics

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Who do you agree with?

[Sarmatian]

No gah! option, the poll is declared null and void.

[TinCow]

Wow, what a difficult question. I can't answer the poll because I think they are all correct. I believe that Jennings is correct in that he and most Americans (myself included) would warn the US soldiers. I believe the Wallace is correct in that nationality does not trump the duty of the journalist to be impartial. I believe that the Colonel is correct in that it would be disgraceful for those journalists to expect American soldiers to come to their rescue if they then found themselves in peril, and yet the soldiers would do it anyway.

If I had to pick one though, I would pick Wallace. Nationality is not the end-all-be-all of duty and responsibility. Americans do incorrect things all the time, both individually and collectively. A journalist, or anyone else for that matter, should not be expected to support Americans simply on the basis that they are Americans. The question is greater than simple national identity, and goes into the deeper question of what it is that is going on that raises the question in the first place. When it comes to the Press, the United States was founded on the fundamental principle of freedom of speech. That is the one thing, IMHO, that is the keystone of our entire society and national identity, and that is a principle that must be preserved above all others. If we lose freedom of speech, then we lose the United States. Thus, it is more important to protect freedom of speech than it is to protect any individual American.

The question is entirely situational though, and can easily be turned the other way. Keep the same example, but have the American journalist be embedded in the village of My Lai. Then ask the journalist whether he would alert a nearby Vietcong group about the American attack on the village. In that situation, I think it would be far easier to allow the journalist to side with the 'enemy' because the Americans themselves are in the wrong.

Regardless, a supremely difficult question. The best we can do, I think, is to avoid ever being in that situation to begin with.

[Lemur]

Nationality would trump profession for the vast majority of people. There might be a few journos who would take their role as absolutely as Wallace, but not many, not many at all.

Moreover, the military has gotten much savvier about managing press since Vietnam. By embedding journos with units, the journos naturally form a bond with the soldiers, and report more favorably on our actions. Independent journos who are not embedded get no protection and no guarantees, and they tend to die. As the writer in the link above put it, "it is too dangerous, in most cases, to cover modern warfare without protection from an army."

So the question is highly relevant ... to the 1970s. Events and techniques have moved on since then.

-edit-

Just to be clear, I would vote "gah," since all three have valid points that are now largely irrelevant. This is why a "gah" option is traditional in the BR.

[Papewaio]

Freedom of Speech part of Consitution Yes/No

Do US military pledge to protect the Consitution Yes/No

If both of these are yes. Doesn't that mean the Colonel is holding his pledge in contempt by holding the hypothetical journalists constitutional dilemma in contempt? After all they are upholding constitutional values and he has pledged to protect them. If he finds that too difficult move to Russia and he can happily see journos killed off for stating the facts all the time.

Every action or inaction has a consequence. So the Colonel really should have thought about what a USA would be without Freedom of Speech, not only in principle on paper, but how hard it is for journalists to do and the outcome of not doing so. Truth is a sharp blade that cuts its wielder to the quick.

[Lemur]

What's particularly interesting about the choice of video and questions is how upside-down it is today. If we have a problem with modern war reporting, it's that our jornos are too comfy with the troops and therefore unwilling to report negatives. It's perfectly understandable—who doesn't love the guys who keep us alive?—but it's also a problem.

[HoreTore]

I agree with none of them, since their arguments are presented in videoformat. Hell will freeze over before I watch political youtube videos.


Stick to pen and paper, you blasphemers!!