Midwest transforms into missing pieces

Columbia Journalism Review reports that coverage of the Midwest is dwindling down and the core reason is because of the drastic budget cuts to newspaper organizations. Is this what our news world is coming to? It's not fair to the news organizations or to the citizens of the U.S.

We discussed in class that journalism is gathering and producing information to send out to the public so they may have the knowledge needed to be an active member of the society. If you cut out the Midwest then journalism isn't complete. As a value of the PRSA Code, advocacy is supposed to provide a voice in a marketplace of ideas, facts and viewpoints to aid an informed public debate. Leaving the Midwest out is comparable to telling readers that the region doesn't matter and isn't important enough to make the news.

Now, most cover the Midwest much as they do the Mideast, out of one major bureau (Chicago here, Jerusalem there) fed by stringers.

If people don't receive information about the Midwest, then how are they supposed to discuss Midwestern issues? Readers from the either coast side will also be lacking regional diversity. Diversity of all sorts is definitely an area that should be increased, not decreased.

Most importantly, people have a need to know what's going on beyond their direct experiences and they should be aware of things they can't directly see in means of control, security and confidence. If you cut out the Midwest, then journalism isn't complete and people are being robbed of freedom. You can't put together a puzzle when you're missing the middle pieces, so how can journalism be complete with the Midwest being cut out?

Harm principle covers journalists too

Most people have heard about the numerous journalists sent overseas to the Iraqi area to do reporting on the current war. Even more people have learned about how dangerous it is for these individuals over there, especially without protection. However, does anyone take into consideration the potential harm they bring to the innocent bystanders?

We need to consider which brings about the greatest happiness. A story captured in the dangerous war zone that Americans want just to be informed? Or the safety of a journalist and saving possibly hundreds of innocent civilians' lives? I think most would agree that there's already been enough lives taken and there doesn't need to be any more tacked on to the massive number of those already gone.

Having journalists work in a war zone is bad for multiple reasons. First of all, they serve as one of the main terrorist targets, placing themselves in imminent danger. Second, the surrounding civilians are also carelessly shoved into this danger. Also, once the information is received, news organizations face the big challenge of determining how accurate the information actually is.

Journalists working in Iraq aren't just Americans. Undercover Iraqis also serve as journalists if they're paid or given an incentive to do so.

It is even becoming dangerous right now for Iraqi reporters to go out into Baghdad. We have to have Iraqis from a particular neighborhood gathering information and taking pictures. Shiites from eastern Baghdad simply cannot go to certain parts of Sunni western Baghdad, take pictures, and bring them back to our bureau without risking their lives.

Mills says one has the right to do whatever they want in their private lives as long as it causes no harm to others. If it does give off a harm vibe then the state or society has a right to intervene. In order to gain and maximize happiness, for Americans and Iraqis, it just seems logical to wave the white flags of journalists and keep the American journalists on safe grounds and not even offer the Iraqi journalists these dangerous tasks.

Eichenwald tiptoes on borderline of ethics

Former New York Times writer Kurt Eichenwald was faced with an unusual dilemma. His decision was later determined to be good and even won an award. Does it make a difference in how your actions should be judged if you're a former writer or a current writer?

This was the daunting question many raised after hearing about Eichenwald's issue. He came across an 18-year-old boy, Justin Berry, who was involved in the online porn business while searching for information about an unrelated topic. Eichenwald and his wife wanted to help this young man get out of this dirty business and turn his life around before it was too late. He ended up writing a two thousand dollar check to Berry. Eichenwald reasons he did so in order to discover the young man's real name and address.

Later on, Eichenwald ended up writing a story with Berry as the prime figure. Before writing the story, however, he asked for the money back. The two thousand dollars was eventually paid in full by the grandmother of Berry.

"I know I did unusual things, and if I should have disclosed what I did as a private citizen in more detail, so be it. But put me through the same situation, I can't say I'd do anything differently," said Eichenwald.

Was this relationship between Eichenwald and this troublesome young man ethical? Eichenwald claims to have acted as he did upon "good Samaritan" terms. Technically, he was not a reporter at the time.

In Mills' terms, consequences of Eichenwald's actions would determine its moral worth. He assessed the consequences and chose the option to help Berry change into a better person. This maximized aggregate happiness. Berry turned his life around and Eichenwald received the Payne Awards for Ethics in Journalism for his good actions.