Journalism Ethics

1. Who's the "Predator"?

When NBC created a series titled "To Catch a Predator," many questions of journalistic ethics were raised. The television "newsmagazine" worked hand-in-hand with law enforcement, executing "sting" operations to expose child predators. People on the team would pose as minors on the internet, lure in the potential sex offender, and when the man arrived at the "child's" address, they would be met with Dateline reporter, Chris Hansen.

If my newspaper or television station was approached to participate in a "sting" operation to identify and arrest potential child sex offenders, I would accept. I personally have no ethical qualms with exposing these predators to the world—maybe NBC did it to get the numbers, but in my opinion it's also doing a service to society. These men deserve to be outed and arrested to prevent them from harming any (more) children.
I do think that the reporters themselves actually executing the sting operation is unnecessary; to me it seems like it should be the law enforcers actually doing the "luring," but the reporters could just report on the confrontations and arrests. But I don't think that the concept itself is unethical, at least by my standards.

2. Using the 'Holocaust' Metaphor 

Animal rights organization, PETA, launched a campaign titled "Holocaust on Your Plate" in 2003, comparing animal slaughter for meat to the genocide of Jews (6 million deaths) and other minorities (5 million deaths) by the Nazis in WWII. This caused severe backlash from several countries and groups, even resulting in the banning of the ad in Germany.

I think that PETA's ad campaign is incredibly insensitive and offensive. They are an organization that has a reputation for using shock value for their ads (as well as hypocrisy with their own treatment of animals), but in my opinion this is one of their worst reprehensible actions. I'm all for animal rights, but it's not appropriate to exploit an international tragedy, a genocide, for your own organization's benefit. Nonprofit organizations shouldn't have to rely on shock value for support, especially at the expense of the millions people who still feel the Holocaust's impact today.

3. Naming Victims of Sex Crimes

When kidnap victims whose names were broadcasted across the state, even the nation are found and discovered to be victims of sexual assault, media is often left at an ethical crossroads as to whether publish the child's name along with the crimes committed against them, or to discontinue the use of their names. The conundrum is complicated by the fact that even if their name isn't used, most of the public would be able to easily infer who the article was referring to.

I think that the privacy and wellbeing of the young victims of these atrocious crimes should be put first and foremost. If the child has been determined to be mentally sound enough to be interviewed or make a choice as to whether they want their name used, they should be allowed to. Of course, they should be made aware of potential consequences of their ordeal being made public, but ultimately they should have their own autonomy to make the choice. No matter what, in cases like this the child victims and their families should be involved in decisions about what is included in media coverage of their story.