Who is Chauncey Bailey? Veronica Guerin? What is their significance to media ethics? Were they courageous or reckless? What is the role -- if any -- of courage in personal and professional ethics?
Please respond by Sunday, Nov. 7, at 6 p.m.
Teaching Notes
You must become the flame on the candle. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is Media Ethics Education DOA?
It sounds like a joke Jay Leno would tell during his opening monologue on The Tonight Show. Hear about the graduate students at the prestigious journalism school? They got caught cheating on an ethics exam. Ha ha ha. Except that’s actually what happened at Columbia University
No one admitted cheating despite pressure from the school’s administrators and pleas from classmates, who feared the scandal would damage the market value of their degrees. Meanwhile, the teacher of the course, New York Times columnist Samuel G. Freedman, refused to comment. But if the disgruntled posts on RateMyProfessors.com are any indication, his students hadn’t exactly been soaking up knowledge. “Maybe he could e-mail his ‘speeches’ to the students instead of making everyone suffer through the most wasted class in j-school. . . ,” one read.
There’s an old cowboy saying that goes, “When your horse dies, get off.” Journalism ethics education is a dead horse. Or else those aren’t vultures circling in the sky.
No one admitted cheating despite pressure from the school’s administrators and pleas from classmates, who feared the scandal would damage the market value of their degrees. Meanwhile, the teacher of the course, New York Times columnist Samuel G. Freedman, refused to comment. But if the disgruntled posts on RateMyProfessors.com are any indication, his students hadn’t exactly been soaking up knowledge. “Maybe he could e-mail his ‘speeches’ to the students instead of making everyone suffer through the most wasted class in j-school. . . ,” one read.
There’s an old cowboy saying that goes, “When your horse dies, get off.” Journalism ethics education is a dead horse. Or else those aren’t vultures circling in the sky.
A Question for Socrates
The question of how ethics is learned, or even if it can be, is as old as Western philosophy. In Plato’s dialog Meno the title character asks, “Can you tell me, Socrates, whether virtue is acquired by teaching or by practice; or if neither by teaching nor practice, then whether it comes to man by nature, or in what other way?” Of course, Socrates, being Socrates, resists giving a definite answer. But we can’t. The sad fact is, students had better get an effective ethics education now or they may never.
Last summer I conducted an ethics workshop for some reporters and editors at the Poughkeepsie Journal, a small daily in upstate
But what I remember most is the air of defeat that clung to the staff as we sat on hard plastic chairs in the break room discussing the cases. I could hear in their voices the bitterness and cynicism of employees forced to follow corporate policies they despised. Recently, for example, the paper had started running display ads on the front page and section fronts, a much more grievous ethical lapse, their mumbled asides suggested, than anything the case studies might have to offer.
I don’t want my students to ever wear the gray, defeated expression I saw that day on the faces at the Journal. But given the downward direction in which the media are moving, and fast, how in the world can I prevent it from happening?
Teaching Media Ethics by Telling Stories
A friend of mine who teaches at a big Midwestern university recounts in class the events of her first week as a reporter for the Minneapolis Tribune. She was sent to Duluth to cover Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey on the campaign trail. When they were introduced, Humphrey vigorously shook her hand. “Oh yes, Susan,” he said, “I read your stuff all the time.” He couldn’t have read her stuff, though; she hadn’t written anything yet. “Just a few words,” she explains to her students, “but words that taught this fledging reporter a great lesson about pols and the little lies they tell.”
I usually find occasion during the semester to quote I. F. Stone’s dictum, “Every government is run by liars and thieves, and nothing they say should be believed,” to make the same point. But Susan’s story makes the point better. That’s because it has existential force. Her story vividly captures in a way a secondhand quote can’t the realities of a reporter’s life.
Some might think telling “war stories” is a waste of precious class time. I’ve a colleague who didn’t want to fall into the “trap” of regaling students with stories ad nauseam (“which, let’s face it, is easier than teaching or grading,” he said). So one semester he kept track. When he toted it all up at the end, he was surprised that he’d used less than an hour - out of 45 – talking about his newspaper experiences. And yet, he admitted, it was his stories that students seemed to remember most.
“Stories teach us how to live,” Daniel Taylor said in his essay, “The Ethical Implications of Storytelling.” What he meant was that stories preserve our experience for contemplation and evaluation. Although not all stories carry a heavy message, there’s an entire category of stories, so-called “exemplary tales,” that are told to convey a moral.
Our war stories are potentially just such tales. They can provide evidence, in ethicist John Barton’s words, of “how real human beings live through various crises and trials and remain human.” My colleague who kept tabs on his storytelling has described his stories as cautionary. Most, he said, deal with “screwups I learned from.”
But sometimes the storyteller and the audience can’t agree on what exactly the moral of a story is.
When Susan was a cub reporter on the Tribune, she interviewed the Beatles, who were on their second tour of the States. She got into their hotel room by dressing up as a waitress in an ugly, mustard-colored uniform and accompanying an actual room service waiter upstairs. Ringo took one look at her little plastic name tag – it read “Donna Brown” – and snorted, “What kind of name is that?” The waiter nudged her in the side. “Tell them what you real name is,” he urged. She did, as well as her reason for being there. Rather than throw her out, the Beatles politely answered her questions. They even let her phone for a photographer. The next day her story ran on the front page, with a photo of John sitting at a table and looking up at her and laughing as she poured coffee in his cup. She still has a glossy print of that photo somewhere.
Many of Susan’s students think she’s nuts for not having the photo hanging up in her office. They also think she’s nuts for saying she’d never participate in the same kind of stunt today. To her celebrity-struck students, disguising herself as a hotel waitress to get an interview with the Beatles seems soooo cool. They lose all sight of the fact that it wasn’t a story of vital public interest that demanded undercover methods.
Susan intends one lesson when she talks about her hard day’s night, but her students, living in a paparazzi-saturated culture, draw another. “It may be a lost cause,” she remarked to me.
Or maybe not. Negotiations over what the point of a story is can be part of the point of the story. In the process of negotiating, we test different interpretations, try out different themes. This is helpful. This is educational. Lawrence Kohlberg, the Harvard psychologist famous for his research on the stages of moral development, contended that “the teaching of virtue is the asking of questions. . . not the giving of answers.” Stories don’t necessarily have to yield clear moral rules to be of value. It’s enough sometimes if they just give us something to think about.
26 comments:
Veronica Guerin was a crime reporter who was assassinated in the line of duty in Ireland.
To many, Guerin seemed like heroine and courageous reporter. She thought it was her job to get up and bring light to corruption and crime in order to inspire change. As much as I respect a reporter's ability to not be lazy, get up and devote herself to a story, it seems like Guerin has an obsession with uncovering these stories.
Courage is a really honest characteristic that is born from the desire to help others.
I don't think Guerin's incentive was keeping the people safe and informed. Reporting these stories became a result of her desire to fulfill her own curiosity and obsession. In the process, Guerin lost sight of values and went on to get information in any possible way. I don't think that's courage. It is reckless just like any other obsession or addiction.
Veronica Guerin was an Irish journalist who was committing to uncovering drug lords and criminals in Ireland. She wrote articles that uncovered many illegal actions and caused dangerous people to threaten her life. She was shot at on more than one occasion and was warned that people were going to come after her. I think that she played out her role as a journalist well. I think that she was doing the right thing: seek truth and report it. She did just even though most people would fear the consequences. Ithink that she crossed the line and became reckless when she refused help to protect her from agencies. She knew she was putting her life in danger and chose to put her profession before her other roles in life. I believe that she had a lot of courage but personally think that knowingly putting her life in danger seemed reckless.
Chauncey Bailey was a journalist from California that wrote mainly about African American life. He questioned many government officials and was always aggressive in his questionning. I think that Bailey displayed courage and carried out his role as a journalist well. His death occurred as a result of working on a certain story, however, he wasn't threatened time after time as Guerin was.
Chauncey Bailey was a black journalist who was murdered in Oakland, California while working on a case dealing with a group of local radical black Muslims. He had been researching and “digging” into their finances and violence reputation. In the article, it states that Bailey “lived and breathed his job,” which is what basically killed him in the end. Because he took his job so personally, it is reminiscent of the Kevin Carter story and the ability to really immerse yourself in your job. It’s difficult to decide if this is a bad thing – we shouldn’t really be different people when we’re at the workplace and when we’re home, even though most people are, but if a job can get you murdered in broad daylight, is it worth the consequences? Judging from the article, it doesn’t seem like if Bailey had the chance, he would do anything differently. This, in itself, takes courage, which is what Bailey had and every journalist should/needs to have.
Veronica Guerin was an Irish journalist who was murdered by drug lords during an investigation. Like Bailey, Guerin did possess a lot of courage. Her job required dangerous actions, angles, and places. However, like Kiersten and Pamela mentioned, was it truly worth death? Bailey seems different because he wasn’t fully aware of the dangers presented. Guerin, on the other hand, loved these sorts of investigations and was fully aware of the dangers she was facing. But at the same time, we can’t possibly say she doesn’t have courage and that what she did was “reckless” because if she was fully aware of what was involved in the situation, then clearly her job and her responsibilities as a journalist were more important than anything else. Yes, it’s a severe sort of dedication, but if that’s what she chooses, well more power to her.
Chauncey Bailey was an African American journalist in Oakland, CA. Bailey wrote a series of exposés on an extremist African American Muslim group known as the Bakery, and was assassinated as a result. In several ways Bailey got too close to the subject. One way was by putting himself in a position where his life was being threatened, another was by being involved with a contact on the inside of the Bakery.
Veronica Guerin was an Irish crime journalist in Dublin Ireland who was also assassinated for her exposés of the Dublin underground. Guerin wanted to expose the underground so that the crime bosses would be taken to court and jailed, to clean up the streets of Dublin.
In my opinion, both journalists were reckless because they felt that they were untouchable. They were also both courageous in the sense that they wanted to effect change in their communities and weren't afraid to put themselves in danger to do so. When dealing with crime and gangs there is no real way to expose them without putting oneself in some amount of danger. You never know what's going to happen. On the other hand, their editors should have put their feet(?) down and told them they either had to be undercover or to get out when things were getting too dangerous. Personal safety should always come first, particularly when you are a parent.
I think their significance to media ethics is that news establishments should not use star reporters as collateral to make more money, journalists with big egos need to be reminded that they are only human and vulnerable as such, and that it is unethical to not place safety first.
Veronica Guerin was a prominent crime reporter in Dublin, Ireland, who was assassinated by the drugs lords that she tried so desperately to expose. Her career as a reporter stands out because she went to great lengths to get the story. She used her sexual seduction to infiltrate the crime family she reported on, and was beaten and shot at in the process. Many saw her as a courageous reporter, a heroine of the journalism world. When she was killed, her life was examined by other journalism professionals, resulting in a book and movies about her life. It became very evident that, although she was devoted to her work, she was reckless and seemed obsessed with getting the story. As a female living in a patriarchal world, it is hard to be taken seriously, especially when involved with crime families or politics. Guerin used her sexual identity as a female to get ahead. By doing this, she really set women in journalism back many steps, aiding to negative stereotypes of women. She was also reckless in the sense of being a mother. Her professional life carried into her personal life, and death threats were not only made to herself but to her son. She refused to change her beat at the Sunday Independent, even when suggested by her superiors. Guerin did not care for the idea of needing protection, because she was clouded with her obsession and dedication to exposing drug corruption.
However, although reckless, Guerin was extremely courageous. It takes a person of strong character to attempt the obstacles she engaged herself in. As a female, although she used her sexual identity to get stories, she used her sexuality as a power to expose the truth. It is debatable whether this is right or wrong, either way, it takes a lot of courage for a woman to put herself in that position. Although beaten and threatened, she remained true to her craft, which is commendable. Her obsession was the basis of her courage.
Chauncey Bailey was a journalist from California who met a similar demise. Bailey focused on the African American community, and investigated the workings of a black radical Muslim group. Just as Guerin did, Bailey took his job very seriously and was dedicated to his craft of exposing this group. He sought to find the truth, which blurred his professional and personal life together. Bailey was assassinated in broad daylight.
In summary, I think it is important to remain courageous both in your professional and personal life. You must remain true to yourself, your life is worth more than exposing a story. It is clear that both Bailey and Guerin were too obsessed to see clearly about the dangers they involved themselves in.
Being courageous can mean the difference between writing passionate, meaningful stories, and bland forgettable stories. Courage can also be a characteristic that moves a journalist to pursue a subject that might me more intimidating, dangerous or illusive that other journalists might not pursue. But if you choose to pursue such stories as Bailey and Guerin did, in addition to possessing courage, you’ve got to possess restraint and intuition as well.
Both Bailey and Guerin were investigating the criminal workings of their cities and were essentially killed for it. Guerin however, seemed to be putting herself in that danger more for the thrill of it than Bailey seemed. Veronica Guerin wrote stories with herself in the middle of the steamy, dangerous action. She’s been said to have been obsessed with the criminals she wrote about.
Guerin to me seems a little bit more reckless than courageous. Although Bailey too was threatened before he was actually assassinated, Guerin was physically assaulted, beaten and shot, as well as her life and the life of her son being verbally threatened. None of this was enough reason for Guerin to ease up on her investigation of Dublin’s underworld. Guerin also seemed to almost have gotten too involved and too “obsessed” to be able to clearly see her function. She was a journalist, not a cop, and not an investigator, although she took it upon herself to be all of those things. This blurring of journalistic purpose and information-gathering methods defiantly clouded her judgment and put her in danger.
Bailey seemed to be to be a little bit more courageous than reckless. Bailey was a renowned journalist who took on the Bakery story as a way to clean up the streets of a neighborhood he believed in. I think he saw himself as an influential community figure, and would never have thought the radicals at the Bakery would have the audacity to execute him on the streets of Oakland the way they did. Being black himself, and being a native of Oakland I think Bailey saw exposing the crime as a duty, he wasn’t just doing it for the thrill or for the sensation and attention of it.
Bailey and Guerin serve as a grave lesson to journalists. Their stories remind us journalists are not impervious to death and danger. They also remind us that no story is worth our live, or the lives of others. They also should serve as a reminder to know when to exercise restraint, and to know when to back off, and when to prioritize the level of danger versus the importance of a story.
Being courageous can mean the difference between writing passionate, meaningful stories, and bland forgettable stories. Courage can also be a characteristic that moves a journalist to pursue a subject that might me more intimidating, dangerous or illusive that other journalists might not pursue. But if you choose to pursue such stories as Bailey and Guerin did, in addition to possessing courage, you’ve got to possess restraint and intuition as well.
Both Bailey and Guerin were investigating the criminal workings of their cities and were essentially killed for it. Guerin however, seemed to be putting herself in that danger more for the thrill of it than Bailey seemed. Veronica Guerin wrote stories with herself in the middle of the steamy, dangerous action. She’s been said to have been obsessed with the criminals she wrote about.
Guerin to me seems a little bit more reckless than courageous. Although Bailey too was threatened before he was actually assassinated, Guerin was physically assaulted, beaten and shot, as well as her life and the life of her son being verbally threatened. None of this was enough reason for Guerin to ease up on her investigation of Dublin’s underworld. Guerin also seemed to almost have gotten too involved and too “obsessed” to be able to clearly see her function. She was a journalist, not a cop, and not an investigator, although she took it upon herself to be all of those things. This blurring of journalistic purpose and information-gathering methods defiantly clouded her judgment and put her in danger.
Bailey seemed to be to be a little bit more courageous than reckless. Bailey was a renowned journalist who took on the Bakery story as a way to clean up the streets of a neighborhood he believed in. I think he saw himself as an influential community figure, and would never have thought the radicals at the Bakery would have the audacity to execute him on the streets of Oakland the way they did. Being black himself, and being a native of Oakland I think Bailey saw exposing the crime as a duty, he wasn’t just doing it for the thrill or for the sensation and attention of it.
Bailey and Guerin serve as a grave lesson to journalists. Their stories remind us journalists are not impervious to death and danger. They also remind us that no story is worth our live, or the lives of others. They also should serve as a reminder to know when to exercise restraint, and to know when to back off, and when to prioritize the level of danger versus the importance of a story.
Chauncey Bailey was an American journalist most known for his work within the African American community. He was the editor in chief of the Oakland Post before his assassination in 2007. He was working on a story about a group of radical African-American Muslims when he was found out and shot down on the streets of Oakland for threatening to expose the truth.
Veronica Guerin is another reporter with a tragic fate similar to that of Chauncey Bailey. She also was assassinated on the job by the dangerous drug lords she was reporting about.
I think they are both courageous for taking on such dangerous stories and putting themselves in danger, however the way they both went about it had to have been remotely reckless if they got themselves killed. They are both significant because they show the reality and dangers of journalism. Without casualties like theirs, journalism would never be seen as a risky job.
Courage is very important in personal and professional ethics because it takes bravery to speak out against something you think is wrong. Without courage, there is barely any chance to be 100% ethical.
Chauncey Bailey was a journalist in Oakland, California, who was killed because of a story he was working on. He was shot in broad daylight as a result of his investigation of a group of radical black Muslims. Bailey, who was black himself, was known for being relentless in his reporting, a kind of traditional journalist that really went out in the field to find his stories. Bailey was courageous, and probably a little reckless. He was determined to get the story of the Bakery, and then the one about the extremists, and didn’t ever stop to take the death threats he received seriously. Was that wise? Maybe not. But I can see why he would do that. He didn’t want to be bullied into not doing his job, so he continued to dig up the story. I would have to say that’s pretty courageous.
Veronica Guerin was an investigative reporter in Dublin, Ireland, that was also killed for her work exposing organized crime. Guerin is described in the textbook as having an “obsessive fascination with the dark underbelly of Dublin,” and that she “decided to penetrate it by getting up close and personal with its most sinister and ruthless inhabitants.” A description like that makes her sound reckless to me. She had some kind of sick infatuation with Irish organized crime that she would put herself in danger. She repeatedly received death threats (unlike Chauncey, who only got them at the end of his life), and never seemed to really take them seriously. Of the two, I would say Guerin was more reckless.
I feel as though, in order to be reckless, you have to be courageous. If you know you are putting yourself in danger, it’s crazy, but also pretty impressive. Bailey and Guerin knew what they were doing, knew the possible outcomes, but did it anyway.
Chauncey Bailey and Veronica Guerin were both journalists that risked their lives to such an extent that they were determined to get the truth of what they were reporting. Their significance to crime reporting is a huge one, due to the extremes they were willing to go through to get the story. I believe they were courageous because they knew the dangers of what they were investigating and still went through it. While Bailey was reporting about the inner workings of an Oakland "bakery," Guerin tried to expose the drug lords in Ireland by going undercover and using her sexuality to get what she needed. I agree with Jackie- I truly believe it is important to be true to oneself, first and foremost and if one feels like a certain situation is something he/she needs to get involved in, then he/she should weigh out the consequences.
Chauncey Bailey was one of black America's most successful journalists who was murdered in broad daylight while investigating a local group of radical Muslims. He worked nearly 4 decades in the field, before becoming editor-in-chief at The Oakland Post. His close friend and colleague Colin McEnroe knew him as a dedicated young reporter that thought his profession made him impervious. That's sadly not the case.
Veronica Guerin was an Irish crime reporter who was murdered by drug lords. She too had no idea that she was not impervious. Although she was confronted once before by a convicted criminal who threatened to kidnap and rape her son and kill her if she wrote anything about him. She received the International Press Freedom award from the Committee to Protect Journalists in 1995. She was murdered six months later on June 26, 1996 by two men who were suspected drug lords on a motorbike who came alongside her car and shot her six times.
Both these journalists were courageous, but courage only goes so far. You should never risk your life for a story in my opinion. What’s the good of an excellent reporter if there no longer around to report? I think courage plays an integral role both in personal and professional ethics. But I also believe you should never risk your life, or put it in imminent danger unless it’s to save many individuals.
Journalists Veronica Guerin and Chauncey Bailey can be considered heroes in their own right, but I think the correct term for both is martyr, because to some, a martyr can be just as foolish as they are heroic. When some people think of hero, I believe that they think of the outcomes of their act like American Airlines pilot Chelsey Sullenberger or a firefighter saving a whole family.
The Oakland Post editor Chauncey Bailey was heroic in his own right, meaning he didn’t save a life but he did aspire to protect the families and young children from radical violence caused by Your Black Muslim Bakery, a pseudo bakery that committed senseless crimes and traded illegal guns in Oakland, Calif. In 2007, Bailey remained loyal to his duty until he was assassinated by Your Black Muslim Bakery. For me, he is a fallen martyr because he seemed innocent enough risking his life publishing these investigative articles and having relations with a direct Bakery member. As a professional journalist, he sought to fix two problems—the Bakery’s violence and the corruption with the Oakland police, and both of them probably got him killed. Personally and professionally, Bailey was just doing what he thought was his job as a journalist by giving a voice for the scared and powerless citizens. He was trying to clean up Oakland because as a native, he knew the city deserved change and that the police were also guilty because they were not protecting these families. After death threats, I would think that his decision to continue investigating about both groups deem reckless and courageous, but if there was common knowledge that the same police officers were keeping tabs on the Bakery, then Bailey is courageous because he should have been protected despite the circumstances. He brings an interesting significance to media ethics because of the conflicting situation with the police. I think police and journalists should work together although it’s not always the case, more so with police refusing to cooperate. This left Bailey solo in his decision-making process. Bailey was also fired from The Oakland Tribune after unethically omitting his byline in stories about his friend and source, the second wife of Black Muslim Bakery leader Yusuf Bey although The Oakland Post allowed him to use her as a source for his work. Although the Tribune stories are unrelated, as a professional editor, Bailey should have been more careful about choosing his investigation over the Post and its publisher.
In Robert Brown’s essay about Irish crime journalist Veronica Guerin, his sources and use of a film that portrayed Guerin’s role as journalist fighting against Ireland’s drug lord underworld gives off the example of a foolish martyr. I agree with Pam and Brown that she was obsessed with the underworld which makes her different than Bailey. She was unusually seductive, manipulative and risked her child’s life in the process of writing these articles. Professionally, she disregarded media ethics and decision-making processes by acting above the Sunday Independent when her personal obsession became more important than crafting an investigative story. I also do not understand how using nicknames for her gangster sources was ethical. She was threatened much differently than Bailey and acted incredibly reckless, but with the film, her newsroom coworkers and critics portraying her in two different lights, it’s hard to say who’s right about her intention. The Sunday Independent should have protected her more properly and coerced her to stop. She started to lack good judgment, and most importantly she lacked knowledge about media ethics because she was not a journalism graduate.
Chauncy Bailey was an African American journalist who was killed "in the line of duty." He was investigating an Oakland California group of radical black muslims and their pension for violence. He was murdered in the daylight on his way to work doing his daily routine, and the gang had him killed to stop him from writing anything about them.
Veronica Guerin was an investigative journalist from Ireland who was murdered for her work. She had writtin a string of stories investigating drug lords of the community and recieved multiple death threats, but continued to write, adding her name to multiple hit list's. She was so zealous that she denied police the oppurtunity to protect her.
It's argued on both sides of the argument as to whether or not one should immerse themselves in their work or not, let them be interwoven. My answer would be that it is ethically important to be the same person you are at work as you are at home. Don't present yourself to your peers and your readers as something if you are something else entirely. But to allow such a close connection between your work and home lives, to the point that there may not be a line drawn at all, may also be slightly unethical. How can someone who is so ruthlessly focused on getting their story be objective and fair? What both these people did was extremely courageous, Bailey taking on a well-known crime ring, and Guerin continuing to uncover drug lords all the while stockpiling names of villainous enemies, but by allowing themselves to get too close to their subjects, they both became reckless. Bailey seemed almost unaware of the danger he was placed in, and that is itself is reckless because writing the type of stories that he did, he knew how powerful his words were. Guerin seemed as if she were an adrenaline junkie looking for her fix by chasing stories that would bring little change in the community (the corruption in Ireland was no secret, writing about it only put a target on her back) but bring serious pain to her and her loved ones.
As we have mentioned in previous class discussions, the meaning of courage can be tricky as many people frequently mistake it for rashness. In the middle of that extreme and the other, cowardice, lies courage.
I believe that in the case of Chauncey Bailey, courage was demonstrated. A reporter based in Oakland, Cali., Bailey investigated the alleged crimes formulated by a large group of muslim african-americans that ran a bakery business, consequently leading to his murder. Despite Bailey's unfortunate fate, I would not consider his investigation to have been done in a reckless manner. A great journalist exposes the corruption and injustices of any institution or group that has possible effects on innocent citizens. I do not believe Bailey overstepped any boundaries that would knowingly bring him to his death. There were, in fact, other people (members of this extremist group) that would have presumably been in more danger than Bailey. From an ethically professional standpoint, I believe Bailey took a great risk in revealing the wrongdoings of a powerful and influential group, but not in a rash manner.
In contrast, I believe Veronica Guerin acted in very provocative ways and I do think her personal and professional ethics should be questioned the way they have been following her death. From the chapter, I gathered that Guerin commonly played the role of an undercover detective in order to obtain information, and often did it successfully. However, her behavior demonstrates foolishness and naivety. Guerin confronted dangerous and armed Irish drug lords and mobsters without any concern for her safety or the safety of her family. Ethically speaking, journalism should be done in a way where it affects and harms the least amount of people in the smallest way. Bringing her son along for these investigations, seducing mobsters armed with weapons, and working under a public name that makes it easier to track her down, defies that ethical principle in its entirety. As mentioned in the chapter, such risky tasks are expected to be done by trained police authorities, not by a journalist. Guerin may have let her love for investigatory journalism cross a serious line that brought her to her murder.
To me, the role of courage is equally important in both personal and professional ethics. Like I said, I believe it is important to be the same person at work and at home, so to say that courage should only be applied to important personal ethical decisions would be counter-intuitive. Just as courage is important though, it is just as important to remain objective and fair in all life choices, and when courage borders reckless, it is important to reconsider which side of the fence your staring at, and which yard you want to be standing in.
Chauny Bailey was a journalist who was shot several times in Oakland while covering a story on gang related activity in the area. Veronica Guerin was an Irish journalist who was killed in Dublin while reporting on drug lords. These people are significant to media ethics because they paid the ultimate price to uphold their journalistic integrity and report ethically on their stories. In both cases, the journalists acted both courageously and recklessly and they stood up for what they believed in and tried to report on the truth even while their safety was at risk. This showed that they were both willing to risk injury and even death to get their stories and provide the public with the proof. Courage plays an important role in both personal and professional ethics because many times you need to have the courage to uphold what you believe is ethically just.
Chauncey Bailey was a reporter that worked for the Oakland Post. Growing up in the Oakland community he saw the city’s dark side and throughout his career tried to make a difference in it. He was dedicated to his profession and used it to bring about the changes he wanted by mentoring kids at the local schools and taking interest in the people he reported on. One way he sought to make a change was researching a story on a local radical Muslim group known as “The Bakery”. He was murdered in broad daylight by a member of the organization he was investigating.
Veronica Guerin has a very similar story she was murdered while reporting about Irish drug lords. The two reporters both needed a lot of courage to attempt to make a change in their community with such dangerous circumstances. However I feel they were both very reckless. They both received numerous threats on their life; Guerin was actually assaulted, and still chose to pursue their stories. In the article Bailey’s friends think he never took the threats seriously. Unlike Socrates (who chose death by hemlock rather than escape) they didn’t use reflection and reasoning. These two reporters are significant in media ethics because they brought attention to the issue if it’s ethical to give up your life for a story. Journalists today need to realize there are risks associated with the stories they report on. They have to realize they are not impervious to violence or backlash and should use this in deciding on how to report a story.
Chauncey Bailey was the editor of The Oakland Post, a newspaper in Oakland, California, and a dedicated journalist who was murdered for investigating crimes involving Your Black Muslim Bakery. The head of this organization, Yusuf Bey, tormented the community and Bailey had a source who leaked him secrets of the Bakery’s finances and operations. Luther Keith, who worked with Bailey at the Detroit News, said “He [Bailey] would pursue a story to the end.” This statement proved to be true when Bailey was murdered by a member of the Bakery while he was on his way to work one morning. After Bailey’s death, more than 200 heavily-armed police officers raided the Bakery.
Veronica Guerin was an Irish news reporter who investigated crimes for the Sunday Independent and was murdered for getting involved in the drug world. After Guerin’s death, the Irish parliament reinforced laws to monitor tax enforcement and criminals. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 and Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996, the government had the rights to seize assets purchased with money involved in crimes.
Bailey and Guerin both received numerous death threats and yet, still pursued their stories to expose the truth. In my opinion, I think they were being courageous because it is important to find out the truth – even if it means putting your life at risk. I feel as if that’s when the truth is the most important, when what is about to be exposed is so imperative that it puts a life at risk. In Bailey and Guerin’s cases, it was uncovering corruption and exposing truths in an entire neighborhood. And, even though they lost their lives, their actions had a positive aftermath. Courage should always be involved in personal and professional ethics. It is important to stand up for your beliefs and attitudes because they define who you are.
Chauncey Bailey and Veronica Guerin were both journalists who were murdered due to the corruption and danger they worked to uncover. When Veronica Guerin learned about the drug trade the Irish mob was involved with in Dublin, she was outraged. Guerin became so absorbed in the story that even after she was personally threatened multiple times, as well as her son, she continued her investigation. The reading suggests that the Irish reporter developed somewhat of a fascination with the story and in a way became addicted to the danger of it. She was the type of person who "do anything" for the story.
Chauncey Bailey was murdered in Oakland, California, while working on a story about a radical African American Muslim group. Bailey also received death threats before he was shot and killed. Bailey was an aggressive and relentless reporter.
I believe Guerin and Bailey started out as courageous journalists however, they let their passion and drive put themselves in life threatening positions. Once that happened, they became reckless. In order to be courageous, you have to take chances and possibly put yourself in a vulnerable position. That being said, journalists still need to recognize when a story becomes too risky. I agree with many of you who have said that Guerin was more reckless than Bailey because she was actually assaulted and shot at before she was murdered. If all it takes for a journalist to back off is a death threat, then a lot of investigative reporting would fail. I think what happened to Bailey was more unfortunate as opposed to reckless.
CHauncey Bailey was a journalist working on a case of the Black Muslim Bakery in Oakland. He was murdered while working on the case, by one of the members of the Bakery. This Bakery was known for causing more trouble than baking pies. During the investigation, Bailey was exposed too much information that took his life away.
Veronica Guerin was an Irish journalist investigating inner city drugs and violence. Like Bailey, she was murdered execution style on a highway. Her death was a big deal in Ireland where her funeral was attended by thousands of people including the president of Ireland. Guerin was extremely devoted to cleaning up crime in Ireland, doing more than cops and detectives at times, knowingly putting her life into danger.
I would say that they were both courageous and reckless. They both took on such controversial, eye-opening cases. They put their lives into risks but Guerin went too far. Guerin disguised herself, and knowingly risked her life in order to get the story. Bailey, on the other hand didn't think he was so much in risk when working on the story. He was more concerned with protecting the identity of witnesses, not realizing that he was in as much danger as they were.
THe role of courage in personal and professional ethics is sticky. Courage, the ability to confront fear, is vital in every ethical situation to help one make the right decision in a situation. The question becomes, how much courage is healthy. In a situation such as Guerin, who went about investigating beyond her boundaries, risking her life.
Chauncey Bailey was a reporter who was originally form Oakland, CA. He had worked all across the country before returning to Oakland where he was shot down in broad daylight. Upon his return to Oakland he uncovered a crime gang centered at a bakery. Uncovering this well organized crime gang lead to his murder. I believe he was courageous for uncovering the truth about this well known bakery. Others knew about the crime circle but he brought it to the papers and opened many more eyes to what was actually going on behind closed doors.
Veronica Guerin was a reporter form Ireland who went too far in her investigation of criminals in Ireland. She, unlike Bailey, was more obsessive about uncovering the dark corners of her native land. I believe she was courageous because she did go very far to get what she wanted to know, and share with the public. She many have been obsessive and that lead to her death, but she reported the truth in her unconventional way, even using her body as a tool to uncover a story.
Chauncey Bailey was a black journalist who was based out of California and was murdered in Oakland while reporting on a story. Bailey wrote articles that discusses issues surrounding problems that affected the African American community and created much controversy and while working on an article looking to expose a group of radical black Muslims. As Bailey continued to investigate the suspicious acts of the radical Muslim group, he was murdered execution style in the middle of the street.
Veronica Guerin was an Irish crime journalist who was also murdered while working on a case. Guerin believed exposing corruption would inspire change in a society full of violence and crime and eventually this philosophy lead to her death. Her death came about as she wrote articles that would uncover drug lords and criminals in Ireland.
I believe that both of these journalists were extremely courageous in their actions because despite the pressure they felt, these individuals continued to execute their jobs as journalist. The desire to help others was the primary motivation utilized by these individuals to continue their duties as journalist. I believe that their significance to media ethics is symbolic in the amount of courage these reporters displayed in the face of adversity.
Chauncey Bailey was a black journalist out of Oakland, California, who was murdered after investigating a local group of Muslim radicals. In my opinion, he was most definitely courageous. The article we read assesses that Bailey was a "crusader" who had a "dogged determination to get the story". He dug deep into the the finances and violent activity that surrounded the Bakery mob; he sought to tell the truth, and, it seems, lived and breathed journalism. His beliefs regarding civil rights and the black community were intertwined with his career. In other words, he was the same person in his professional life as in his personal life. He pursued his story with tenacity, and, unfortunately, didn't live through that pursuit. I think he was courageous, though -- to never back down, and to have such faith in both his own ethics and the story at hand. takes a great deal of bravery, in my opinion. It is certainly not an easy thing to integrate the same values you hold individually into your profession.
Veronica Guerin was an Irish journalist killed during her investigation of drug lords in Dublin. Throughout the text, she is described as having an "obsession" with the seedy underbelly of Dublin -- of Ireland, in general. He investigation, though it definitely had its aspects of courage, was undoubtedly reckless. To me, it seemed like Guerin was more intent on satisfying her obsession than anything else. She did put all of herself into her profession, but she was well-aware of the dangers at hand and continued to risk her life without discretion. She was on a mission to satisfy her own desires. Therefore, I think she was more reckless than courageous.
To a degree, it takes courage to be reckless, but I feel that the difference between the two is in the mindset had when putting yourself at risk. In the end, it is about personal and professional ethics being one in the same. You need to be able to follow the same ethics you would personally in your professional life, no matter what the consequences. That takes true courage, because professional fields don't always allow for the best ethics to be pursued.
Courage is so hard to come by, personally or professionally. It is a rare friend who will tell you your ass really looks fat in those jeans and you probably shouldn't wear them. And it's a rare reporter who will tell their editor "no, that story shouldn't be published until it is done and I will not allow it to be." But we always admire those people more in the end.
Chauncey Bailey and Veronica Guerin were both journalists who were murdered because of the courageousness that drove their work. Both journalists chose to report on corruption and crime, and both dug deeper than most reporters would. Both were known for their drive and aggression when reporting on stories, not backing down in the face of a powerful person. Both thought that what they were doing meant a lot more than their own lives did -- otherwise there's no way they would have been doing it in the first place.
Both Bailey's and Guerin's work threatened to damage the reputations of local crime kingpins, and both lived in areas where the behind-the-scenes dealing of those kingpins were affecting lives of citizens far more than they probably realized. Both were threatened several times before they were actually killed, and both decided to continue their work, unabashed, anyway.
I truly admire the selflessness and courage of these reporters, their dedication to telling the whole story and understanding that what they did was bigger than themselves. There's so much fucked up shit going on everywhere all the time, and there's almost no one who would actually think it their responsibility to un-fuck it up. The thing is that all this fucked up shit can only happen when police officers and journalists aren't doing their jobs in the first place -- investigating telling the truths of their communities. So you know, yeah, it was totally reckless of them to risk their own lives when they KNEW their lives were being threatened. But courage means putting fear behind you -- courage MEANS being reckless to an extent. The only way either Bailey or Guerin could be considered solely reckless would be if there was not a greater purpose to their actions. And there was. So there.
It's funny that we think of these reporters of courageous when this is what all journalists should be doing -- going after truth, rooting out corruption. When I think of this situation as it relates to ethics, I can't help but think of the second half Hillel the Elder's quote (the entirety which I now have up on my fridge.)
"If not now, when? If not me, who?"
Post a Comment