1. I would most probably run the story. However, this would evoke discrimination from the police, and may result in being left out from getting crime stories. Although contacts are highly important to journalists, what is in the public interest is paramount. If the discrimination occurs, it can, "motivate a meeting between the editor and senior police" (Conley & Lamble, p. 244). If a policeman is found to be corrupt, then other, honest policemen would want him to pay for his unjust actions. Although, some protection must be put in place for whistle blowers. This raises a whole new set of rules and regulations. One large story was that of the journalists who got given court sentences as they would not uncover their sources because it was against the journalistic code of ethics.
2. This is a difficult question to answer and can most probably not be answered correctly until I was put in that position. On the one hand you could report the story, as you have a duty to the newspaper and public to report all such incidents. You are protected from charges of defamation or contempt in such cases, provided you are accurate and fairly represent the evidence. They must also cover both sides if both were presented in court.
On the other hand, it is an ethical and legal issue. Perhaps you could contact a mental health institute or the police. I would be very unsure of where to go from in a case such as this.
3. I would report the case. Not only would it be a large story, but a journalist has a duty to the public to report all such findings. It would also be a huge scoop. People in the public eye, although are most probably under a lot of stress, must follow the same legal system as everybody else. It is their responsibility to abide by it accordingly. It would also be insulting to a credible journalist to be offered such rewards.
4. I think it would be important to contact legal advice as soon as possible. If there is any chance that this is true, I would protect the identity of my whistle blower, as it is in line with the journalistic code of ethics. I would not run a story concerning the issue as I could be charged with, "scandalising the court" (Conley & Lamble, 2006, p. 247). If you are charged with this, you are guilty until proven innocent, a reversal of normal rules.
Family First candidate dumped over internet photos
Posted Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:42am AEDT
Updated Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:01am AEDT
Family First has dumped one of its election candidates over compromising photographs that have surfaced on the internet.
A party spokeswoman says Andrew Quah has been disendorsed and expelled from the party because he "does not share the party's values".
One of the three photographs appears to show Mr Quah exposing himself.
Today's Sydney Morning Herald quotes Mr Quah as saying that his "political enemies" may have drugged him to force him to pose for the photos.
But he denies his genitals are shown on the photo, saying someone may have photoshopped them in to the shot.
Family First wants to make it harder to access pornography on the internet and Mr Quah says that in the past he has questioned the feasibility of doing so.
Mr Quah was a candidate for the seat of Reid in mid-western suburbs of Sydney.
Family First says another candidate will be chosen in the next few days.
-----------------------------------------------------
I really wonder about public figures sometimes. But this article has really incited more worry! This is a complete oxymoron of the party's policy, and has been embarrassing for everyone involved, especially Mr Quah.
Situations like this serve as huge reality checks to the rest of society - these politicans or public figures are human, just like you and me. Another time when a reality check has been served was the incident involving Kevin Rudd at 'Scores', a strip-club. We, and sometimes the media, tend to put these people up on pedestools, and expect them to be seamless. Their parties also expect this of them, especially when they are the face.
This article was timed so badly, the government released all that information concerning safety on the internet to all houses, and then this arises. Mr Quah would definitely be regretting his decisions. Blaming his actions on "political enemies" who may have drugged him to pose for photos is so feeble that he really should have made no comment rather than this.
I wonder if any more interesting information will surface about our political leaders in the weeks moving closer to the election.
Family first link:
http://www.familyfirst.org.au/
One funny photo:
This is unrelated to my article, but I still find it hilarius!
No comments:
Post a Comment