The Ethics Assignment

Instructions:
Mass communication professionals face ethical dilemmas daily. What may be a breech of ethics in one mass communication profession, may be acceptable in another. For example, advertising professionals may easily accept free tickets from a client, but a journalist could be fired for accepting a gift.

Assignment:
Find a journalist whose ethical breech made news, or you may choose a journalist whose stand on ethics caused hardship but he or she stood fast. We can learn from the mistakes of others and be emboldened by the courage of those who take a stand.

What is required:
Post a synopsis of your material on this class Ethics Blog.
You may post text, photos, whatever fits your project.
Remember: This is a public site. Respect copyright. Your material may be read by others. You will be evaluated on the quality of your writing and material submitted.
This should help you focus on what to share with us during your class presentation.
It will be helpful to refer to professional codes of ethics during your presentation, such as the SPJ Code of Ethics.

• Presentation to the class
Present using the blog as a visual. You may also have handouts.
Tell us about the ethics issue and engage the class in discussion on the topic.

GROUP OPTION
You may choose to work as a group on this. The same information is required whether done individually or as a group. You post to the class ethics blog as a group, which means one person may post and others comment or each of you may post pieces of the project, but each person must have a presence on the blog. If done as a group, I will expect you to excel in engaging the class and make a dynamic presentation. Each member of the group will be expected to participate fully.
You may have up to 3 group members.

Blasphemy

(click the cartoon for a link to the ones published in the Danish newspaper)

In September of 2005, a conservative Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, published cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. Not much was made of the caricatures at first, but when Muslim leaders called attention to the images in 2006, it set off a thunderstorm of rioting.

The cartoons originated when an author of a children's book on Muhammad could not find an illustrator unafraid of the backlash that publishing a photo of the prophet would cause. The Danes decided it was time to stop being censored by Islamist extremists and held a contest asking for people to send in depictions of the prophet. Did they have any idea what the response was going to be? They must have known how controversial the publishing of those images would be.

Overall, 100 people died during violent protests. The Danish embassies in Syria, Lebanon, and Iran were burned. European buildings were stormed.

Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's culture editor, had this to say:

The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is of minor importance in the present context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him.

So what was at stake here? Freedom of expression and the press? Were they just "poking the bear" unneccesarrily? After all, only a few thousand of the billion Muslims around the world rioted. Should newspapers cowtow to the noisy minority? But after all, it was Islamic leaders who called attention to the cartoons several months after their publication.

The case study on the Society of Professional Journalist's website says:

It could be argued that deciding not to publish the cartoons is not cowardly self-censorship but considered good judgement. After all, they were readily available on the Internet. A responsible journalist's intent should be to inform, not to offend.

Hmm. Hmm indeed.

See also Andrew and Todd's post.