1.  DECEPTION OF SOURCES BY REPORTERS

In Chicago newspaper reporters became aware that city health and safety inspectors were possibly soliciting bribes from owners of various businesses to certify their establishments as safe.  In some cases it was said that inspectors overlooked minor or serious safety violations if the business owner provided an appropriate bribe, the more serious the violation the bigger the cash payment.  In other cases reporters heard that inspectors would demand payments (perhaps on a monthly basis) before certifying that a business was safe even when there were no violations.

Unfortunately for the newspaper, business owners were reluctant to talk about the problem and, obviously, the inspectors were not going to admit that they solicited payoffs.  Finally one of the reporters suggested that the newspaper buy a local bar and have a reporter pose as the owner in order to see if any inspectors might attempt to solicit bribes.  As the idea evolved, suggestions were made to plant hidden cameras and microphones to tape conversations with inspectors;  someone thought that it would help if some code violations were deliberately created so that the "owner" would have the opportunity to ask if there was "a way around the problem."  In the course of the discussion it was noted by a senior editor that the newspaper policy required reporters to identify themselves to sources of information and he reminded reporters of the importance to the paper of maintaining a relationship of trust with the community.  He felt lying to the inspectors might undermine the credibility of the news business.  Should the paper set up an "inspector‑scam"?  If so, using what procedures?

2.  PAID PUBLIC OPINION

             William Armstrong, a radio commentator and talk show host who owns and operates a small public relations firm,  accepted a $25,000 contract for his PR agency several months ago from the U.S. Department of Education to build public support for the President’s “No Child Left Behind” program.  Initially, Armstrong’s firm organized conferences and “media opportunities” for NCLB advocates to publicize their position.  A week ago Armstrong was informed by administration officials that, when they hired him, they expected he would personally advocate the program on his talk show and in other media appearances on a regular basis as a part of the contract he signed. 

Both before accepting the contract and since, Armstrong has advocated the NCLB program because he personally believes the program is a good one.  Recently a new staffer at the agency suggested there is a conflict of interest with Armstrong’s personal, on-air advocacy of NCLB once he began taking money from the Department of Education, especially because he has not made public the PR contract he accepted.  Armstrong replies that all he is doing is repeating a long-held opinion that has not changed since accepting the contract and that the PR firm’s activities are independent of his media activities.  The staffer believes Armstrong should give back the money or quit advocating for NCLB as a commentator.  It remains uncertain how the radio network that carries Armstrong’s show or the hosts of TV programs that he appears on would react if they knew he had accepted money to support NCLB.  What should Armstrong do?  Was it ethical for the administration to use public funds to pay an apparently independent commentator to argue for a specific, partisan political program?

3.  PRIVACY OF FAMILIES

A well publicized kidnap/murder case serves as the basis for a "new journalism" docu‑novel.  The actual case involved a group of escaped convicts who kidnapped a young couple and their two children, held them captive for three days in a deserted factory and eventually tortured and killed all of the family members.  Later the criminals were killed themselves in a shootout with police.  The docu‑novel written by a famous author is completely accurate with respect to all known facts in the case.  However, little is known about exactly what went on (and was said) during the period of captivity and torture of the family (except what the medical record shows).  The author has "invented" dialogue between family members and criminals to illustrate the terror the family must have felt.  The author feels this dialogue, while literally fictional, is appropriate and necessary to the story so that readers will understand the kind of men who committed the crime.  He notes that the convicts' fictional acts are developed from profiles provided by a police psychologist.

Relatives of the victims have read a manuscript of the docu‑novel and have asked that it not be published (at least in its present form).  They object to dialogue which shows the victims begging for their lives and not always standing up for each other.  The relatives say this fiction demeans the young family unnecessarily, and perhaps falsely.  The author says the dialogue is consistent with what normal people do in such a situation.  Relatives also object to the inclusion in the book of facts about the couple's sexual problems calling such material an invasion of privacy and unfair since the couple (and the relatives) are victims and did nothing to put themselves in the public eye.  The author counters with the observation that this crime is a public matter and that people need to understand how such terrible events can happen and how they can be prevented.  He argues that his book will serve a good purpose in revealing the causes of such crimes.  What should be done about the book?

4.  ACADEMIC FREEDOM

A tenured professor at St. John's College, a Roman Catholic liberal arts college, has determined after long study that (in his view) a proper understanding of the Bible and other Christian traditions does not indicate that abortion is morally wrong.  This, of course, puts him in opposition to official church doctrine; therefore, church authorities and school officials have pressured him to cease teaching ideas which are contrary to church doctrine.  [Church authorities feel that as a religion professor at a Catholic school he "represents" the church.]  The professor is unwilling to change his views or teaching, arguing that the tradition of academic freedom gives him the right to teach the truth as he sees it as long as he functions as a serious professional within his area of scholarly expertise.  College officials must consider several courses of action.  They could continue to let him teach religion (even if it isn't orthodox Catholicism) in defiance of church doctrine.  They could attempt to fire him for insubordination (defying the meaning of "tenure").  Or they could move him into a non‑teaching job at the college (where he would not be able to teach his views).  What should the administrative officials at the college do?

5.  NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING

Mary Mikesell, a candidate for the state legislature turns on the TV to discover that her opponent is running ads which attack her voting record during a previous term of office.  She recognizes that the facts in these ads are technically correct but they are used in a way that misrepresents their meaning.  For example, one ad cites what appears to be a large number of absences during votes; however, the fact is that these votes were nearly all on minor procedural matters and occurred when Mary was in legislative committee meetings.  (Her opponent's ad suggests that, "She just didn't show up for work.")

Several of Mary's advisers press her to respond immediately to these ads.  (Research shows quick responses are often effective counters.)  Some think she should deny wrongdoing and simply interpret the record correctly.  Other advisers want her to attack her opponent and they have some specific "negatives"  (all true and documented) that can be used.  (Research also suggests this can be effective.)  Mary doesn't like the idea of dignifying the attacks on her with a reply and she wants to avoid becoming negative herself.  However, she doesn't want to lose the election because of false and unfair campaign tactics and she doesn't want to look weak in the face of an attack.  What should be done?

6.  "OFFENSIVE" MATERIAL

Matters involving sexuality are always delicate.  This fact has become especially troublesome to a number of government officials since the rise of the AIDS crisis.  Since AIDS is spread through sexual contact (and through some particular kinds of sexual behavior more than other kinds), many medical researchers have concluded that it is vital to conduct research designed to determine in detail what kinds of sexual behavior various types of Americans engage in.  Therefore, they have proposed that the federal government sponsor a nationwide survey to answer this important question.  The survey will involve a large sample of randomly selected people representing the widest possible range of sexually active Americans.  Both written surveys and interviews will be used; the questions will involve VERY explicit discussion of sex acts, partners, frequency, etc.

Several congressmen and one U.S. senator have objected strongly to this research and may introduce legislation to prohibit it.  They argue that exposing the public to issues and topics that many will find offensive is wrong and that it is inappropriate for the government to attempt to discover "what people do in bed."  Some research questions involve sexually active minors (under the age of 18).  Several public figures have expressed the view that a government study of various sexual behaviors within and outside of marriage tends to put a stamp of approval on "inappropriate or risky" behaviors.  Of course, the researchers argue that potential benefits which come from understanding the transmission of a deadly disease ("Lives may be saved.")  justify this intrusion into private matters and, they note, the respondents will be anonymous.  What should be done and who should decide?

7.  OFFENSIVE MATERIAL, part 2

Another point of controversy in the era of AIDS concerns advertising and public service messages in the mass media.  Currently, the major networks do not accept condom advertising.  Further, nearly all media outlets that do run condom ads or accept public service announcements concerning AIDS prevention use relatively vague, "tasteful" language.  Many public health information experts insist that the language and visuals in AIDS prevention ads must be much more explicit in order to be effective:  to dispel dangerous myths, to insure sexually active people know how to limit their risks correctly, and to convince people to act safely.  The critics demand that discussions of how the disease is transmitted and how it can be prevented avoid offensive references and not provoke sexual promiscuity or "promote" immorality.  

The Surgeon General is convinced that language (and pictures) which will satisfy the critics will not be clear enough to provide the necessary information.  Similar objections have been raised against materials the Surgeon General has developed (and plans to mail to all U.S. households) telling people how to protect themselves from AIDS.  The critics are especially concerned when the means of providing detailed information brings it, unsolicited, directly into the home (through television channels or direct mail) where children may see it. What position should be taken by media executives whose organizations serve large portions of the general public (e.g. newspapers and networks who define themselves as "family-oriented)?

8.  FREE PRESS ‑ FAIR TRIAL

Some weeks ago a grade school child was kidnapped and murdered on his way home from school in Burlington, Iowa.  There was extensive news coverage of this shocking event both locally and regionally.  After weeks of investigation police have charged a suspect in the case and his trial is to begin soon.  As you might expect in a small city, many people know the victim or his family.  Local citizens feel strongly that the guilty party "should get the death penalty."  The pressure is on the police and they want a conviction very much.  The prosecutor is concerned there be no procedural errors in the trial that could lead to a successful appeal.  The judge wants to insure that no charges of unfairness (to the defendant) mar the proceedings; he is especially concerned about publicity before and during the trial which may damage the defendant's right to a fair trial and an unbiased jury.

Shortly after the suspect is charged, the trial judge issues a restraining order which prohibits police officials, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney from releasing any information to the press or public.  This order is intended to limit pre‑trial publicity which might improperly bias prospective jurors (and possibly lead to an overturned conviction).  Reporters complain that the public's right to know is being compromised unnecessarily, that it is contrary to the spirit of American justice (and perhaps the law) to place a cloak of secrecy over a trial.  The judge notes that the trial will take place in public providing sufficient protection for the public's interest in criminal prosecutions.  In spite of the restraining order, information about the investigation and the suspect's potential involvement leaks out and is published in a number of Iowa newspapers.  In response the judge issues a gag order requiring newspapers to cease publishing any information about the trial without his specific approval or face contempt charges and jail time.  It is clear that reporters have damaging facts about the defendant; he was charged with child abuse but the charges were dropped when it was discovered the victim had previously lied in making abuse allegations.  This fact would be inadmissible in court but potential jurors will almost certain learn ofit if published.  Of course, some newspapers invoke the public's right to know and threaten a suit charging unconstitutional prior restraint.  Clearly there is a conflict between the right of a defendant to a fair trial and the rights of a free press.  What should be done by the newspapers?

9.  EVOLUTION AND CREATIONISM

In Rankin County the local school board has been charged with the "use of improper and inadequate materials and techniques" in the teaching of science.  In particular, a group called Citizens for a Balanced Curriculum (CBC), apparently composed of fundamentalist Christians, has objected to the "biased teaching" of the theory of evolution in the high school biology class.  The group is insisting that the board require the high school to purchase texts and other teaching materials which present what the CBC calls "Intelligent Design" (an explanation of the origin of man which happens to be more consistent with Christian religious views).  Further, the group wants the board to require science teachers to spend as much time teaching "Intelligent Design" as they do to teaching evolution.  They argue, "Since evolution is merely a theory and has not been proven, it is only fair to give competing ideas equal treatment in the schools.  That's the American way.  To refuse to discuss "Intelligent Design" is censorship." 

A number of other people in the community, including some scientists, clergy, and teachers strongly object to CBC's proposal.  They point out, "Intelligent Design is not science at all.  It is inconsistent with known facts of science.  To require teaching it in biology classes cheats students out of their right to a honest education."  Further, these people argue, "This proposal is thinly disguised religion.  To teach it in school violates the principle of separation of church and state."  The school board is going to have to make a decision on this matter. What should they do?

10.  CONFIDENTIALITY AND THE NEWS

In a large suburban hospital an investigation of several unusual deaths reveals that all of the deaths were caused by ingestion of a rare and deadly poison.  The deaths, which took place over a six month period, were murder.  One night Arnold George, a local reporter who has been covering the case, received a call from an individual who claims to work at the hospital and to know who the killer is.  After considerable urging, Arnold arranged to meet this informant secretly.  At the meeting Mr. X, the informant, refuses to provide any information unless the reporter promises him anonymity.  Because X is unbending on his demand (claiming that the killer might seek revenge and that the hospital might fire him for not coming forward sooner), Arnold agrees to keep X's identity confidential.  Mr. X reveals that he saw the same man leave two of the patients' rooms just before their deaths were discovered.  He further indicates that he saw the killer in possession of the poison used in all of the deaths.  However, X will not reveal the identity of the person he saw.  Arnold is able to confirm most of the details in X's story and can find nothing in it which is inconsistent with the known facts.  What clinches Arnold's belief that Mr. X does know the killer's identity is that X told Arnold details about the poison which were not released to the public and could only be known to someone with knowledge of the crime. 

Not surprisingly, after Arnold publishes his story charging an unnamed hospital employee with the murders, the police question Arnold and demand he reveal his informant.  The police point out that without the informant they may not be able to catch the killer and, since the killer works at the hospital, other patients may die if Arnold does not cooperate.  (The state government has a "limited reporter shield law," so it is unclear whether or not the police can force Arnold to reveal the name.)  Arnold is reluctant break his word to his source.  He tells the police that the press must be credible to be effective, always telling the truth and keeping promises.  Arnold also notes that if he (or reporters in general) were known to reveal the names of confidential sources, Mr. X would never have spoken out in the first place and the police would have even less chance of finding the killer than they do now.  Should the police force Arnold to break his word if the law allows it?  Should Arnold voluntarily reveal his source in order to help the police?

11. LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION.

     One of Dr. Wallace Williams' students is applying to graduate school.  Dr. Williams knows that the student will be admitted only if he writes a strong letter of recommendation.  This is because the student's grades and test scores are only marginally acceptable to graduate schools.  In cases like this one, additional evidence of a student's ability to do well in graduate school is necessary.  Williams honestly believes the student can succeed in grad school--if only he is accepted.  Still, he knows that this individual has not been an outstanding student in the classes Dr. Williams has taught.  Even though he received mostly B's, so did many other students.  The recommendation form requires Williams to rank the candidate in comparison with other students he has had:  top 5%, top 10%, top 20%, etc.  Dr. Williams' honest estimate of his student is that he is somewhere in the top 30%, but clearly below the top 10 percent.  But Williams is convinced that if the student is not ranked in at least the top 20% he might well not be accepted into graduate school.  If he is ranked in the top 5%, his chances will be very good.  If he is ranked in the top 10%, his chances are less good, but he might still be accepted.

     The problem is, for several years, graduate schools have received inflated letters of recommendation.  The percentile ranking system was introduced to combat this inflationary trend, but it has continued anyway.  Grad schools know that the number of students recommended as being in the top 5 or 10 percent is greatly exaggerated.  So Dr. Williams fears that, if he ranks his student as being only in the top 30%, graduate schools will "read" this as meaning "top 50%," at best and that wouldn't be fair to the student either.  What should Williams say in his letter?

12.  CANDIDATES' PRIVACY?

Representative Kerry Brown is a Democratic party candidate for President with at least some chance of winning the nomination according to many experts.  Approximately eight years ago Brown and his wife vacationed on the French part of the Caribbean island of St. Martin.  About a mile up the beach from the hotel where the Browns were staying was the island's well-known nude beach.  (At French resort areas beaches which permit nude swimming and sunbathing are well attended and not uncommon.)  One day while on vacation the Browns walked up the beach and decided to swim in the nude.

Recently an amateur photographer, who was at the beach the same day as the Browns, approached a staff member of People Magazine offering to sell several photographs which clearly show the Browns in the nude.  The pictures are authentic (and pretty explicit).  The photographer wants a substantial fee and has indicated that other publications are willing to pay for these pictures.  Opinion varies among members of the magazine's editorial staff.  Some argue that purchase and exclusive publication of such photos is an inappropriate invasion of the privacy of the Browns and has no relevance to his candidacy.  Others argue that if the public wants to see the photographs the press has no right to prevent them.  Those who are offended can just avoid buying the publications that print such pictures. Afterall, it's only nudity and they were in a public place with many other people.  Everyone agrees that if the pictures run in People that issue will likely be one of the best selling (and most profitable) ever.  Some staffers argue that while People should not break the story it can ethically cover the incident once other publications print the photos and turn the controversy into a major news story.  What should People do now?  What should it do if the pictures are published elsewhere?

13.  PERSONAL CONFIDENCES.

Sarah Jones, a student at Scot College, lives in Wilson Hall, a sort of Holiday Inn style dormitory arranged in "quads" of four rooms which share a common bathroom and are usually occupied by groups of friends.  Sarah has been called to the Dean of Students office to discuss "what's going on in the quad."  The Dean indicates he has heard rumors that one of Sarah's friends has been smoking marijuana in her dorm room and may have even sold or shared small quantities of the drug.  The Dean wants Sarah to tell him if she has first-hand information about this problem.  Part of the Dean's desire to get confirmation from Sarah is because vague rumors of the sort the Dean has heard are not sufficient for authorizing a room search under college policy; first hand reports of illegal behavior are.  The Dean argues that, if Sarah knows of illegal drug use, she is morally obligated to report it, especially if it involves a friend.  He suggests that the friend may get in serious trouble if she is not stopped.

Sarah knows that the rumors about her friend and quad-mate are true.  She has seen this woman occasionally use marijuana and give small amounts to others in the quad.  Further, Sarah is confident that a room search will provide sufficient evidence to suspend or expel her friend from college.  For her part Sarah does not use drugs, believing that we should obey the law, like it or not.  However, Sarah does not accept the argument that marijuana usually leads to other drug abuse or that occasional marijuana use is dangerous in itself.  In fact, she believes that her friend's use is only occasional, that her friend is not a dealer, and that no harm seems likely to come to the friend from this activity.  While no explicit promises of secrecy were exchanged between Sarah and her friend, it is clear that the friend expects Sarah to protect her since she would never would have used drugs in Sarah's presence otherwise.  What should Sarah do?

14.  USING OTHERS' IDEAS.