ethics in the media

using the holocaust metaphor-
PETA was sued in 2003 for their campaign comparing the holocaust to the death of animals for food. the campaign was banned in Germany and was upheld by the European Court of Human Rights. germany's PETA is currently trying to appeal the european law under free speech.

i think that "Holocaust on Your Plate" is ethically wrong that has offending and distasteful content. using the Holocaust as a comparison between people killing animals for their pleasure can offend many people that were a part of the Holocaust. also, many can argue that the Holocaust was a lot worse and more serious than people killing animals for their needs/pleasure.


when sources won't talk-
jamilia gates, a former news editor for the parthenon learned that a campus sorority and fraternity had a gangsta- themed party. gates, who is african-american, was offended and felt like they were making fun of black culture. she wrote a letter to the former editor about her concerns, but only used one source to prove her points.

i think if the editor used more than one source (facebook pictures), she could have gotten both side of the story and make her letter look less bias. it could have also helped with her conflict of interest.

publishing drunk drivers photos-
in order to get the point of drunk driving across as dangerous, don white, the editor of a weekly paper in anderson county, decided to scare people by saying that if they got in a crash as a result of driving drunk, their photos would be published in the news. many people in the past have specifically asked to not have their pictures in the news.

i think this is not appropriate for a news paper, especially when people have already said they didn't want their pictures in the newspaper. i think this could be considered a form of invasion of privacy.