Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
"60 Minutes" Bengazi Scandal Trap - The New Yorker November 12…
"60 Minutes" Bengazi Scandal Trap - The New Yorker November 12,2013
Ethical Issues Raised by the article
if an official report from the FBI has information regarding a situation its vital to cite that information in your research and paper. Whether you disagree with it it needs to be acknowledged.
with any publication that has been made to the public. It is your duty to correct any incorrect information rather than just deleting the interview or story because you realized you made a mistake. Revising the article shows credibility and professionalism.
Doing an interview before you fact check all information is very dangerous. This can lead to mistakes in reporting and questions asked
My Reaction to the Ethical
issues raised by the article
As a reporter it is your duty to come with your own data that you have collected to ask question s that might differentiations from original story being told
If Davies mentioned that he told the FBI the same story, use the FBI as a source before publishing the interview to criss evaluate statements.
As a reporter going into an interview without having the time to fact check before, you at least need to take the time to fact check afterwards before publishing or airing your interview.
My Personal Opinion on the
Issue and what formed my opinion
people will lie and say things to get on TV and possibly make money from their statements. I think Davies used this tactic to try and sabotage a once credible source
no fact checking was done to make Davies Story credible. Key journalist criteria were ignored by both interviewer and the publisher
A common theme in todays society is to get a story as quick as possible to gain more coverage. This quick turn around leads to mistakes and misinformation
Devils Advocate (looking at the other side)
Maybe the publisher wanted to still post the interview knowing it was false to still gain views and revenue and take the later financial and reputation hit
With a rush to get a story out they didn't have the time to fact check and maybe didn't have access to the FBI report until after the interview was released
there is always speculation and conspiracy theories about government. Maybe the FBI was trying to cover up what actually happened and told a different story
How could using a balance in research have made a difference in there outcome of what was reported
steering away from a quick glance headline that can form someones opinion on a subject
taking the extra time to gather information and fact check the information that is available.
Revising any incorrect information in the story improves credibility and shows acknowledgment of the mistakes. The damage is already done in. most scenarios but its a common practice to revise any incorrect information
interviewing more than on source to cross evaluate what is the same vs what is different.