Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
“60 Minutes” and the Benghazi Scandal Trap by The New Yorker, November 12,…
“60 Minutes” and the Benghazi Scandal Trap
by The New Yorker
Play devils advocate, what opposing view could be expressed?
Only the news reporter was in the wrong.
The F.B.I. should have done more research on him to see if he was telling the truth, it's not the reporter's job.
What ethical issues were raised by the article?
The offender lied about his name, and what he really did, just to get fame.
Not fact checking information and giving an improper interview.
The interviewer kept backing the persecutor, due to believing false information.
The information given to multiple people was false.
How could using a balance in research and reporting tactics have made a difference in the outcome of what was reported?
If research was done to fact check the information given by the offender, they would see the information was false.
Having photo or video evidence to back his claim would've shown the truth and if he was lying or not.
If the persecutor really wanted to get away with lying, he could've made his story more believable and told more details.
Your reaction to the ethical issues raised by the information in the article
Why did the reporter keep backing the offender?
2: Was the offender lying to the F.B.I. as well?
Why are people always so desperate to get their 15 minutes of fame, and why do they have to do it by lying?
What is your opinion about the issue, and what caused you to form that opinion?
The offender is in the wrong.
It was selfish of him to lie about something so serious just to get attention.
60 Minutes is also in the wrong for not doing much research on the legitimacy of what he said.
I formed this opinion based on personal feelings. I don't like liars, especially ones that just want their 15 minutes of fame.
I think everyone should've done more research before they let the story air.
November 12, 2013