ENG 398 Fall 2017 Debate Script: Ethics in Journalism

Write a paper for a debate 
- Please stand in the point where the reporter should go with the story

When a suspected serial killer was on the loose, this faceless murderer grabbed the headlines. The deaths attributed to him also touched off a classic confrontation between police and reporters on whether a story would compromise attempts to catch the killer.

Over a period of several weeks, the bodies of six young women surfaced in or along drainage canals; speculation was rampant the deaths were related. Two victims were sexually mutilated so badly the medical examiner’s office said the murderer was similar to "Jack the Ripper."
For several days, two reporters visited murder scenes looking for witnesses, clues, anything that would shed light on the deaths. One clue was a victim’s car found with a flat tire. Eventually, they learned another victim’s car also had a flat tire. Both vehicles were parked in shopping centers.
Focusing on this information, the reporters worked out a scenario for those two killings; the killer flattened a tire on the car of a victim and awaited her return. He then offered help to get it fixed. The reporters didn’t know that police had worked out a similar scenario and located a possible witness.
According to a police department spokesman, the witness was approached by a man when she had a flat tire on her car. He "made the hair stand up on the back of her neck," the spokesman said.
Fearful for her safety, she fled. But she provided a partial description of a man that investigators hoped might lead to a suspect or help snare someone in stakeouts at shopping centers. Police had not publicized that incident.
The reporters knew they had a story. They also believed that if they published it the killer’s ruse would be unworkable; no one would accept help from a stranger to fix a flat. The killer would be forced to invent another scheme to attract victims. When the reporters asked police for comment, the spokesman asked them to hold the story and argued that publication would jeopardize efforts to catch the killer since he would change tactics.
It was a tough choice. The police argued that they had a good chance of catching the killer, but declined to say why. The reporters believed the public was better served knowing the killer’s methods.
In addition, the reporters and their editors faced the "what if" questions. What if they didn’t report the story and a woman was killed in the ensuing days? What if they ran the story and ruined any chance the police had of catching the killer?