PT16.S3.Q23 journalist reporting in a civil war

Comments

• 1 Like

  Sailor Moon LSAT Member ⭐

  April 2021 200 karma

  The journalist does not mislead the public in the report, but there is no causal conclusion/omitted facts. They publish the report while acknowledging censorship. And therefore say it's ethically permissible.

  We need to support that if they report but it's censored, as long as they warn it's ok. This is also saying that it's not unethical to not point to the source of a problem when you know what it is.

  A: this is wrong because If omitted facts would alter an impression, omitting know facts is unethical. This is not the right conclusion. The sufficient is triggered, so we would have to conclude unethical, which doesn't help the journalists argument.
  B: this is not about exoneration. If leaving out facts exonerates a party, it is unethical. That's not what happened.
  C: Delete material unfavorable to government, it is unethical. Wrong conclusion - again we need to conclude it is ethical.
  Ethical to report known facts. If relevant facts have been deleted by censor, it is unethical to make a report in a situation. EXCEPT: the recipient (reader) is warned censorship exists. This fits.

  We know that If relevant facts have been deleted by a censor (which happened) it is unethical to make a report. The exception is if people are warned, and we meet that exception, so that means it is not unethical to make a report in this situation, which helps the journalist. This does not say anything else about the flow of information.

  E: Not unethical to make a report from which a censor has deleted relevant facts --> recipient of report is warned that there was censorship and reported facts don't give a misleading impression.

  This says When a censor deletes relevant information, it is unethical to make a report (same as D) but the exception is bigger 1) the recipient of the report must be warned there is censorship and 2) the reported facts do not by themselves give a misleading impression.

  We don't get to do this exception, right? because the facts do give a misleading impression that it is not the government, although they do not mislead on nature/rebels starvation. Is that why E is wrong because it doesn't actually justify the conclusion anyway?