Charlie Heb Case Study Summary

The last theme to analyze the case is balance. The case does not show the balance, which should consider who the stakeholders are and what the rules or roles of them are. In this case, the stakeholders are cartoonist and editor on one side, and the refugees on the other side. The cartoon did not make an ethical balance between the freedoms of speech, which are the role of cartoonist and editor, and the dignity of the refugees. The cartoonist and the editor have a right to express their opinions. However, the society of refugees could feel alienation and humiliation from the cartoon. They do not want to be criticized harshly, and in this case, especially the small boy is in the center of sarcasm. SPJ’s code of ethics shows also supports this idea because there is a rule ‘Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.’ The cartoon stimulated the discomfort for the refugees …show more content…
The ethical dilemma showed honesty because the cartoon addressed the cause and problem of the crisis, and it was based on a true story. The argument that supported Charlie Hebdo for its freedom of speech could be based on Kantian categorical imperative. In contrast, the case does not have sensitivity because the cartoon did not include cultural understanding, and attacked the weak refugees. Also, the case did not make a balance between cartoonist, editor and humiliated refugees. The balance between Europeans and refugees could not maintain because both views were not equally reflected in the cartoon. Another argument that claims the cartoon is a representation of racism could be explained by Utilitarianism. My ethical decision is first, to make official apologies for not satisfying the sensitivity and balance, and setting up more precise and agreed ethical code for editorial