Fifteen years ago on February 18, Dale Earnhardt -- a widely loved and respected professional driver for NASCAR -- was killed in an accident at the Daytona International Speedway. This event incited a legal battle in the state of Florida between Earnhardt’s family, local lawmakers, and journalists from the Orlando Sentinel that lasted for years over the rights that journalists have in accessing sensitive information in order to do their work. Considering the ethical codes respected by journalists, the broader application of ethics theories, and the specific actions of the parties involved, the Sentinel not only had a duty in obtaining the autopsy photos in order to verify NASCAR’s conclusion, but a moral obligation to do so for the public.
…show more content…
They didn’t want to be consistently confronted with photos of their deceased loved one for months after the accident. The family had great stake in this, since they were already grieving over Earnhardt’s death and could have found seeing the photos deeply disturbing, even traumatic. NASCAR’s concern, however, was for their reputation. If they were prioritizing their driver’s safety, they would have admitted the real cause of the crash -- if they knew it -- and would change safety policies to require the use of the HANS device. NASCAR has significant stake in it as well, since they could have seen backlash if the investigation could have proved negligent safety policy enforcement or that the HANS device could have prevented it. Backlash could have hurt the organization financially and damaged their reputation, potentially irreparably. The Sentinel’s concern was that Earnhardt’s death could have been preventable, but because of NASCAR’s lack of transparency and the absence of an investigation by legitimate, unbiased authorities, the public would never know. In simpler words, they wanted the truth. Journalism’s goal of acting as a watchdog as well as its duty to inform the public so they can make more informed decisions requires this of them. This paper was involved at quite high stakes since the reputation of their organization could be damaged or they could have seriously impacted how NASCAR …show more content…
If organizations like these can support their efforts, then it is clear to see the the Sentinel clearly had solid ground for their argument. The decision to end Florida’s open-access policies set a dangerous precedent for how other deaths under questionable circumstances are treated. Earnhardt’s death as not investigated like any other death would have been due to NASCAR’s interference, so the Sentinel’s desire to investigate fall within their responsibilities of seeking the truth. News organizations are meant to act as a watchdog, but if a company, the government, or a family member denies a journalist access to valuable autopsy records -- regardless of motive -- it hinders that journalist’s capacity to fulfill that responsibility. For those who have no qualms about doing something wrong, the potential for being caught for doing so is a powerful motivator to behave. However, if that threat is removed by an action similar to the one’s taken by Florida’s legislators, then people’s safety and wellbeing can be put at risk. Therefore, it is ethically irresponsible and wrong to require proper justification -- as determined by a judge -- to access autopsy records because it removes a journalist’s ability to act responsibly and respectfully within their
They didn’t want to be consistently confronted with photos of their deceased loved one for months after the accident. The family had great stake in this, since they were already grieving over Earnhardt’s death and could have found seeing the photos deeply disturbing, even traumatic. NASCAR’s concern, however, was for their reputation. If they were prioritizing their driver’s safety, they would have admitted the real cause of the crash -- if they knew it -- and would change safety policies to require the use of the HANS device. NASCAR has significant stake in it as well, since they could have seen backlash if the investigation could have proved negligent safety policy enforcement or that the HANS device could have prevented it. Backlash could have hurt the organization financially and damaged their reputation, potentially irreparably. The Sentinel’s concern was that Earnhardt’s death could have been preventable, but because of NASCAR’s lack of transparency and the absence of an investigation by legitimate, unbiased authorities, the public would never know. In simpler words, they wanted the truth. Journalism’s goal of acting as a watchdog as well as its duty to inform the public so they can make more informed decisions requires this of them. This paper was involved at quite high stakes since the reputation of their organization could be damaged or they could have seriously impacted how NASCAR …show more content…
If organizations like these can support their efforts, then it is clear to see the the Sentinel clearly had solid ground for their argument. The decision to end Florida’s open-access policies set a dangerous precedent for how other deaths under questionable circumstances are treated. Earnhardt’s death as not investigated like any other death would have been due to NASCAR’s interference, so the Sentinel’s desire to investigate fall within their responsibilities of seeking the truth. News organizations are meant to act as a watchdog, but if a company, the government, or a family member denies a journalist access to valuable autopsy records -- regardless of motive -- it hinders that journalist’s capacity to fulfill that responsibility. For those who have no qualms about doing something wrong, the potential for being caught for doing so is a powerful motivator to behave. However, if that threat is removed by an action similar to the one’s taken by Florida’s legislators, then people’s safety and wellbeing can be put at risk. Therefore, it is ethically irresponsible and wrong to require proper justification -- as determined by a judge -- to access autopsy records because it removes a journalist’s ability to act responsibly and respectfully within their