1. The ethical dilemma at the forefront here is the fact that an USA Today editor has decided that it would not be true journalism on their part if they were to withhold information from being released. Time for a statement was being requested by Arthur Ashe, but was denied due to the prior reason.
2. While it is necessary to focus merely on the dilemma at hand, the context in this case becomes just as important. Surrounding this case, facts that have an effect on the total outcome of these actions are key to examine.
a. Arthur Ashe, at the time, was noted to be one of the greatest athletes in the world. He went about winning on the tennis court all the while being black in the back end of the 20th century in which racial tensions had consistently …show more content…
Secondly, the readers and subscribers of the newspaper. The ideas of beneficence, fidelity, and gratitude all become very present at this point. The sports editor has an implied contract to his readers to be upfront and honest with them, even if the news will hurt (fidelity). As readers, it is expected that the publication that is being read is not leaving out information and knowledge that they have. In this case, knowledge is not good nor bad, but simply, it just is. Gratitude exists in the sense that the editor should be grateful that his readers actually take time and money to look at what he has to say about the sports world. This is a favor to him and because of that, they have a stake in every decision he makes regarding USA Today. Beneficence plays its role through the fact that as a sports editor in a major news outlet, his voice is much larger and more resounding than an average person. He has the ability to inform others and because of this, almost, in a sense, has a duty to do …show more content…
Mr. Sports Editor, it is obvious that releasing this story to the public means a great deal to you and USA Today. It is not very often a story like this comes around and that you’re able to be the first person to share this information with the world. You’d be more popular and highly credible for writing this story. BUT, somebody would have to take the fall for you. Arthur Ashe is a man who hasn’t done anything wrong by acquiring the HIV virus. This happened to him not by his doing. And now you want to chastise him for it? The story would garner lots of attention, but so would this man’s life. His LIFE. Recognition overpowering a human life is shallow, even for somebody with little morality. You are not a man of little morality. You work for a great publication and you have your position because you deserve it. You obviously know what is humane; what is ethical. Whether your readers learn about this story from you or from him does not matter to them. Whether they learn about it now or in three days, it does not matter to them. But if they learn about it now from you, Arthur Ashe pulls the unlucky draw and goes on damage control because of your hastiness. This is a man who deserves a chance. You can run your story, but if you’re the man whom I assume you are, you will sleep better at night running the story after you’ve given Ashe a fighting
2. While it is necessary to focus merely on the dilemma at hand, the context in this case becomes just as important. Surrounding this case, facts that have an effect on the total outcome of these actions are key to examine.
a. Arthur Ashe, at the time, was noted to be one of the greatest athletes in the world. He went about winning on the tennis court all the while being black in the back end of the 20th century in which racial tensions had consistently …show more content…
Secondly, the readers and subscribers of the newspaper. The ideas of beneficence, fidelity, and gratitude all become very present at this point. The sports editor has an implied contract to his readers to be upfront and honest with them, even if the news will hurt (fidelity). As readers, it is expected that the publication that is being read is not leaving out information and knowledge that they have. In this case, knowledge is not good nor bad, but simply, it just is. Gratitude exists in the sense that the editor should be grateful that his readers actually take time and money to look at what he has to say about the sports world. This is a favor to him and because of that, they have a stake in every decision he makes regarding USA Today. Beneficence plays its role through the fact that as a sports editor in a major news outlet, his voice is much larger and more resounding than an average person. He has the ability to inform others and because of this, almost, in a sense, has a duty to do …show more content…
Mr. Sports Editor, it is obvious that releasing this story to the public means a great deal to you and USA Today. It is not very often a story like this comes around and that you’re able to be the first person to share this information with the world. You’d be more popular and highly credible for writing this story. BUT, somebody would have to take the fall for you. Arthur Ashe is a man who hasn’t done anything wrong by acquiring the HIV virus. This happened to him not by his doing. And now you want to chastise him for it? The story would garner lots of attention, but so would this man’s life. His LIFE. Recognition overpowering a human life is shallow, even for somebody with little morality. You are not a man of little morality. You work for a great publication and you have your position because you deserve it. You obviously know what is humane; what is ethical. Whether your readers learn about this story from you or from him does not matter to them. Whether they learn about it now or in three days, it does not matter to them. But if they learn about it now from you, Arthur Ashe pulls the unlucky draw and goes on damage control because of your hastiness. This is a man who deserves a chance. You can run your story, but if you’re the man whom I assume you are, you will sleep better at night running the story after you’ve given Ashe a fighting