“In July 1996 McKeown had pumped five bullets into the back of McGoldrick’s head from close range in a professional paramilitary killing………….after swearing me to silence about the killing, he then boasted about it to me…….despite the difficulty of going against a source this was a promise I eventually felt……that I could not keep” This is how ex journalist Nick Martin Clarke explains his decision to appear in court for the prosecution of McKeown, who eventually received a minimum of 24 years imprisonment for the crime. Further justifying his position he claims “An absolutist stance on confidentiality is akin to total pacifism or to not telling a lie even to save a life. It is an eccentricity that has little to offer real-world journalism……..the principle of confidentiality, important though it is, is not an end in itself, but ultimately a means to disclosure which must remain for journalists……our primary purpose”
Arguing against this, current Northern Ireland journalist John Coulter claims “For me, the fundamental ethical principle of journalism is that we have a moral imperative to give a guarantee of anonymity to genuine confidential sources providing bona fide information. There can be no [lack of] transparency in the trust that our sources must have in us as professional journalists. If we sacrifice that trust, we betray our credibility as reporters of the truth. Likewise, if there is no trust between the confidential source and the journalist, it destroys the concept of honesty in the verification of the evidence given by that source….. There is an old maxim, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Applied to the journalistic issue of source protection it reads if you can’t keep your word, don’t do the story”
Please comment - up to 200 words maximum, on what you believe Nick Martin Clarke should have down, and why.
Comment 1
If I was Nick Martin Clarke, I would have kept silent. In journalism, there's a fine line between publishing the truth and keeping trust with your sources.It would have been useful here to quote perhaps something out of the NUJ code of conduct on this – or at least from Sanders or Bivins. It's all well and good printing things that are in the public interest Here – you should define the public interest(especially in a huge murder case), but if you start revealing sources and betraying trust, then you lose all credibility as a journalist and people will not want to deal with you in future. However, not telling anyone that you know who has committed such a grievous crime such as this would eat away at your conscience for the rest of your life, and that obviously that would not be a good thing... Although coming clean would morally be the best thing to do, Why would it? Is it always in every possible circumstance? Is this taking a Kantian perspective? If so – quote Kant, it wouldn't be right in this circumstance.
Comment 2
The journalist is only the mediator of the final news that are know by the people, but they are still people. People that have in their own hand information of high value, but its has more value the justice than the profession itself. Thats why i will act as he did.Some issues here of clarity – Afraid I wasn’t quite sure of exactly what was meant.
Comment 3
In this case I wouldn't have followed the line of action Nick Martin Clarke took. As a journalist you are often given information by sources in confidence.This could be expanded – why does this happen?
That is a trust that has been built up between a journalist and the source, whoever they are. Nick Martin Clarke betrayed this trust and for me that is unforgivable.
Whilst he might have thought he was doing the right thing for his own moral conscience and the public interest, he has completely misjudged the situation and has ruined his own career as a journalist in the future.
The decision would have been an extremely difficult one for him to make but sometimes in life you have to put yourself first. Do you perhaps mean you have to put your professional values first? He should have kept to the journalistic rule of confidentiality and kept his credibility above board.
Comment 4
My professional morale(morals, or ‘moral code’/ ethical code’?) and my personal morale would conflict. My professional moraleValues? as a journalist would dictate not to tell because the source has given me his story in confidence my personal morale, however, would dictate to tell because murder is a horrible crime and a person should be punished for such a crime. Is it your job to help punish? Or just to publish the news? You might be a journalist in the newsroom When you received this information, were you a ‘journalist’ or a ‘human being’? but fact is that you're a human being when you leave work. In this sutiationSp I would probably go with what I as a human being know is right and wrong (and to kill someone is very wrong) and I would have told because I have to be able to live with myself.Would you have left journalism then?
Comment 5
I think that I would have kept silent if I was in Nick Martin Clarke's situation. Revealing sources is very damaging, and I would lose my credibility as a journalist.Is this an ‘egoist’ point of view? If I was to break that trust then my career would be considered over. I know that it would be very difficult to have this information on my conscience without doing something about it, but in the circumstances it would be better not to reveal it.What are the motives then for not revealing it? Can you quote an ethical position?
Comment 6
In this case I wouldn't have followed the line of action taken by Nick Martin Clarke. As a journalist, a lot of time is spent building up trust with sources in order to get stories, and to betray that trust over anything would be absolutely fatal to your career. Are you taking an egoistical position here, or is ‘not betraying a trust’ a ‘rule’ (Kantian) which need to keep to? Even in a case such as this where Clarke clearly felt he was serving the public interest, it was the wrong decision given he is now on witness protection and will never be trusted again by anyone when it comes to keeping things confidential. Might you want to say anything about the wider circumstances? Have you read the Coulter article? If so, why not make it obvious you have – that’s what will get you marks.
Comment 7
Keeping this to yourself would be very difficult and would eat at you for the rest of your life, especially if he were never prosecuted. However, I don't think I would have betrayed his trust. It destroys your reputation as a journalist, shatters any illusion of your trustworthiness, turns your -- and your family's -- world upside down (because you're going into witness protection) and would probably lead to other journalists being pressured to break confidences and reveal sources.So this is ‘consequentialism’ – you should point this out.
Comment 8
Often as a journalist all you have to rely on is your reputation, Is there a quote from Bivins/ Sanders that could back this up – or is it just an assertion? and if you shatter that by revealing sources you are in turn ending your career in the media by destroying your professional credibilityIs this an egoist position? Could you define an egoist position?. I'm not saying murder is acceptable, but in this instance it would pay to take care of yourself and make sure your source is kept confidential.Does that mean there are occasions it would not pay to do this? Would you do something different on these occasions? Examples?
Comment 9
My personal opinion and professional opinion would collide indefinitely in this situation. A man has been murdered and his family will obviously want justice. He has committed a crime and he should be named and shamed.(Is this just an assertion? Can you tell me why he should be named and shamed? )On the other hand as a journalist any sources given to you if asked, should remain confidential in order to be a trustworthy journalist.Could you quote a rule here? Or some guidance? If you declare a source your career would struggle So is this just egoism? as no one would come to you with information.
However, this criminal was stupid enough to tell a journalist of his crime...he's taking quite a risk. Personally it would make me angry hearing someone boast about a murder, it would make me want to tell someone about it even more.
Even though my heart would be with the victim's family, my head would tell me to do the professional thingGood point – but you need to elaborate - and keep my word. If you want to have a successful career in journalism you'll have to learn how to keep secrets. Again, perhaps elaborate here?
Comment 10
I would be in two minds about what to do in this situation. The professional side of me would want to keep the information confidential to not only protect my career but also my family.Is there an ethical position which backs it? What is it? On the other hand I know living with this kind of secret would eat me up inside and stay with me forever. I would feel for the family who would never be able get closure and I have to put myself in their shoes. The fact that this criminal has boasted about his crime shows what kind of person he is and that he has no remorse, he is exactly the kind of person who should be punished.Does that mean if everything else was the same, but the criminal had remorse, you wouldn’t want to publish? How could you justify that ethically? If he did not want the information to get out then surely he would not have told a journalist. Even though I would feel very guilty,and a huge part of me would want to do the right thing I think in this situation I would tryHmm… would you try hard, or just a little bit, or a teensieweensie bit…..? to keep the information confidential. He is already in prison and if I was to testify I wouldn't just be putting myself in danger.
Comment 11
As mentioned In class, I am not a journalism student but I do understand that there is ethical obligations to be upheld as a member of this industry, Could you quote this obligation? Code? especially when trying to uphold your integrity within your career. This being said, the 6-8 point list of morals discussed in class Need to quote Joan Byrd if these are her points……are not only based on morals within your career. As people we have morals as well, and I think that this specific dilemma with Nick Martin Clarke needs to be taken in context in regards to severity of the natureCan you elaborate? What makes it severe? The actual death, or the intention to kill? Would changing any of these make a difference? of what was confided to him byMcKeown. Clarke, obviously made a decision to become a witness after considering his morals in regards to his career and his personal life, and did what he felt best. However, I am not saying what he did was the 'right' thing to do. He then opened a can of worms for the prosecution to examine all of his confidential information from previous journalistic works as evidence. This should have been something that he considered. All in all I feel that I cant make a decision as to what I would do in this instance.What if I feel I can’t give you a mark then…..? You need to say perhaps what an ‘egoistic’ individual might do, or what Emanuel Kant might recomment, or JS Mill….. (and use quotes)It depends on the severity of the incidence, there are no guarantees that 100% of the time journalists will follow the code of confidentiality. That being said, the quote made byJohn Coulter comes to mind. "If you cant stand the heat..."Good – but be a little more precise, since its an academic approach you’ll be marked on.
Comment 12
As a journalist all you have is your word when it comes to your sources.It would be really useful to back this assertion up with a sources reference – could make all the difference to your marks! Betraying this trust not only ruined this man's career but essentially ruined his life.Might it be possible though for a ‘correct’ ethical decision, still to ‘ruin’ your life? What would you say about that then? If you put yourself in the situation where you have a working relationship with paramilitaries then you cannot afford to be hurt and offended when they relay information to you. Martin-Clarke obviously was torn due to his relationship with the victim's family but in this case, it wasn't his place or in the best interest of the pressAgain some academic backing to this would really help your mark. to tell the police. Plus could do with being a bit longer….
Comment 13
I'm completely with Coulter on this. Martin Clarke was obviously in an unenviable position, but he's a journalist - you have to be prepared to keep confidential information under wraps.You have to be careful here, and make sure you write in an academic manner (as well as an accessible one)
Sure, Martin Clarke felt that the family should have justice - I don't think anybody would disagree that they deserve it. But by tarnishing the journalism profession, he's not only putting other journalists in danger but also potentially stopping them from serving the public interest in future - it will be harder to get sources to confide in them and, as a result, uncover important stories.This is a good point
If I was using a deontological argument, I would consider my rule of respecting confidential sources and keep quiet. With a utilitarian standpoint, I would consider the ramifications to not only myself but others in the profession, and this would only reinforce my decision to keep quiet.This is an excellent approach – showing knowledge of different points of view, but would be strengthened by direct quotes
It's not an ideal situation, but this isn't a profession where we ever tend to encounter ideal situations.
Comment 14
Upon first reflection it is normal to think that of course we should tell because he has killed someone therefore he should be punished.Is it normal? What about rehabilitation rather than retribution? Perhaps you should elaborate this a bit….However, we must delve into the ethics of Journalism in this situation.
Whilst conducting the interview Nick Martin Clarke took on the role of a Journalist and it would therefore be acceptable to claim that he should act within the structures which define the ethics of Journalism. One of these structures is confidentiality. Very good – but need academic backing for this statement – ie quote a code of conduct perhaps….During the process of this interview he was asked “Is this confidential?” to which Clarke replied “Yes” therefore abiding by a code of practiceagain quote which one….in Journalism. However he changed his stance once he heard about the murder of a taxi driver.
If I were to find myself in this situation I would have to keep this information to myself as I obtained this information by promising confidently through being a Journalist. Furthermore, in reference to Immanuel Kant, if I were to change my Journalistic morals based on a this confession then surely that would be immoral as how can it be one rule for one person and then another rule for another.Excellent point, but a direct quote from Kant, or a more specific source would get better marks
Comment 15
If I were in Nick Martin Clarke's shoes, I would not have taken the same course of action as he did. A journalist, throughout his/her career will need to develop and create contacts and work with sources. By taking this action, especially when told something which was passed on in confidence ruins a journalists credibility, and also damages the reputation of his/her peers, also noted by John Coulter.Very good. Could you mention the academic basis for this – egoism, plus consequentialism?
There is a clear issue here in regards to 'doing the right thing' for moral conscience and public interest, however, there is also a need to do the right thing in relation to your profession. This suggests that the profession is somehow ‘wrong’ and the public interest is somehow right? Is this what you mean, and on what basis could you justify that assertion?Overall, it is clear to see why he did take the course of action as mentioned above, however, I would argue to keep credibility as a journalist and keeping the journalistic rule of confidentialityPlease quote the rule or the context of it…., he should have kept the information to himself.Despite being in a difficult position, I believe Clarke should have taken a non-consequential approach, rather than that of a egoistic one as he acted in the best interests of himself (clearing conscience), rather than doing something because it would be right - regardless of the outcome.Good points at the end – some direct quotes would have helped though.
Comment 16
We are journalists, we aren't priests in a confessional box expected to have a vow of silence. Interesting. Are priests just ‘expected’ to have a vow of silence? What if they break it? In matters of grave importance like this,What makes it of grave importance? Does someone actually have to die. Or is there a scale of importance? When does it become grave? (no pun intended)?we as journalists cannot stand in the way of justice just because it may further our careers. Is that the only reason journalists do not give sources? Is it not that without this approach, journalism wouldn’t really be journalism? The way you act in this situation is a matter of conscience and ultimately defines you as a person, in my opinion. Someone has been killed and you have helped cover up that crime, the person who did it is boasting about it and you have to live with the guilt of that. I sympathise with Nick Martin Clarke because he clearly couldn't live with the guilt but he should have reported the crime straight away and broken his 'promise' to his source; he is only a reporter after all and he doesn't need to be bullied into the cover up of a murder.If as a result of Martin’s helping the police, should journalists expect other killers to treat them as professionals, or just as potential informants to the police’?