On the article: ph.news.yahoo.com/dolphin-dies-china-tourist-abuse
“The article is about a photo of Chinese tourists posing with a dying dolphin. It caused the outrage of China’s Twitter-like social media service, Sina Weibo.
“Under the Journalist’s Code of Ethics, a journalist “shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts or to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis.” The article focuses on the outrage of the Sina Weibo users over the aforesaid photo. It appears that the adverse reactions of the users were intentionally emphasized to influence the judgment of the readers. The picture does not really show much about the condition of the dolphin during the time when it was photographed; if nobody knew the story published by Shanghai Daily, nobody would even suspect that the dolphin was dying and no online outrage would occur.
“Furthermore, he/she “shall recognize the duty to air the other side and the duty to correct substantive errors promptly.” The author should have exerted more effort in ascertaining the truth behind the story. Essential facts should not be suppressed; accordingly, any journalist should avoid suppressing facts, whether intentionally or unintentionally, because it would tend to favor one side. The intention of the writer to raise the issue of non-endangered animal rights is clear at the last part of the article. It is written that, “China, which has a growing animal rights movement, does not currently have any laws to protect non-endangered animals.” The intention of the writer was good, but he failed to exercise fairness. No matter how good one’s intention is, he/she is never exempted to comply with legal and ethical standards. It would be much better if he was able to get the side of those who appeared in the picture. Just like the dolphin, they also have rights which should be protected.” Posted by Andrea Lou H. Magnaye
