st’s lack of research andthe lies of the subject involved, regardless of the consequences it may bring. In this case, theconsequences are Nancy Durham’s reputation, which has been regarded with great respect upuntil this point, and the audience’s view of the severity of the war. The audience may losesympathy for the people hurt by the war in finding that Rajmonda exaggerated her story to gainsupport for the KLA. On the other side of the spectrum, teleologist John Stuart Mill, views the consequences asa vital importance if it is for the “greater good”. The consequences in this situation, being lack ofsupport for a worthy cause, could do damage to many of the families living with the war. Theywould not be considered reputable and their pain and suffering would therefore be undermined bythe lies of one KLA solider. Mill’s goal would be to minimize harm for the larger number ofpeople, which is, in the end, these families. In weighing what your decision would be if enthralled in this dilemma, a good view toconsider would be that of ethicist Sessila Bok. She believes that although truthfulness does notmake a lie right, it may have been necessary in certain situations. For example, Rajomonda mayhave not lost her sister in the war, but in fact, she witnessed many people lose family members. She saw their pain and they became her “family”, as she states in one encounter with Durham. She had the opportunity to tell their stories and possibly gain support for them, so she took thechance that had been given to her. She took this opening for the good of her country. Ultimately,ethicist Bok believes that every reporter should be given the chance to speak their side of thestory and justify why they themselves or their subjects may have stretched the truth.As integrity is important in any profession, it is essential in journalism. Nancy Durhammust admit her work was not properly researched. B...
