Journalistic Integrity (Wednesday, January 18 - 6th period)

[imanaturalblond.livejournal.com]

Rita scowled at the class.

“Public knowledge. What is it? Well, as one might infer, it’s knowledge that the public has. Something widely known, and not considered secret.”

She crossed her legs, and took a sip of coffee. “Now, that can be somewhat subjective. How do we decide what is publc knowledge? Do you have to be sworn to confidentiality in order to know that what you have been told is a secret?”

She waved at them. “Discuss.”

[ooc: Yep, I am ill, so if you go ignored by Rita, it’s nothing personal. OCD threads coming up.]

Comments

Re: Discussion

[janet_fraiser]

"Aren't there reams of laws regarding what's public knowledge and what the government can rightly deem classified, or what a business or individual can keep secret?" asked Janet. "I would imagine if something has been classified by the government then it's definitively not in the arena of public knowledge. And I don't think being sworn to confidentiality matters. However, if you sign an agreement to keep something confidential, I'd imagine there may well be legal repercussions for violating that agreement."

"But really, public knowledge at its simplest is 'anything more than one person knows.' Because each person in on the secret is one more person a jorunalist can get the information out of. Not all journalists would follow the same definition of public knowledge as a business or the government."

Re: Discussion

[krycek-rat.livejournal.com]

"So by your definition, anything the journalist learns is, by default, public knowledge and then can be shared without compunction?"

Re: Discussion

[janet_fraiser]

"Not at all," said Janet. "But I do believe there are journalists who would use that definition."

Re: Discussion

[imanaturalblond.livejournal.com]

"And do you think they would be justified, Ms. Fraiser?"