In brief, CNN obtained a personal diary belonging to the late Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed earlier this month when the U.S. embassy in Libya was attacked. CNN was severely criticized by the State Department for invading the ambassador's privacy when it reported some of things contained in the journal.
But CNN has defended its action, claiming that it only reported information of news value that the U.S. government doesn't like -- not any personal information about Stevens himself.
Read the criticism and watch the CNN video to become familiar with the story. What are your thoughts?
Creative Commons photo by mohamedn
I feel that CNN was somewhat rude to the family, because they asked a big favor of the family in a very hectic, sad situation. I feel that CNN could have waited a few weeks after the tragety to ask the family to use the dairy for news purposes. Instead of keeping the diary when they found it, CNN could have given the diary to the family right away. Though I believe CNN had good intentions, they could have handled the situation in a more professional way.
ReplyDeleteCNN should have been more respectful of the family. They gave the family their word to wait for permission before covering the story, but CNN went back on their promise because they grew impatient. Thepublic has the right to know, but did they need to know absolutely right now? I don't think holding off on releasing the journal's information for a few days would have caused any damage.
ReplyDeleteI think that CNN had an obligation to report the findings in the journal because they thought there were links to terrorist groups and attacks that effect all of American's safety. However, I don't think that CNN handled the situation very well with Steven's family. Even though they returned the journal to the family in a timely matter, they broke a promise they made with the family. They promised not to do anything until they received permission from his family, which they did not do. Although they didn't elude to the journal, I think they should have contacted the family with the story they wanted to publish before they ran it. I think the family deserved that respect especially in these hard times after dealing with the loss of a loved one.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the information in Ambassador Stevens journal was news worthy. It was important for the people to know if he was specifically in danger and did not feel like he had enough protection in Libya. This story "needed" to be reported, but if CNN made a promise to the family to not use the journal in any way, they needed to keep their promise. If permission was denied, they should respect the privacy of the family and try and find information somewhere else. You cannot just take back your promises when it is someone else's journal that you are "stealing" from them.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the people had the right to know. I believe that CNN did the right thing by contacting the family about the journal and sending it back to them. CNN found the information in the journal news worthy therefore, they had the right to report it. Even though the family requested for them not to release personal information, they didn't release it directly from the journal but found other sources. I think this is insensitive, however, ethical because it falls within journalistic guidelines
ReplyDeleteI feel that CNN wanted to make sure that the public was aware of the possible dangers that they could face, so that is why they released Stevens' journal. However, I do not think that they handled this situation in the best way possible. The information in Stevens' journal was important, but I do feel that the people in Benghazi already knew that they were in danger. So by finding out what Stevens wrote in the journal, it wouldn't have been a real surprise to them. CNN wanted to make sure that the public was fully aware of the attack, but Stevens' journal was something that should have definately been kept private. This is a time when the Stevens family privacy should have been very important, but CNN was more concerned with realeasing the story to everyone. By CNN going back on their word and releasing the journal, I definately feel that they did not handle this situation in a very professional way. Stevens' journal was not a huge part of the ongoing story, so it shouldn't have even been released until the family allowed them to.
ReplyDeleteI think, in this case, that others had the right to know about the possible threats in the late Ambassador's journal.CNN did the right thing by informing the family before releasing any details, but i think their timing with everything was not professional. After telling the family a while after it was found, they then pushed the family for an answer as to what they could report on. CNN should've been more sensitive to the fact that they just lost a loved one, and might have been going through some tough times, instead of wanting to make a profit on the story as soon as possible. Most of the journal was not even news-worthy, in my opinion. Though the public had the right to know some of the contents of the journal, CNN handled the situation very poorly.
ReplyDeleteThe public had the right to know what information Ambassador Stevens' journal contained if it pertained to the security of U.S. personnel and terrorist threats. The government may not have liked that CNN's report was raising questions about whether the State Department knew that Benghazi was threatened before the attack. If they did, why didn't they do more to protect the embassy? These are legitimate questions, ones that the public has the right to be aware of and know the answer to. CNN did not directly violate the family's request (they quoted from other sources, not the journal), and they did not report any embarrassing personal information. The situation may have been handled a bit indelicately, but CNN is certainly not in the wrong for reporting the vital information found in the journal.
ReplyDeleteI feel that CNN was right in some aspects, and wrong in others. I understand CNN has an obligation as a news network and from the journalistic point of view to tell the people the truth, if it pertains to our safety and the government, so we will not feel in the in the dark, while our country might be entering a crisis. Although all this may be true, it is not right to take something of personal value from a dead man, and broadcast his thoughts on certain matters to the whole world without the consent of his family and or relatives. The fact that CNN based reports on Stevens journal demonstrates that they felt that what he wrote was of importance, however the fact that they did it against the wished of his family is a violation of his and his family privacy.
ReplyDeleteWith an issue like this, personally I think it is hard to see what the right thing to do would be. I feel that we should have a right to know what was in the journal, especially if it can have an affect on us and our country. Then again I feel CNN should have respected the Ambassador's family and kept it private until they allowed them to use it.
ReplyDeleteCNN did have the right to report the contents of the journal because people have the right to know about the rise in Islamic extremism and the growing Al Qaeda presence in Libya. I think that CNN should've returned the journal immediately and then request the information that Stevens' family would have been willing to get reported. Newsworthy or not what CNN did was insensitive towards Christopher Stevens' grieving family and should have approached the situation in a different way.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article and watching the video, it appears that the State Department believes that CNN did not have rights to the journal and "completely ignored the wishes of the family, and ultimately broke their pledge made to them." However, CNN insists that after they found the journal, they agreed that the journal was the "personal property" of Ambassador Stevens and they immediately contacted his family. Per their request, CNN returned the journal to the family through the State Department. CNN insists that the family had asked them not to reveal any personal details which they adhered to. Furthermore, CNN stated that "out of respect to the family, we have not quoted from or shown the journal.”I believe that CNN only reported newsworthy information and in the process did not violate Ambassador Stevens' privacy.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that CNN had a right to report the information that they did because it was strictly news worthy. It would have been more approved of if they had waited longer to do so, but over all the decision should not have been criticized so harshly.
ReplyDeleteI believe that CNN did have a right to report all of the important information from the journal, but that all of the personal information should be keep secret to respect the wishes of the family. CNN did respect the family's wishes, and just reported the important information from within the journal. With this vital information from the journal, they could let the public know what was going on in his life and what he was thinking about. Some of the information in the journal is important and we may need to learn it if it could keep us safe in the future.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that CNN was not completely wrong when sharing this news worthy information with the public. The public does have the right to know, and this information helps with this whole case. Even though diaries are meant to be personal, there wasn't any information shared that was personal, but more had importance in this whole tragedy.Because there was death involved, holding off giving the information could have been considered. However, i feel like his thoughts had to be shared fast.
ReplyDeleteCNN had no right to report anything in Ambassador Steven's diary without expressed permission from his family. In this case, CNN did not report anything personal from the diary, only things relating to the attack on the embassy, but what if they had? There is a right to know about certain things, but some things should be kept private. They had no reason to read the diary. That act was done by a news network eager to extend an ongoing story.
ReplyDelete