PressEthic

I was really intrigued by this excerpt from a Newhouse News Service story about a 1-year-old with a disorder that could lead to liver disease, who was profiled in a story for the Oregonian:

Her parents, Laura and Brian Boyer of Depoe Bay, Ore., are doing everything they can think of to raise money for their daughter's liver transplant. They have plastered coastal communities with fliers and put labeled boxes at cash registers to collect coins. They're also enlisting newspapers, television and radio.

Cases such as Sophia's raise a number of ethical questions. What about the scores of children nationwide needing expensive medical care whose parents don't have access to the media, business owners or potential contributors? Or teenagers who aren't as photogenic as Sophia? Or adults with no one to plead their case?

Families facing these circumstances must decide whether to go public with their financial needs. Reporters and editors must choose between competing pleas and decide whether to publish the story. And media consumers -- readers, viewers or listeners -- must decide whether to contribute money to a particular child.

So what are the obligations of the news media in cases such as these? Should newspapers run stories only to garner sympathy for those in trouble and hope to help them with donations, or should similar stories only be approved if they speak to a larger issue? And how much importance is actually placed on looks? Are only attractive subjects chosen for these stories? If two families approach a newspaper for a similar story, which does the paper choose to highlight? I for one would be interested in knowing which stories are chosen over others and why. Unfortunately, I don't have that answer, but I think the ethical questions presented from this story are worth considering and analyzing.