When your a little kid your learning what is right and what is wrong. By the time your six or seven years old your becoming an independent adult and you start making your own decisions. When you little though you go be example of your parents and you listen to what they say and observe what they do. You get their own personal opinions on controversial things in the world and for awhile you agree with them because that's the only thing you. Then you grow up and you to school have a few adult conversations and your decisions or stents on these controversial topics changes.
In journalism we have our own personal definitions of what is right and what is wrong, but when does that get in the way of our decision making process on writing a story, or even printing a story and do they even change our influences around us? I think that your emotions and personal definitions do get in the way of right and wrong decision making. It all comes back to you and how you now take these controversial topics. We all have loyalties to someone or a group of people and you want to respect those loyalties because they're all people, or someone you know personally and you want to back them up. Values are another big thing in this right, or wrong decision making, you have certain values you get from childhood and maybe they change, maybe not. As a human being thought you generally stick to those values since your childhood and those values plus loyalties shape your decision making.
Now, we get into conflict of interest. Should journalists be allowed to put their personal opinion in their story? I feel that this conflict of interest and right or wrong really go hand in hand because you get your personal opinions from the right or wrong and then sometimes your personal opinion slips into your story that maybe your passionate about. You usually wouldn't do a story that your connected to, but sometimes it happens and I think journalists shouldn't be allowed to put their own personal opinion in their story.
Let the people have their own stents on the issue at hand, don't push your own opinion on them because your want to, for example legalize gay marriage. I think people get to wrapped in their own opinions when it comes to delicate topics like that and sooner then later people start believing the crap that's out their instead of listening to themselves. It is true that our generation has become to dependent on others and the news for their decision making. People go with the crowds and have others make their own story when they could be making theirs on their own. Reporters can take advantage of this because they can feed their own opinions to these people who have others lead their own opinions and get them to join them in their opinion.
People avoid their personal morals and have others write them for them, or sometimes people leave their personal morals, values, and loyalties and lead others.
Give us the people the facts on the situation and from the facts we can start to form our own personal opinion, this is editorial decisions. The question is should reporters give the facts or what people want? I say give us the facts, give us the facts because if you give the people what they want then your only going to get one side of the topic. With one side getting all the attention you're not going to get the others to see the other side, and people will lean more towards the one side of the topic. Needless to say, you have your own values and morals, and loyalties and those things can go in hand with your personal investment with the story and from there you will only be giving one side of a story, not all the sides of the story.