The Paedophile Hunter.

Is it ethical to expose an individual to the world? By this I would clarify that maybe this individual has been involved with some kind of unfathomable crime. Maybe this convicted person was a rapist? Maybe they killed someone? And in regards to societies views on the subject of conviction, anyone committing these crimes against society is automatically reduced to no more than a speck in the eyes of the obedient.

Yet, I struggle to comprehend that a person is any less human once a crime is on their backs. Maybe this is because I see everyone on a soulful level? So for this, I’m not too sure. We are all born, we all live and we all have the same colour blood.

But as soon as someone is shamed for their actions and behaviour, it is almost like society kicks them out of any human make-up.

I came across this idea the night I watched the ‘Paedophile Hunter’ whilst browsing through Facebook. It seems to be something that many people are familiar with, probably due to the fact that anything on social media can spread around like wild fire.
So the journalist behind the operation aims to catch those who disobey the law. Catching sex offenders by deception.

Now deception is ethically wrong. Most decent journalists would regard it as wrong. Society would generally class it as wrong. But in the pursuit to catch the unattractive in the world it appears that such an act is no longer inappropriate and in fact, pretty damn smart.

If defending the vulnerable in the world can be achieved by a few lies, I would argue that maybe this ‘hunter’ is doing a fantastic service to us. But once the criminal has been caught, their name is plastered across social media through the videos that equip the hunt.

I think we could all assume what would happen in prisons if one was found out to have committed (but yet not technically) sexual acts against children.

So that is why I question the ethics behind this journalists actions. Yes, he is doing a service to society in regards to protection. But another person has now had their life tarnished through trickery. Criminals are people too.

Maybe this should be a service practiced less publicly…

A Journalist?!

What do you want to be in the future? A statement every young adult has heard time and time again. I know I have heard it a fair few times and my response is always the same. “I want to be a journalist.” Now this statement is my answer and yet my answer is often questioned with uncomfortable intonations and pursed lips as if my recipient has just sucked on a lemon…
“A JOURNALIST?!”
“Yes. A journalist.”
As they beg me to question why I have chosen this career path, I can often say that sometimes I am unsure myself. As a child I dreamed about saving the world. Maybe I wish to write as a way of letting the public know the rights and wrongs of our society? Then I discovered music and a love of entertainment. Maybe I want to incorporate my two passions into one written nirvana?
But these are two very different routes in such a diverse circle. And for the most part, many people jump to assumptions about ones reputation in this career before they get a chance to explain their personal likes and interests. I know this because it has happened to me.

“A JOURNALIST? But why, is that not a bit…sleazy?”
I always answer adamantly that this career path is one of choice. But I can fully understand why assumptions into the trustworthiness of such a person can be made. We have seen unruly behaviour occur in the media time and time again consequently forcing the public into seeing these public servants as the equivalent to vermin. Corporate giant Rupert Murdoch for example is seen to be one of the prime contenders in the debate of why so many people in society are abhorrent of journalists.

Ethical dilemmas are a wandering disaster for the reputation of such a person, hence why it appears that one small slip up can damage the face of the journalist instantaneously. And one small minority of ‘the bad’ seep into the minds of the public reinforcing the idea that this industry is untrustworthy. But this is not the case.

What about those that want to make society happy? Those that simply want to inform? Those that seek to make people laugh? And those that are covering the human’s own interest?
Are these bad journalists? And for someone who wants to go into this industry, it continues to pain me that there is such a negative light on these public servants. I want to change people’s pre-conceptions of my chosen career path.

I just want to make people joyful with what I write.

Human Interest?

No one wants to read a dull story. And as much as we all wish to appear educated and well-rounded, reading an article on the latest financial boom or enquiring into the latest political movement can often leave us in a state of boredom, (they aren’t exactly the most riveting of pieces). Unless you do get excited by things like Tesco’s latest profit margins, then for that, I apologise.

The reality is that our attention is often governed by something of interest. As a human myself I can openly admit that when reading a story, I feed on something juicy. Maybe somewhat morbid, or full of action or even something naughty from time to time. But isn’t that just human interest?

However, I have recently been considering my views on what makes a good story. Some stories are perfect for the public eye but looking deeper I have began to wonder just how ethical some of these ‘stories of interest’ actually are. For example, one recent scandal saw the exposure of Brooks Newmark and his paisley pyjamas plastered across the national papers. I’m sure for many of the public, seeing the MP revealed in this light was a little disturbing but nonetheless incredibly funny. Although such a story strikes a ‘great’ response, I can’t help but feel somewhat uncomfortable with the idea that the media had used this man’s private obscenities to provoke a reaction from the public.

And although this story may be counted as something of human interest, can it really be moral and ethical to expose this persons private affairs to the rest of the world to create a stir? If you ask me, I think that’s pretty crap. But of course the media has such freedom to say and publish whatever they want. And for the majority of the time, I think this is pretty fabulous. But at the back of my mind I can’t help but remember that these individuals are continuously held under scrutiny at the extent of getting a ‘good’ story. How can we justify damaging the face of an individual as ethical? …But society continues to look past this.