OK, hypothetical journalist ethics question:

[Robb]

Here's the gist of it:

A friend of mine ( :eyes: ) was sitting in a sparsely attended (read: empty) government meeting, and heard illegal activity discussed.

Not someone's-going-to-jail illegal, but fundamentally the governing body running the meeting was planning to out-step a different, bigger body on a policy matter.

Let me know if I'm being too specific. :D

Anyhow.

My friend knows what they're planning/plotting is illegal; they know it too. The trouble is, the bigger governing body is being, in his opinion, rather unfair about the whole thing. And, my friend knows that if this little plot works out, his community will be better off.

Still, illegal, tho'.

Does he report on it, and get the smaller governing body in trouble? Or does he sit on it, for the sake of his community? :shrug:

[mmonk]

1. I would always go with the truth

in that it isn't unethical.

[SteppingRazor]

2. Sit on it, publish after the fact

The truth gets out, wrongdoers are still held responsible, and the community is still better off -- everyone wins.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

3. Pardon me, but

it seems what you are asking is, does the end justify the means?

Check out all the posts from the last few days. I expect you know the answer to your question already.

Peace.