# data[].attributes.headline
Group 4 (Cheryl , Ben , Roshan and Summer)

# data[].attributes.subject
Group 4 (Cheryl , Ben , Roshan and Summer)

# data[].attributes.body
1. Common Good
2. Fairness
3. Utilitarian
4. Rights
4. Virtue

We choose the common good as our first choice as it is important for the public to know the full details of the incident. Hence why we would reveal the source.

If we choose rights, we would not have disclosed the information to the public to respect the family involved as they may not be comfortable with the story being shared publicly.

If we choose fairness we would reveal the source

If we choose utilitarian, we would not reveal the source

If we choose rights, we would not reveal the source

If we choose virtue, we would have revealed the source.

# data[].attributes.body
1st - Common Good
2nd - Fairness
3rd - Virtue
4th - Utilitarian
5th - Rights

We ranked common good first because while the role of the journalist is to present an objective view, they clearly chose a side and were not neutral towards the situtation.

We chose to report him as he made a decision and should own up to the consequences of his actions.

# data[].attributes.body
Rights
Virtue
Fairness
Utilitarian
Common good

Rights deterred us from publishing the information because everyone should have the right to privacy. The XGF is posting her opinions on her private social media and we have no right to intrude.

# data[].attributes.headline
Group 1 (Geraldine, Yvette, Wee Ann, Nicole)

# data[].attributes.subject
Group 1 (Geraldine, Yvette, Wee Ann, Nicole)

# data[].attributes.body
Rank:
1. Rights
2. Virtue
3. Fairness
4. Utilitarian
5. Common Good

# data[].attributes.body
VIRTUE
RIGHTS
UTILITARIAN
FAIRNESS
COMMON GOOD

Fairness
If it was the soldier was not the kid on an MP, will they will be this harsh.

Virtue
As a journalist, you were the one that asked for the story, therefore, you uphold the ethical code of conduct of journalists to not reveal a source.

In the end. We will not reveal the source as, we should be responsible for our actions and uphold our code of conduct.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Common Good

2. Rights

3. Virtue

4. Utilitarian

5. Fairness

Common Good

The message of the PSA is to spread the harmful effects of smoking, which ultimately will reduce the number of smokers in the society

Rights

It is unfair that the mother-son duo signed up for something they they didnt know completely about

Virtue

It goes against one’s morales to cause psychological trauma to a 4 year old child, especially since they signed up for this PSA which was meant to help others

Utilitarian

The end result would be that of lesser people smoking, and only 1 child getting harmed emotionally and psychologically. in this case, the pros outweigh the cons

Fairness

It is unfair that a child is suffering for the good of the whole society

We chose to brief the mother-son duo and get them to act instead of leaving them clueless, since a genuine reaction from the child is not needed to get the PSA's message across. This ultimately will still help reduce the number of smokers in society without harming the child psychologically

# data[].attributes.body
The anti-government movement has heated up in your constituency due to discussions of CPF allocations.

The protesters holds a rally. While you are covering the rally as a reporter with your camera man, you meet a former MAD classmate, @AhTiong, who is in strong contention for head of a production crew for CNN.

At the end of the protestors' speeches, most of the journalists have left the scene to beat deadlines. A small group of journalists then put down their equipment, lock arms with protesters and walk up the steps of the CPF building. You get them on film, and @AhTiong is in the group. He later “checks” to make sure you are not going to send that part to your station. He says he made a bad decision.

DISCUSS

What do you do?

Your editor knows you and your cameraman are the only journalist who caught it on film, if you send it to your editor it will be a national exclusive.

If you don't, your editor will know something fishy is up and your cameraman might tell on you.

If @AhTiong gets caught on film, he could possibly lose his job.

Which approaches were applicable and which did you choose in the end?

# data[].attributes.body
You are a new reporter for the HOME section of TOMORROW newspaper.

You are on a casual date with someone you met on Tinder, @swiperight, who is a full time NS man. The  conversation leads to a discussion about the recent death of a Celebrity who was serving as a reservist during an SAF exercise. The celebrity happens to also be the eldest son of an MP. @swiperight reveals personal knowledge of some details of the accident which has not been previously reported in the media.

You ask @swiperight for permission to publish the information on an anonymous basis and he agrees.  Your Editor is pleased with your scoop and the article goes to print.

2 days later you are investigated by the police under the Official Secrets Act for publishing confidential information.

The police want you to reveal and name your source. In exchange, they will not prosecute you under the OSA.

DISCUSS

What do you do?

If you stay silent, you think you will surely be charged under the OSA.

If you reveal your source,  @swiperight might be charged with offences under the OSA be subject to a military inquiry.

Should the fact that the deceased is a celebrity and son of an MP matter?

Which approaches were applicable and which did you choose in the end?

# data[].attributes.headline
CASE STUDY #3: Public Service Announcements

# data[].attributes.subject
CASE STUDY #3: Public Service Announcements

# data[].attributes.body
You are the assistant producer in a production house (Picture Productions) which is hired by an advertising agency (Ace Advertising) commissioned by the client, Health Promotion Board (HPB) to produce an anti-smoking advertisement targeted at young mothers. Recent studies show an increase in smokers amongst many women in their 30s.

In the advertisement, the plan is for the mother to leave her 4 yr old child at a busy MRT station and capture his reaction (it is expected that he will cry and be in despair).

The tag line of the advertisement is:

"This is your child when you leave him for 5 mins. Can you imagine if you leave him for life? QUIT SMOKING TODAY"

The mother will be close enough to watch him but not within his line of sight. In order for the child's reaction to be as genuine and as convincing as possible, the creative team at the advertising agency do not want the child to be briefed and ask you to hire a pair of real life mother and child actors.

You question the Ace Advertising representative on the psychological harm done to the child. She responds that this is a public health advertisement and more lives are at stake if people continue to smoke.

She warns you against briefing the mother and child actors to act out the scene instead.  Ace Advertising has just started to use your company more frequently for their jobs and your boss warns you not to make a mess of this job as it could mean a loss projects from Ace Advertising which is regularly selected for big government projects.

Which approaches were applicable and which did you choose in the end?

# data[].attributes.headline
Group 4's Revised Fact No. 4 and Closing

# data[].attributes.subject
Group 4's Revised Fact No. 4 and Closing

# data[].attributes.body
4. The ex-employers have 3 children.

On a human to human level, we would expect the children of the accused to stop their parents from inflicting such harm on their maid.

Or were they also mistreated? Maybe not.
(can just delete)

According to Gawidan, on their trip to Hong Kong, she had to eat instant noodles and bread, while the couple and their three kids ordered hotel meals for dinner.

They should testify on how it feels like to see someone nearly starve to death right in front of their eyes. (They should testify on why the maid was given inadequate food as compared to the couple and their three kids.)

The other side of the story

The accused have responded and are starting to make excuses for their actions. (The accused have responded and are now explaining their side of the story)

The trial would enter its second tranche on 30 Dec.

# data[].attributes.headline
CASE STUDY #1: Social Media Screenshots 

# data[].attributes.subject
CASE STUDY #1: Social Media Screenshots 

# data[].attributes.body
You work for the Fathership an online, local news website— which finds itself beating The Straits Times on the shocking story of a voyuer in NUS who has been taking videos of girls in the shower and uploading it onto a Telegram Chat group.

Thanks to local sources, Fathership is ahead on getting the identity of the suspect, @MustBeHim.  Through a contact you also locate a police report naming @MustbeHim, which leads you to the suspect’s ex-girlfriend, @XGF.

On Facebook, you track down @XGF, who accepts your request to become a Facebook “friend.” As you read @XGF’s online posts about her reaction to the NUS story and she talks about how she has previously seen pictures/videos of other girls on his phone which is why she broke up with him.

Can you use this colorful, personal material (screenshots or quote from her posts) ? Should the Fathership disguise @MustBeHim and/or @XGF's identity?

DISCUSS

1. What rules govern a reporter’s use of good material discovered on a social media website?

2. Are there guidelines about a reporter’s relationship with online sources?

3. What are Fathership's website’s responsibilities to its readers and its funders?

@XGF has 5,000 friends who have visibility to her posts and photos. Even if you don't publish her comments someone else might and you would have lost an exclusive scoop.

Your editor is pressing you to produce the article with screenshots of @XGF's comments. If you do, you'll get into his good books and get a promotion.  If you don't, you'll possibly not get your probation period extended into a full-time contract.

Which approaches were applicable and which did you choose in the end?

# data[].attributes.body
1. UTILITARIAN -  Ends justifies the Means. Most good, least harm.
2. RIGHTS - Respect the rights of all those involved
3. VIRTUE - Uphold values that are important to you
4. COMMON GOOD - Best for society as a whole
5. FAIRNESS - Treats everyone fairly

TASK

RANK the approaches that were applicable in order of importance

WHAT CONCLUSIONS THE DIFFERENT APPROACHES LED YOU TO?

WHICH YOU CHOSE  IN THE END, AND WHY?

# data[].attributes.headline
Original Fact No. 4 and Closing (for Group 4)

# data[].attributes.subject
Original Fact No. 4 and Closing (for Group 4)

# data[].attributes.body
4. The ex-employers have 3 children.

On a human to human level, we would expect the children of the accused to stop their parents from inflicting such harm on their maid.

Or were they also mistreated? Maybe not.

According to Gawidan, on their trip to Hong Kong, she had to eat instant noodles and bread, while the couple and their three kids ordered hotel meals for dinner.

They should testify on how it feels like to see someone nearly starve to death right in front of their eyes.

The other side of the story

The accused have responded and are starting to make excuses for their actions.

The trial would enter its second tranche on 30 Dec.