Ethics Case Study:

A Media-Savvy Killer
by
Jaquatte Williams
 Roughly three decades ago when the
former editor of Rick Thames spoke
on the first murder in 1974. The BTK
Killer; also known as the: blind,

W h
h a
att torture, Kill recently reappeared in
W d ?
?
2005; sending the paper a letter. This

p e
e n
n e
e d sparked concerned seeing as to how

H
Haap
p p the killer broke silence after 16 years,
circulating around the 30th
anniversary of the first kill. Total, BTK
has killed eight people in the midst of
leaving notes inside books, letters,
phone calls to local television stations
and most importantly the Eagle.
 Three reporters were asked to
provide DNA samples in hopes of find
the unknown killer. WHile the Eagle
was very cooperative with law

W h
h a
att enforement they were critized for
W d ?
?
publishing an article about the

p e
e n
n e
e d subpoenas. Two questions arose:

H
Haap
p p How should any media outlets handle
communications from someone he is
guilty of crimes? And, how much
should it cooperate with law
enforcements and investgations?
 The important subjects to point out in
this study would first be the

Factors
stakeholders. In this case it would be
the public because they are directly
effected by the killed from terrozing
them to the killer actually committing

toConsider murder

The killer would be the second subject

to consider because the issue and
need for the study all stems from them.
The killer is also a stakeholder.

The last stakeholder would be Law

Enforcement because they also keep
falling into the trap of the BTK .
 Does cooperating with the killer by publicizing his
taunts create more opportunities that he’ll be
caught? Or does it simply play into the killer’s
twisted desire for attention? What would happen if
you were to stop forwarding every communication

h y
y??
from this clearly imbalanced individual? What is the

W
W h
greatest good for the greatest number?
04
Well the job of a journalist is to:
Seek the Truth and Report It.
Minimize Harm.
Act Independently.
Be Accountable and Transparent.
Minimize Harm
Journalists should:
– Balance the public’s need for information against
potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is
not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.
– Recognize that legal access to information differs
from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.
– Realize that private people have a greater right to
control information about themselves than public
figures and others who seek power, influence or
attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or
broadcasting personal information.
– Consider the long-term implications of the
extended reach and permanence of publication.
Provide updated and more complete information as
appropriate.
 In this situation, the news station did not do a good

t W
W o
o u
ulld
d job of minimizing harm. As journalists, the stories

Wh
W h a
a t and notes should not have been continued to be
publicized. Despite the site's goal of remaining

J W
W DDo
o?? informative,
04 it may have been traumatic for some

J
J J victims and overall harmful for the public. Lastly, the
publication of these notes gave the killer an even
larger platform to receive the attention he so
desperately desired.
Thank you!