Loading ...The news department thought it was inappropriate to ‘out’ an allegedly-gay soldier who died a hero’s death. So the ombudsman outed him instead. Was this the ethical thing to do?
To read the ombudsman’s column, click here.
This entry was posted on Monday, March 31st, 2008 at 10:31 am and is filed under Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Bad Behavior has blocked 0 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Presented by: ArkansasOnline | Frank Lockwood on behalf of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette | Copyright © 2010 BibleBeltBlogger.com | All rights reserved.
March 31st, 2008 at 10:58 am
How can you “out” someone who is already out?
I rather like the WaPo policy of leaving out information that is not pertinent to the story. If his death was somehow related to his sexual orientation, that would be one thing. But in this case I don’t see why it merits a mention.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:19 pm
The death of an out gay soldier (who the military claims should not be allowed to serve unless they need us for cannon fodder)is certainly relevant to the story. How ironic that if he were an Arab linguist helping track terrorists he would be discharged for being a threat to unit cohesion, but in the war zone he was not too queer to fight or be honored for a hero’s death as long as the full truth of his heroism, dying on behalf of people who don’t want him to serve, got edited out.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:25 pm
From what I read in the story, this particular solider knew the policy of the Army and accepted it. It appears to me the group connected with this story after the fact, is making decisions that are out of its league and none of its business.