¶ … Eason Jordan made what he defined as a "life and death" decision to withhold information that might get his informants killed in Iraq. "It's very simple," he said. "Do you report things that get people killed? The answer is no.," (cited by Rutenberg, 2003). Jordan's decision is a little bit surprising, considering the media's generally ruthless approach to journalism: such as the push to get the story first, or to glean information before competitors in the industry. Journalism is cutthroat enough on an individual level: leading reporters on the ground and editorial boards to make decisions that are in the best interest of the company, but which are not necessarily ethical. In the case with Eason Jordan, however, it seems that the editorial choice might have been the ethical one. Although "several journalism professors and commentators said Mr. Jordan had compromised CNN's journalistic mission so the cable network could continue to report from Iraq," Jordan's explanation seems equally as plausible (Rutenberg, 2003). Jordan claims that the decision was not made to enable CNN to continue reporting, which is probably would have done anyway. There is no reason to believe that Jordan's decision was made only so that CNN would be able to stay in the war-torn region. The decision to protect the Iraqi sources was based on the reality that Hussein's government was indeed using torture as a primary terrorist tactic to intimidate anyone it viewed as an enemy of the state. There is also no obligation on the part of an editor to print every bit of information it receives.

News media organizations do need to make administrative decisions like that made by Jordan, either to protect the self-interests of the organization or to protect their ethical objectives. If one of these issues weighs more than the other, then the editorial board may end up experiencing the level of criticism that CNN did during the Jordan incident. There are no hard...

It is unlikely that Jordan could have used the information and it having not leaked to the Iraqi government; but it was more likely the journalists' lives were seriously in danger. Therefore. The editorial choice was an ethical one.
2) Is the Election System Flawed?

The current campaign and election system are flawed, but they might be the best possible systems given the unique features of the American political climate and cultural landscape. The mysterious Electoral College is designed to allow states with small populations to have a greater say in the political process than they might, if the president were to be elected directly. However, the Electoral College also signifies the fact that the United States is an indirect, and not a direct, democracy. The members of Congress, including both Senate and House, are elected directly. Yet the highest office in the nation is the President, and the people do not elect the president directly. The Electoral College does seem to indicate a flaw in the system, allowing smaller states to have a larger say than they really should. The whole purpose of the Senate is to allow the smaller states to participate fully in the federal government. Each state, no matter how big or small, gets a say in the Senate. The House of Representatives elective process is proportionate to the population of the state. With the balance in Congress, it makes no sense to have an Electoral College for President.

However, the greatest challenge or flaw in our current campaign and election system is not the Electoral College but campaign financing. The need for large amounts of money in order to run for office means that a very narrow pool of candidates has the chance to become president. It is impossible, though, to think of any other way the system could work.

3) Paring Down the…