In this article by the New York Times it talks about the consequences of leaking news that has not been varified by any sources and is presumably fake. In January of this year BuzzFeed News, a popular news and pop culture sight, released an article with allegations stating how extensive the the relationship was between President Trump and Russia. Although these allegations have been made before the problem was that source used was unvarified claims made by a formed British Intellegence agent. Trump responded like he always does with a tweet, stating that fake news should not be allowed to be leaked. This contervesial article raised the concerns of how fake news effects the political information that is released, and how it can alter the public opinion. The article then proseeded to question weather or not what was released was infact fake.
This article made raise a lot of eithical questions around the lack of hesitation that sources have when surrounding leaks and the ethical issue around using unvafiried facts. To begin media has no problem these days writing any story that will make then money, regardless if it is fake or overly personal. Ethically, in my opinion, that is wrong; they are blatently selling fake stories to the public that they will then believe. I think news sources have an obligtion to give the public the truth. And because of there willingness to post anystory media sources often publish things that are inaportiate and should not be acceptable to post. They discover personal information and leak it to the world for money and judgement. I think there needs to be more of a line drawn about what and what can not be posted. Writers should consider if this information is correct over will this information going to make me money and become extremely popular. My opinion contridicts with most business opinions where they put profit first.
Overall, this scenerio regarding BuzzFeed is just one of the numurous cases and stories ragarding wether or not what was published was truthful and factual.