Four years ago, a coalition led by American forces invaded the Central Asian nation of Khaoistan, where warlords had destroyed the central
government and were supporting major terrorist activities. Today, the process of rebuilding the nation and fighting off an insurgency
continues, covered by a group of journalists based in the capital city.
One of the events journalists in Khaoistan had a chance to cover was the reopening of Blubek Sewage-Treatment Plant Number One, where coalition forces and American
contractors made 22 million dollars in repairs. Unfortunately, two weeks later, the sewage-treatment plant is in the news again—when it blows up. It seems
insurgents planted two explosive devices at the plant. How much coverage will the bad news of the explosion get, compared to the good news of the reopening two weeks
earlier? Is there any validity to the claim that progress in Khaoistan is underreported?
Soon after the treatment plant explosions, a journalist becomes "embedded" with an army unit in Khaoistan. The unit is going on a raid of a house where an
insurgency leader is based. On the way to the operation, the embedded journalist sees another unit that has been in battle. Dead American soldiers are in body bags.
Should the journalist photograph this image of war? Why or why not?
At the operation itself, the journalist videotapes a disturbing incident: an inexperienced American soldier shoots and kills a wounded, unarmed Khaoistani prisoner
he had been assigned to guard. No one else has this video. What should the journalist and his editors back home do with it?
Meanwhile, back in the United States, a newspaper journalist covering the Electronic Intelligence Agency is approached by someone at that agency who claims to have
documents proving that the agency has been acting illegally. But the source will not share the information without a promise of complete confidentiality. Should the
journalist make that promise?
After the journalist promises confidentiality, she obtains documents showing that the EIA has been conducting a domestic spying operation, apparently in violation
of the agency's charter. Further research confirms the existence of this operation. Should the newspaper run the story, even if the government says that revealing the
operation would hamper the war on terror?
Eventually, the story is published. The government begins an investigation into the leak of classified information, and demands that the journalist reveal her source.
Will the journalist go to jail to protect the source's confidentiality?