Conclusion

In conclusion, to make a decision on whether it is ethical to print or use a letter from a serial killer as the basis for a story is difficult. Each case has very different factors to take into consideration. In some cases these articles are used as a warning to the general public, and if the public is in danger, who can argue these articles are not in the public interest?

 One cannot deny that serial killers often provide sensationalist headlines, and certain journalists will certainly use the opportunity to sell themselves as well as their articles. However, in all of the cases I have studied, the journalists in question have acted ethically and conscientiously.

 Another interesting revelation during the research into this dissertation was the lack of an official code of conduct in US journalism. This however does not seem to have created the media free-for-all that one would expect. All of the journalists interviewed acted within the law, although some do admit to stretching the boundaries!

Sherry Chisenhall did admit to acting in defiance of the authorities, but explains that this was simply a case of refusing to withhold the information from the public. Everybody complied fully when it came to reporting and handing over the documents to the authorities.

 It is testament, therefore, to journalists around the world that in a business which is often seen as corrupt and sensationalist, there is an overwhelming sense of concern for the general public and an unerring sense of loyalty to both their employers, and the law enforcement agencies

No one can deny that receiving a letter from a serial killer is the dream of most journalists. It can turn a lowly reporter into a household name overnight. But it is obvious from my research that any right thinking journalist knows where to draw the line between selling their copy, and behaving ethically.