Tampa Bay Mug Shots

1. I'm not sure what exactly this falls under, but it is definitely not journalism. Some of the individuals profiled as convicted criminals do not even have a charged cited against them. For example, Timothy Shane Worley is profiled on a mugshot website as a criminal, yet under his charge it says "had trouble getting a charge for Timothy Shane". This is inconclusive and there is not enough evidence to put them on this website. On the website there is a small side-blurb that labels itself a "public service" and that all people on the site "have not been convicted of the arrest charge are presumed innocent". It even goes as far as to say "do not rely on this site to determine any person's actual crime record". I think that would bring it closest to entertainment than anything.


2. I do not think it is fair to put people up on a entertainment-based website as because none of them have actually been convicted of the crimes they are being labeled with. Even if they are acquitted, they have already been documented with the crime and have it on their record.

3. I don't think it's technically illegal to have a website like this because it does state that it isn't an actual crime record, but at the same time someone could challenge the fact that a false allegation was being printed against them and try to file a lawsuit.

4. A website about restaurants and food is different a mugshots website because businesses serving food are legally responsible to provide information about what they serve to the public and follow all health code violations. A website like this is designed to give people entertainment rather than vital information about their food and how it is prepared.



5. In a digital age, a website like this could do irreversible damage to someone's personal or private life. Associating someone with a false conviction could cause a potential employer to associate them with the crime without realizing that the website was inaccurate and entertainment-based. Attaching someone's identity on the internet to a false accusation could cause irreversible damage and isn't something to be taken likely.

Codes of Ethics

For the most part, the various codes of ethics we looked at have similar goals and guidelines that are being enforced. Overall, the most common "goal" was to report an accurate/unbiased account of the news to the public. There was also a theme of accuracy, credibility, the truth, avoiding conflict of interests, responsibility, and consistency throughout all of the codes. The strictness of the codes varied, from being merely "guidelines" to rules that can result in job termination if not followed. The codes also ranged in coverage, some like NPR only apply to their new employees, whereas the NYT code of ethics applies to an extended network of individuals, including publishers, family members, etc.


The code that stood out to me the most was the New York Times. It was noticeable longer, more detailed, and more ambiguous in its content. Its format was broken down into chunks that were very specific, rather than other codes that were straightforward and formatted as a numbered list or bullet points. Although this is probably to ensure legal coverage in the event of a violation, it ends up being more confusing for the employee to know if they are breaking a rule in the first place.

One thing I found interesting from reading the codes was that accepting gifts/freebies/promotional items from any outside party is considered a bribe and/or makes them biased. In the NYT code, it states that reporters/employees should try at all costs to avoid situations where they are paid for, unless it is within cultural/religious customs. I wonder how often that is actually enforced?