Case Study Of Channel Nine And Unethical Activities In The 60 Minutes 'Child-Abduction' Case

Question:

It is about the case study of channel nine and its unethical activities in the 60 Minutes 'child-abduction' case.
 

It is about the case study of channel nine and its unethical activities in the 60 Minutes 'child-abduction' case. From news, it can be seen that the producer of 60 Degree Stephen Rice was discharged over the program’s substandard child steal in Beirut, in spite of a board of the networks peers suggesting no employees involved in the story be termed as “singled out for dismissal”. The long five page summary published by the responsible panel found a series of “inexcusable errors” that had led towards the gravest misadventure in the history of programs and this saw a ream from Child Adduction Recovery International paid to grab the two children of Brisbane mother Sally Faulkner off a street in Beirut. In this part, it is required to mention that child abduction is one of the great offenses of illegally moving or retaining or concealing a child (Schuz, 2014). Therefore, clearly abduction is a procedure of taking away of someone by affiliation or by deception or by the open compel or aggression. However, it is required to mention that there exist two types of child abduction and these are parental baby abduction and child kidnap by the strangers. The news have stated that the Australian mother and the respective TV crew released in Lebanon kidnap case and Silly Faulkner arrested in Beirut with 60 minutes team for purportedly abducting her own children, unchained after deal socked. Therefore, it can be stated that this specific research work would try to shed light on this particular topic, as this is one of the major illegal issues in the history of mankind.

Three major stakeholders involved in this case are the journalists, mother and other responsible agents and the research paper has tried to analyzed the roles and responsibilities played by these stakeholders carefully. Bourke (2016) has mentioned in the news that Sally Faulkner is the Australian mother who was at the centre of the substandard kid recuperation operations, journalist Tara Brown and three TV team members were at the centre of this news to send away the alleges alongside them in an swap over for huge reimbursement (plot, 2016). However, on the contrary to this situation, the British “child recovery agent” Adam Whittington and other two concerned in the suspected effort to abduct Faulkner’s two children from her separated Lebanese partner would remain in the detention. Reports stated that it was wonderful to go back to house after bail from jail, as she and her colleagues from the Channel Nine 60 Minutes program were in jail and were freed and board the flight to Australia (Bourke, 2016). 

News released that Sally Faulkner pleaded with husband in order to drop Lebanon the child kidnap charges in substitute for guardianship. The detailed news stated that this Australian mother Sally Faulkner has requested alienated her husband Ali Elamine to drop the Lebanese kidnap accuses against her in switch over for her relinquishing all the argues to guardianship as well as assisting in getting a marriage separation (Murray & Magnay, 2016). From the research till now, it can be seen that Sally Faulkner along with four associates of a Channel Nine 60 Minutes team were amongst a group of populace detained after an attempt to take Sally Faulkner’s two offspring off the roads of the capital, Beirut. Therefore, it can be seen that if Mr. Faulkner concurs to drop the charges, Sally Faulkner would give up the solitary guardianship granted to her by the Family Court of Australia (Bourke, 2016).

Stakeholders in the Case

It can be seen that the Australian Court ruling, granted as well as allowed the Australian police and the agents to get her two kids back, but unfortunately shed did not listed this news in Lebanon. However, it can be seen that the responsible lawyer of Sally Faulkner opined that it is highly strong judgment and they were very sorry that it is not being properly used. After going through the article of the judgment, it can be seen that the case was almost 100% to her favor, but it was unfortunate for her that the entire process was delayed (Goldberg, 2016).

Reports and news has published that Mr. Faulkner acquired his own guardianship verdict from a spiritual courtyard in Lebanon and unfortunately, it was not clearly mentioned that when this was issued. One of the turning points in this case is that the ABC requested the judge not to view the recovery as a kidnapping case, rather it was required to consider as a case where the mother has been trying her best to reunite with her two kids (Meade, 2016). At this point, Sally Faulkner hoped for her rights to observe her two children at any time she wanted in Lebanon, Australia or any other third nation. Some have stated that if Mr. Sally Faulkner agreed to drop the blames against Sally Faulkner, she would expected be unconfined on bond and it could successfully decrease the harshness of charges against all implicated into the case (Chulov, Safi & Doherty, 2016). The unfortunate thing is that Sally Faulkner had eaten ice cream with her two kids at a supervised visit in Beirut and that might be was her last time with them in a long while. Reports state that Sally Faulkner was on her way back to Australia after bidding goodbye to her two young children and she had been enforced to abscond behind in Beirut subsequent a substandard child recuperation effort (Brown, 2016).

It can be seen that Sally Faulkner followed a wrong and unethical step to get back her children. She could have gone through a proper channel of legal steps to get back her children from her husband. She could have filed the divorce case against her husband and if the entire procedure is followed legally, she could have got back her children in a fair legal manner. Unfortunately, Sally Faulkner did not follow the ethical path to get back her children and thus the entire case was unethically judged from several perspectives (Byrnes, 2016). Therefore, after analyzing the vase, it can be stated that Sally Faulkner was one of the major stakeholders of this unethical issues and she did not follow the right paths to get back her children from her husband.

Stakeholder theory is stating that the stakeholders of a company is not just the shareholders, the term included all the people who are associated with the operations of the company. In this case, there are three stakeholders of the case. The first stakeholder of this case is the group of journalists of channel nine, the second one is the mothers and the third stakeholder is the group of agents involved in the case.

Unethical Actions by Channel Nine

There were some unethical steps taken by the channel in this case for which the 60 minutes crew was behind the bar. The case was about a kidnapping of two children as reported by the channel. Actually the case was about the snatch back two children from their father Ali Elamine by their mother Sally Faulkner (Mitchell, Agle & Wood, 1997). At the present time, the works of the journalists are to develop attracting story and working on behalf of the victimized common people. According to the statement provided by journalist Tara Brown, they were just trying to do their job. In order to get success in the child rescuer mission, the channel was working on behalf of the mother and for making an attractive story for the channel. In this context, the channel had taken some unethical way. In later time, the investigation regarding the channel’s activities has shown that channel nine paid Mr. Whittington’s firm Child Abduction Recovery International (CARI) by two installments. One of the installments was of $69,000. The investigation has also shown the direct payment was done by the channel for investigating the case by the firm as the form of kidnapping (Schuz, 2014). They have bought the service of the firm for investigating what happened with children. After the case was settled out and the event of direct payment done by the company came out, the channel refused their actions regarding the payments. Finally they were unable to snatch back the children from the father. They just wanted to do a story on a very desperate mother. 

The main unethical activity of the channel was making the deal without proper consent of the people who are involved in the case. After facing failure of recovering the children from the father, the children were kidnapped by the collaborative operation of channel nine, CARI and the mother Sally Faulkner. When the case was filed from the father’s end, the whole tem of the channel nine crew and Whittington were sent behind the bars. However they were released when the dramatic change came to the case by failure of the father, the court gave the judgment of keeping the children in the custody of the mother (Bourke, 2016). In this context, the crew members of the channel nine were released from the jail but Whittington as kept in the prison for arranging the kidnapping the children. The channel just refused the transaction of the money for the kidnapping purpose. They have said that they have made the payment for just the investigation purpose. They were unaware about what was actually done by the firm CARI. They were just doing their job regarding the investigation about the fact and making stories for the public (Brown, 2016).

The decision making error was done by the journalists by taking the help of the firm CARI. Although they were released from the jail due to the lack of evidence regarding the direct participation in the kidnapping, they had taken the decision of collaborative effort with the firm for reuniting the children with their mother. This decision was unethical and can be seen as a wrong decision as the way they had taken for getting the children back cannot be treated as a legal way. The decision of reuniting the mother and the children was very good but it was not the duty of the channel or the firm CARI. They should do just the investigation about the fact and should bring the news out to the common people or the watchers of the channels (Hasnas, 2013). According to the stake holders theory, the employees of an organization should be conscious about the activities because their activities are associated with the reputation of the organizations within which they are currently working (Horisch, Freeman & Schaltegger, 2014).

Analysis of the Case

In this case, all the crew members have made a wrong and unethical decisions for which the reputation of the channel has gone down. It is very bad for being highlighted regarding the unethical business practices for the brand image of the business organizations. In this case, the business operations of the channel were to investigate the current affairs and make news stories for the public. In this area, they must have to show the authentic news. According to Argandona (2011), the news media have the high level of responsibilities regarding the ethical considerations of the operations or the news they are covering in their reports. In this purpose, they need to do all the activities in a lawful and ethical way. Therefore, the decision taken by the crew members taken in this case cannot be taken as an ethical choice (Brown & Forster, 2013). It can be considered as a decision making error from the employees of the cannel nine.

The ethical choice for the channel crew for getting succeeded in their motive i.e., to reunite the children and the mother would be proper investigation and a settlement meeting between the mother. If just the sole business activities of the channel are considered then the ethical choice would be just keeping their activities limited in the investigation. They had to just open the truth behind the scenario (Harrison & Wicks, 2013). The demand of the mother, the father and the children had to be highlighted and opened to the news.  Before taking any steps, the employees of the channel had to think about the organizations image. They had to think themselves that whether the activities are ethical practices or not. If any activity found as unethical practice, then they should about the activities regardless the benefits of the news (Byrnes, 2016).

Adam Whittington the owner of the Child Abduction Recovery International Agency (CARI) was approached by Sara Faukner in respect to retrieving her children. The child recovery agency was a self-styled international organization. Adam Whittington as well as his associate Craig Michael has abducted the child from Mr. Elamine in order to return them to their mother Ms. Faukner. In this context it has to be keeping in mind that Mr. Elamine has the custodial rights as the father of the abducted children according to the Lebanon court (Meade, 2016). However, in the Present scenario Ms. Faulkner has been granted the custodial rights of the children in the Australian Court (Brown, 2016). At the same time of approaching of Ms. Faulkner, the Child Abduction Recovery International Agency owner Adam Whittington was hired by Channel nine. It has been revealed that the channel nine approached Child Abduction Recovery International Agency for investigating the case. However, the agents of Child Abduction Recovery International Agency directly abducted the children and returned them to their mother in Australia. 

This scenario has led a high range of media boom in the current time. On the basis of charges drawn by Mr. Elamine it has been highlighted through the various media platform. The agent never should have abducted the children as it was the most unethical practice where the rules and regulation are concerned (Murray & Magnay, 2016). According to the Lebanon court the children was under the custody of Mr. Elamine. The agents of CARI have no rights to pluck out the children from the care of their father. The Judge Rami Abdullah has still not granted the bail of Adam Whittington. However, according to Mr. Karam Adam have the same rights like others in the context of receiving the fair judgments. In this context it is evidently shown that despite of the contract signed by the agency it is unethical to abduct the children without any kind of legal direction.

The Child Abduction Recovery International Agency should not have accepted the proposal for retrieving the children from their father’s care. Moreover, the agency needed to inform the local authority regarding the intention of Ms. Faulkner which would have been most ethical ground (Goldberg, 2016). At the same time, the agency only had to agree for investigation of the case. They have no right to retrieve the children from Lebanon. In the same context, the owner of the Child Abduction Recovery International Agency, Adam Whittington must have the permission of local legislative office in order to conduct any kind of investigation. Above all, the agency must not have hid the situation from the local authority. The agency needed to consult the legal professionals in order to get the proper guidance in respect to this particular case.

In conclusion, it can be said that the case study regarding the father, mother and the children was a simple case. However, the unethical involvement of the channel nine and CARI made the case so complex. This was happened by the high level of interact of the news channel in the matter. They have bought the services of the CARI for reuniting the children and the mother. They thought that they could make a very interesting story about the desperate mother by kidnapping the children from their father and give them to their mother. They were going to make a story about the children and their mother but the case altered and they became the part of a new interesting story. The unethical choice of paying CARI for the investigation service and the kidnapping were so wrong for which the crew members and the owner of CARI Mr. Whittington were arrested. Finally the mother Sally won the case and gets her children back. The crew members of the channel were released but Whittington was not released. The unethical practices were done from ends of all three stakeholders of this case. The mother also made some wrong choice, the channel crew members’ when beyond of their core organizational activities where as the agents of the case i.e., that made the deals and kidnapping were also did some wrong and unethical activities for which the case went wrong and became one of the worst news.  

References:

Argandoña, A. (2011). Stakeholder theory and value creation.

Bourke, L. (2016). 60 minutes child abduction case: Sally Faulkner sees her children. The Sydney Morning Herald.

Bourke, L. (2016). 60 Minutes: 'Child recovery' team hung out to dry by Nine, lawyer claims. The Sydney Morning Herald. 

Bourke, L. (2016). Winners and losers may yet change in child-abduction case in Lebanon. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 18 June 2016

Brown, J. A., & Forster, W. R. (2013). CSR and stakeholder theory: A tale of Adam Smith. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(2), 301-312.

Brown, M. (2016). Mother may have to relinquish custody in kidnapping case. ABC News. 

Byrnes, H. (2016). Head rolls over 60 Minutes drama. NewsComAu. Retrieved 18 June 2016,

Chulov, M., Safi, M., & Doherty, B. (2016). Australian mother and TV crew released in Lebanon kidnap case. the Guardian.