Ace newspaper reporter Kent Clarke receives a call from the media-relations director for al-'Urub (the Arabs), a controversial Arab-American group. It has condemned the detention of Arab nationals as...

Ace newspaper reporter Kent Clarke receives a call from the media-relations director for al-'Urub (the Arabs), a controversial Arab-American group. It has condemned the detention of Arab nationals as part of the U.S. war on terrorism, criticized the decision to go to war in Iraq and U.S. policy in the aftermath of the war, and—causing the most consternation—declared that American Mideast foreign policy in no small way contributed to the attacks of September 11, 2001. The organization has had difficulty getting its message out, so the media relations director offers Kent the opportunity to conduct an in-depth interview with the group's national president, who is in town for a speech at your college or university. For Clarke, the situation poses an ethical dilemma. He knows that the FBI has been watching the activities of the organization and running checks on its funding, although none of its members have been charged with any wrongdoing, let alone been arrested or convicted. However, Kent does not agree with the group's positions and is fearful that if he does a balanced, in-depth piece, he's going to legitimize what he feels is a misguided organization, if not one that tacitly supports terrorism. He knows, too, that many of his readers feel the same way and that the paper will probably be deluged with calls and e-mails protesting any story on the organization, some subscriptions will probably be canceled, and certain influential advertisers might drop their ads and try to induce others to do the same. Discuss Kent Clarke's responsibility to his newspaper, to his readership and, more broadly, to what he considers the general welfare. If he does the interview, how should he handle it? If he doesn't do the interview, has he missed an opportunity to open debate on a polarizing issue? What should he do?