Here is a story about the death of the son of the offensive coordinator of the Green Bay Packers. These two versions raise ethics questions about how subtle difference in writing and storytelling styles dramatically change your understanding of the story:

AP story:

ESPN story:

I urge you to compare these two pieces to learn some key lessons:

-The AP version of the story includes a mention of criminal charges that the deceased had faced calling them sex abuse charges.

-The AP version mentions the charges as the last sentence.

-The ESPN version of the story puts some context on the charges.

-The ESPN version of the story mentions the criminal case much higher in the story and the closing line of the story is far more sympathetic.


Why are the criminal charges relevant to the story of the young man’s death?

If the charges are included, where should the writer mention those charges in the story? Why?

How much responsibility does the journalist have to explain whether the criminal charges have any connection to the death (or not?)