No because not only is she a little girl that doesn't deserve the pain of being blamed, but because I would also feel guilty knowing I made her suffer. I'd rather be happy knowing she was safe.
I wouldn't have published the article. THe whole situation would've been avoided.
i wouldn't reveal the source because i would've been sad that the little girl had to deal with the rest of her life knowing that she killed her mom. so i would just do the 2 years.
No I wouldn't have because the source was an innocent young girl who revealed her family's secret unintentionally. If I were to reveal the source, she would have lived her life with guilt with regard to her mother's death. Due to her age and her gullibility, I don't think it would be fair to reveal her identity for my own benefit.
I wouldn't have revealed the source because if she would of revealed that it was the little girl , she would of grown up with the thought and the guilt that she got her mother killed because she said something she wasn't supposed to say. Than i would of felt bad because of the source being revealed the little girl would of had to grow up with that guilt in the back of her head and as she grows older it would of effected her way more than it would now.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I would reveal my source because it's not worth tearing my life apart for some stranger, I rather live in guilt and have a family and be happy than be miserable in prison for years without seeing my son or husband. If she revealed her source, she could be perfectly normal, her son wouldn't be mad, her husband would of never cheated on her. It's not worth risking it all for a little girl, because her mom is dead, that's miserable enough, but she's gonna know how she died sooner or later.
No I wouldnt have revealed my source because my sorce wouldve been a young girl. Yes, she may have told that her mother was in the CIA but revealing my source will have her think that she is the reason for her mothers death.
No, I think the journalist shouldn't had released the story because exposing that type of information got the lady killed. Now the daughter has no mother because of the journalist
I wouldn't have revealed the source because I wouldn't want anyone to live with that guilt especially a little girl who meant no harm and didn't understand what she was doing. I would have suffered the 2 years if I was doing it for a good reason and in this case it was a good reason, Rachel Armstrong did what she she needed to do in order to protect the life of another.
No because the little girl would grow up with a guilt.
I would not reveal any type source because she made a promise to the young little girl but as well she shouldnt of publish it in the first place.
No because the little girl revealed the information with confidence that the information would be kept secret. It wouldn't have been fair to have the information revealed and cause all the guilt.
I wouldn't have revealed the source because if you keep a promise to keep the source confidential, then you should keep it.
No I Wouldn't reveal my source Because I Wouldn't Want To Affect Thee little girls future and i wouldn't want her to regret anything in life, also because she will feel its her fault that her mother died.
i believe that i would have not even written the story because no one would felt bad or guilty . by her even writing this story she hurt her family and thesources family she should think before she reacts
No, i would not have revealed the source. Because the girl was so young she didn't realize what would happen if she told someone, so its not right to make little girl have the guilt of outing her mom.
I don't think Rachel should have released the story because it was none of her business, she was sent to jail and she has not only ruined her family but the little girls family to.
i wouldn't have revealed the source because the little girl would have to deal with so much guilt for killing her mother. she is a very unharmful little girl who meant no trouble. she's just a girl that said something at the wrong place at the wrong time they also shouldn't have said anything because if it wasn't for the journalist the girl would still have a mother
I wouldn't have revealed the source because the little girl didn't mean to do no harm whatsoever. The girl also wasn't aware of the information being revealed and she was too young to understand anything so it wouldn't be fair to her to reveal the story.
I wouldn't have revealed my source because that would dishonor the integrity a journalist holds.
I would not have revealed the source, a little girl isnt mature enough to fully grasp the situation and this should not fall on her shoulders
as a journalist its would be job to be honest in all of my stories..if i am honest people trust you more and trust your reasearch and feel confident in your stories.. this being said i would have revealved my source..the little girl would have eventually come to an understanding when everything fell into place..by not revealing the source both armstrongs career and reputation was damaged
If I were the journalist, I wouldn't have revealed the source because the little girl looked about 8. She's too young to realize what she did and she shouldn't be held responsible.
i would not reveal my source if i was a journalist especially if its a little girl. my own conscience would haunt me for revealing the identity of my source if it was a young girl/boy.
I would have revealed that the little girl was my source so I wouldnt go to jail!! Any way the little girl wouldnt have gotten in as much trouble. :/
I wouldn't because saying that my source is a little girl would make things difficult for her and her mom. That little girl would have to grow up without a mom.
no because she didn't mean any harm and she didnt realize anything.
I would have revealed the source. I would have felt bad, that I had taken information from a young girl.I would have regretted the fact that I had published a story , with a little girl as a source in the first place.
i agree with arjon the girl was to young to know any better so it would be unfair to reveal the story
No i would not reveal the source because there would always be a sense of guilt. Also because a girl that young can not make an educated decision
I absolutely concur with Arjon's statement. A young child like her isn't aware of what she's doing so by them revealing the source will have a negative impact her and can ruin her life.
I would not reveal that it was the girl because having one parent would be difficult.
I agree with Kristen that it would lose the integrity a journalists holds.
I wouldn't have revealed the source to the little girl because she isn't mature enough to carry the facts on her shoulders. Also, I agree with Priscilla, Erik, and Arjon.
i would reveal my source to save my butt....the little girl wouldn't get into that much trouble because she is young and she doesn't know
If I were a journalist I would not reveal my source because the little girl did not mean to reveal that her mother was an agent. If I were Sarah Armstrong I would not let the girl think that she was responsible for the little girls mothers death. I wouldn't have published the article if I knew the outcome would be catastrophic.
I agree with what Kristen said. If I was a professional journalist and the source of my biggest story was a little girl I would not reveal the source. Since a child would be considered an unreliable source and would probably bring criticism for me taking leads for my story from her.
i agree with what mert said but you also have to think about the fact that she is ruining her own life by not speaking
Follow me :)
follow me too
i agree with monica n danayzia follow me 3 lml
^Same here.Click on my name and fallow me and receive a fake internet cookie. Mkay.