A multinational company marketing fashion garments posts an advertisement in a country which has 95% black population. This advertisement seems to be socially controversial as it has a tag line stating that "Our products look great on Blacks too." The advertisement, which is shown in print and electronic media, has images showing both black and lighter colored people of different generations wearing the company's garments. However, the black people are looking better than the lighter colored people, giving the impression that blacks are benefiting more from wearing the clothes. When contacted, the company spokesperson said the aim is to show that the company believes in diversity and targets all customers in all countries without discriminating on color, origin, or age. One customer, however, denounces the advertisement as discriminatory as soon as it is released on media, saying that the tagline and the images are discriminating against lighter colored customers. On Facebook, he tags prominent political and social figures. Shortly after posting and tagging, thousands of people, including the company's customers, are posting very polarized views. The customer also receives online backlash from trolls and bullies. By posting on Facebook, this customer had intended to shed light on what he perceived as an issue - namely, excessive discrimination in marketing campaigns. He did not anticipate nor wish for such publicity and criticism. Regretting his decision to post publicly, he deletes the original post. A journalist Sarah interviews the customer on his motives for publicizing and criticizing the advertisement. The customer speaks to Sarah but asks that his name be omitted from the article. He does not want to face further social ostracization for his stance. He believes that people will make assumptions about his character and that more customers will condemn. Sarah believes that confidentiality must be reserved for vulnerable sources in need of special protection from the newspaper. Such sources include individuals with less power and resources who may face severe consequences, such as harassment and legal action if their names are published. Sarah is also concerned that by redacting the customer's name, people might chastise the newspaper for providing the customer a platform for expressing controversial views without being held accountable. If the article publishes his name, it would be the only digital and printed source to link him to his original post. Sarah also considers whether the customer retains a reasonable expectation of privacy as he posted publicly in the first place. The customer tagged famous figures but now admits to regretting his decision. Despite these misgivings, Sarah questions whether the customer should continue to face the consequences of the original post, which includes personal criticism and social backlash. 

Discussion Questions 1) Do you agree with the company's action of placing the advertisement? 

2) Did the customer do the right thing in expressing his views publicly? 

3) Should Sarah grant this customer confidentiality? What factors should influence a journalist's decision to disclose a source's name 

4) What are the reasonable expectations of privacy for a customer posting publicly on social media? 

5) What are the potential consequences of protecting the source's identity under these circumstances? Give detailed reasons for each answer. Apply the concepts studied in the course and develop recommendations specific to this situation