In Salon.com's article "What you never knew about Columbine," the author, Joan Walsh, first reviews Dave Cullen's novel of Columbine, and then follows up with a personal interview. All in all, I found this piece very engaging and interesting, and for me it raised many ethical questions.
In the interview section, Dave Cullen speaks about how he and his publishers had to decide whether or not to print a certain fact he uncovered from the Columbine tragedy. While researching for his novel, he discovered that the idea that a female student was shot because she said "yes" when one of the shooters asked her if she believed in God, is actually false. This story was very widely known, many religious organizations and churches named this girl as a martyr, and her own mother wrote a memoir for her about her connections with God, and how he led her through life, and through death. The news of this encounter also appeared on various tv shows. However, in the end, Cullen and his publishers decided to let the public in on the facts, and to print that that experience never actually occurred the way many were told it did.
In the article, the author and Cullen agree that they couldn't not tell the public the entire truth, when Cullen was already discounting other Columbine myths as well, even if it proved fault in some religious organizations and the mother's memoir.
Was this the right ethical choice? Was it an ethical choice at all, or rather a marketing one? Did the publishers consider the ethical ramifications or merely how much more money the book would make if it was controversial?
