Media Ethics/Media Law and News Reporting

Student:
Professor:
Course title:
Date:
Media Ethics/ Media Law and News Reporting
Media’s privileged and powerful position to inform, entertain and influence audiences raises thoughtful questions with regard to the ethical boundaries of media responsibility. This paper provides a detailed and exhaustive discussion of ethics in relation to the process of reporting news to the American public. An explanation of historic moral frameworks or philosophies that have been applied to discourses on what media should do is provided. Moreover, an explanation of the historically critical debates concerning what ethical imperatives should be taken into account by journalists is provided. Lastly this paper provides an explanation of the legal parameters that govern what media outlets and journalists can and cannot do in their practice of news reporting, and how digital media affects these notions.
Historical moral frameworks and philosophies on what media should do
There are several moral frameworks and philosophies that have been applied to discourses on what media should do. These historical moral frameworks and philosophies include the following: Aristotle’s Golden Mean – the right behavior could be found between extremes. Courage, for instance, is the middle ground between foolishness and cowardice. As per this philosophy, journalists and media professionals should uphold the virtue of fairness (Day 80). For example, the Golden Mean would tell media professionals to ban tobacco advertisements from TV but not to ban them on magazines. The media should respect individual dignity of people, and people must not be utilized as a means to an end. Individuals of all races, all classes, obscure or poor, rich or famous, must be treated with equal respect (Black, Steele & Barney 35).
Potter’s Box by Ralph Potter: this ethical framework states that journalists (i) need to define the situation – consider the significance of the event as well as the options available for covering it. (ii) The journalist should determine his other values on the issue; (iii) consider the principles of the newspaper or station, website or magazine; and (iv) make decisions with regard to loyalties to the newsroom, to the community or audience, to journalism, and to oneself (Frost 13). Utilitarianism conceptualized by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham: this philosophy stipulates that media coverage decisions have to be based upon bringing most reward whilst causing least suffering. It underscores on creating the greatest good for the greatest number (Frost 14). Editors need to publish news that would bring harm to just a few individuals, but would help many. Knowledge is regarded as a significant reward, or social good. Mill and Bentham formulated the Harm Principle; journalists should seek to minimize harm as mush as possible. The result is what is important (Black, Steele & Barney 35). A reporter may argue that using deceitful means in order to get information is all right. Reporters can eavesdrop on the conversations of a politician since the public has the right to know. However, they should not do so since it is not right. A reporter should not use deception in uncovering a good story, and a good producer cannot use violence and sex in order to gain more viewers.
Theory of Justice and the veil of ignorance by John Rawls: this posits that fairness is fundamental and every media coverage decision has to be made without concern or knowledge regarding social differentials for instance age, gender, status, class, as well as personal prominence. For instance, a TV executive should produce programming for a minority audience although it might not be easy to attract advertisers (McBride & Rosenstiel 64). Ladder of moral reasoning by Lawrence Kohlberg: this philosophical framework suggests that it is better for media professionals to be concerned with the public instead of being concerned with oneself (McBride & Rosenstiel 65). Plato stated that the good was independent of opinion or culture. Virtue was seen as the courage of upholding the good in spite of public opinion. Media professionals should seek to do something for the greater good in spite of ridicule or punishment. Most editors assert that the greater good is the rationale for their decisions (Sanders 19). Categorical imperative conceptualized by Immanuel Kant posits that journalists must always report the truth in spite of the consequences. People should act is such a manner that their decision could actually be made universal. Everybody needs to be treated respectfully and with autonomy rather than as a means to an end (Dugger 33).
Historically critical debates concerning the ethical imperatives journalists should consider
According to Immanuel Kant, an ethical imperative is understood as taking the stand that is ethically accepted. It entails doing that which overrides or takes precedence over everything else owing to ethics (Black, Steele & Barney 39). Some of the historically critical debates concerning what ethical imperatives should be taken into account by journalists involve the following ethical imperatives: (i) Using people as ends and not as a means to an end: in his categorical imperative, Kant stated that one should act in such a manner that humanity is always treated as an ...