“A media revolution is transforming, fundamentally and irrevocably, the nature of journalism and its ethics. The means to publish is now in the hands of the citizens, while the Internet encourages new forms of journalism that are interactive and immediate” (Ward). With media ethics constantly evolving and new forms of media popping up everywhere, it can be difficult to make decisions regarding what is right and what is wrong in the realm of media. This is why I believe that it is important to use multiple ethical philosophies to make decisions concerning “right and wrong”. In this paper, I utilize Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Mill’s Principle of Utility to evaluate case studies that present ethical dilemmas. By using such ethical philosophies,
…show more content…
This article told the story of journalist John Gillespie and photographer Tim Flanigan following a police stakeout in order to get a story. When they arrived at the stakeout they discovered the perpetrator dashing away from the police on foot. With the camera rolling, Gillespie asked his friend “Do I stop him?” He then stopped his story and asked the audience a set of questions such as “Is the reporter there to observe, no matter what? If he does intervene does the reporter endanger himself, the police or the public, or does he make the situation worse? Whatever the outcome, how will the community react?” With these questions now in the audience’s mind, he finished the story by saying he immediately got out of the car and chased down the criminal. Thinking Gillespie was a plain-clothes officer, the criminal threw his hands up in the air and gave up. Afterward, they had to decide what to do with the story. After much deliberation, they decided to run the story and show the video. The reaction from the community was very positive and Gillespie made out looking like a hero …show more content…
However, I find it hard to come to a distinct conclusion on this one. Looking at Kant’s Categorical Imperative, it’s hard to judge whether or not it would be okay if all citizens got involved in police chases. This could result in citizens bringing harm to themselves and potentially others and could negatively impact the chase. However, I believe that it is more ethical to get involved and try to assist in the chase than to idly stand by and watch it play out. This is why I say yes, it would be okay if all people followed his lead and intervened when trying to stop a criminal. People are more likely to benefit, not harm, the situation by taking action opposed to merely watching the scene play out. Looking at the Principle of Utility, I arrive at the same answer because stopping a criminal ultimately provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people. I believe this because getting a criminal off the streets results in other people not being harmed by said criminal. This creates a safer environment for people to live in, an ultimately upholds the greater good. Even if the person trying to help gets harmed in the situation but does in fact help the cause, it means more people have been helped than been
This article told the story of journalist John Gillespie and photographer Tim Flanigan following a police stakeout in order to get a story. When they arrived at the stakeout they discovered the perpetrator dashing away from the police on foot. With the camera rolling, Gillespie asked his friend “Do I stop him?” He then stopped his story and asked the audience a set of questions such as “Is the reporter there to observe, no matter what? If he does intervene does the reporter endanger himself, the police or the public, or does he make the situation worse? Whatever the outcome, how will the community react?” With these questions now in the audience’s mind, he finished the story by saying he immediately got out of the car and chased down the criminal. Thinking Gillespie was a plain-clothes officer, the criminal threw his hands up in the air and gave up. Afterward, they had to decide what to do with the story. After much deliberation, they decided to run the story and show the video. The reaction from the community was very positive and Gillespie made out looking like a hero …show more content…
However, I find it hard to come to a distinct conclusion on this one. Looking at Kant’s Categorical Imperative, it’s hard to judge whether or not it would be okay if all citizens got involved in police chases. This could result in citizens bringing harm to themselves and potentially others and could negatively impact the chase. However, I believe that it is more ethical to get involved and try to assist in the chase than to idly stand by and watch it play out. This is why I say yes, it would be okay if all people followed his lead and intervened when trying to stop a criminal. People are more likely to benefit, not harm, the situation by taking action opposed to merely watching the scene play out. Looking at the Principle of Utility, I arrive at the same answer because stopping a criminal ultimately provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people. I believe this because getting a criminal off the streets results in other people not being harmed by said criminal. This creates a safer environment for people to live in, an ultimately upholds the greater good. Even if the person trying to help gets harmed in the situation but does in fact help the cause, it means more people have been helped than been