1. Don’t be horrible means that you should not write or do things that make people feel bad for no reason. When a significance number of people are affected and there is a way to make it not as offensive choose the way that makes people feel better. Pesca talks about how Gawker ousted a CFO of a large company as a way to help a blackmailer and ruined a man’s life that didn’t really deserve it. Ruining someone’s life for no reason is being horrible. If the person isn’t actively being a horrible person the rule of don’t be horrible applies.
2. Pesca’s principle of “don’t be horrible” uses the Bok model. The Bok model was developed on the having empathy for those involved and maintaining social trust. Having empathy is the principle that is most salient in “don’t be horrible” and more specifically in the Gawker case. Gawker did not think about the life of the CFO and more specifically what would be accomplished by telling the world that he was cheating on his wife. Gawker did not use the three steps in the Bok model when writing this story even though using it would have helped him avoid all of the ethical issues that his article posed.
3. A really good example of when being horrible is okay was one that Pesca talked about in this podcast. Pesca talked about someone that exposed people that …show more content…
When media ethics conflict with profit I think that there are two different ethical models that can be used to determine the best choice to make depending on the situation. In most cases I think that ethics should always win but I am aware that there are other things that a person has to take into account when making that decision. That is why I think that Ross’ pluralistic theory of value is the most relevant when it comes to cases of ethics versus profit. The pluralistic theory takes into account all the different “duties” that factor into it. I also think that Kant’s approach to ethics can apply as well because in the case you wouldn’t factor in the
2. Pesca’s principle of “don’t be horrible” uses the Bok model. The Bok model was developed on the having empathy for those involved and maintaining social trust. Having empathy is the principle that is most salient in “don’t be horrible” and more specifically in the Gawker case. Gawker did not think about the life of the CFO and more specifically what would be accomplished by telling the world that he was cheating on his wife. Gawker did not use the three steps in the Bok model when writing this story even though using it would have helped him avoid all of the ethical issues that his article posed.
3. A really good example of when being horrible is okay was one that Pesca talked about in this podcast. Pesca talked about someone that exposed people that …show more content…
When media ethics conflict with profit I think that there are two different ethical models that can be used to determine the best choice to make depending on the situation. In most cases I think that ethics should always win but I am aware that there are other things that a person has to take into account when making that decision. That is why I think that Ross’ pluralistic theory of value is the most relevant when it comes to cases of ethics versus profit. The pluralistic theory takes into account all the different “duties” that factor into it. I also think that Kant’s approach to ethics can apply as well because in the case you wouldn’t factor in the