Ethics are defined as being, “rules of behavior or moral principles that guide our actions in given situations” (Baran, 2017, p. 351). In lame-men’s terms, ethics requires applying societal and personal norms to new and changing life circumstances, both professional and personal. Professionals in the media often have to make a decision whether or not their actions are ethical, especially when they are presented with a situation where there is not single “correct” answer. When seeking the most ethical solution, media professionals must find the “most morally defensible answer” (Baran, 2017, p.351). Professionals working in the media often times walk a thin line between remaining ethical and writing a “juicy” story. Some things, although not
…show more content…
Late roman emperor Marcus Aurelius once said, “everything we hear in an opinion not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth” (McGuire Jr, 2016). What I mean by this is that the media professionals bringing you stories may not be outright trying to deceive you as a consumer but they are communicating the story the way they view it. The interpretation of stories can lead to conflicting moral interests because how one person sees the world, is not how another sees it, therefore leading to different interpretations of what the truth is. Relating back to mass media and headline making stories, omitting or altering events can have a profound on the message the report is sending to the public. The book used the real life example from the 2011 Chicago night of violence, where Chicago based television station WBBM, had anchor Steve Bartelstein introduce a story with the opening line, “kids… as young as four were there to see it all unfold, and had disturbing reactions” (Banar, 2017, p. 352). Following the intro the segment had a young African American boy being questioned by the reporter about what he wanted to do when he was older, and the boy said, “I’m going to have me a gun!” this was the segment included in the report, what was omitted was the rest of the interview where the young boy explained he would have a gun because he was going to be a police officer (Banar, 2017, p.
Late roman emperor Marcus Aurelius once said, “everything we hear in an opinion not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth” (McGuire Jr, 2016). What I mean by this is that the media professionals bringing you stories may not be outright trying to deceive you as a consumer but they are communicating the story the way they view it. The interpretation of stories can lead to conflicting moral interests because how one person sees the world, is not how another sees it, therefore leading to different interpretations of what the truth is. Relating back to mass media and headline making stories, omitting or altering events can have a profound on the message the report is sending to the public. The book used the real life example from the 2011 Chicago night of violence, where Chicago based television station WBBM, had anchor Steve Bartelstein introduce a story with the opening line, “kids… as young as four were there to see it all unfold, and had disturbing reactions” (Banar, 2017, p. 352). Following the intro the segment had a young African American boy being questioned by the reporter about what he wanted to do when he was older, and the boy said, “I’m going to have me a gun!” this was the segment included in the report, what was omitted was the rest of the interview where the young boy explained he would have a gun because he was going to be a police officer (Banar, 2017, p.