News Ethics In Journalism
1. Is "Holocaust on Your Plate" ethically wrong or a truthful comparison?
"Holocaust on Your Plate" is ethically wrong. Although slaughtering animals is awful, comparing that to the Jewish Holocaust during WWII is offensive to many. The main reason why people slaughter animals is for consumption, and being at the top of the food chain as humans, it's expected that we eat other animals. Yes, killing so many animals isn't a good idea, but comparing it to human slaughter? The genocide of Jews during WWII should not be compared to farm animals being slaughtered for food.
Using a mass-murder of humans as a comparison for your campaign is clearly ethically wrong. The PETA needs a new strategy to get their message through.
2. Yet, from an ethical standpoint, if Billboard and Rolling Stone are essentially pointing readers in the right direction, to the leaked music, are they not aiding in helping the Internet community find the material and consume it?
Billboard and Rolling Stone are not trying to aid the Internet community in finding the leaked music to illegally download it. In the article, the two media outlets are simply informing readers on what's going on. Although it may seem like they're trying to promote the practice of stealing music by illegal download, their intentions don't seem like it.
3. Given the potential danger to the man, should he be identified by the media?
He should not have been identified by the media. There wasn't a real clear reason on why he should've been identified. Now angry people could find and target him. After all, he had no intention of trying to cause trouble, he simply though the ball was fine to catch. It was a sincere accident, and I'm sure he's sorry.
"Holocaust on Your Plate" is ethically wrong. Although slaughtering animals is awful, comparing that to the Jewish Holocaust during WWII is offensive to many. The main reason why people slaughter animals is for consumption, and being at the top of the food chain as humans, it's expected that we eat other animals. Yes, killing so many animals isn't a good idea, but comparing it to human slaughter? The genocide of Jews during WWII should not be compared to farm animals being slaughtered for food.
Using a mass-murder of humans as a comparison for your campaign is clearly ethically wrong. The PETA needs a new strategy to get their message through.
2. Yet, from an ethical standpoint, if Billboard and Rolling Stone are essentially pointing readers in the right direction, to the leaked music, are they not aiding in helping the Internet community find the material and consume it?
Billboard and Rolling Stone are not trying to aid the Internet community in finding the leaked music to illegally download it. In the article, the two media outlets are simply informing readers on what's going on. Although it may seem like they're trying to promote the practice of stealing music by illegal download, their intentions don't seem like it.
3. Given the potential danger to the man, should he be identified by the media?
He should not have been identified by the media. There wasn't a real clear reason on why he should've been identified. Now angry people could find and target him. After all, he had no intention of trying to cause trouble, he simply though the ball was fine to catch. It was a sincere accident, and I'm sure he's sorry.
Comments
Post a Comment