2007-10-16 01:35:20 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
unethical
:(
2007-10-19 23:21:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is this a question or an indictment? The media does not ignore war or poverty, but that is not due to ethics. Their only ethic is to tell the story. They will tell the stories that their listeners and readers want to hear, and at least a little bit what editors and reporters think they should hear.
For society to not act on these things when action is called for is where the ethical measure comes in.
2007-10-16 02:55:51 · answer #2 · answered by jehen 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ethical? No... but the reason is, no one wants to see the bad, the pain and suffering a war or poverty may cause. If we were shown the truth, I believe there would be an instant upraising to STOP war, and to help the impoverished.
2007-10-20 00:28:44 · answer #3 · answered by Redpoppies 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be most unethical -- but there are many media outlets that do point out war, poverty, famine, etc.
And as an ethical member of society I will point out some of these outlets as sources for my answer...
2007-10-16 02:15:13 · answer #4 · answered by Richie Paine 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Completely unethical. For example, did you ever hear of the Hungarian Freedom Fighters? At the time the US had its eyes on other people and other things, and these people fought heroically for their freedom - in vain. The Soviets just brought the tanks in. When the 40 or so civilians left fighting - all wounded, mind - they finally surrendered on the condition that they would be spared their lives. They were all massacred. During this struggle, they repeatedly called for help, but no one listened. That is why it is unethical for the media to ignore these things. It is their duty to hear these people and raise awareness about their plight, whoever 'they' may be.
2007-10-16 01:46:28 · answer #5 · answered by Daewen 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The media are in the business to make money, so they report what sells. Bad news is good news, especially if it can push the emotional buttons of the audience. People would get jaded seeing poverty and war over and over again, especially since they can not do much to alleviate it, and more so if the events they see do not affect them directly. That's way we need to depend more on free access and dissemination of info through outlets like the internet. It allows people with real and genuine motives to connect and act. Beware of politicians that want to restrict freedom of the press and your ability to communicate. They have selfish motives and want you to believe that only they can solve problems.
2007-10-16 02:05:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
what school of ethics are we talking? Under nihilistic ethics there is no problem with it at all.
2007-10-16 04:40:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think media should stay out of other afairs that do not pretain to there direct business all thou it is sad that it is happening, there are things that can be done to change the situation
2007-10-16 01:43:01 · answer #8 · answered by Fitz 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
um..no it is not ethical.
2007-10-16 03:52:21 · answer #9 · answered by shea 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is unethical.
2007-10-16 01:38:38 · answer #10 · answered by dicovi 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋