Re: Media Ethics Discussion -- COM101 Mass Communications

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 19:47:12 12/07/08 Sun
Author: Breanna McGlynn
Subject: Re: Media Ethics Discussion
In reply to: Richard Lenoce 's message, "Media Ethics Discussion" on 17:59:45 11/21/08 Fri

Scenario #1 Kiss and Tell: Publishing details of a mayor's personal life
The Windsor Star's decision: When is the mayor's relationship with his secretary a legitimate part of a story?
By Marty Beneteau and Richard Brennan, Reporters, The Windsor Star

When it comes to our political leaders, how they carry on in their personal lives it is completely relevant with regards to reporting the news. It brings to light the integrity and morals of the individual and helps the public to make sound decisions when electing them. When the men and women who run our country break the law or push moral boundaries, it not only sets precedence, but lowers the bar on how our future leaders will act.

When we elect our political figures they go through a major vetting process when it comes to their personal lives. It is reasonable to believe that an individual�s beliefs, morals, and character have a major effect on how they perform their job. Many may argue that the personal life of an elected official is their business and if they do their job well, then it shouldn�t matter what they do privately. However, the public has bestowed quite a bit of importance on personal integrity. (or at least the public has paid lots of lip service to this virtue). A good example of this situation was played out when President Bill Clinton had sexual relations with Monica Lewinski back in the mid to late 90s. His character and integrity was put under review and the fact that he lied about his relationship, left the public to wonder regarding his integrity in other areas. Clinton thought that he could compartmentalize his personal and professional life, which is the antithesis of integrity. But as a public figure the two go hand in hand. His impeachment was a public display of the intolerance our country has for the lack of integrity one possesses. If our president can not live by the vows he made in his marriage then how can he live by the vows he made to run a country? Furthermore, in his capacity as President, he could have compromised the security of the nation. Although not widely reported, the Lewinsky affair was well known by the Israeli secret service. Fortunately, they were allies instead of enemies, who could have used the information for blackmail purposes.(meforum)

When people aspire to legislate, it is reasonable for their constituents to be informed on all aspects of their elected officials life. When it comes to the character of celebrities who have no legitimate impact on American citizens then their private lives is of no real concern of anyone, except for maybe their publicist. When a senator or mayor runs for office they are knowingly putting themselves out there to the public, and it is up to them to uphold the moral standard of the public they hope to serve. Anyone who currently runs for public office is fully aware that they will be living in a fish bowl, therefore if they decide to live a life of hypocrisy they shouldn�t complain when the media does their job to report it.

As far as Mayor David Burr�s case goes, his affair with his secretary was not only affecting his personal life, but the interest of the public as well. Tax payers in Ontario were paying for his mistress to go on a trip to Japan where she had no legitimate credentials to attend the trip. This scenario is a no brainier, the reporter did what he thought was right when it came to use misuse of taxpayers� dollars. It is also hard to believe that the story of the misuse of taxpayer's money could be written without revealing the motive the mayor, and thus revealing the affair. When men and women who we trust to make decisions which define the way we live, have questionable morals it becomes the publics business. How they conduct themselves publicly and privately should be known to the public, we should know the people we are choosing to run our country. We should know the type of people they are and whether they are going to uphold moral standards whether it is in town hall, the senate, or the white house. It is our responsibility to elect leaders who are going to successfully lead our country, and it is the media�s responsibility to bring to light the type of people they are personally and professionally.

Finally as we discuss the ethics of the media in this �kiss and tell� scenario, we must keep in mind that the media is responsible for keeping the public informed on what is relevant and reasonable with regards to public figures. The voting public has been very good at sorting out what are legitimate issues of integrity and what is uncorroborated sensationalism.

Works Cited

http://www.meforum.org/article/471

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/10/sex_and_politics_usually_equal.html

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Media Ethics Discussion -- Lisa Phillips, 06:53:01 12/09/08 Tue