The situation of this is that copies of music are being leaked on the internet and people are buying them illegally, causing the music industry to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars because people are freely buying songs instead of purchasing them. This is a journalism ethics question because music magazines like Rolling Stones and Billboard are putting out articles on this situation, and will even go as far as to include a link so that the reader can listen to the leaked music. The question now is, is this ethical? Aren't these music magazines just publishing illegal music and promoting the download of leaked music?
I think that this is definitely an unethical thing to do. These magazines are essentially promoting a practice that has plagued the music industry for years. This is morally bad because if this music goes around, artists can't make money for making a catchy song because people are buying their songs illegally. Not to mention the obvious fact that these magazines are promoting illegal actions, which is technically only one step away from being criminal.
2. Deep Throat, and His Motive
The situation is that when Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward's story on the Watergate scandal broke, it was a huge success that impacted americans everywhere. Although, the journalists did protect their source, nicknamed "Deep Throat" and did not reveal his name until 2005. The question is, is it ethical to not release the name of the informant in the story?
I think that it is ethical to not release the name of the informant, because he has the right to his privacy and he might not be willing to give good information if he is afraid that his identity might be leaked.
The situation is that when Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward's story on the Watergate scandal broke, it was a huge success that impacted americans everywhere. Although, the journalists did protect their source, nicknamed "Deep Throat" and did not reveal his name until 2005. The question is, is it ethical to not release the name of the informant in the story?
I think that it is ethical to not release the name of the informant, because he has the right to his privacy and he might not be willing to give good information if he is afraid that his identity might be leaked.
3. Offensive Images
After images making fun of the prophet Mohammed were released in 2006, they were noted by many islamic leaders, and the images caused rioting, burning embassies, and killing in islamic countries. The story was picked up, but many news sources opted to just describe the images in question, rather than actually printing the images themselves. The question is, is it ethical to print these images?
I don't think that it's ethical to print these images. Obviously the images are very dangerous, and people are rioting and dying because of them. I just don't think it would be right to print images as offensive as these.
After images making fun of the prophet Mohammed were released in 2006, they were noted by many islamic leaders, and the images caused rioting, burning embassies, and killing in islamic countries. The story was picked up, but many news sources opted to just describe the images in question, rather than actually printing the images themselves. The question is, is it ethical to print these images?
I don't think that it's ethical to print these images. Obviously the images are very dangerous, and people are rioting and dying because of them. I just don't think it would be right to print images as offensive as these.
No comments:
Post a Comment