Excerpt #1:
Many Americans correlate the symbolic scale as the epitome of justice in the United States; yet the definition of justice remains ambiguous. Justice may mean a balance between guilt and innocence to one or the balance between the haves and have-nots to another. What Plato attempted to document was a clear Socratic definition of justice as well as its counterpart of injustice. Throughout The Republic, four definitions of justice are derived from conversations among Socrates and various characters. In Book IV, Plato finally reached his last definition of justice and used that definition as a focal point for the foundation of Kallipolis. One central theme of Plato’s political theory is defending the life of justice against the claim that it is not worthwhile and I would argue Plato fails to support his final definition of justice. I will provide specific examples from the text and logical reasoning to support my argument that through Socratic dialogue, Plato contradicts his very own definition of justice and fails to make a case.
Excerpt #2:
Prior to his explanation of justice, Plato mentions that a city is correctly founded and completely good when it is based upon the cardinal virtues of wisdom, courage and temperance (Plato, 135, 139). Justice is in many ways of combination of these three virtues. Plato wrote, “Justice is doing one’s own work and not meddling with what is not one’s own” (Plato, 139, 140). In other words, Plato’s final definition of justice is a sort of functional specialization in that it proposes each individual perform work which is naturally best suited for him or her. Meddling and exchange among the three classes in this “city of words” is the greatest injustice according to the text and will lead to the demise of the city (Plato, 140). By meddling, Plato means for example, if a guardian were also a craftsman or if philosopher were also a guardian, etc… Rather than justice existing as a virtue in and of itself, Plato explained that justice was a well-ordered soul comprised of reason, spirit and appetite (Plato, 143, 146). Reason and rational thinking would ideally govern appetite (desires) and spirit (emotions). This order of the soul resulted in a system of three social classes within the city: rulers (philosopher Kings), guardians and producers (Plato, 140). Plato’s definition of justice creates a sort of solid harmonious order in that the rulers only make the rules, the guardians only guard the city and enforce the rules and the producers work one job/craft and obey the rules. This system assumes that those below the rulers are incapable of knowing what is best for them and need the rulers to tell them how to live (Plato, 129, 171). This would explain why Socrates suggested the banishment of poets and storytellers as they presented a threat to this order of the city.
Excerpt #3:
Socrates said that a life without examination is worthless and essentially provoked those around him to think critically and ask questions. Plato’s definition of justice of doing one’s own work which is naturally best suited and not meddling is fundamentally a system of classes which promotes order and emphasizes functional specialization. However, for the two lower classes, the guardians and the producers, justice is accepting one role for a lifetime and obeying all the city rules set forth by the ruler. In addition to this, children are assigned jobs and specific roles to play in the city at a younger age based on the metal mixture within them determined by the Philosopher King. People did not necessarily get to choose what role they would play, or were they permitted to question anything, or even to examine their lives or change roles as this would cause disorder. Various holes exist in Plato’s correlation between justice and other themes of the ideal city of Kallipolis as discussed earlier in this paper. I suppose there truly is no right or wrong answer when considering whether a life of justice is worthwhile or not. Moreover, I suppose there truly is no universal definition of justice which can be applicable and undisputable in all or even most cases. It seems to me that justice is more or less an inherent virtue that should be free and open to all. It is through this virtue of justice that people discover a sense of moral worth and a life worth living. Plato’s vision of the ideal, just city is nothing more than an authoritative, control-crazed regime with an implemented type of social caste system upon its people. Who determines which people are just and which people are unjust? Is it possible for seemingly just individuals to really be unjust at heart? Socrates dedicated his life to the examination of others’ lives as well as his own for he felt that truth was power and wisdom was uncharacteristic of men. Yet his version of a life worth living consists of certain mental freedoms (examination) along with the opportunity for individuals to think critically and become independent thinkers of the state. A central theme to Plato’s political theory is defending the life of justice against the claim that it is not worthwhile, and it is my belief that he failed in making his case.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
"American Empire Debate: Bradley Thayer v. Christopher Layne," Critical Review Essay
Excerpt #1:
Thayer does offer sufficient support using data charts and statistical graphs that the American empire does provide international stability and economic prosperity to a certain extent as well as his assessment of the immense power the United States military wields; however some significant flaws exist within his argument for primacy. Thayer’s portrayal of the United States as an altruistic nation which willingly takes on the role as a global police force is somewhat outrageous and far-stretched. Thayer says earlier in his argument that leaders of the American empire do not call attention to themselves and the immense power of the state for the purposes of avoiding other states balancing against the U.S. Therefore, I am at a loss of words as to why the United States would take on the role as global police, crushing the evil and helping the good, if it were trying to stay out of negative international attention and avoid being perceived as an international threat. If the American empire were as generous as he labeled it, might it rescue more Third world countries in need or perhaps put an end to the ethnic conflict in Darfur?
Excerpt #2:
While Layne’s argument began with a great deal of potential, it quickly digressed from explaining the grand strategy of self-resistance to focusing solely on the conflict in Iraq and bashing of the Bush administration as supporting evidence. Layne claims that terrorist groups like al Qaeda are a form of backlash against longstanding U.S. policies of primacy in the Middle East (69). While this stance does hold some credence, his argument needed more than the Iraq case. If perhaps large scale military interventions similar to Iraq became a more common occurrence in future U.S. strategy, this notion of preemption/prevention, then Layne might have been able to support his claim that primacy hurts the U.S. more strongly.
I agree with Layne in that grand strategists must be aware that over-investing in security in the short term can weaken the state in the long term by eroding the economic foundations of national power and the democratic domestic politics of the American empire (121). Furthermore, I agree with Thayer in that American primacy does offer some international stability in terms of economics and global security institutions. But the fact remains that the international system is one defined by anarchy, therefore whether the American empire engages in primacy or self-restraint, outside relations with other states and globalization will ultimately determine the future. Both arguments contained significant flaws, largely ignored the fact that globalization affects how states act regardless if implementing a strategy of self-restraint or primacy, and were unable to convince me one way or the other what the grand strategy for United States policy should entail.
Thayer does offer sufficient support using data charts and statistical graphs that the American empire does provide international stability and economic prosperity to a certain extent as well as his assessment of the immense power the United States military wields; however some significant flaws exist within his argument for primacy. Thayer’s portrayal of the United States as an altruistic nation which willingly takes on the role as a global police force is somewhat outrageous and far-stretched. Thayer says earlier in his argument that leaders of the American empire do not call attention to themselves and the immense power of the state for the purposes of avoiding other states balancing against the U.S. Therefore, I am at a loss of words as to why the United States would take on the role as global police, crushing the evil and helping the good, if it were trying to stay out of negative international attention and avoid being perceived as an international threat. If the American empire were as generous as he labeled it, might it rescue more Third world countries in need or perhaps put an end to the ethnic conflict in Darfur?
Excerpt #2:
While Layne’s argument began with a great deal of potential, it quickly digressed from explaining the grand strategy of self-resistance to focusing solely on the conflict in Iraq and bashing of the Bush administration as supporting evidence. Layne claims that terrorist groups like al Qaeda are a form of backlash against longstanding U.S. policies of primacy in the Middle East (69). While this stance does hold some credence, his argument needed more than the Iraq case. If perhaps large scale military interventions similar to Iraq became a more common occurrence in future U.S. strategy, this notion of preemption/prevention, then Layne might have been able to support his claim that primacy hurts the U.S. more strongly.
I agree with Layne in that grand strategists must be aware that over-investing in security in the short term can weaken the state in the long term by eroding the economic foundations of national power and the democratic domestic politics of the American empire (121). Furthermore, I agree with Thayer in that American primacy does offer some international stability in terms of economics and global security institutions. But the fact remains that the international system is one defined by anarchy, therefore whether the American empire engages in primacy or self-restraint, outside relations with other states and globalization will ultimately determine the future. Both arguments contained significant flaws, largely ignored the fact that globalization affects how states act regardless if implementing a strategy of self-restraint or primacy, and were unable to convince me one way or the other what the grand strategy for United States policy should entail.
"Theories of International Relations," Midterm Essay
Excerpt #1:
Two dominant theories prevail within the study of international politics: realism and liberalism. Since the founding of the two concepts, political theorists have modified, enhanced and even added further provisions to both realism and liberalism (i.e. neo-realism and neo-liberalism). This paper will explain the fundamentals of both theories, with an emphasis on positive and negative components, and apply them to the international community Post-Cold War era. The two theories equally offer useful guidelines for leaders to implement when constructing its domestic foreign policy and for that reason a cohesive theory which draws upon certain aspects of both liberalism and realism would be preferred. It might not be feasible for one theory alone to satisfactorily analyze and explain global politics in the 21st century. However for the purposes of this paper, I believe the one theory of international relations that offers the best tools for analyzing global politics in this new century is liberalism.
Excerpt #2:
The theory of liberalism serves as the most efficient and accurate for the purposes of analyzing global politics in the 21st century. The international system of the 21st century is indeed one of increasing globalization and economic interdependence. The current seven or eight great powers in the world, United States, China, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Russia, and Japan, have all embraced the open-trade market and capitalism (with some restraints) and experienced consistent growth rates. Therefore, this notion of autarky and economic independence set forth in realism is not where the current direction of the world is heading. Most countries which cannot compete in the global market find themselves struggling and lacking significant power. States with flourishing economies now hove an incentive to communicate and cooperate to some degree internationally in order to sustain healthy trade relations. Liberalism succeeds in analyzing the current occurrence of interdependence among states economically.
Next, in a system of growing technology and international communication systems, it is quite apparent that states are not the only actors of significance. In Transnational Activist Networks, the authors explain that NGOs can bypass their state directly and search out international allies to try to bring pressure on their states from outside (Keck: 533). Non-state actors gain influence by serving as alternative sources of information; for example, in the United States, human rights groups got leverage by providing policy-makers with information that convinced them to cut off military and economic aid (Keck: 537). This concept of accountability politics wherein NGOs pressure their national governments or other international institutions to act is especially prevalent in democratic nations. The debate between realists and liberalists regarding the effectiveness of international institutions is everlasting with very distinct arguments. While many international institutions such as the United Nations, NATO, WTO, IMF have an essential purpose to be functionally dysfunctional; some issues arise in terms of effectiveness. According to The False Promise of International Institutions, institutions are defined as a set of rules that stipulate the ways in which states should cooperate and compete with each other (Mearsheimer: 4). It might be a valid claim to argue that many international organizations would cease to exist or be funded at all if the United States did not take the initiative, therefore various international organizations seem to be an extension of U.S. power among international affairs. Some might also argue that international institutions such as the U.N. are not recognized as legitimate by other states. The U.S. very well might have helped to fuel that debate when it acted unilaterally, ignoring other states objections and invading Iraq in 2003. However, the realist argument does not hold in terms of cooperation among states in the 21st century system.
International institutions serve as third-party interventions which help to mediate conflict and promote global communication. Some of the worst disasters in history have occurred because of misinformation or simple misunderstandings. In International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?, Robert Keohane argues that institutions create the capability for states to cooperate in mutually beneficial ways by reducing the costs of making and enforcing agreements (Keohane: 121). “International institutions can reduce uncertainty by promoting negotiations in which transparency is encouraged; by dealing with a series of issues over many years and under similar rules, thus encouraging honesty in order to preserve future reputation; and by systematically monitoring the compliance of governments with their commitments” (Keohane: 121). The benefit of these institutions is that they create an international information structure which determines what is acceptable and what is legitimate among international relationships.
Lastly, liberalism offers a better approach to analyzing the current system of global politics because it promotes the old Wilsonian idea of democratic morality and peace. This idea that democracies do not go to war with each other is explained in Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, “Even though liberal states have become involved in numerous war with non-liberal states, constitutionally secure liberal states have yet to engage in war with one another” (Doyle: 85). This might be so because democracies tend to be capitalist states with strong economic interdependence on one another or simply because democracies do not perceive one another as enemies; nonetheless historical evidence supports this facet of liberalism.
Two dominant theories prevail within the study of international politics: realism and liberalism. Since the founding of the two concepts, political theorists have modified, enhanced and even added further provisions to both realism and liberalism (i.e. neo-realism and neo-liberalism). This paper will explain the fundamentals of both theories, with an emphasis on positive and negative components, and apply them to the international community Post-Cold War era. The two theories equally offer useful guidelines for leaders to implement when constructing its domestic foreign policy and for that reason a cohesive theory which draws upon certain aspects of both liberalism and realism would be preferred. It might not be feasible for one theory alone to satisfactorily analyze and explain global politics in the 21st century. However for the purposes of this paper, I believe the one theory of international relations that offers the best tools for analyzing global politics in this new century is liberalism.
Excerpt #2:
The theory of liberalism serves as the most efficient and accurate for the purposes of analyzing global politics in the 21st century. The international system of the 21st century is indeed one of increasing globalization and economic interdependence. The current seven or eight great powers in the world, United States, China, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Russia, and Japan, have all embraced the open-trade market and capitalism (with some restraints) and experienced consistent growth rates. Therefore, this notion of autarky and economic independence set forth in realism is not where the current direction of the world is heading. Most countries which cannot compete in the global market find themselves struggling and lacking significant power. States with flourishing economies now hove an incentive to communicate and cooperate to some degree internationally in order to sustain healthy trade relations. Liberalism succeeds in analyzing the current occurrence of interdependence among states economically.
Next, in a system of growing technology and international communication systems, it is quite apparent that states are not the only actors of significance. In Transnational Activist Networks, the authors explain that NGOs can bypass their state directly and search out international allies to try to bring pressure on their states from outside (Keck: 533). Non-state actors gain influence by serving as alternative sources of information; for example, in the United States, human rights groups got leverage by providing policy-makers with information that convinced them to cut off military and economic aid (Keck: 537). This concept of accountability politics wherein NGOs pressure their national governments or other international institutions to act is especially prevalent in democratic nations. The debate between realists and liberalists regarding the effectiveness of international institutions is everlasting with very distinct arguments. While many international institutions such as the United Nations, NATO, WTO, IMF have an essential purpose to be functionally dysfunctional; some issues arise in terms of effectiveness. According to The False Promise of International Institutions, institutions are defined as a set of rules that stipulate the ways in which states should cooperate and compete with each other (Mearsheimer: 4). It might be a valid claim to argue that many international organizations would cease to exist or be funded at all if the United States did not take the initiative, therefore various international organizations seem to be an extension of U.S. power among international affairs. Some might also argue that international institutions such as the U.N. are not recognized as legitimate by other states. The U.S. very well might have helped to fuel that debate when it acted unilaterally, ignoring other states objections and invading Iraq in 2003. However, the realist argument does not hold in terms of cooperation among states in the 21st century system.
International institutions serve as third-party interventions which help to mediate conflict and promote global communication. Some of the worst disasters in history have occurred because of misinformation or simple misunderstandings. In International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?, Robert Keohane argues that institutions create the capability for states to cooperate in mutually beneficial ways by reducing the costs of making and enforcing agreements (Keohane: 121). “International institutions can reduce uncertainty by promoting negotiations in which transparency is encouraged; by dealing with a series of issues over many years and under similar rules, thus encouraging honesty in order to preserve future reputation; and by systematically monitoring the compliance of governments with their commitments” (Keohane: 121). The benefit of these institutions is that they create an international information structure which determines what is acceptable and what is legitimate among international relationships.
Lastly, liberalism offers a better approach to analyzing the current system of global politics because it promotes the old Wilsonian idea of democratic morality and peace. This idea that democracies do not go to war with each other is explained in Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, “Even though liberal states have become involved in numerous war with non-liberal states, constitutionally secure liberal states have yet to engage in war with one another” (Doyle: 85). This might be so because democracies tend to be capitalist states with strong economic interdependence on one another or simply because democracies do not perceive one another as enemies; nonetheless historical evidence supports this facet of liberalism.
"A Study in News Media Ethics," Reflection Essay
Excerpt #1:
The theme of this next reflection will focus upon the corporate culture of the media and concentration of ownership over media outlets. More specifically, this reflection will provide an exploration of the trends within corporate media organizations as well as the dangers of corporate influences and how it could affect journalistic values such as social responsibility, objectivity/bias or an ethical professional code of conduct. For the purposes of better understanding the effects corporate giants have on journalistic ethics, it is necessary to briefly explore the transition of concentration of ownership in the media over time as well as provide an overview to the structure of corporate ownership. The latter portion of the essay will focus upon how the corporate culture and concentration of ownership in media organizations affect journalistic ethics. Specific cases will be used to illustrate the ethical sacrifices journalists have made for the benefit of the corporate executives.
Excerpt #2:
For the purposes of determining if any ethical values have been compromised by the corporate culture of news organizations, it will be useful to first identify the set of journalistic values which will be used to measure this inquiry. Kovach and Rosenstiel assert that journalists have an allegiance to citizens that we have come to call journalistic independence and that this independence is a sort of social obligation which at times overrides corporate employers’ immediate interests (The Elements of Journalism, 53). I will use Lambeth’s five journalistic duties- truth-telling, justice, freedom, humanness and stewardship- as a guide to determine if the corporate culture affects the quality of journalism (Class notes/Discussion). The deontological method will be useful in this analysis as it is concerned with duty or more specifically, a set of moral laws with which to abide regardless of the situation. In other words, a journalist has certain duties while practicing journalism regardless of who employs him or her. I would also like to add three extra duties identified by author and contributor to the Poynter Institute, Geneva Overholser, which are accountability, objectivity and professionalism (Action Steps: Ensuring that Journalism in the Public Interest Survives). Ben Bagdikian argued in The Media Monopoly, “Narrow control, whether by government or corporations, is inherently bad. In the end, no small group, certainly no group with as much uniformity of outlook and as concentrated in power as the current media corporations, can be sufficiently open and flexible to reflect the full richness and variety of society’s values and needs. … The answer is not elimination of private enterprise in the media, but the opposite. It is the restoration of genuine competition and diversity” (223-224). The concern in terms of ethical journalistic values centers upon the significant lack of diversity and the prevalence of bias within news reports. Anup Shah goes so far as to claim that since so many of the large media owners are entertainment companies, broadcast journalism and much of print journalism, as well as the book publishing industry, are increasingly criticized for having become appendages to entertainment empires (Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues.org).
Lack of diversity fueled by corporate culture of news organizations and concentration of ownership deeply impacts ethical journalism in that it forces journalists many times to choose between getting their paychecks and producing responsible, ethical journalism. The duty of accountability to the public becomes close to non-existent when journalists work in such an environment where management disregards what is good for the public as a whole and instead, promotes its own personal agendas. Journalists remain accountable to produce work which reflects corporate interest and the people no longer have a voice. Objectivity is deeply affected in that news reports produced within these corporate news organizations are shaped to fit whatever idea makes the company more money. If a chain of news organizations is owned by a conservative, it may consistently use different sources and contributors than a liberal news organization. Professionalism is blatantly decreased among journalists working in corporate news organizations for many reasons including a failure to establish an independent council to track, promote, define independent news function in U.S. journalistic standards are also swept under the rug in a manner that allows executives to dictate the structure of the journalism being published at that specific time. Lambeth’s five journalistic duties take a major blow as corporate control of the media becomes more prevalent. As we have seen earlier, many journalists working in these news organizations are not being asked for any input, they are simply assigned what to do and how to do it while always keeping in mind the company’s well-being. This translates into potentially slanted stories used by media owners as a means of getting a private agenda across to its public audience, usually for some monetary or political gain. Duties such as truth-telling, justice, freedom, humanness and stewardship are sacrificed essentially for individual greed. It seems that journalists are reluctant to stand against this horrific trend in order to protect the ethical values and responsibilities that they owe to their public audience.
Excerpt #3:
One positive aspect to this seemingly dim trend in journalism is that we as future journalists can fight for reform and regulations which would help to ensure an independent and socially responsible press. After extensive research, it is apparent that the journalistic duty most harmed by the prevailing corporate culture and concentration of ownership is the idea of journalistic independence. If the reporting and writing of a certain news organization reflects solely those views projected by management and corporate owners, journalists sacrifice duties such as truth-telling, justice, freedom, objectivity, accountability to the public and so on. This issue threatens the ethical and moral quality of current and future journalism and those who desire to work in the field. Geneva Overholser suggests in her article “Action Steps: Ensuring that Journalism in the Public Interest Survives,” that news organization should take the responsibility to create networks to enhance effectiveness such as conducting annual self-audits and making the results public. One media outlet which serves as a perfect example of this concept and role model for other news organizations is the Guardian Newspapers Limited in the United Kingdom. In 2002, the paper responded to the challenge of developing a new relationship with its readers when it launched a major effort in transparency, creating an annual audit called “Living Our Values” (The Elements of Journalism, 68). According to Kovach and Rosenstiel, “Rather than presenting the company as two separate organizations, the Guardian audit describes how the values shared by the business and the news sides combine to serve a public interest” (The Elements of Journalism, 69). As shown in this example, the corporate culture of the news organization helped to serve the public interest rather than to bring down the ethical and social responsibility journalists have to their public audiences. Journalists should not be reporting and writing to entertain or amuse the public; they play a very important role in our democratic society creating open and public discourse and keeping the public informed on a regional, national and global basis. It is the duty of a journalist to report in a manner that is honest, just, independent, humane and to hold themselves accountable as professionals. It is very important for news organizations to work together to support universal standards for journalism which should include: the owner/corporation must be committed to citizens first, hire business managers who also put citizens first, set and communicate clear standards, journalists must have the final say over news and finally communicate clear standards to the public (The Elements of Journalism, 70-73).
I feel strongly and agree with Geneva Overholser that journalists should assume a responsibility for speaking out on behalf of viable and independent media as individuals and through organizations. Without a free, honest and independent press, the future of our democracy is in jeopardy as the focus of the press becomes a sort of “dog-eat-dog”, self-centered business obsessed with money and politics.
The theme of this next reflection will focus upon the corporate culture of the media and concentration of ownership over media outlets. More specifically, this reflection will provide an exploration of the trends within corporate media organizations as well as the dangers of corporate influences and how it could affect journalistic values such as social responsibility, objectivity/bias or an ethical professional code of conduct. For the purposes of better understanding the effects corporate giants have on journalistic ethics, it is necessary to briefly explore the transition of concentration of ownership in the media over time as well as provide an overview to the structure of corporate ownership. The latter portion of the essay will focus upon how the corporate culture and concentration of ownership in media organizations affect journalistic ethics. Specific cases will be used to illustrate the ethical sacrifices journalists have made for the benefit of the corporate executives.
Excerpt #2:
For the purposes of determining if any ethical values have been compromised by the corporate culture of news organizations, it will be useful to first identify the set of journalistic values which will be used to measure this inquiry. Kovach and Rosenstiel assert that journalists have an allegiance to citizens that we have come to call journalistic independence and that this independence is a sort of social obligation which at times overrides corporate employers’ immediate interests (The Elements of Journalism, 53). I will use Lambeth’s five journalistic duties- truth-telling, justice, freedom, humanness and stewardship- as a guide to determine if the corporate culture affects the quality of journalism (Class notes/Discussion). The deontological method will be useful in this analysis as it is concerned with duty or more specifically, a set of moral laws with which to abide regardless of the situation. In other words, a journalist has certain duties while practicing journalism regardless of who employs him or her. I would also like to add three extra duties identified by author and contributor to the Poynter Institute, Geneva Overholser, which are accountability, objectivity and professionalism (Action Steps: Ensuring that Journalism in the Public Interest Survives). Ben Bagdikian argued in The Media Monopoly, “Narrow control, whether by government or corporations, is inherently bad. In the end, no small group, certainly no group with as much uniformity of outlook and as concentrated in power as the current media corporations, can be sufficiently open and flexible to reflect the full richness and variety of society’s values and needs. … The answer is not elimination of private enterprise in the media, but the opposite. It is the restoration of genuine competition and diversity” (223-224). The concern in terms of ethical journalistic values centers upon the significant lack of diversity and the prevalence of bias within news reports. Anup Shah goes so far as to claim that since so many of the large media owners are entertainment companies, broadcast journalism and much of print journalism, as well as the book publishing industry, are increasingly criticized for having become appendages to entertainment empires (Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues.org).
Lack of diversity fueled by corporate culture of news organizations and concentration of ownership deeply impacts ethical journalism in that it forces journalists many times to choose between getting their paychecks and producing responsible, ethical journalism. The duty of accountability to the public becomes close to non-existent when journalists work in such an environment where management disregards what is good for the public as a whole and instead, promotes its own personal agendas. Journalists remain accountable to produce work which reflects corporate interest and the people no longer have a voice. Objectivity is deeply affected in that news reports produced within these corporate news organizations are shaped to fit whatever idea makes the company more money. If a chain of news organizations is owned by a conservative, it may consistently use different sources and contributors than a liberal news organization. Professionalism is blatantly decreased among journalists working in corporate news organizations for many reasons including a failure to establish an independent council to track, promote, define independent news function in U.S. journalistic standards are also swept under the rug in a manner that allows executives to dictate the structure of the journalism being published at that specific time. Lambeth’s five journalistic duties take a major blow as corporate control of the media becomes more prevalent. As we have seen earlier, many journalists working in these news organizations are not being asked for any input, they are simply assigned what to do and how to do it while always keeping in mind the company’s well-being. This translates into potentially slanted stories used by media owners as a means of getting a private agenda across to its public audience, usually for some monetary or political gain. Duties such as truth-telling, justice, freedom, humanness and stewardship are sacrificed essentially for individual greed. It seems that journalists are reluctant to stand against this horrific trend in order to protect the ethical values and responsibilities that they owe to their public audience.
Excerpt #3:
One positive aspect to this seemingly dim trend in journalism is that we as future journalists can fight for reform and regulations which would help to ensure an independent and socially responsible press. After extensive research, it is apparent that the journalistic duty most harmed by the prevailing corporate culture and concentration of ownership is the idea of journalistic independence. If the reporting and writing of a certain news organization reflects solely those views projected by management and corporate owners, journalists sacrifice duties such as truth-telling, justice, freedom, objectivity, accountability to the public and so on. This issue threatens the ethical and moral quality of current and future journalism and those who desire to work in the field. Geneva Overholser suggests in her article “Action Steps: Ensuring that Journalism in the Public Interest Survives,” that news organization should take the responsibility to create networks to enhance effectiveness such as conducting annual self-audits and making the results public. One media outlet which serves as a perfect example of this concept and role model for other news organizations is the Guardian Newspapers Limited in the United Kingdom. In 2002, the paper responded to the challenge of developing a new relationship with its readers when it launched a major effort in transparency, creating an annual audit called “Living Our Values” (The Elements of Journalism, 68). According to Kovach and Rosenstiel, “Rather than presenting the company as two separate organizations, the Guardian audit describes how the values shared by the business and the news sides combine to serve a public interest” (The Elements of Journalism, 69). As shown in this example, the corporate culture of the news organization helped to serve the public interest rather than to bring down the ethical and social responsibility journalists have to their public audiences. Journalists should not be reporting and writing to entertain or amuse the public; they play a very important role in our democratic society creating open and public discourse and keeping the public informed on a regional, national and global basis. It is the duty of a journalist to report in a manner that is honest, just, independent, humane and to hold themselves accountable as professionals. It is very important for news organizations to work together to support universal standards for journalism which should include: the owner/corporation must be committed to citizens first, hire business managers who also put citizens first, set and communicate clear standards, journalists must have the final say over news and finally communicate clear standards to the public (The Elements of Journalism, 70-73).
I feel strongly and agree with Geneva Overholser that journalists should assume a responsibility for speaking out on behalf of viable and independent media as individuals and through organizations. Without a free, honest and independent press, the future of our democracy is in jeopardy as the focus of the press becomes a sort of “dog-eat-dog”, self-centered business obsessed with money and politics.
"Leadership and Moral Responsibility," Term Paper
While it is difficult to teach students and faculty members at a university the importance of moral responsibility, the university’s educational environment can make some effective changes to build leadership skills and moral responsibility among its students. I would like to reference Higher Learning in America, by Robert Hutchins as a guide to further explain my point of view. Hutchins claims that the problem with universities is that they are essentially money-making machines which cause several problems within the system. He goes on to say that universities are spending too much time attempting to maintain an attractive social life that they degrade the education of its students. Also, instead of pursuing truth and knowledge for its own sake, universities strive to solely prepare students for work. Hutchins claims that by instructing students in classic and theoretical studies, schools will prepare students for any advanced study of work because this form of education draws out the elements of our common human nature.
My prescription for the university’s educational environment would be to restructure the core curriculum in a fashion which allows for students of all majors to become better-rounded in terms of acquiring more knowledge in general. Another thing I might add would be to take the focus off of grades within the university and place the focus on learning and taking something useful away from a course. I would suggest that instead of universities pooling its money to build new sports facilities or student venues, it should spend its money on educational tools/facilities or even perhaps student study abroad financial aid programs. Final tests in courses should be an essay, short answer format so that students can properly demonstrate the knowledge gained from the course and his or her ability to organize thoughts in a clear and advanced level. We have been socialized into getting the degree at any and all costs, however somewhere in the shuffle the importance of knowledge and understanding has been forgotten. It is imperative to the future of our society that universities shape better-rounded students (academically and personally) so that our future leaders are capable of strong, morally responsible leadership.
My prescription for the university’s educational environment would be to restructure the core curriculum in a fashion which allows for students of all majors to become better-rounded in terms of acquiring more knowledge in general. Another thing I might add would be to take the focus off of grades within the university and place the focus on learning and taking something useful away from a course. I would suggest that instead of universities pooling its money to build new sports facilities or student venues, it should spend its money on educational tools/facilities or even perhaps student study abroad financial aid programs. Final tests in courses should be an essay, short answer format so that students can properly demonstrate the knowledge gained from the course and his or her ability to organize thoughts in a clear and advanced level. We have been socialized into getting the degree at any and all costs, however somewhere in the shuffle the importance of knowledge and understanding has been forgotten. It is imperative to the future of our society that universities shape better-rounded students (academically and personally) so that our future leaders are capable of strong, morally responsible leadership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)