All Ethics Are Local

Submitted By Killml1
Words: 1487
Pages: 6

Matthew Killen
Dr. Stouse
March 10, 2013

“All Ethics Are Local”

Seeing images from both sides of the war inversely made me realize that there is nothing good about war, the problem is we cannot yet live without it. Lt. Josh Rushing USMC

March 20, 2003 the United States of America began the Iraq War. The U.S. was perceived by the public to disable a potentially lethal individual Saddam Husain. It was because of the tagline “weapons of mass destruction that Americans became ill with fear and backed the president for a war in Iraq. When no weapons were discovered the war perpetuated despite the lack of evidence for the war. This was because they or someone was able to change the narrative. In Iraq similar actions were taking place all over the world but not in favor of the U.S. or either side. The argument from the U.S. perspective was instantly reversed in Iraq, because we were at war with them. Simply put, anytime your children, wife, sister or anyone close to you is being harmed by someone else instant cognitive dissonance occurs. This will happen in any situation you are in no matter the profession. So can we even ask if Al Jazeera is an ethical station? The problem is not with the people that make the media per se the problem is the decisions that cause the news. Most people in some way always blame the media for problems around the world. The station Al Jazeera and on the other spectrum Fox and the rest of the American media have been constantly attacked for being bias towards their people and their governments. Think for a second, if a fire breaks out in California it will make the news because people will always be concerned for their people. It does not matter what you do for a living if there is something threating your home is it not in your human nature to protect it? The dilemma does not lie in a person’s reaction for self defense either by gun, missile or camera. In other words the ethical problem is with the idea that there would not be an ethical conflict of interest. This is because if your job is to be the news, the objective hustlers of truth how can you protect and help your family succeeds and survives? The problem is the perpetuation of this problem because without one there would not be another. Values are decided from person to person you can decide to be in favor of abortion, war or even believe in integrity news writing. Principles are harder to change because they come from society as unwritten laws and communal understandings. Principles are more like your anchor, firm and always holding your boat in place. If someone were attacking your family or country it would be because of principle that you defend either one in any way necessary. The problem is as a journalist from either perspective you are to be unbiased in reproach. However, decimating the public perspective of Americans in Iraq could endanger our friends and family fighting abroad. Al Jazeera just the same would endanger their people by reporting sincerely objective stories about America. The pressures surrounding the decisions were mostly out of self or close interest for the media’s perspective. In the end everyone ends up paying for their selfish choices. It is one of the worst dilemmas to have because you either report the news that could hurt your side or report news that could end war. Vietnam for example did not survive public opinion not the Vietcong’s army because of the media. The editors of the papers both local and abroad are there as reporters and as such they are to objectively report the news. In one instance in the documentary “Control Room” Samir Khader, a senior editor was lashing a reporter for giving him a bias interview. He yelled, “This is not balanced!” In both respects stations are likely doing what they can to prevent this. The moral agents are tasked with a heavy burden and decision every time the news goes on. The categorical imperative theory would suggest that as a