Summary of Issue and Why It Was Chosen
What is private and what is not is an issue that is still taking place today. In 2011 the Supreme Court “decided that corporations and unions could contribute an unlimited amount of money to political campaigns” (Wilkins et al., 2019). This decision drastically changed the election of 2012 and any election going forward. In the 2012 elections, the presidential campaign candidates were receiving donations from major high-rollers. According to the New York Times, various millionaires and billionaires, including Harold Simmons and Peter Thiel, gave $1 million and $2.6 million, respectively, to Newt Gingrich’s political action committee and U.S. Representative Ron Paul’s political action committee. Wilkins et al. (2019) in their book states that many of the major dollar donors were on record with contentious political ideas or corporate judgments.”
Most of these company owners began to not only lose clients but also get unfavorable news attention in multiple situations. Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, stated that “the coverage was infringing on the donors’ right to free expression” (Wilkins et al., 2019). The topic was selected because it is currently occurring and will affect every election for the rest of the time until anything is done to rectify it.
Legal and Ethical Issues Present in This Case
The legal concern that is pertinent in this case scenario would be the First Amendment. The United States Constitution states that Congress may not authorize any law that constrains the right to free expression (U.S. Constitution). The Republican from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, who was previously mentioned, claimed that the donor’s freedom of speech was being violated. There is no doubt that many Americans would applaud journalists who spread knowledge to the general population. They shared facts that the American people would not have known if it had not been done.
It is known that there are situations and justifications for withholding information from the public. Maintaining a person’s reputation is frequently the motivation. Although it had less to do with his donations, United States Representative Ron Paul would not want his supporters to know that Peter Thiel “had blamed giving women the right to vote on the increase of welfare” (Wilkins et al., 2019). It is at this moment when moral dilemmas arise, at which point it becomes a subjective matter. One individual could be interested in knowing who is financially supporting the politician they are supporting. This would be if they really wanted to know whom their candidate was working with. If they genuinely wanted to know whom their candidate was working with, they would do this.
The privacy of people who do not want this information made public, however, should be respected. The Society of Professional Journalists’ guiding principle holds that minimizing injury in this situation is crucial. According to the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics, journalists should “demonstrate compassion for individuals who may be impacted by news coverage”(Campbell & Denham, 2021). The laws of communication in effect today still apply to this matter, and a new presidential election will take place in 2020. Numerous wealthy individuals continue to support and contribute to many of the candidates. Donors are still exempt from the need that their identities be made public when making these contributions to candidates. The court cases that were previously chosen had an impact on this case. In the New York Times v. United States case, it was established that a journalist may essentially publish whatever they wanted and that it would be protected by the First Amendment (Gui & Büchi, 2021). Even if this case also deals with the right to free expression, it may be considered the exact reverse. However, it discusses how the contributors’ liberties were constrained by the notoriety they received.
There are two legal procedures that, in my opinion, would be relevant here. First, you should weigh potential injury or discomfort against the public’s desire for knowledge. Secondly, understanding the distinction between a moral basis for publication or broadcast and legal access to information. Even if some members of the public might not want to know who is supporting the politicians they plan to support, freedom of expression nonetheless permits the public dissemination of this information. Future digital communication can benefit from the findings of this problem. There are rules in place for almost everything. Media practitioners must follow a strong code of ethics and remember to respect not just the rules but also their own ethics. As digital communications evolve, media practitioners must evolve as well.
For the final project, three potential sources will be used to shed light and reflect on the above topic will include the following;
Craft, S., & Vos, T. P. (2021). The Ethics of Transparency. In The Routledge Companion to Journalism Ethics (Pp. 175-183). Routledge. Web.
As the twenty-first century progresses, the discipline of journalism faces several obstacles. The article will be used to elaborate on the meaning of the SPJ Code of Ethics, reminding journalists that they act as watchdogs over public affairs and government and that they must be vigilant and bold enough in holding such stances and therefore forming conclusions regarding the same.
Christians, C. G., Fackler, M., Richardson, K. B., & Kreshel, P. J. (2020). Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning. Routledge. Web.
Journalists are often faced with ethical dilemmas in their line of duty. While these dilemmas can be seen as light cases that in most cases require very little consideration, it greatly impacts the discharging of duties. Journalists must be equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge to counter these scenarios. By considering various ethical issues, the book will be used to draw connections on several ethical philosophies through moral reasoning thus facilitating ethical awareness among the journalists.
Christians, C. G. (2019). Media Ethics and Global Justice in The Digital Age. Cambridge University Press. Web.
The impact of the law in streamlining media ethics and coverage cannot be overstated. It is through the law, that the media is required to provide credible and reliable information without bias otherwise one may get sued. The book will be used in the final project just to illustrate the role thus, importance, and need of the law in general when it comes to media.
References
Campbell, K. S., & Denham, B. E. (2021). Determinants of attitudes toward ethical dilemmas in news: A survey of student journalists. Journal of Media Ethics, 36(3), 170-179. Web.
Gui, M., & Büchi, M. (2021). From use to overuse: Digital inequality in the age of communication abundance. Social Science Computer Review, 39(1), 3-19. Web.
U.S. Constitution. (1791). U.S. Constitution- Amendment I.
Wilkins, L., Painter, C., & Patterson, P. (2019). Media ethics (9th ed., pp. 45-350). Rowman & Littlefield Publishing.