You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Philosophy of Media Ethics
Pages 5 (1255 words)
I do believe that Roll-Hansen has overstated the argument of biases resulting from commercialization of mass media, impinging on its primary function of enlightenment particularly on environmental issues and that political consequence and relativist views of science contribute indirectly to these biases.1 I will base my argument on the fact that in general the power of the media to singularly influence public opinion is over estimated and there are many factors which shape it…
I will also seek to dispel the notion that a conflict of interests develops between social science which is based on generalized information and natural sciences which focus on specifics.
Roll-Hansen has argued that while the press is designed to provide independent opinion based on reliable information and well supported knowledge, discrepancy can be created based on political expediency. Hansen has focused on the need for basing reports on, "reliable knowledge" which he implies to be, "strongly confirmed by empirical investigations" and also corroborated by, "other well established knowledge". He also dwells on the need for complete knowledge and basing reports on the whole truth as is expected from witnesses during trials.
In the second part of my exegesis I will dwell on how the specific events denoted by Hansen of acid rain and lifting the ban on whale hunting were not misrepresented by the media but were the result of relative ignorance of implications and that the biases had crept in due to external interests rather than representation of falsehood. ...
Not exactly what you need?