Equally far as the media is concerned. one ethical criterion I know they must follow is responsible coverage. If this alone is the criterion. so I would give a pollex up for the screening of the docudrama. By this standard entirely. the dissemination of the docudrama is already ethical. As claimed by the article itself. “this was a responsible and of import docudrama. It was non chiefly about Princess Diana or Dodi Al Fayed. It was about the lensmans who were subjected to an authorization instituted and media supported lynching. Locked up without charge for over two yearss.
Two old ages subsequently they were officially cleared. Mohamed Al Fayed pursued an action against them for breach of privateness and was awarded derisory amendss. ” The rights involved here are non merely those of Princess Diana or her boies or Al Fayed. The docudrama was chiefly focused on the rights of the lensmans involved. Therefore. if the motive for aerating the docudrama is to demo to the universe how they were treated without ill-motives of aching the royal household or Princess Diana’s memory. so there is no ground why it should be unethical for Channel 4 air the docudrama.
Its aerating falls as responsible coverage from where I stand. Why is it ethical? Ethical motives should be viewed from the point of position of the one whose Acts of the Apostless are concerned. In this instance. whether the act of aerating the docudrama is ethical or non should be viewed from the position of Channel 4. Many great minds support the act of Channel 4 as ethical. Of class. this is presuming that it was done in the name of responsible coverage and without bad religion on its portion. And this is a just premise because this is the lone fact we can presume from the article as this was specifically mentioned therein.
What I am driving at is that we can non presume bad religion on the portion of Channel 4. like for illustration. aerating it merely to derive evaluations or money for the mediate commercials. because these are non mentioned in the article. To continue. I will get down my defence with the ethical rules ordained by Socrates. who is regarded as one of the greatest instructors of moralss. He said that anyone who knows what virtuousness is will needfully move morally. He farther said that those who act severely. therefore. make so merely because they are nescient of. or mistaken about. the existent nature of virtuousness.
Using it to Channel 4. if they acted out of responsible coverage. so they acted ethically. If it should go on that they acted severely. so they were merely mistaken on what should hold been the proper behavior. This error should non automatically do the act unethical. Necessarily. Channel 4 should cognize what responsible coverage is. In fact. it acted upon this virtuousness. Therefore. the dissemination of the docudrama is ethical. Confucian moralss will besides back up the act of Channel 4 as ethical. The bosom of Confucian moralss is character.
He said that it ( moralss ) centres neither on Acts of the Apostless nor on their effects. but on character. Using this rule. aerating the docudrama or the effects of aerating it are non material to deterrmine whether the act is ethical or non. What matters is the character of Channel 4. Therefore. the inquiry is whether Channel 4 aired the docudrama with ill-motives or with a baronial and echt intent. Sing that Channel 4 aired the docudrama out of responsible coverage. which is a baronial intent every bit far as the media is concerned. so the act was nil but ethical for them to execute.
However. it should be borne in head here that there might be other factors which Channel 4 considered before aerating the docudrama. These other factors may perchance run from bettering evaluations. to bring forthing income from the mediate commercials. to merely merely get downing an machination. Whatever these other factors are. they will non be considered in this treatment because we do non hold adequate facts from which we could pull a nice premise. And eventually. Spinoza’s position on moralss is that nil is per se good or bad. except to the extent that it is subjectively perceived to be by the person.
He hence suggests that whether an act is ethical or non depends on the position of the individual making the act. Spinoza’s position makes my statement so simple: if Channel 4 thinks it is right and ethical to aerate the docudrama. so aerating it is right and ethical. As aforesaid. the motivation behind aerating the docudrama is responsible coverage. If responsible coverage is an ethical thing to make in the sentiment of Channel 4. so it is so. Make the populace need to cognize or desire to cognize? I will non assume to cognize what is the sentiment of the general public sing the affair.
So I will merely guess a conjecture to reply this inquiry. And I will guarantee you that it will be an intelligent conjecture. So allow me continue. Sing the facts that Princess Diana is a public figure. that the media is an industry impressed with public involvement. and that the unlawful detainment of individuals is contrary to public policy. so I would make bold state that the populace should see the docudrama. They need to cognize what is in it. In fact. it is their constitutional right to cognize. The Fundamental law guarantees that the people should be informed on affairs which are of public concern.
It need non be belabored that the fortunes environing the decease of Princess of Diana are affairs of public concern. She is a famous person and portion of the royal household. which is the public caput of England. This makes her a public figure. Furthermore. certain members of the media were wrongfully detained because of her decease. This is besides a affair of public concern. Therefore. the general populace should be informed whether the rights of these people. which rights are zealously protected by no less than the Constitution. were violated or non. So yes. the public needs to cognize about the docudrama and what is in it.