Discuss the claim that the press in the 20th century became a medium Essay

Discuss the claim that the press in the 20th century became a medium of advertising, whereas the press was free in the 19th century - Essay Example However what is currently the case has never been like the one which used to be so in the 19th century. The press of modern times relies more on placing the advertisements rather than giving the readers something to read about. In other words, it is more interested in propagating advertisements than the news and reports on which the readers are focused. There is now an aspect of compromise when it comes to putting a news report and the newspaper editor thinks of placing an advertisement on the specified place for the report so that he could earn more and bring more revenues for his newspaper or magazine. This means that the unethical attitudes are pretty much apparent in the whole contexts of press and these need to be adjusted in a manner which could balance the benefits as well as make the news reports and analyzes visible in between the pages of the newspaper or magazine. With the advent of advertising trends with expensive placements in between the pages and inserts coming into the whole equation, visibility of these advertisements is a significant feature of their placement. Thus there is a greater amount of concentration as far as these advertisements are concerned when one compares the same with the case that was applicable in the 19th century. Back in those days, press used to be fair, without the tension of placing any advertisements or paid notices. But now the case has totally changed since the press is bent upon making more money out of their media vehicle and thus it knows it can play with its advertising strategies and exploitation means in order to usurp money and the like from the advertisers but what it forgets at the end of the day is that the readers generally do not appreciate these efforts. It is also a fact that the routine stuff is absorbed in a manner by the readers so that they become used to the very same kind of

Create a dialogue between two people. Describe and critique two Essay

Create a dialogue between two people. Describe and critique two perspectives on morality - Essay Example I believe in utilitarian ethics and I would like to discuss it with you and maybe learn about your moral basis.† Steve was delighted by the topic and replied, â€Å"I have also noted our differences and attributed it to diversity. Discussing our moral values would be important to our interpersonal relationship and will improve our perspective on our environments. I believe in deontology ethics. Could you please tell me about your ethical perspective?† David: â€Å"Utilitarian ethical perspective is based on the concept maximum good to a majority of members of the society (Brooks and Dunn 183). It informs judgment on a act, whether of commission or of omission, based on effects on members of the society and therefore means that morality of an act is determined after members of the society have interacted with the act and its effects, both positive and negative have been observed. The act is then said to be unethical if realized bad effects on members of the society are m ore significant than benefits from the act. It is however considered moral if greater benefits can be derived from it and this identifies two perspectives to determining ethics in an act, the extent of effects on people and the number of people that the act affect. Utilitarianism also relates to decisions whose implementation has effects on people. Rule utilitarianism explains this by offering rules that can lead to maximum good in a society. A decision to restrict a person’s right to smoke in a public place is for example moral under utilitarian ethics because while it may infringe the smoker’s need and may be cause distress, it will be beneficial to many other people I the immediate environment through ensuring clean air and protecting the people’s lives (Kanniyakonil 65- 66).† David: â€Å"I should have been keen to note that your judgments are based on consequentialism. My ethical perspective, deontology, is however a rule based perspective to moral j udgment. The perspective associates morality with duty that is expected of people in a society and is based on social rules. It is different from your ethical perspective because it disregards consequences of an act or a decision. An act that is consistent with established rules is for example considered ethical despite its negative consequence to members of the society and an act that contradicts existing rules and obligations is considered immoral irrespective of the net benefit that in which it results. considering your example of smoking in a public place and suppose that a the society allows people to smoke in public places, then the act of smoking is considered moral regardless of the air pollution and its associated effects on people’s health (Basford and Slevin 214, Showler 21)† David: â€Å"Reliance on rules for judging decisions and actions has the benefits in fair judgment and this is contrary to the scope of your utilitarian approach that also appear to be subjective. One of my concerns with utilitarian approach to ethics is the lack of a suitable measure for benefits and harm of an act. There is no standard measure and this compromises reliability and fairness because some people may be more sensitive than others are while some may exaggerate consequences. It is also difficult to identify population segments that have been affected by an act or a decis