As an editor of a weekly magazine, there are many responsibilities. Upper management recently came to the editor and told him that sales have dipped dramatically. He was also told, that if things do not turnaround soon, heads will roll. Along comes a story that he knows is ethically wrong, but will sell many magazines. What should be done? Should he print the story, even though it is ethically wrong and save jobs, or should he by-pass the story?Countless stories have been printed in both the traditional and non-traditional news formats that go against the virtue ethics the media is supposed to follow. Is the media trying to keep the public informed, or is it just about ratings? What is the solution to the sensational journalism, which has become a major part of traditional news?From a deontological perspective the media can argue that the basic right to freedom of speech overrides the unethical issues of running the story. The medias viewpoint is that its the publics right to know.In my opinion, it seems the networks are more interested in higher ratings and the press with selling more papers than they are in keeping us up-to-date with the latest news. Granted, there are many informational stories the media brings to light that would otherwise go unnoticed, but where is the line between actual news and just sensational journalism?I believe there is a need to have guidelines put into place, that the media would have to follow. It seems as if tabloid style journalism featuring celebrity lifestyles receives more daily coverage than public issues that affect the quality of life of the average person. There needs to be a line drawn for the media and like it or not, that line is called self-censorship. Our founding fathers did not want censorship in the news, but I believe our founding fathers would cringe at the infected state of the present media....
