(Original PDF) Media Ethics Cases and

Moral Reasoning 10th Edition

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/download/original-pdf-media-ethics-cases-and-moral-reason
ing-10th-edition/
 n n n n CONTE NTS

37. Niche Markets, Niche Media 231

38. Ethical Vision: What Does it Mean to Serve Clients Well? 238
39. The Risky Client: Yes? No? 241

The Heart of the Matter in Advertising Ethics 248

PART 3
Persuasion and Public Relations 251

10 Public Communication 255

40. Publicity and Justice 256

41. The Many Friends of the Candidate 260
42. Corporate Speech and State Laws 263
43. “Better Make Room” for Government Campaigns 265

11 Telling the Truth in Organizational Settings 270

44. Private Issues and Public Apologies 271

45. #AskSeaWorld Faces Tides of Protest 276
46. A Healthy Drink? 278
47. Reporting Recovery 281
48. Posting #Truth @Twitter 283

12 Conflicting Loyalties 288

49. Accelerating Recalls 289

50. Representing Political Power 293
51. Paying for Play? 296
52. Thank You for Smoking 297
53. Tragedy at the Mine 299

13 The Demands of Social Responsibility 305

54. “One for One® . . . You Are TOM” 306

55. Ice Bucket Challenge Fundraising 308
56. Tackling Domestic Violence 311
57. Brewing Racial Discourse? 313

The Heart of the Matter in Public Relations Ethics 318

vii nnn
CONTE NTS nnnn

PART 4
Entertainment 321

14 Violence 327

58. Hear it, Feel it, Do it 329

59. Violence-Centered 334
60. Comics for Big Kids 337
61. Video Gaming Changes the Rules 340

15 Profits, Wealth, and Public Trust 343

62. Copyright and Cultures 344

63. Deep Trouble for Harry 346
64. Super Strip 349
65. Duct Tape for TV 350
66. The Lone Ranger and Tentpoles 352
67. Faux Doc, Twice Baked 354

16 Media Scope and Depth 358

68. Reel History 359

69. They Call it Paradise 362
70. Tragedy Lite 363
71. Training in Virtue 366

17 Censorship 371

72. The Voice of America 372

73. Frontal Assault 374
74. South Park’s 200th 377
75. Rescue Us 379
76. Lyrics Not So Cool 382

The Heart of the Matter in Entertainment Ethics 385

Index 387

n n n viii
 ACKNOWLEDGM ENTS

We incurred many debts while preparing this volume. The McCormick Foundation gener-
ously supported our original research into ethical dilemmas among media professionals;
many of the cases and the questions surrounding them emerged from this research. Ralph
Potter encouraged our adaptation of his social ethics model. Paul Christians wrote Cases
3, 8, 9, 15, and 19, and updated others; his research was invaluable. Conversations with
Professor Sun Youzhong while he was translating the ninth edition into Chinese were
helpful in preparing this edition. Taran Gilreath gathered information for many of the adver-
tising cases. In Part 4, Kevin Schut contributed Case 61, Sam Smartt wrote case 67, Peggy
Goetz did Case 70, John Carpenter wrote Case 71, and Ted Fackler Case 75. Additional
thanks to Joel Worsham for designing and developing the companion website for instruc-
tors and students that supports this volume (www.mediaethicsbook.com). Joe Rinehart,
Department Chair, Director of Broadcasting and Assistant Professor of Communication,
Mount Vernon Nazarene University, was instrumental in helping to prepare instructional
content for the companion website. Divine Agodzo (Spring Arbor University) and Jessica
Wells (Mount Vernon Nazarene University) provided much-needed support in creating and
editing companion website content.
Each contributor shares in everything positive this book may contribute to media eth-
ics scholarship. The authors are grateful. We absolve these friends of all responsibility for
the weaknesses that remain.

ix nnn
 ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Clifford G. Christians is Research Professor of Communications, Professor of Journalism,

and Professor of Media Studies Emeritus at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Mark Fackler is Professor of Communications Emeritus at Calvin College, Grand Rapids,

Michigan.

Kathy Brittain Richardson is President of Westminster College in New Wilmington,

Pennsylvania. She is the former Provost and a Professor of Communication at Berry College,
Rome, Georgia.

Peggy J. Kreshel is Associate Professor of Advertising at the Grady College of Journalism

and Mass Communication and an affiliate faculty member of the Institute for Women’s
Studies at the University of Georgia.

Robert H. Woods, Jr. is Professor of Communication and Media at Spring Arbor University,
Spring Arbor, Michigan. He is executive director of the Christianity and Communications
Studies Network (www.theccsn.com).

xi nnn
 PREFACE

Worldwide, people think about doing the right thing. From soccer players to political strate-
gists, doing the right thing weighs against other human motivations: winning at all costs,
getting what we want, reducing stress, sometimes plain survival.
We take it as common sense that editors, advertising professionals, public relations
pros, and folks with the varied skills of movie making and screen-game playing also think
about doing the right thing. In making media, the right thing sometimes collides with con-
cerns about market share, profit, audience, and just getting along in the odd subcultures of
Hollywood and Fifth Avenue. Still, doing the right thing is never far from a professional’s line
of sight.
Few media professionals receive accolades from peers for something so mundane as
“doing the right thing,” but that impulse still survives all the non-rewards our complex indus-
tries can withhold, and all the pettiness and piety that can paint a person who’s known for
right-thing doing.
Sometimes, we strongly suspect, people who err (that’s all of us) wish they would
have done the right thing. If only their moral compass had been fixed on North, their careers
would not have gone South. Doing wrong is so instantly publicized that there’s little chance
of escaping public humiliation for moral slippage. The “fallen” among us are reminders that
the race to the top, or fame and fortune, or the homage of the Academy, are faint moments
of fading grandeur when you’re caught doing moral nonsense. So we wonder, given all the
many claims to rightness, what right really is. This book is written to address that question.
But wait. Not everyone assigned to read and use this book intends to throw his or her
life into media production. All the students, however, in your class and in every single other
class are heavy media users and buyers, with emphasis on heavy. You say no? Don’t even
think about it. You could not go cold-turkey from media if free tuition were dangled before
you. This book on media ethics—doing the right thing in news, advertising, public relations,
and entertainment programming—is for everyone, minus some very few souls who still imag-
ine “mouse” means varmint.
Doing the right thing, as Media Ethics presents it, is a discipline to be learned and
practiced. We get better at it as we learn to spot the red lights, then, understanding the

xiii nnn
PR E FACE nnnn

stakes and stakeholders, apply moral principles toward justifiable solutions. By “justifiable”
we mean solutions that can be presented in public as viable, reasonable, fair, honorable,
and just. The best descriptor is “good.” We want to find the communicative good and do it.
We want media industries to understand their telos and fulfill it. We want the public to grow
more capable of living with a sense of communicative progress and communal support. We
celebrate the language of friendship and trust. We want unnecessary violence contained,
and necessary violence to be measured and publically accountable. Peace and trust being
preferable to deception and warfare, we want media to contribute to public shalom, com-
munity salaam, the phileo that inspired the naming of America’s first capital city. If that
description is too obtuse or linguistically puzzling, just get this: media should contribute to
human flourishing, and they can when they are done right, when their practitioners and
users do the right thing.

THIS BOOK HAS A PLAN

Case studies help users and professionals achieve focus. You get a set of facts, often built
on a historical case, and then you have to solve it, that is, come up with a morally justifiable
decision on how to do the right thing. Cases in this book follow the four “functions” of
media: news, advertising, public relations, and entertainment. Following each case is moral
commentary applying the Potter Box analysis, explained in the Introduction subtitled Ethical
Foundations and Perspectives (p. 1).
It should go without mention that not everyone in the room will arrive at an identical
solution to any given case. This should not discourage anyone. It is not hopeless moral rela-
tivism (everything is just each person’s opinion, or bias) to arrive at varying conclusions. We
do not aim for uniformity, as you might in a class on algebra. Applying different moral prin-
ciples, for example, may lead to differing yet fully justifiable moral solutions. Loyalty to
different constituencies could produce differing moral action plans. The Potter Box analysis
helps parse each approach, and provides a framework for reconsideration based on
renewed understanding of the issues at stake.
Why did we authors limit the moral principles applied to media in this book to only
five? Surely that must seem like serving asparagus every day in your dining commons when
the farms nearby produce a hundred different veggies. First, our choice of five was a work-
able array, we thought. This book is not intended for a course in philosophical ethics or
survey of Western thought. It is a book on applied media ethics, and for that reason alone
we do not offer variants on every philosopher’s intriguing moral notions (applause, applause).
Second, our choice was a range of time-tested, traditional (in the sense of worldwide
and well-used), and diverse moral principles that we could recommend to media profes-
sions in all fields. Notice we did not select egoism for commentary in this book. Not that
egoism lacks a popular following, only that we believe it has little to offer for the flourishing
of community. You may disagree. Fine. We neither spoon-feed what we recommend nor

n n n xiv
 n n n n PR E FACE

banish by barbed-wire what we don’t recommend. The solutions to the dilemmas presented
in these cases are yours to decide. If your preferred moral compass is the better option, get
it out there. Make it public.
At the end of the day, this book hopes to improve your analytical skills and your ethical
awareness. Both require practice. If you enter a media profession, your practice will have
already begun. When you ponder your next purchase of mediated stuff, you’ll know the why-
to-buy better, we hope, than you do now. If not, tear into shreds your tattered old copy of
Media Ethics and FedEx the mess back to us. OK, we’re kidding, sorry for the ethically
questionable suggestion.
You will find considerable help in both analysis and ethical awareness at the book’s
outstanding website, which you may access at www.mediaethicsbook.com.

xv nnn
 INTRODUCTION
Ethical Foundations
and Perspectives

Anders Behring Breivik terrorized Norway on July 22, 2011. He bombed government build-
ings in Oslo killing 8, and then killed 69 people, mostly teenagers, at an educational camp
of the Workers Youth League on the island of Utoya (together wounding 242). With links
to the militant, far-right English Defence League, Breivik protested the government’s immi-
gration policy and promoted the deportation of all Muslims from Europe. On August 24,
2012 he was declared sane, found guilty of mass murder, fatal explosion, and terrorism. At
thirty-three years of age, Breivik was sentenced to twenty-one years in prison (under the
“preventive detention” verdict that extends the sentence as long as he is considered a
threat to society).
From November 26 to 29, 2011, ten attackers from Pakistan entered Mumbai, India
and over four days of violence killed 164 people and wounded 308. The perpetrators were
all members of the Pakistan-based terrorist organization Lashkar-e Taiba. They were trained
and armed by this group near Karachi, and aimed to kill 5000 people by bombs and gunfire.
Mumbai is India’s business capital, and given its November 26 beginning, and parallels with
the 9/11 U.S. World Trade Center attack, the Mumbai attacks are often called 26/11.
On March 11, 2004, the biggest attack on European soil at the Atocha Station,
Madrid, left 191 dead and 1858 injured. Ten bombs in sports bags exploded on four com-
muter trains. The governing Popular Party insisted that the Basque guerrilla separatist group
ETA (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna), and not Islamist terrorists, was to blame. At national elections
three days after the attacks, the Socialist party of José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero won the
election in an upset. Three and a half years after the attacks, Spain’s National Court found
twenty-one people guilty for participating in or abetting the attacks. Two Moroccans were
each sentenced to more than 40,000 years in prison for the bombings, although under
Spanish law they can only serve a maximum of 40 (Reuters, 10/31/2007).

1 nnn
I NTRODUCTION nnnn

Timothy McVeigh used a truck bomb to destroy the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. The bomb killed 168 people and injured 800. An army
veteran, he became a transient—living with dissidents around the United States, involving
himself with the guns and training of different militia groups, protesting the government’s
siege of Waco, and distributing anti-government propaganda. He was executed by lethal
injection on June 11, 2001.
Terrorism is a fact of life in countries around the world. Governments work day and
night to prevent it. Psychologists, political scientists, and international relations specialists
are challenged to understand it and offer solutions. Ethics is involved too. What can media
ethics contribute? Terrorist acts in one country are headline news everywhere. Terrorists
typically seek a public stage to communicate their hostility. Breivik, for instance, on the day
of his attacks sent an electronic manifesto of 1500 pages calling for the deportation of all
Muslims from Europe and condemning what he called “Cultural Marxism.” Later he testified
that his main motive for the day of slaughter was to call attention to his 2083: European
Declaration of Independence.
Breivik and McVeigh were home grown, attacking their countries’ policies from within.
The massive attacks on Mumbai and Madrid were from outside India and Spain respectively.
The sources inside or outside, the many reasons given for the violence, their surprise and
unpredictability—terrorism is complicated and thinking ethically about this global phenome-
non cannot be superficial. Moral decision-making is systematic, and these frightening
attacks on the common good require careful analysis and orderly reasoning to reach a
justified conclusion.
When these cases are presented to a media ethics class for discussion, students usu-
ally argue passionately without making much headway. Judgments are made on what Henry
Aiken calls the evocative, expressive level—that is, with no justifying reasons.1 Too often com-
munications ethics follow such a pattern, retreating finally to the law as the only reliable
guide. Students and professionals argue about individual sensational incidents, make case
by case decisions, and do not stop to examine their method of moral reasoning.
On the contrary, a pattern of ethical deliberation should be explicitly outlined in which
the relevant considerations can be isolated and given appropriate weight. Those who care
about ethics in the media can analyze the stages of ethical decision-making, focus on the
real levels of conflict, and make defensible ethical decisions. These difficult terrorism cases
can illustrate how moral justification takes place. Moral thinking is a methodical process:
a judgment is made and action taken. Norwegian television must decide how to cover the
dead bodies. With ten bombs exploding at the Atocha train station, when do Spain’s
national newspapers, El Mundo and El Pais, conclude they have accurate and sufficient
information to publish? Newspapers chose the headlines and length of stories about Breivik
and his angry text. During the four-day ordeal in Mumbai, internet users sent some shocking
photos but not others. What steps are used to reach these decisions? How do media pro-
fessionals and social media users decide that an action should be taken because it is right
and should be avoided because it is wrong?

nnn 2
 n n n n I NTRODUCTION

Any single decision involves a host of values that must be sorted out. These values
reflect assumptions about social life and human nature. To value something means to con-
sider it desirable. Expressions such as “her value system” and “Pakistani values” refer to
what a woman and a majority of Pakistani citizens, respectively, estimate or evaluate as
worthwhile. We may judge something according to aesthetic values (such as harmonious,
pleasing), professional values (innovative, prompt), logical values (consistent, competent),
sociocultural values (thrifty, hardworking), and moral values (honest, nonviolent). Often we
find both positive and negative values underlying our choices, pervading all areas of our
behavior and motivating us to act in certain directions.2 Newspeople hold several values
regarding professional reporting: for example, they prize immediacy, skepticism, and their
own independence. In the case of the Oklahoma bombing, television viewers, family mem-
bers, and reporters valued the law and therefore McVeigh’s punishment, though they
undoubtedly differed on his execution.
Professional values when combined with ethical principles yield a guideline for the
television news desk: protect the well-being of the victims and their families at all costs. The
good end, in this instance, is compassion for the suffering. The means for accomplishing
this is detailed coverage without sensationalism. In the four democratic countries where this
terrorism occurred, the public has a right to know public news. But the responsible media
do not provide personal information of victims unless it has been officially verified. Overall,
professionals value distributing information without hesitation, but recognize the ethical
principle of human dignity in these tragedies. The reporters’ personal anger—sometimes
hostility to the terrorists—confronts the political value, “the right to a fair trial.” Ethical prin-
ciples often must be invoked to determine which values are preferable and how values are
to be implemented.
If we do this kind of analysis, we begin to see how moral reasoning works. We under-
stand better why there can be disagreement over exactly how best to cover terrorism. Is it
more important to tell the truth, we ask ourselves, or to preserve privacy? Is there some
universal principle that applies to these four cases in different countries? As our analysis
proceeds, an interconnected model emerges: we size up the circumstances, we ask what
values motivated the decision, we appeal to principles, and we choose loyalty to one group
instead of to another. Through this examination, we can engage in conflicts over the crucial
junctures of the moral reasoning process rather than argue personal differences over the
merits of actual decisions. Careful attention to the decision-making process helps us
specify where additional discussion and analysis are needed.

THE POTTER BOX MODEL OF REASONING

Creative ethical analysis involves several explicit steps. Ralph B. Potter of the Harvard
Divinity School formulated the model of moral reasoning introduced in our review of the
terrorist murders. By using a diagram adapted from Professor Potter (the “Potter Box”), we

3 nnn
I NTRODUCTION nnnn

Figure I.1

can dissect these cases further (see Figure I.1). The Potter Box introduces four dimensions
of moral analysis to aid us in locating those places where most misunderstandings occur.3
Along these lines we can construct action guides.
Note how the Potter Box has been used in our analysis: (1) We gave a definition of
the situation, citing details of the attacks, information on the terrorists, and results of the
trials. In all four cases, there were convictions and sentencing in court, with punishment
ranging from the death penalty for McVeigh to twenty-one years of a rolling containment for
Breivik. (2) We looked beneath the facts to values, citing values that might have been the
most important. Reporters in all four cases valued timely release of the information. The ter-
rorists valued violence and hatred. The police and government officials valued law and
order. The news media valued their reputation, and defended themselves to the public
whenever their integrity or professionalism was criticized. Each value was seen as influenc-
ing discourse and reasoning. (3) We named at least two ethical principles and we could
have listed more. Most television stations concluded that the principle of other-regarding
care meant protecting the victims’ right to privacy. Many of the media outlets invoked truth-
telling as an ethical imperative. But other principles could have been summoned: do the
greatest good for the greatest number, even if innocent people such as the murderers’ fami-
lies might be harmed. (4) Throughout the reporting, from initial attack to court decision,
loyalties are evident. Some reporters were loyal first of all to their own career; they saw
these sensational events as an opportunity to win awards. Some media firms were loyal to
themselves, wanting above all to win competition over their rivals in circulation and audience
numbers. In general, the media were loyal to their country, seeing no validity in Breivik’s
diatribes against Norway’s immigration policy, and supportive of the government’s attempt
to stop the viciousness in Mumbai. The public media overall attempted to express their loyal-
ties only on the editorial pages and in background stories, seeking balance and fairness in
their news accounts.
Moving from one quadrant to the next, we finally construct our action guides. But
moral decision-making can be examined in more depth (see Figure I.2). For working through
the Potter Box in greater detail, the Norway case will be featured.4 The most recent of the
four, it continues to produce headlines and public discussion over the nation’s trauma. The
latest controversy is about the location and character of a memorial to the seventy-seven
victims. Mumbai, Atocha, and Oklahoma will be included as they clarify the four steps
needed for a justified conclusion. The purpose of the Potter Box is to tell us what we ought
to do. What should the media have done in the Norway terrorism case to be ethical? The
two quadrants on the left side describe “what is,” what the media did. But they are only the

nnn 4
 n n n n I NTRODUCTION

Figure I.2

beginning steps toward the right-side quadrants 3 and 4 where we determine the right
action to take.
Quadrant 1 (facts) should include all the relevant details. The more specifics, the bet-
ter, is the rule. All four cases have hundreds of pertinent facts, so what to include is
debatable. Choices of what is relevant and where to end need to be made, and a rationale
for both is necessary.
We know what Breivik did. The content of his bulky manifesto is important but only
needs to be summarized for quadrant 1. Breivik’s day of murder was planned over nine
years, while he lived with his mother in her apartment. His video game obsession, his rela-
tionship to the Knights Templar, his building a truck bomb on the family farm, his religious
training in the Lutheran Church of Norway (confirmed at age fifteen)—all such particulars are
pertinent. But how much is necessary without giving him the public platform he wanted? His
parents divorced when he was one, and after skirmishes with the law between the ages of
thirteen and sixteen, his father severed all contact with him. His mother was under psychiat-
ric care, and Breivik rejected her feminism and the Norwegian values of her generation. The
trial hinged on whether the first court diagnosis (he was a paranoid schizophrenic and could
not be convicted) or the second evaluation (where he could stand trial—sane but with a
narcissistic personality disorder) was correct. Must all of this personalia be told for the pub-
lic to assess whether its institutions were failing or Breivik was a lone wolf? The police
responded erratically. Not equipped for terrorism of this magnitude, they were delayed in
their ferrying to the island. How much of this incompetence to include in quadrant 1 is an
issue.
After working out the empirical definition of the situation, the values of quadrant 2
need special attention. Knowing values helps us understand people’s behavior. Values
motivate our actions, and where values can be identified the more accurate is the Potter Box
process. At least five values are prominent in this case: (1) legal value, obey and enforce the
law; (2) compassion for victims; (3) social value, expecting the public to stay peaceful
and not retaliate in mob fury; (4) white-supremacy values of Breivik; and (5) professional
value, the public’s right to know. At the trial, a 12-minute video produced by Breivik was

5 nnn
I NTRODUCTION nnnn

shown. Many media professionals declined to show it or report on it, choosing compassion
for the victims and the social value of peace rather than airing Breivik’s white-supremacy
madness.
Often we value certain things without thinking about them. Debating values with those
who are not easily convinced will make us more critical of ourselves in the positive sense.
Our professional values are often honestly held, but having them challenged periodically
leads to maturity. In the process of clarification and redefinition, deeper insight is gained in
how to connect to the other quadrants.
Often in real-life practice, media professionals act on the values of step 2 in deciding
what to do. Step 3 on ethical principles and step 4 about choosing loyalties are ignored,
resulting in a decision that is not justified morally. But the values of quadrant 2 are typically
a long list and contradictory to one another. They need to be put in context and choices
made among them by using quadrant 3. Particular judgments of policy (step 5), to be ethi-
cal, must follow the guidelines of steps 3 and 4. Breivik’s white-supremacy values are so
strong and offensive that he calls the seventy-seven “criminals” for supporting Norway.
Breivik’s ideology distorts and challenges the press’s responsibility to report fairly. (Is CNN
justified in calling him “the Norway monster”?) And value 5 sometimes conflicts with values
2 and 3. Breivik was the self-proclaimed murderer, but his right to a fair trial was sometimes
ignored in valuing the public’s right to know. Quadrant 2 has good and bad values compet-
ing with one another, and, in complex situations, values are often too narrow to serve as the
basis for a justified action. The “ought” or normative side of the Potter Box is the crucial next
phase toward ethical judgment.
Two ethical principles are the most credible at this stage of the process. Telling the truth
is a moral imperative for Kant and applicable for first news reports, through the trial, and until
the aftermath now as Breivik serves his prison sentence (asking by mail or of visitors whether
his thinking is taking hold in Norway). The ethical principle of other-regarding care is pertinent
too, given the enormous tragedy the terrorism was for the victims and for the country.
After identifying principles, the matter of choosing loyalties needs close scrutiny. The
Potter Box is a model for social ethics and consequently forces us to articulate precisely
where our loyalties lie as we make a final judgment or adopt a particular policy. And in this
domain, we tend to beguile ourselves very quickly.
Examine the decisions made once again: withhold names until families have been
officially notified; reject the showing of Breivik’s video or his tears in court, but photos of his
clenched fist ought to appear. Should El Mundo and El Pais report on the Breivik trial in
detail, given Spain’s horrific struggle with Nazism, which the clenched fist represents to its
readers? Details of Breivik’s nine years of planning, disclose them or not? Who were the
news staffs thinking about when they made their decisions? Perhaps they were considering
themselves first of all and their competitive advantage. They may claim that they were
restrained in their coverage, not wanting to stir up the public to violent hatred toward Breivik
or to protests against inept police. But on additional reflection, their loyalties actually may
be different. Are they protecting the victims or themselves?

nnn 6
 n n n n I NTRODUCTION

The various media enterprises appear to be interested in a gain for society. What is
more important: the welfare of the readers or the welfare of those involved in the crime?
On the face of it, the former’s welfare, but should this be to the total sacrifice of the latter?
Can the people directly involved in the event—including government personnel acting in an
extreme emergency—become more than objects of curiosity? Will the truth of this event
outweigh idle speculation about Breivik, and cool the gossip about a broken marriage and
often clueless mother? Important issues such as these are encountered and clarified when
the loyalty quadrant is considered thoroughly.
The crucial question must be faced once more. For whom did the press do all this? If
we do not return to the top right-hand quadrant of the diagram and inquire more deeply
where the media’s allegiances lie—for whom they did what—we have not used the Potter Box
adequately.
Choosing loyalties is an extremely significant step in the process of making moral
decisions. As the preceding paragraphs indicate, taking this quadrant seriously does not in
itself eliminate disagreements. Honest disputes may occur over who should benefit from a
decision. Media personnel who are sincere about serving society must choose among the
various segments of that society: subscribers and viewers, sources of information, politi-
cians, ethnic minorities, children, law-enforcement personnel, judges, and lawyers. Their
calculations need to consider that flesh-and-blood people, known by name, ought not to be
sacrificed for euphemisms and abstractions such as the public, clients, audience, or market.
The Potter Box is an exercise in social ethics. Ethical principles are crucial, of course, in
the overall process of reaching a justified conclusion. However, in the pursuit of socially
responsible media, clarity regarding ultimate loyalties is of paramount importance.
In addition to considering each step of the Potter Box carefully, we must see the box
as an organic whole. It is not merely a random set of isolated questions, but a linked system.
The Potter Box gives us a mechanism to link together facts, values, principles, and loyalties,
and doing so yields a justified decision. But the Potter Box can also be used to adopt policy
guidelines that will govern future behavior in similar circumstances. On the basis of this
case, the broadcast station or newspaper might decide to alter its policy regarding inter-
views with those still in traumatic shock. Through the five steps of the Potter Box, media
institutions can establish or strengthen their policy regarding anonymous sources, police
work, confidentiality, and trial coverage.
But we are still left with the important question: which of the two ethical principles is
the most appropriate in terrorism coverage? Which one directs us best to a justified conclu-
sion? And this leads to a central inquiry raised by this exercise: is there a transnational
ground for making ethical decisions, an overarching theory that directs the news coverage
of terrorism worldwide?5 Or is ethical decision-making a process of adjusting to the mores
and commitments of a given community?
Potter’s cyclical model, with its potential for continual expansion and feedback through
the cycles, takes both aspects seriously. Community mores are accounted for when we
elaborate on the values people hold and when we identify our loyalties before we make a

7 nnn
I NTRODUCTION nnnn

final choice. But these sociological matters are tempered in the Potter Box by an appeal to
an explicit ethical principle. Without such an appeal, a conclusion is not considered morally
justified.
In the terrorism case, both truthtelling and other-regarding care are defensible. But put
newsroom values into perspective. Both aim toward media decisions that are widely
accepted in democratic societies. Both prevent a media company from justifying immoral
behavior—breaking promises, cheating, and deception. Resolution of competing values usu-
ally occurs in step 3 while working on ethical theory. But, in this case, two different ethical

JUDGMENTS
No bloody carnage
No Breivik trial video
Victim personalia only
as granted

SITUATION LOYALTY
77 killed, 242 wounded To victims and their
In Oslo and at Utoya Island families
Breivik sentenced to 21
years of
preventive detention
Debate continues over
causes: personal/mental
or cultural/political

VALUES PRINCIPLE
Political: immigration is wrong Relational ethics:
either agape
Personal: white supremacy
or
Legal: crime must be punished other-regarding care
Professional: public’s right to
know
Social: compassion for victims

Figure I.3

nnn 8
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set
forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.