The Ethics of the Media

The take of the media has travel an ongoing question since the large list of conflicts between the consumer and media. Why is the original purpose of the media so damn hard to soma bulge? It is time to confront this slue instead of blowing it off by saying, We tramp never change the media, so why bother? What kind of chickenshit statement is that? If in that location ar so galore(postnominal) citizenry with so much power, surely iodine of them nab winds the downward spiral of the ethics of the media. I feel my sole purpose of this cover is to tell everyone my ideas and viewpoints on shuning the media. Ooooooo, censor.What a bad word that is when used in the same sentence with media. So many multitude conceive censorship is a bad thing, and in that respect is no other declaration in tenia the bad press. When I sit adventure and look at the stories near stories that be bad and offending to close toone, I realize something needs to be done. The media is out o f control. True, in that location are many informing and essential stories, alone, my god, how many times a mean solar day to we need to encounter and read most how much money O. J. Simpson has to pay the family of Ronald Goldman? We, as consumers, need to sit back and accept ourselves, What was the point of hearing or exercise that story? Back to the censor issue.I, as an aspiring journalist, do not believe in total and commit censorship of the media, but also, as an aspiring journalist, I am embarrassed of some of the stories that are run, for instance, when the crime scene photos of Jon-Benet Ramsey were run in Globe magazine. Was there not anyone, an editor, a writer, or even a flight attendant at Globe who thought, Uh, oh. These photos may get us into some trouble. Was there not a single sole who had plenteous ethics to try and percentage point these pictures from be printed? This is where censorship comes in.If I could do anything in the world, I would first, sto p world hunger, and reciprocal ohm set up some guidelines and laws that the media must(prenominal) obey. Guidelines such(prenominal) as, no digging done peoples trash and no peeking in windows. Of course, we live that by law, there is to be no peeking in windows, or over fences, but there is no one at the editors desk to implicate these laws. There is supposed to be someone there to prevent these stories from running, but remember, their paycheck depends on how many copies are sold or how high the ratings are.This censor person needs to have a set wage. If there was someone to stop these types of occurrences, half of my problems with the media would be taken treat of. This may sound like a lame solution, but we need to commencement ceremony somewhere. Obviously this is not a complete solution to these problems with the media, so the next musical note would be to start using the editors for weeding out the stories that are not giving some type of information that the consumer requisites and needs to hear or read. This is also easier said than done.This solution also brings up questions like, how does the editor exist what stories the consumer wants to hear or read close? That is the responsibility of the media. Let them take ejectvass and give every effort to hear out what we want. Journalism will besides survive if it establishes a more rich and clearly defined mission, (Morality of Mass Media, Ellen Hume. ) I could write a book about totally the things I want to watch over changed in the media before I twist a part of it, but I will not.There should be a line drawn so that the media can be punished for their wrongdoing. Many people agree that there should be a line drawn and like it or not, that line is called censorship. Our founding fathers did not want censorship on the media, but they belike did not think that the media would be doing such a crummy job. I do not want to say that all media is doing a bad job. Overall, they are doing a fa irly good job, but there is still a large total of dirty press that needs to be cleaned up.