Monday, September 16, 2013

Week 1, Discussion Leader 7, Emily Chestler

Ii    In terms of ethics does John Crewsdon's challenging of in flight medical care make you distrust and be wary of large corporations? Do you believe cost-benefit analysis is a crucial part of journalism especially when the reward can be higher safety? 
     - I ask this question because throughout the reading I felt as if the airplane industries knew of the harm people were encountering in flight and instead of adding something onboard that could help the passengers, rather than emergency landings which are usually not beneficial, they chose to ignore it. If it wasn't for the persistence of Crewsdon who showed how other countries dealt with this issue and how many accidents could be avoided, these companies would not have taken the time to add the defibrillators. This makes me in a way be wary of some large corporations or businesses because a lot of times they are looking out for themselves financially instead of consumers. For instance, even when you see a commercial for Coca Cola they will not discuss all of the sugar and unhealthy additives, they talk up their brand just as airlines did that did not optimize full safety onboard. Cost-benefit analysis is absolutely crucial in Journalism. Once you put something down on paper you cannot take it back, therefore you have to be cautious about what you say and make sure your facts are correct. Even if you're putting down huge corporations as Crewsdon did, or the example with the Watergate Scandal, you're exposing truth that will be beneficial to society. This is not done to hurt companies or peoples reputations, instead it is to ensure safety and well being of society.                                                                                            



No comments:

Post a Comment