In this chapter the discussion of
the difference between the need vs the right to privacy was something that
confused me a bit. While originally skimming through the pages I thought a
little about this framing before reading what the book had to say. In my mind
the idea of right vs. needs connotes a idea of legal vs. ethical respectively.
The right to privacy seems to be something that is proliferated and supported
by the legal framework of a system whereas the need seems to be more based on
an ethical standpoint.
My thoughts
were only further complicated by what the book had to say. On one hand it made
sense the right and need were somewhat synonymous or at least commonly confused
for one another. The book seemed to generally support my initial thoughts in
the sense that right essentially indicated that there was another factor,
primarily governmental at play. So in a sense, if we follow this logic, the
right to privacy should fall under the need for privacy, it is more of a result
as opposed to a completely sovereign factor.
Another
conflict that the book discussed was that of secrecy and privacy. I tried to
apply the books logic to common day situations. According to the authors
secrecy is more intentionally blocking information to others where privacy is
just giving one control over what information is blocked. Again I am faced with
trying to distinguish if, by definition, secrecy then falls underneath privacy.
I suppose I didn’t really understand if these two things were acting in tandem
with one another, or were simply just definitions explored by the book.
The concept
of the veil of ignorance seems like a logically sound one when discussed
abstractly but I question if it could translate well to real life. If there
were to be a discussion between parties over an ethical issue, it seems
doubtful that everyone would be able to completely abandon their promotions and
previous viewpoints to return to their ‘original positions’. It seems as if
almost everyone would continue to act in a way as a result of his or her
current status in life, even if it was purely unintentional and subconscious. I
think the veil of ignorance, when applied to media ethics, is a great idea and
possibly incredibly helpful to the maintenance of sound ethical principles, I
would just have a hard time believing that everyone participating would agree
to being on the same ground.
Of all the
cases in this chapter, case 5-D got the biggest reaction out of me. I was in
disbelief at this story. I cannot even begin to imagine the anger I would have
as a parent were my child to be indirectly used in an ad targeted against gay marriage.
I think the truthfulness and accuracy following the video were next to none,
they were completely manipulative and deceitful in making and distributing this
ad. I understand, as the book suggests, that ads are generally narrow in their
viewpoint but this completely took it to another level, and an egregious one at
that.
