Blog Post 4

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.