Philosophy 2730 Essay Assignment #2
Phil 2730 – Media Ethics – Fall 2014 Essay #2 This essay is to be 1250 – 1500 words long, and is worth 35% of your final grade. A paper copy is due in class on Tuesday, November 25th 2014. You must also submit an electronic copy of your essay in the assignment box on OWLSakai for plagiarism checking (in accord with Department of Philosophy Guidelines). There is no late penalty for failing to do so, but your essay will not be returned until you do. And again, NO ‘.ipages’ documents!!! All papers MUST BE DOUBLE-SPACED, using a 12 point font (Arial, Calibri, Times New Roman, I don’t care). Papers that exceed the page limits will not be automatically subjected to a grading penalty, but long papers are likely to lose focus, and so are likely to lose grades on those grounds. As with the previous essay, any late essays will be assessed a penalty of 5% for the first day that it is late (on Wednesday, November 26th), with 1% being added for each subsequent day (weekends included). There is one significant difference with the late penalty for this second essay; ACCORDING TO SENATE REGULATIONS, NO ESSAYS CAN BE ACCEPTED AFTER THE LAST DAY OF CLASSES FOR THE FALL TERM, i.e., Wednesday, December 3rd. ANY ESSAYS NOT SUBMITTED BY 11:59 p.m. on that DAY WILL (regrettably) AUTOMATICALLY RECEIVE A GRADE OF 0. If you are handing in a late paper (with or without excuse), place the paper in the Philosophy Department Mailbox on the first floor of Stevenson Hall. Make sure your name and the name of your T.A. and the name of the course are all on your paper. The key to this assignment is to recognize that it is, for the most part, the same as the first essay assignment; the expectations remain the same, the grading scheme remains the same, you are still restricted in the kinds of sources you present outside of the available course materials (no philosophical sources), and you must stay focused on a single article... the only change is the list of possible articles about which you can write. What that means is that if you have questions about how you should be writing your essay (and any essay you ever write), your starting point should be the ‘3. How to Write an Essay Phil 2730 Fall 2013’ document. Then of course, you can meet/contact me, or your T.A., or even book an appointment at the effective writing centre in SDC. What follows are a set of potential essay topics... if you need a specific starting point for addressing a particular author’s position you can rely on these questions for inspiration... your answer to one of these questions could serve as your thesis statement. If you’d like to address some element of an article not covered by these questions, feel free to do so.
Notice also that the first two options are similar to the last two options from the first essay assignment… if you did write about the Buckley article or the Stoll article for your first essay, you are not permitted to write about the same article again in your second essay. 1. Michael Buckley argues for two principles that ought to be used as a basis for making decisions about the distribution of the finite broadcast spectrum. His argument involves an appeal to a hypothetical situation wherein you are the representative of an unknown potential broadcaster or interest group, and your group is willing to make compromises in negotiating for acceptable principles. Buckley argues that, in this hypothetical situation, principles sensitive to the role of media in a democracy would be preferred over those appealing to market forces alone. Create an argument wherein you present some reason for thinking that the hypothetical scenario Buckley creates fails to present conditions that are relevant to the principles that should be used to make decision about the distribution of the broadcast spectrum. 2. Mary Lyn Stoll argues that media institutions have an imperfect duty to promote the diversity of views in a democratic society that trumps the claim that all programming decisions ought to be made with an eye toward profit. One of her reasons for believing media institutions have this duty is based on a utilitarian analysis of two cases in which media institutions silenced views they did not accept. Develop an argument that shows her utilitarian analysis, which relies heavily on John Stuart Mill’s claim that free speech and fairness both maximize happiness, is weak. What impact, if any, does your criticism have on Stoll’s primary claim that media institutions have an imperfect duty to promote a diversity of views? 3. Lawrence Souder argues that a hybrid combination of Adam Smith’s economic and moral theories can generate a plausible set of ethical principles that can be used to regulate the behavior of journalists. Focus on Souder’s claim that individuals who agree to participate in the system have duties to maintain the integrity of that system. Is it plausible to maintain that individual journalists, owners, or consumers have moral duties to the system by which information is disseminated? More specifically, how can some have moral duties to a ‘system’ rather than other persons? 4. Christopher Meyers et al. argues that the primary concern of journalism given the rise of the internet and the possibility that anyone posting online can call themselves a ‘journalist’ should be the development of professional standards that help distinguish legitimate from illegitimate journalism. One of the specific steps Meyers et al argue will need to be pursued is the creation of a voluntary system of accreditation for journalists. Focus on Meyers’ discussion of the voluntary system of accreditation for journalists and explain why it is unlikely such a system could succeed in separating legitimate from illegitimate journalism. 5. Is Neil Levy’s comparison between the legitimate use of proactive enforcement methods by police and the use of proactive information gathering methods by journalists a compelling/convincing comparison. That is, should journalists really be using the same methods as police, and/or should they be doing so more often?
6. Does Virginia Held succeed in arguing that the television news media is not doing enough, and should be doing more, to curb political violence? Is she right to suggest that what explains the failure of the media to contribute to reducing incidents of political violence is the profit motive? 7. Does it follow, as Susan Hurley maintains, from the possibility that some people could be influenced to harm third parties that we should reconsider the value we place on free speech in the form of new restrictions on violent entertainment? That is, does the fact that there is evidence showing exposure to representations of violence increases violent behaviour a sufficient basis for reducing the scope of the right to freedom of expression? 8. Is Chief Justice Dickson right to argue in R v Keegstra that the possible harms hate speech might have on various elements of society are a sufficient basis to conclude that hate speech does not enjoy the same sorts of Charter protection as do other forms of speech? In other words, can you give some good reason for thinking that the harms caused by hate speech are not sufficient to limit the protection provided by the Charter for freedom of expression? 9. Is Justice Scalia’s argument in Rav v City of St. Paul that legislative restrictions can be imposed on forms of speech only (e.g., ‘The Fighting Words’ doctrine) never on offensive content, a compelling/convincing argument? In other words, are there no circumstances in which the content of a particular expression ought not be subjected to legislative restrictions? 10. Is Chief Justice McLachlin’s argument in Grant v. Torstar Corp that journalists need not show their potentially defamatory claims are true if they can show that they were presenting a ‘responsible communication on matters of public interest’ compelling? 11. Focus on anyone of the four dimensions of autonomy introduced by Robert Arrington and develop some reason for thinking that his claim that exaggerations in advertising do not undermine that dimension is flawed. (Note: If you’ve taken Philosophy 2074 – Business Ethics – and have already written a paper about Robert Arrington’s piece, you are NOT permitted to resubmit that work… doing so is an academic offence.)
Notice also that the first two options are similar to the last two options from the first essay assignment… if you did write about the Buckley article or the Stoll article for your first essay, you are not permitted to write about the same article again in your second essay. 1. Michael Buckley argues for two principles that ought to be used as a basis for making decisions about the distribution of the finite broadcast spectrum. His argument involves an appeal to a hypothetical situation wherein you are the representative of an unknown potential broadcaster or interest group, and your group is willing to make compromises in negotiating for acceptable principles. Buckley argues that, in this hypothetical situation, principles sensitive to the role of media in a democracy would be preferred over those appealing to market forces alone. Create an argument wherein you present some reason for thinking that the hypothetical scenario Buckley creates fails to present conditions that are relevant to the principles that should be used to make decision about the distribution of the broadcast spectrum. 2. Mary Lyn Stoll argues that media institutions have an imperfect duty to promote the diversity of views in a democratic society that trumps the claim that all programming decisions ought to be made with an eye toward profit. One of her reasons for believing media institutions have this duty is based on a utilitarian analysis of two cases in which media institutions silenced views they did not accept. Develop an argument that shows her utilitarian analysis, which relies heavily on John Stuart Mill’s claim that free speech and fairness both maximize happiness, is weak. What impact, if any, does your criticism have on Stoll’s primary claim that media institutions have an imperfect duty to promote a diversity of views? 3. Lawrence Souder argues that a hybrid combination of Adam Smith’s economic and moral theories can generate a plausible set of ethical principles that can be used to regulate the behavior of journalists. Focus on Souder’s claim that individuals who agree to participate in the system have duties to maintain the integrity of that system. Is it plausible to maintain that individual journalists, owners, or consumers have moral duties to the system by which information is disseminated? More specifically, how can some have moral duties to a ‘system’ rather than other persons? 4. Christopher Meyers et al. argues that the primary concern of journalism given the rise of the internet and the possibility that anyone posting online can call themselves a ‘journalist’ should be the development of professional standards that help distinguish legitimate from illegitimate journalism. One of the specific steps Meyers et al argue will need to be pursued is the creation of a voluntary system of accreditation for journalists. Focus on Meyers’ discussion of the voluntary system of accreditation for journalists and explain why it is unlikely such a system could succeed in separating legitimate from illegitimate journalism. 5. Is Neil Levy’s comparison between the legitimate use of proactive enforcement methods by police and the use of proactive information gathering methods by journalists a compelling/convincing comparison. That is, should journalists really be using the same methods as police, and/or should they be doing so more often?
6. Does Virginia Held succeed in arguing that the television news media is not doing enough, and should be doing more, to curb political violence? Is she right to suggest that what explains the failure of the media to contribute to reducing incidents of political violence is the profit motive? 7. Does it follow, as Susan Hurley maintains, from the possibility that some people could be influenced to harm third parties that we should reconsider the value we place on free speech in the form of new restrictions on violent entertainment? That is, does the fact that there is evidence showing exposure to representations of violence increases violent behaviour a sufficient basis for reducing the scope of the right to freedom of expression? 8. Is Chief Justice Dickson right to argue in R v Keegstra that the possible harms hate speech might have on various elements of society are a sufficient basis to conclude that hate speech does not enjoy the same sorts of Charter protection as do other forms of speech? In other words, can you give some good reason for thinking that the harms caused by hate speech are not sufficient to limit the protection provided by the Charter for freedom of expression? 9. Is Justice Scalia’s argument in Rav v City of St. Paul that legislative restrictions can be imposed on forms of speech only (e.g., ‘The Fighting Words’ doctrine) never on offensive content, a compelling/convincing argument? In other words, are there no circumstances in which the content of a particular expression ought not be subjected to legislative restrictions? 10. Is Chief Justice McLachlin’s argument in Grant v. Torstar Corp that journalists need not show their potentially defamatory claims are true if they can show that they were presenting a ‘responsible communication on matters of public interest’ compelling? 11. Focus on anyone of the four dimensions of autonomy introduced by Robert Arrington and develop some reason for thinking that his claim that exaggerations in advertising do not undermine that dimension is flawed. (Note: If you’ve taken Philosophy 2074 – Business Ethics – and have already written a paper about Robert Arrington’s piece, you are NOT permitted to resubmit that work… doing so is an academic offence.)
