Online research in philosophy

Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Volume 26, Issue 2, Page 179-181, April-June.

Many of the same fundamental principles and regulations that govern civilian biomedical research also apply to research conducted by the US Military. Despite these similarities, the conduct of research by the US Military has additional requirements designed to preserve service members’ informed consent rights, ethical standards and information that may be deemed classified. Furthermore, there are also additional rules and regulations associated with potential research to be done in a combat setting. Before conducting battlefield research, many unique circumstances must be (...) considered to include: (1) the current legal and regulatory requirements for advanced informed consent (2) the tactical situations, and the ability to adequately document in the “austere” environment (3) the need to provide improved drugs and devices for combat casualty care and (4) the special nature of the superior-subordinate relationship. This paper discusses historical background, regulatory oversight, ethical implications and release of information as it pertains to research conducted by the US Military. (shrink)

Contemporary national codes of ethics hinge more on fantasy than fact: the idea that journalists control what becomes news. While journalists' influence over news has grown during much of the 20th century to the point where courts have begun to define them as professionals, it has never surpassed the influence of owners. New evidence indicates authority has eroded as media firms seek to maximize return to investors. As journalists' autonomy recedes, national ethics codes become less relevant to practitioners and more (...) publicly deceptive. The codes also are unethical themselves as journalists become decision takers rather than decision makers. Moral responsibility and real world authority diverge. It2 time to end the charade by creating new codes that include the decision makers outside the news room. (shrink)

If a news organization serves the market well, does it also serve the public well? Yes, say the leaders of the news industry, market forces improve journalism. This article uses market theory microeconomics to test the executives' assertion. The analysis concludes that news is a peculiar commodity, what economists call a "credence" good, that may invite fraud because consumers cannot readily determine its quality, even after consuming it. News, by definition, is what we don't yet know. The article also contends (...) that advertisers seek public attention for their products rather than public education about current events. Thus advertiser-supported news media following market logic compete not in a news market, but in a larger market for public attention. This attention market may value entertainment more than information, leading to a conflict with journalism's norms of public service. (shrink)