With more and more companies falling under the umbrella of only a handful of companies, ethics becomes a big concern. With so much of the media, we consume only coming from one source, people are only consuming one side of the story. To have adequate information and formulate an opinion, all sides of the story must be told. If a story is unlikely to make a company a profit, that company is unlikely to run the story. So, the question is, where is the line for consequence ethics?

 

In my Writing for Rich Media course, we discussed issues like this continuously. We were challenged with finding solutions, if there were any, for the ethical implications of media conglomerates. For one project, my group and I were given six questions to answer about ethical concerns about media conglomerates which we had to discuss amongst ourselves and read further into. We discussed issues such as the concerns of newscasts airing stories that will generate the most profit rather than telling stories that are more important for society’s well-being and how the media would change if programs were all privately owned. One of the ideas that we focused on in this project was around Article 19 of the Constitution which explains that everyone has a right to freedom of opinion and expression. With media coverage being dictated by what makes the largest profit, there are growing concerns about censorship laws that could inhibit free speech. Today, with the growing significance of social media, it is easier than ever to hear other people’s opinions and gain new perspectives, away from what media outlets portray.