Analysis: BBC News Not Reporting its Gaza Aid
Introduction
The ongoing, ever-lasting war between two nations that clouded fears and terrors over the people living there reach many media. The Palestinian – Israelis dispute which goes on for years caught a big attention once again when there were many people killed by the bombardment of the Israelis at the city of Gaza in Palestine. Many media channels throughout the world came out with the reports on casualties along with updating the current issues that happen there, making sure everyone who is missing any relative can find out more information and what not. Big media outlets such as Associated Press, CNN from the United States, NHK from Japan, TV5 from France, CCTV from China keep up with the situations along with asking the people to donate whatever they can in order to save the lives of those who were the victims and relatives that need help. One network that refused to do so is BBC news from the United Kingdom. The reason behind the decision was that the network would “compromise the broadcaster’s appearance of impartiality”. This paper will analyze on how BBC made its decision by comparing to one of the concepts covered in our Social Responsibility in Media Communication class. The sources will derive from CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/01/25/bbc.gaza.advert/index.html) and Time (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1659242,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics) and the yours-truly BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7849943.stm) news site.
News
The news started from CNN website stating how BBC refuses to broadcast charity appeal for Gaza aid. The American news source pointed out that UK’s Disaster Emergency Committee (DEC) asked the British network to broadcast the aid but was rejected in which results in a storm of malicious messages from all over the press as well as online communities. CNN stated that the British network would be praised or insulted either way. TIME website has a timeline on the history of how the whole dispute between two countries started which led to a bloodshed war until now. TIME interviewed civilians and passerby’s about the incident where it adds more fuel to the people who are already worried about the situation and wish to help.
On the other hand, the BBC news website showed that they were facing a difficult decision since they believe that what they did would show the world that they do not want to be involved with any type of politically-motivated approach. One commentator stated that Hamas, a group of violent Muslims, funded Gaza and that the network does the right thing by not broadcasting the aid. All in all, the view whether or not BBC thinks about impartiality is entirely up to the network.
Analysis
BBC’s intention is genuine. They do not want any type of backlash from anyone. However, one can only do so much. As discussed in class, Immanuel Kant’s view on ethics is that the most important thing is good will. In my personal opinion, BBC is following Kant’s view while others tend to look at the ends instead of the means. John Stewert Mill’s Utilitarianism should be the course of action that BBC should have done in the public view. However, looking at the consequence without looking at how to attain it is not valid as well. No matter what the BBC did, they will hold accountable for its early refusal for not broadcasting the aid. We as regular viewers of the news, get as much information as others get worldwide, will not be able to gain any plausible data from any other sources. Since one cannot save the world, at least BBC chose to focus on its intentions; its means, instead of how it ends.
Conclusion
BBC will have to endure this situation for a while until things become less intense. While the situation in Gaza is still active, any media networks cannot just jump on the bandwagon and then assume that things are they way they are just because the other media say so. Ethics have its limits. Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative is not the most perfect vision on ethics, but it clearly takes a stand while others are doing the identical things around.
Chanoktip Srisomasajakul
1481001608
สมัครสมาชิก:
ส่งความคิดเห็น (Atom)
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น