Exactly! News doesn't "happen", it is "made". Hence the phrase "that made the headlines!". Reporting is mirroring events as they happen, and in doing so creating a narrative that explains why things happen and how they unfold.
This is where context matters and Marshall McLuhan's "The medium is the message" starts to make sense.
> He said that a medium affects the society in which it plays a role not only by the content delivered over the medium, but also by the characteristics of the medium itself.
> Perhaps the biggest question is whether it's ok to profit from the pandemia?
I think it's hard question to answer because you're implicitly asking "can we find a universal standard that provides a consistent answer in different contexts?" and the answer is "no" because ethical and moral standards are always based on a collective consensus emerging from the interplay between many individual, contradicting beliefs. This is why moral standards can also shift and change over time.
It's worth observing that there will always be unscrupulous outlets ready to profit from a good crisis ("don't let a good crisis go to waste!").
This is where it's up to society to define their own moral standards and give individuals the leverage through education to critically assert the value of the news. Is this item truly informative or is it clear fearmongering and not worth the paper it was printed on? And how much do we value voicing our own dissent or disagreement with what was printed?
This is where context matters and Marshall McLuhan's "The medium is the message" starts to make sense.
> He said that a medium affects the society in which it plays a role not only by the content delivered over the medium, but also by the characteristics of the medium itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message
> Perhaps the biggest question is whether it's ok to profit from the pandemia?
I think it's hard question to answer because you're implicitly asking "can we find a universal standard that provides a consistent answer in different contexts?" and the answer is "no" because ethical and moral standards are always based on a collective consensus emerging from the interplay between many individual, contradicting beliefs. This is why moral standards can also shift and change over time.
It's worth observing that there will always be unscrupulous outlets ready to profit from a good crisis ("don't let a good crisis go to waste!").
This is where it's up to society to define their own moral standards and give individuals the leverage through education to critically assert the value of the news. Is this item truly informative or is it clear fearmongering and not worth the paper it was printed on? And how much do we value voicing our own dissent or disagreement with what was printed?