Reference no: EM133490264

Use SAD of moral reasoning to decide whether Channel 7 should broadcast live the execution of Wilbert Lacey. To be specific, answer the following questions:

1. By broadcasting the execution live, could the broadcast media be in danger of playing into the hands of Robert Eaton, who is a vocal advocate for the death penalty? Should the broadcast station remain editorially neutral to the execution by not accepting Eaton's offer for live coverage of the execution?

2. Is a live broadcast of gruesome execution morally offensive?

3. Is Channel 10's rejection of the offer commendable? Should broadcast media cater to the public's fascination with the macabre?

4. What's the socially redeeming value for live coverage of the delivery of justice in its grotesque form?

5. What's the journalistic principle involved in this decision? Should Channel 7 take advantage of the First Amendment protection to its fullest extent despite the moral ambiguities in this matter?

6. Should the news media take a political stand supporting the death penalty as a reasonable deterrent to crimes despite moral ambiguities?

7. Given that this country has committed to letting the government proceed open to the public and the media, why should Channel 7 shun this tradition?

8. Given that Channel 7 is not pursuing a rating by televising this execution at midnight should the producers in Channel 7 rest in peace with this offer, the same way our media had live coverage of Saddam's execution of Hussein and Ceaucescu?