15 minute writing

Rupert Murdoch's UK newspaper News of the World was recently found to have illegally hacked into the phones of British royalty, famous actors, murder victims, and families of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Source: "Murdoch's Watergate?" Newsweek, 10 July 2011, http://www.newsweek.com/2011/0​7/10/murdoch-s-watergate.html Murdoch's vast media empire (The London Times, The Wall Street Journal, Fox TV, Fox News, HarperCollins Publishers, StarWorld, StarHub, Sky News) is now severely undermined by this ethics scandal. Is it ethically right to participate in the newsroom culture Murdoch fostered, "where you do whatever it takes to get the story, take no prisoners, destroy the competition, and the end will justify the means"? Write in ABC/PEEL format. 


It is not ethically right, as it intrudes the privacy of many, strike fear into people, the result is not worth the process. 


Rupert Murdoch's UK newspaper News of the World hacked into the British royalty, and victims, all because they wanted information for their articles. This is an intrusion of privacy, and is not ethically right. For example, if someone broke into your house, just to find what computer brand you are using. He notices its an Apple computer, and jots it down in his notebook, then leaving. Though he did not steal or anything, he trespassed the territory of your house. What I am saying is that the newspaper hacked into the British Royalty just to get information. Though they did not use the information for bad means, they still took it; it is morally wrong, and shows a lack of integrity. They intruded the British Royals privacy, without asking, and it is ethically wrong.

The newspaper from now on be known as - the newspaper that hacks -. From that incident on, I think people from all states would have an increased awareness of the capability of technology now, which can enable hacking easily. Everybody would be fearful, and living in apprehension, hoping no one gets their private information. For example, a small boy, about 1.2 metres in height, sneaked into your house, stealthily into the kitchen, and grabbed some food, running off. You saw him, yet cannot give chase as he was very small and flexible. In the future, you ensure a double lock on your door. In this case, people would fear their information being taken away with what such complexing technology can offer. Once bitten, and twice shy. It is ethically wrong then, to instil a constant bubbling fear in the citizens' hearts.

It is ethically wrong, as the result is not worth it. What you get in the end, is not worth the trouble. For example, you walked into a provision store, hungry. You noticed you had no money, and thought of stealing. You grabbed a few boxes of chocolates, and sprinted towards the exit. Unfortunately for you, the shopkeeper caught you, and you were taken to the police station. That is an example of a worthless gain - chocolates- but a severe punishment. You try to fulfil and satisfy short-term gratification, like the chocolates, without thinking of the severity. You should have asked yourself : is what I am doing, worth it? It is wrong then, to get information from the British Royals, families, just to write an article. Is going all over to the extremes to get some information worth it? I doubt so, and they made a wrong choice.

Benedict (: