One of the most controversial issues in our world today includes the relationship between North Korea and South Korea.
On Monday, North Korea declared invalid the armistice from 1953 that had ended the Korean War. The potential danger with no armistice agreement in place is really frightening. The two countries would be able to resume hostlities and this could drag in the United States, which already has about 30,000 troops stationed in South Korea. The hostility between North Korea and South Korea has continued to intensify even following the truce from about 60 years ago, but this could lead to North Korea using its weapons of mass destruction. One North Korean war-vet is quoted as saying, "I am still keeping a bullet that I failed to fire at a trench in the 1950s because the U.S. imperialists and their stooges signed an armistice agreement."
Although this news is scary and disheartening, Madison Park, a CNN correspondent, does a great job of abiding by dialogical ethics throughout the article.
As mentioned in our text "Converging Media: A New Introduction to Mass Communication", the media has often made the mistake of trying to control the dialogue by rejecting dissent. Since Park is the author of a news article with such political importance, she could have influenced the public by providing some biased insight regarding this topic. However, Park outlines her article in a way that provides just the facts. In her article, Parks uses a question-and-answer technique to get her information across. For example, she writes "How have relations been since the armistice?". Her answer is based strictly on facts, and she cites some specific acts of violence such as the sinking of a South Korean warship to support her answer. Park also does a good job of presenting both sides of the controversy. She takes a very unbiased viewpoint on the whole situation, and she outlines how each country has been affected since the armistice along with the potential impact of an invalid armistice. This allows for the readers to formulate their own opinions and thoughts about the reading.
The comments at the bottom of the webpage represent an unethical dialogue between different readers.
Due to the growth of the social media, people are being infiltrated with information constantly.
The inability for people to gather their own thoughts and opinions has really been destructive to American society. Dialogical ethics is important to maintain because it condemns the idea of controlling dialogue. With pertinent issues arising everyday, such as the news with Korea, it is vital for journalists to report the news in an agenda-free, unbiased way that allows for consumers to develop their own viewpoints. Also as news stories are published, it is important that people express their viewpoints in a respectful way, and engage in the ongoing dialogue.
I really enjoyed Eric's post. I appreciated the inclusion of historical background not only for the terms described in the post, but the discussion that has raged on concerning the topic of dialogical ethics. The headings for each part of the post were concise and informative, and let the reader know what he or she was about to read. There are only a few criticisms I have of Eric's post. First, the pictures and links in the post are on point, but if the only important content of an embedded link is a quote which is already stated in the post, the link is unnecessary. Second, there is not a great transition between the introduction and the rest of the piece.
ReplyDeleteA far as the topic of dialogical ethics goes, I agree with Eric, speaking from experience. It is immensely important, and I agree that user comments on articles is a negative for me when deciding which articles to read. They become hostile, which makes moderators invoke bans and delete posts, which is unethical but must be done to keep the company from losing supporters because of a few uninformed commenters.