This article examines the requirements for ethical press apologias, defined as attempts to defend credibility when accused of ethical failure. Facing changing transparency expectations, apologists may fail to fully respond to injured stakeholders. Criticisms of CBS News' flawed report on President Bush's National Guard service illustrated this problem. Hearit's (2005b) paradigm for ethical apologias is applied to “RatherGate” to see if and where the paradigmatic criteria fell short. A revised paradigm is proposed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sandra L. Borden (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: