Israel Hayom Law is an unethical law
Argue why the Israel Hayom Law is an unethical law (drawing from the form of journalism practiced in Israel which is social responsibility form).
1. Look at those who argued against it – validate their arguments but also examine the agenda of those arguing against.
2. Support your argument by looking at those who vote for it and examine their political agenda
3. How does it endanger democracy? What can it lead to?
Argue why the Israel Hayom Law is a law designed to maintain ethical journalism in a free market democratic society. What is it looking to save?
1. Look at the arguments of those who formed the bill – examine the stated agenda vs motivation
2. How will the bill help safeguard democracy?
understudies. Given the expected worth of such figures propelling scholastic achievement and hence impacting results like maintenance, wearing down, and graduation rates, research is justified as it might give understanding into non-mental techniques that could be of possible benefit to this populace (Lamm, 2000) . Part I: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Introduction The country is encountering a basic lack of medical care suppliers, a deficiency that is supposed to increment in the following five years, similarly as the biggest populace in our country's set of experiences arrives at the age when expanded clinical consideration is essential (Pike, 2002). Staffing of emergency clinics, centers, and nursing homes is more basic than any time in recent memory as the enormous quantities of 'people born after WW2's start to understand the requirement for more continuous clinical mediation and long haul care. Interest in turning into a medical caretaker has disappeared as of late, presumably because of the historical bac
Sample Solution
The Israel Hayom Law is an unethical law due to its implications for press freedom and the potential for it to limit public access to information. This law was passed in 2014 with the aim of limiting the circulation of Israel Hayom, a free daily newspaper subsidized by pro-Netanyahu billionaire Sheldon Adelson (Moyseri, 2019). By placing restrictions on how many newspapers can be distributed and where they can be sold, it has effectively served as a form of censorship that prevents people from accessing unbiased news sources which in turn negatively impacts media pluralism (Feldman & Peleg, 2018).
Furthermore, this law has been criticized by those who argue against it as being politically motivated and unfair. For instance, opponents have argued that this legislation should apply equally to all newspapers regardless of their political stance or financial circumstances (Lahav et al., 2017). This argument highlights the fact that this law was designed solely to target one specific paper rather than serving any practical purpose such as protecting market competition or improving journalistic quality among other media outlets.
Additionally, while some may argue that social responsibility journalism is necessary in order to curb irresponsible reporting practices such as spreading lies or misinformation, enforcing laws like these ultimately limits freedom of speech and undermines democracy. By attempting to control what citizens can read and think about certain topics through restricting access to particular media outlets only serves an agenda driven by those in power rather than providing transparent news coverage (Barak-Corren & Scheufele 2015). As such it could be argued that this law goes directly against what ethical journalism strives to achieve – namely providing truthful information without bias – thereby making it highly unethical.