Firstly, the newly proposed research methodology is a mixed method combining content analysis and interviews. This also meant deleting the US component of the comparative study and the consumer self-completion questionnaire component. Secondly, the new research methodology means that the narrative of the literature review should be adjusted accordingly. Among other things, the narrative of the literature review should be dominated by the UK (the current narrative has a greater weighting from the US perspective). Thirdly, the new research approach also means that the research questions should be changed accordingly. The newly formulated main research question is: How does the discourse of journalistic objectivity engage and influence partisan practice? The secondary research questions are: 1. How does a reporter’s actual practice of journalism (i. e. their performance) measure up to the traditional standard of objectivity? 2. objectivity is expressed through discourse in different partisan news. Fourthly, the literature review needs to establish a clear objective to address the feedback from the committee: the gaps, dilemmas, and disagreements that the project is trying to (re) address, and to establish the operational definition of objectivity used for the study.
Generally, jus in bello recommends in wars, damage must be utilized against soldiers, never against the guiltless. Be that as it may, eventually, the point is to lay out harmony and security inside the district. As Vittola’s decision: ‘the quest for equity for which he battles and the protection of his country’ is the thing countries ought to be battling for in wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332). In this manner, albeit the present world has created, we can see not entirely different from the pioneer accounts on fighting and the traditionists, giving one more segment of the hypothesis of the simply war. In any case, we can in any case reason that there can’t be one conclusive hypothesis of the simply war hypothesis due to its normativity.
Jus post bellum
At long last, jus post bellum recommends that the moves we ought to initiate after a conflict (Frowe (2010), Page 208). Vittola, first and foremost, contends after a conflict, it is the obligation of the pioneer to judge how to manage the foe (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332).. Once more, proportionality is stressed. For instance, the Versailles arrangement forced after WWI is tentatively excessively brutal, as it was not all Germany’s problem for the conflict. This is upheld by Frowe, who communicates two perspectives in jus post bellum: Moderation and Maximalism, which are very contrasting perspectives. Minimalists propose a more permissive methodology while maximalist, supporting the above model, gives a crueler methodology, rebuffing the foe both monetarily and strategically (Frowe (2010), Page 208). At the last case, notwithstanding, the point of war is to lay out harmony security, so whatever should be done can be ethically legitimate, assuming it observes the guidelines of jus promotion bellum. All in all, simply war hypothesis is truly contestable and can contend in various ways. Be that as it may, the foundation of a fair harmony is critical, making all war type circumstance to have various approaches to drawing closer (Frowe (2010), Page 227). In any case, the simply war hypothesis contains jus promotion bellum, jus in bello and jus post bellum, and it tends to be either ethically questionable or reasonable relying upon the proportionality of the situation. Consequently, there can’t be one conclusive hypothesis of the simply war yet just a hypothetical manual for show how wars ought to be battled, showing normativity in its record, which responds to the inquiry to what a conflict hypothesis is.