In this article, I will examine whether or not it was ethical for AM Rosenthal, editor of the New York Times, to publish the Pentagon Papers. On the one hand, it was ethical because the Pentagon Papers contained crucial information of national importance; the release of the study saved the lives of countless soldiers by revealing information that caused the American public to reject the Vietnam War, and Rosenthal attempted to enable the American public to reject the Vietnam War. The Nixon administration must release the information. On the other hand, it was unethical because it endangered the lives of active U.S. and allied troops, publishing the report made the New York Times complicit in treason, and endangered the financial standing of the New York State. Times, causing hundreds of employees and journalists to lose their jobs. Ultimately, I will justify my decision as to the ethicality of the action(s) taken by systematically addressing them through the four steps of the Potter Box.Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay In order to define the situation, the first step of the Potter Box requires identifying the central facts relating to the action that took place. In this case, AM Rosenthal, editor-in-chief of the New York Times, decided to publish large sections of a classified government study: the "Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense on the Vietnam Task Force", which would later become known under the name “Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense on the Vietnam Task Force”. the Pentagon Papers. The study was ordered by Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara in June 1967 to document U.S. military and government involvement in Vietnam. The study was leaked when Daniel Ellsberg, a researcher in charge of the study, came forward to oppose the Vietnam War and copied 7,000 pages of the study. After attempting to show the study to various members of Congress, Ellsberg contacted New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan, who received copies of the study in March 1971. The New York Times subsequently printed "134 of the documents as well as introductions and summaries written by staff. ". This series of articles began on June 13, 1971, with the first title "Vietnam Archives: Pentagon Study Traces Three Decades of Growing U.S. Involvement." The New York Times was available in major cities across the United States as well as wherever the paper could be accessed overseas, indicating that the circulation of information was widely available. The following facts are intended to help contextualize the circumstances leading to the action. Rosenthal took. Rosenthal believed the information in the study was of national importance. However, experts such as David Rudenstine, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law, "argue that some of these newspapers could have actually compromised national security." Due to military conscription, almost every American family has been affected in some way by the state of war. Although there were doubts about the motives of the Nixon administration, there was no solid evidence of government corruption at that time. The Pentagon Papers were the first in a series of exposes that led to the Watergate scandal and confirmed "the public's doubts about the federal government." Under Rosenthal's leadership, "the Times decided to publish articles of condemnation, despite warnings from its lawyers that the newspaper's managers would be vulnerable toprosecution under criminal espionage laws.” Rosenthal was aware of the risks of publishing the Pentagon Papers, but he ultimately ignored the advice he received. For our first ethical justification, we can confidently conclude that the information contained in the study was of national importance. Additionally, the publication of the articles led to a change in American public attitudes toward the Nixon administration, which helped shorten the war. Attempts were made by Daniel Ellsberg to make the reports public by means of Congress; however, Ellsberg was ignored, leading him to turn to the media and to Rosenthal who decided to release the reports. For these three reasons, Rosenthal's decision was ethical. For our first unethical reason, I conclude that the publication of these articles did indeed pose a threat to national security. However, the documents were reviewed before publication to minimize damage. For our second reasoning, Rosenthal knew that publishing the leaked documents would be a betrayal, but he chose to disregard the advice he received from the New York Times' lawyers. The publication could cause Times readers to view the paper as a betrayal, which could have led to the paper's financial ruin. This was unethical on Rosenthal's part, as he had no way of knowing what the results of his decision might be and he risked the jobs of countless journalists and employees. For the above reasons, I also found compelling arguments to call AM Rosenthal's decision unethical. Although the arguments presented here lean slightly towards the ethical side, with the introduction of my values ​​I found more concrete reasoning on which to base our decision. The second step of the Potter Box is to identify the values ​​that I find important to consider when addressing this particular question. case. I chose the values ​​of honesty, knowledge and loyalty. I chose honesty because a society depends on the honesty of its members to function. When it comes to diplomatic issues or differing viewpoints, honesty can often help bridge the gap in viewpoints, so that both sides can understand each other. Honest intentions mean more than deceptive intentions, because a person with honest intentions sincerely believes in what they are pursuing. Knowledge is the second value I chose because the dissemination of knowledge is vital to the functioning of any democracy. Without an informed population, the democratic process is stifled. However, knowledge can combat ignorance and lead us towards a better and more enlightened future for our world. Loyalty is the final value I selected for this process. Loyalty is a learned behavior. Some might compare loyalty to love because love is ingrained in us and can be nurtured, and we, as human beings, learn to feel connections with others through love. However, love is not a condition of loyalty. Loyalty stems from a sense of commitment one feels toward a person or group. Loyalty to a movement or cause can create vast change, and that is why my final value is chosen. Although these values ​​may seem to have little to do with each other, when framed within the moral theory that I will discuss in Step 3 of Potter's Box, they can be used to determine the ethical nature of Rosenthal's decision. In the Kantian ethical world, we are all supposed tocome to the same conclusions about what is moral and immoral. Kant developed a universally applicable form of ethics based on reason. This form of ethics, of deontology, requires that we perform actions out of a sense of duty, and the resulting actions will have moral value. We can achieve these objective moral values ​​by applying the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is an “unconditional principle which we must always follow despite any… inclination we may have to the contrary”. This objective way of measuring our actions does so solely through practical reason. Simply put, if we are faced with a moral dilemma, whatever we would want anyone to do in an ethical dilemma is what duty requires. Deontology is an action-based moral theory, which means that through deontology we can objectively judge whether an action is moral or not based on the action itself. Consequentialism attempts to find justifications for actions after they have already occurred by examining their results. However, because the categorical imperative limits morality to a person's actions, we can evaluate whether Rosenthal made an ethical decision, regardless of the outcome of his decision. As long as our values ​​are compatible with this moral theory that we have selected, we will be able to consider the action taken as ethical or unethical. Given the information Rosenthal had at his disposal at the time, we must apply the categorical imperative to discern a universal law applicable to the case at hand. In order to discern whether we can even find a universalizable maxim, it is helpful to briefly summarize the argument. delineate in order to discuss the unique treatment of ethics with the news media. Deontology applies to Rosenthal's actions not only because it is action-based, but also because awareness of higher truths is a key element of this moral theory. If Rosenthal had not played a key role in the dissemination of classified information, another moral theory might have been substituted in this case. However, because he was not only the key decision maker, but also because the case concerns a news publication, it is worth discussing the role that Kantian ethics play in journalism. In "Reading Your Own Front Page: How Kant Can Save Journalism in America," Ryan P. Whitson argues that most national media outlets that fell out of favor with the public did so because they took for granted "their role as checks and balances on power, politics and harmful ideas.” Whitson goes on to chastise the American public for their consumption of biased news media and encourages them to “demand… new media efforts that aim to return to values-based journalism.” With his decision to publish the Pentagon Papers, Rosenthal exemplifies the value-based journalism that, according to Whitson, we have abandoned as a nation. The press is the means of pressure available to the citizens of a democracy against their elected representatives. In order to maintain a balance of power, it is essential for a republic the size of the United States to have an informed population. To this end, news publications must always give the highest consideration to knowing the truth and ensure that they strive to provide factual information to their audiences. As recipients of information, we want information publications that hold truth and the dissemination of knowledge as their priority. key guidelines. To ensure that we receive adequate information from our news media, we can use our values..