Directions: In about 2,500 words, advance and defend a hypothesis about media ethics and technology. In other words, state a specific claim or point of view and back it up. Take a basic idea – such as, “the increasing ability to sort and manipulate information changes the nature of that information, and justifies making some data that used to be considered ‘public’ more private” – and lead it through several steps:
1. Abstract
2. Introduction.
3. Examples to back up the introduction.
4. Examination of historical and philosophical precedent, citing a variety of sources and integrating those sources into your discussion.
5. Examination of the current issue, related to the precedent. Use current examples.
6. Your view of the current issue.
7. Your argument and analysis. Be sure to refute competing claims.
8. Conclusion and implications for the future.
The options are almost limitless. You might argue that the federal government should re-implement the Fairness Doctrine, or that bloggers should be required to disclose their names, or that news organizations should implement more precise rules on use of anonymous sources, or that the availability of instant information makes censorship obsolete and no (or very few) documents should be classified (think: WikiLeaks). Privacy, of course, offers endless permutations useful for you in choosing a topic.
Be sure to integrate technological change into the argument. The paper doesn’t have to be about technology, but it must include technology’s effect as part of the discussion.
A sample paper will be provided. Follow the structure and style, although you do not have to write to the same length. Note that the sample paper does not have an interview; your paper must. Your paper must have subheads.
Use at least ten different, separate sources for the paper. Do not use Wikipedia or any encyclopedia or dictionary as a cited reference. You must use reputable sources. Major newspapers and books from good-quality publishers are examples of reputable sources. So are academic journals. Just because something is on a website does not mean it is reputable. Also, include a quote drawn from an interview with someone an editor would recognize as a reputable expert in the field. This means that the interviewee must have recognized expertise in the area. Faculty are good resources, provided the subject is within their area of expertise. Try to use faculty members outside of communication. Do not use family members. Do not use undergraduates or someone you know who happened to major in a subject. Do not assume that if someone has a history degree they are recognized experts; look for an interviewee who has published in the field or has some other recognized expertise, such as writing a book on the subject, reporting on it for a news organization, or having witnessed a major event first-hand and having eyewitness insight into a particular area. Just because someone was alive during the Kennedy administration does not make them an expert on Kennedy and the press. Use full titles. Provide me with the name and telephone number of the person you interviewed. (I do not have an interview set up with anyone. Just be creative, and I will fill in names and numbers later).
Include a works-cited page at the end but be sure you key it to the text of the paper. In other words, regardless of which citation system you use, be sure it’s apparent to the reader what comes from where.
Always cite the source of your facts within the text of the paper and demonstrate, briefly, why the author’s or speaker’s contribution is important. Just because something is in a book does not indicate that it “proves” anything.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|