Progressive critics often point out that media discussions of drones over Pakistan, war, and torture ignore the moral and ethical issues, opting instead to discuss tactical effectiveness and monetary costs. These critics conclude that, because publicly funded military action abroad keeps the cost of business low at home (and keeps payoffs from defense contracts high), the interests of media's corporate parentage discourage moral and ethical examinations of what are likely untenable positions. Note that the benefits of low costs should extend to consumers, in theory, but during a time of high inflation and record corporate profits, those benefits are sucked up before the point of sale on Main Street.
True, the media does not engage in moral and ethical debates on these issues. But, for no reason, let's intentionally try to think of another reason why this could be.
It may be partly financial. But, also, the would-be ethics and morals involved here may be relative to the times. So, for example, it could be that peace was once a primary American value, but is no longer, coming in second now to convenience and affordability in regards to quality of life. The status of values shift in importance. Or perhaps the gap in moral and ethical examination is simply symptomatic of a bottom line culture.
Or, maybe it's not that reporters and writers keep thinking "I must spin this in the company's favor", but that they instead aren't thinking at all.
CSM article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/05/02/neil-macdonald-osama-bin-laden.html
