Publishers Marketing Documentaries - Essay Example

Publishers Marketing Documentaries, Announcement and life stories of Killers are Unethical

Explanation of the Claim

It is unethical for publishers to sell documentaries, report and life stories of killers. Publishers are people or a company that is involved in printing and distributing electronic or printed publications. They are as well involved in marketing the materials as they act as a mediator of the owner and the consumer market. In this case, the publishers are involved in selling documentaries, commercial and life stories of killers. A documentary is a descriptive movie or television program that highlights an accurate report or record (Piotrowska 10). Documentaries can include various stories, for instance, in this case, they highlight the life history of a known killer. On the other hand, an announcement is a statement presented to the public, and it has a particular rationale. In this case, an official declaration about a killer can be presented to the public so that they can learn how a killer performed his killings.

Reasons for the Claim

It is unethical for publishers to sell documentaries, announcement and life stories of killers due to various reasons.

• The publishers tend to benefit at the expense of the victim which can be considered unethical

The documentaries, announcement and life stories of killers mainly involve the mentioning of various victims. Therefore, it shows that the publishers tend to benefit at the expense of the victim. The victims’ families have the rights to profit from the story, and they can as well decide whether they want the story to be published to the public (Piotrowska 70). Therefore, the publishers should involve the victims’ families in the process of deciding whether to sell the stories or not. In case the families agree that the documentaries can be sold, the publisher should share the gains with them.

• The documentaries, announcement and life stories of killers should be used to educate the public and in this case, they should be free.

The documentaries should be used to sensitize the public about the various tactics that are utilized by the killers and how they should avoid them; therefore, they should be free (Piotrowska 100). The documentaries are a property of the criminal department and in this case, they should be used in the awareness campaign of how crimes take place within the community. The documentaries should not be used to make money.

• The publishers will be disrespecting the victims and their families

The stories involve the stories of the killers and his victims. Therefore, the publisher will be disrespecting the families of the victims by reviving the stories and using them to make money for their individual benefit. The publishers are required to treat the families of the victims with respect (Palmer 91). They should be courteous enough and not use the story of their loved one to make money. Respect is offered to every individual as they deserve their self-respect, privacy, and rights. The publishers are required to treat the families of the victims as they would like to be treated. Apart from the families, the publishers should also respect the victims.

• It would be unsympathetic for the publishers to sell the documentaries, announcement and life stories of killers.

The publishers should show sympathy to the victim’s families. An ethical person or business should be caring for the people within the community (Palmer 92). They should seek to attain their goal while causing a minimal amount of harm to the community. In this case, the publishers are causing harm to the families of the victim as they are benefiting from their tragedy. The publishers should understand the impact of their decision on the community who are their targeted market. They should look at the emotional and long-term business cost. The publishers are required to mind the requirements of the families of the victims.

• The publishers would be unfair to the victims’ families and the offender

The publishers should not exercise their power for an unwarranted advantage. The publishers will be taking advantage of other people’s problems and mistakes for their benefit. Business should not use unfair means to gain advantage and competitive edge (Palmer 92). They should think about everyone involved in the documentary and what it means for them. They should first confirm if the offender wants the story to be sold or not. For the publishers to be considered ethical, they need to be fair and mind about other people’s feelings. They should choose to do what is right for everyone despite their mistakes.

Reasons Against the Claim

It is ethical for the publishers to sell documentaries, announcement and life stories of killers.

• The publishers help the viewers to have a critical thinking and also view facts about crime.

The publishers have a right to sell the documentaries as they assist the viewers to understand the crimes and how they take place. In this case, the publishers use the documentaries as a teaching means. It also shows that the publishers have the right to the documents as they are given the authority to sell it to the producers (Palmer 95). Before the documentaries reach to the publishers, there are producers involved who make them and give them to the publishers so as to distribute them on their behalf. Therefore, the publishers are involved in a legal business.

• It would be unfair to deny the publishers to sell the documentaries, announcement and life stories of killers.

The publishers are involved in distributing publications for a company or an individual. Therefore, it would be fair to allow them to sell the documentaries as they do not include immorality. The documentaries are used to teach the community upright lessons and thus, it shows that they are identical to other documentaries and stories. All the businesses should be treated fairly, provided they do not go against the business code. Therefore, stories about killers should be treated fairly and the publishers ought to be offered a chance to sell them to the enthusiastic buyers.

• The publishers also abide by law

The publishers are protected by the law whereby; they allowed producing the documentaries provided they have factual information. When selling the documentaries, the publishers should ensure that the producers were not negligent when producing the documentary or story. The documentaries and stories about killers always involve broad investigations through interviews and analyzing criminal files (Piotrowska 115). Therefore, it shows that the producers are careful when making the films, and they are not defamatory to any person. Stories of killers are identical to news; therefore, it shows that they are open to the public. In this case, the publisher does not require consulting the victims’ family or the offender when distributing them. In this case, the publisher cannot be accused of invading people’s privacy.

• The documentaries are a better way of allowing people to voice their opinions; therefore, the publishers should be allowed to sell them.

All the documentaries enable people to have a clear picture of an event. Therefore, they allow the people to voice their opinion; the documentaries and stories about killers are important educative means. Hence, the publishers should be allowed to sell them (Piotrowska 98). The individuals involved in making the documentaries use a lot of resources to ensure that people are offered a chance to view and offer their opinions. Therefore, it is an ethical business, and the publishers should be allowed to sell the announcement, documentaries and killer stories to the public.

Decision

The reasons supporting the claim are stronger compared to the reasons against. The grounds have moral significance. For instance, one of the reasons maintains that the publishers would be unfair by selling the documentaries and announcement. Every business person has a moral obligation of ensuring that they are fair when conducting any business (Piotrowska 112). Another reason that shows principled significance is that the publisher would be disrespecting the victims and the offenders by selling the documentaries and the stories. Every company or individual are required to ensure that they respect all stakeholders. They should make sure that a person’s privacy is not invaded. In this case, the reason shows that selling of the killers’ documentaries, announcement and life stories is disrespecting the victims’ families. The reasons also show that the publishers are taking the advantage of the victims difficulties as a benefit which is against business ethics.

Rebuttals

Reasons against the claim are not weak for various reasons

• One of the reasons is that they highlight the issue concerning the law

Every business should ensure that they follow the law so as they can be considered ethical. In this case, the reason shows that the business of selling the killers’ stories and documentaries is ethical as it abides by the law (Palmer 99). The selling abides by all laws and regulations involved in the business. For instance, they ensure that all the process of producing the videos are followed before they distribute them to the public.

• They offer true premises

The reasons provided are true, for instance, they claim that documentaries, announcements, and stories of killers are necessary (Piotrowska 109). For example, one of the reasons is that the documentaries help the viewers in critical thinking which is true. Another fact offered is that the documentaries assist the viewers in offering their opinions about the event. Another, fact provided is that the publishers abide by the law.

• The reasons highlight about business ethic

One of the business ethics is that companies should ensure that they respect other individuals. The publishers recognize the victims and they ensure that they do not distribute materials that contain false information (Palmer 97). The publishers also make sure that they abide by the law. In this case, the reasons show that the selling of killers’ stories and documentaries are ethical.

• The reasons also demonstrate that the conclusion is correct

The reasons presented to show that it is not wrong for publishers to sell killers’ stories, documentaries, and announcements (Palmer 97). They indicate that the publishers are involved in a legal business, therefore, have they have a right. It also shows that the claim does not offer strong reasons to show why the business in unethical. In this case, it is clear that the reasons against the claim support the conclusion.