Abstract
This article examines the requirements for ethical press apologias, defined as attempts to defend credibility when accused of ethical failure. Facing changing transparency expectations, apologists may fail to fully respond to injured stakeholders. Criticisms of CBS News' flawed report on President Bush's National Guard service illustrated this problem. Hearit's (2005b) paradigm for ethical apologias is applied to “RatherGate” to see if and where the paradigmatic criteria fell short. A revised paradigm is proposed.
Full Text 
Sign-in/Register to access full text options
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Paper version not known
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
