| dc.description.abstract | In the aftermath of the U.S. 2003 invasion of Iraq, a number of news media outlets revisited their pre-invasion coverage, expressing public regret over perceived coverage gaps, and conducting deep internal self-examination over policies and procedures that might have contributed to their confessed incomplete reporting. The unprecedented editorial page apology by the New York Times, as well as the ongoing narrative of U.S. government and administration officials, resonate with some ethical tenets of utilitarianism, though unacknowledged and incomplete. The enduring influence of this ethical tradition, and of John Stuart Mill, its main proponent, emerged especially in scholarly activity surrounding the 2006 bicentennial of his birth and the 2013 sesquicentennial of his book, Utilitarianism. A deep reading of this book surfaced a previously unexamined emphasis on security as the “most vital” interest for the greater good, and suggested a five-part Millian Security Principles model for war coverage. A pilot test of this model on a small sample suggested by the Times editors revealed utilitarian gaps in that coverage. Despite encountering several limitations from that small sample, the model provided several useful points of analysis of that coverage and suggestions for improvement. Further, the model appears to offer further applications for enhanced coverage of traditional war, of newly emerging conflict types, and of general community well-being, as well as a new framework for normative enterprise reporting practice, media ethics practice and research, and journalism education. | en_US |
