Well...

Ah, moral responsibilities. Funny how we mix those up in this country...on a daily basis. While 'spreading democracy' (a.k.a. bombing people who don't agree with us) is not something I personally view as a moral responsibility, I do however believe that a writer in the media has a responsibility to use ethos and pathos in a way that does not hide the real truths.

For instance, many times, especially on shows like 'Extra' and 'Insider,' the real issues are glossed over in an attempt to draw only the aspects of ethos and pathos of the story. Rather than explain about the forest fires in California, they will talk about the celebrities who got their gardens burned up. Why do they even bother? Well actually, that will get them more viewers and money than actually taking a real look into a real problem. Maybe they should keep in mind that Diddy says 'Mo money, mo problems,' but I guess they have more important things to do. (i.e. film a starlets poodle being shampooed.)

Anyways, by skewing the story with ethos and pathos, the presenter is ultimately denying the audience an opportunity to understand and form opinions about the real story. For instance, the media will take anything a candidate says, and turn it into something its not, if only to stir up an hour-long controversy. (Just google 'put lipstick on a pig-obama,' you'll see what I mean.)

Though the media does have a real ethical responsibility to present the real stories without skewing them with overdoses of ethos and pathos, they rarely actually do that. Which is really just a shame, although without this tendency, we would be forced to live life without The National Enquirer. I know, brutal. Let's hear it for American tabloids!!!!