Decision Making, Case Study Example

The situation presented herein is a bit tricky and involves a series of critical thinking. The values involved in this are the legal values and market based values. On the aspect of legal values, the broadcasting company has the right to make decision on not to defame the grocery chain company in question. At the same, the case revolves around market-based values. Such values dictate that regular customers be given good treatment to maintain their loyalty in using the TV station broadcasting services. The above values apply with the freedom of the public to establish the truth notwithstanding. Consequently, the ethical principle applicable in this case is the utilitarianism, where the decision chosen ought to bring more good than evil at the end.

Judgment

In my view, this is what I feel they should have done; they should not air the health code violation story about the grocery, instead, they should make the grocery management aware of the consequences involved in the breach of that code and the legal implications that such an act may attract.

Here is the reason for my verdict: the grocery is one of the biggest advertisers that the TV broadcasting station has. Passing the judgment that will not favor them will lead to withdrawal of their services from the company. This means they will no longer advertise their products through the TV broadcasting, which is an implication of great revenue losses apart from loss of some of their most loyal customer. In addition, business ethics demand that good customer relations be maintained at all times, hence taking a step that would act to overrule this can easily lead to ruin of this good relationship (Dominick 120).

Another impact that may be caused by airing of such content would be demeaning the public image of both the companies. For instance, if the TV station broadcasts such information, the public will view them to be contradictive to what they have been advertising all along. This would results into loss of interest from the public eye. At the same time, airing such material would discourage people from using the products of the company, in the end; the grocery would encounter massive losses.

The grocery may also decide to take legal action against the TV station on grounds of assault of privacy or defamation. This would force them to depart with large sums of money trying to settle the case with their lawyers in court. Such cases may take long before a ruling can be made hence forcing the two parties to part with huge sum of money (Dominick 110).

Choosing not to air the information would not hurt the company a great deal. The TV station would just inform them of what is required and allow them time to correct the mistake. This would not lead to so much public outcry or people stopping to buy their products. The TV broadcasting should however inform them of the need to hasten their changes.

The ethical theory applied in this case is the utilitarianism whereby, an individual ought to weigh the impacts that a decision is likely to bring in terms of good and evil. From the above analysis, choosing to air the health code violation may cause more harm than good. The disadvantages of airing this information to the public may cause great losses to both the companies, thus they should choose not to air the information. I rest my case.

Works Cited

Dominick, Joseph R., Fritz Messerre, and Barry L. Sherman. Broadcasting, Cable, internet and beyond: An introduction to modern electronic media. 7th ed. New York: Mc Graw Hill, 2013. Print.