Media and new world ethics in the shrinking news cycle
Mass Media, as a form of
communicating a message to an audience, plays an important role in today’s
society. Journalism today is rapidly changing. The lines between objective reporting
and propaganda, or messaging, are becoming more and more blurred every day. The
media of today competes now in a very fast news cycle to get content to the
reader. In that changing news cycle the media is losing some of it credibility
in relation to its ethical responsibilities. There are many ways a consumer of
information can get information. As a society, the reader is confronted with
information from all directions. The journalist and the media of today have a
responsibility to its audience. As an ethical organization, the media must hold
to some basic responsibilities. Ethically, we expect to get unbiased, factual
and timely information. The journalist in mass media serves the public. There
is a trust that needs to be maintained. The media must have a responsibility to
its audience.
There are many ethical views that can be
described of how the media as a whole interacts with its responsibilities. Its
most important responsibility is to report factual information. The media can
be an influencer in today’s society. This can be seen recently during the news events
in Florida. In the Trayvon Martin
wrongful death case the messages the media reports to the public can have a
profound impact on how they will react. The public will look to the reporting
as truthful, ethical and accurate. Unfortunately when it is not, the public can
have a hard time deciding if the message is truthful or false. The Media is looked up to, to tell the story;
it can influence an outcome negatively if it does not follow any ethical
guidelines. This can lead to the issues we see playing out as a culture behaves
or accepts another cultures society from those views. Ethicists see this as a glaring problem that
is causing new concerns on ethical reporting. On the web site, Ethics Newsline from the Institute for global
Ethics, it opinion gives an insight of how media is not following sound ethical
decisions and it is causing distrust and credibility issues to the public it is
intended to.
“Media
ethicists are growing uncomfortable with the way journalists are assuming a
police-like role in the case, using advanced forensic techniques to analyze
evidence — an act that could mislead the public — according to a report from
the Associated Press. Both the Orlando Sentinel and ABC News, for example, have
attempted to enhance video and audio to shed light on the case, but legal and
forensic experts tell the AP that nothing so far has been conclusive and that
the public is being confused by the back-and-forth in the complex case”(Ethics
Newsline, 2012)
Historically, the
public has an inherent trust in the media. Most readers will want to view the
media as an ethical institution. If the media in itself can not adhere to
ethical guidelines, the public will be conflicted by the messages the media
puts out. Once there is a view of poor ethics the public trust in the media’s
responsibilities will be lost.
Good Journalism is an important tool; if it is
viewed unethically it will lose all and any credibility. The public is better
served when the Media presents truth ethically and stays away from presenting
views as false or propaganda. There should be no room for speculation in media
reporting. The Journalist has a responsibility to their readers that are
looking to the journalist to give them the facts of the story. This
responsibility is described in the book, Media
and Journalism Ethics by S.N. Phadke
“Social
responsibility of the media can be interpreted in terms of both
'responsibility,' referring to the media's responsibility with regards to
society, and 'responsiveness,' relating to the manner in which the media listen
to and take the public into consideration.” (Phadke 2008)
The ethical problem for
the Media lies in its delivery of the message. While the media has the
responsibility to let us know when governments or corporate interest manipulate
the media, it is a bigger ethical issue when the Media manipulates the message
for its own gain. At the journalist level, we as a
society rely on the individual reporter to be objective and tell us the truth
of the matter. Journalists have basic
tenants and a code of ethics they look to uphold. Author Dave Berry, in the
book, Journalism, Ethics and Society,
describes this ethical value a journalist carries as it relates to individual
reporting the news should be, “Objective reporting is thought to be a full
account of an event written in a dispassionate and detached manner so as to
avoid subjectivity or the over-use of one’s own value-judgements.”(Berry, 2009)
When the journalist decides what the public needs to know, and what they do not
need to know, is the moral and ethical question? The utilitarianism view of the media would
look at what is fair to the overall audience.
The greatest good would have to be
achieved by the message. The journalist could decide that some facts should not
be shown for it would affect negatively more of the readership than it would
pose as a benefit. On another hand does it restrict the freedom of the press
and free speech? In example what is judged obscene or distasteful. While the
press enjoys freedom of speech, in a utilitarianism view, is not releasing
certain facts morally right if it was for a greater good. In the recent story of soldiers posing with
dead enemy Taliban the Los Angeles Times
grappled with should the release the photo’s to its readers and to the public. While
the pentagon argued not to release the newspaper eventually released the
images. Here a utilitarianism view on ethics and morals can be applied in both
decisions.
The
editors at the Los Angeles Times felt they were morally right and had a
responsibility to give the public the images. This decision perspective allowed
them to be neutral and meet journalisms ethical goal of objective reporting.
This could show that the decision was in their perspective as utilitarianism. In
that utilitarianism decision they in turn felt their readers concern for objective
information outweighed the safety concerns of the soldiers involved. This was reached
after the concerns were weighed in from the Military viewpoint. The Department
of Defense objection was that it would harm troops still in the area by
publishing the images.
If the editors did take the route of the
military concerns, a utilitarianism view can also be applied on not publishing
them. In that scenario of a decision it could be seen that the goal not to
publish would protect the nation as a whole along with the military involved.
That basically tends to support a utilitarianism view also. In that decision by
not publishing the imagery the greater good is served. Ethically the entire population over their Los
Angeles Times readership would protect more people, thus it serves the greater
good. Doug Spero, an associate professor
of mass communication at Meredith College in Raleigh, N.C was quoted in a Christian Science Monitor article by
reporter Daniel Wood on the ethical decisions to print or not as,
“If
I received a call and [military officials] made any practical or logical sense
on why this would endanger troops – and the story value wasn’t that high – I’d
cooperate. Not only for future relationships, but if there is going to be an
error made, I’d would rather it be on the side of national security and
pro-defense," he says. "Sometimes there is a higher calling. This is
a very sticky issue, and journalists need to evaluate each situation individually
without any prejudice.” (Wood 2012)
Does
the medium operate ethically by not publishing something for it may offend a
segment of the public? Even if they feel they are doing this under a moral
belief. The deontologist view feels it is a duty to never lie and it would be
morally correct to present the truth of the matter. The counter to that is that
then the media is what if the media is withholding that information. Ethically, do they have a stand in a form of censorship?
In the book, Media in 21st Century:
Freedom and Censorship it shows that, “Such censorship is opposed by civil
liberties groups, cinema owners and members of the artistic community. Regimes
of censorship have been challenged in court.” (Panday, 2007) No matter the
decision one group will always feel they are not receiving all the information
possible.
Morally
a deontologist would say that since the information strikes against good morals
it would be best to report it. If the utilitarianism view is to not tell a side
of the story because its serves more, would that result in being considered a
propagandist view? We can see this in most propaganda news and media
information outlets. The example of a propaganda media can be seen in what is
similar to government or state run media. Author Chappell Lawson, in the book, Building the Fourth Estate:
Democratization and the Rise of a Free Press describes the reason media in this area can
be controlled as, “Media owners wanted, above all, a hospitable business
environment in which they could prosper economically and protect their status
as members of the country’s elite. In order to prosper economically, they
needed the state to provide” (Lawson, 2002)
While the public may receive news that is good to their benefit as a
society, the down side is that news that is negative will also be left out. In
the end the public suffers for the benefit of a few that controls the message.
A
journalist that uses virtue ethics will not look at the consequential act of
his reporting but the character of his act in representing the information. If
ethically the journalist feels they possess virtue ethics, as the text states “emphasizes
that the moral, or virtuous, person exemplifies moral behavior.”(Mosser, 2010) they
will look at how they present the information. If they in themselves are
feeling morally obliged to present it knowing they are letting the reader
decide, then by doing the right thing, the public will gain a more balanced
flow of information. There
are many ways we as a society get our information today. How the media presents
information to the public will always be looked at and examined. Ethically and
morally the journalist should be objective, and not try to control or shape the
message. The classical theories utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics give
us a way to judge how the message is being presented. Each may have a perceived
ethical presentation, or dilemma on what is right or wrong in the approach. Ethically
we expect to get factual information from the media. Trust needs to be
maintained and ethics upheld. In the end if the media fails in a responsibility
to its audience, the trust will be lost. Then we are left with a media with no
sense of responsibilities
References
Lawson, J. Chappell H.(2002)
Building
the Fourth Estate : Democratization and the Rise of a Free Press. Ewing,
NJ, USA: University of California Press,. p 28.
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ashford/Doc?id=10053540&ppg=43
Mosser, K. (2010) Ethics and Social Responsibility. San Diego, CA. Bridgepoint Education Inc. Retrieved
from Retrieved from: https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUCOM200.11.1
Panday, S.N. (2007) Media in 21st Century : Freedom and
Censorship. Jaipur, IND: Global
Media, 2007. p 254. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ashford/Doc?id=10416102&ppg=254
Phadke, S.P.(2008) Media
and Journalism Ethics . Jaipur, IND: Global Media, 2008. p 94. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ashford/Doc?id=10416235&ppg=94
No comments:
Post a Comment