http://www.editorsweblog.org/newsrooms_and_journalism/2010/09/media_responsibility_and_hivaids.php
Media surrounds us. There is no escaping it. However, what the media chooses to report and expose to the public is their choice, which can lead to a few ethical debates. What exactly is the medias responsibility? When does the media "cross a line"? As Baran and Davis ask, "think about your views concerning the role of media for yourself, your community, your state, your nation, and your world. What are the most important things that media should and shouldn't do? What standards of behavior should media practitioners follow as they perform these tasks?" (Baron and Davis, 98). Are there any real answers to these questions? In the article I have posted, Jimmy Kolker "commends" the medias current coverage on HIV and AIDS, yet "pleads" with the them to "remember confidentiality ethics when reporting". Kolker goes on to say, "The boundaries are in respecting the health, dignity and personal decisions of those affected." While I personally agree with what Kolker is saying, not all media professionals have the same outlook. It seems that the more the media can "expose" the greater the shock factor and the more in depth the story. This is where I feel both the normative and social responsibility theories come into play. In these theories however, there are no real answers to any of the questions, just a matter of moral opinion. It is up to us as future professionals in this industry to decide what is ethical and moral in the stories we report on.
What is the true meaning of a media professional? Answering that question would solve the problems of today’s ethical media concerns. People like to call themselves media professionals by simply publishing a post on a website or blog. I feel that if you don’t follow the ethical and moral rules that the mainstream media industry has historically followed, you cannot consider yourself a media professional. Now the question is what are the ethical and moral rules of media? They aren’t written down anywhere, so where do we find them? This is where normative theories come into the mix of determining what is right and what is wrong. As Baran and Davis write on page 98, “social responsibility theory is a normative theory that substitutes media industry and public responsibility for total media freedom on the one hand and for external control on the other. “ Social responsibility theory is the accurate answer to the burning questions about media accountability. A media professional should be able to prove they are being “socially responsible” and purely doing their job to benefit the public. For example, in the article that this blog posted about media responsibility when dealing with AIDS/HIV, the author said “Journalists…need some awareness and understanding to cover the topic.” In other words, a journalist cannot go into a topic, especially a medical condition, without being somewhat aware of the area of study. That is the journalist responsibility to the public; journalists need to do their homework.
ReplyDeleteThe media wasn’t always the way it is today, pointed out in McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communications Theory. Newspapers used to be filled with political stories where the CEO of the newspaper would have his chance to be biased and promote the party of his choice. This practice of journalism took a turn in the 1970s. “By the last decade of the twentieth century magazines and newspapers…turned to reader surveys to learn more about what the community or nation wanted to read.” Media became more audience-oriented rather than being a opinion outlet for rich newspaper owners.
Even though a media professional should be someone that is aware of most ethical and moral standards of the field, I do feel that non-professional media junkies should be able to have the freedom to say what they want about topics in the media. “…media should be regarded as a self-regulating market place of ideas.” Baran and Davis define market place of ideas as “the notion that all ideas should be put before the public, and the public will choose the best from that marketplace.” The public should be exposed to all opinions and have the right to choose who they wish to believe. We live in a country that highly regards our first amendment of freedom of speech, we should respect that.
Media has a responsibility to meet the public’s expectations. The public has a responsibility to make its expectations known. There are no lines to cross until the public draws them. We see this when media outlets face backlashes for sloppy/controversial reporting.
ReplyDeleteSocial responsibility theory seems pretty hard to live by. Nerone writes that, social responsibility theory proposes that the media take it upon themselves to elevate their standard, providing citizens with the sort of raw material and disinterested guidance they need to govern themselves” (184). Disinterested guidance? Media is a business and businesses protect their interests.
Following the idea that media is a business, the public is much better off making its expectations clear in Habermas’ public sphere. Economics tells us that the market place moves towards efficiency when it is not manipulated. Naturally a public sphere/marketplace of ideas would thrust the most important ideas to the forefront. Baran and Davis simplify it to, “The ideas compete, and the best will be bought” (104). To be fair, media outlets would then have to make sure the distribution is equitable at the cost of some efficiency as the best stories do not always cover a variety of issues, groups, or locations.
It is up to us, but morality and ethics are subjective. They change from person to person, generation to generation, and organization to organization. There is probably no way to set a standard on something so hard to pin down. Demographics on the other hand are measurable and readily accessible. Using demographics/statistics to establish what’s reality and therefore newsworthy etc. seems like a more solid and quantifiable way to go.
If the media sticks to economics and equity according to demographics, shock value and the questionable/controversial reporting of the past will not really be an issue.
I feel that the media's most important role to the public is to inform them of what they need to know. So the media has a very important job of deciding what goes on the air and what doesn't. They also have an important duty of making sure that the facts are right, and not being in just a hurry to report the facts before any other news outlet.
ReplyDeleteThe recent emergence of Twitter has made this a huge issue in my opinion, as reporters can break news in only 140 characters and instantaneously. But they still have to follow the morals set forth by the Professionalism for Cyberjournalists (121) in Baran and Davis. I think a key point in that is when to "distinguish between advocacy, commentary and factual information." To me the difference between those three things are very difficult when a reporter is using Twitter to report news.
Another interesting point that Everette E. Dennis brings up is that "freedom of the press belongs to all of the people". (167). This again has to do with Twitter as it has basically become a type of press, and anyone is allowed to post whatever they want so it is up to a reader to decide if this information is factual or not.