Media Ethics Research Paper

The media exercise a strong and complex influence upon the perception and understanding of the world by the public and, consequently, upon shaping the personality of each individual and the interactions of individuals with one another. News and reportage, commercials and advertisements, soap operas and films—all exert in the long run more or less subtle influence on people’s views, choices, and behavior. Because of the ubiquity of the media and their growing presence, the ethical problems that the media practitioners face become increasingly important.

There are a number of issues discussed in media ethics, and the importance of these issues depends on the function of the media and on the nature of the media. For example, the problem of objectivity is far more important in journalism than in entertainment or advertisement; moreover, the problem of objectivity is much more affected by the visual media than by print media.

1. Truth in the Media

Traditionally, discussion concerning media ethics concentrated around journalistic ethics for which the problem of truth is of critical importance. There are two reasons for this importance. First, the media are the primary source of information in a democracy and reliable information is indispensable for a genuine democratic political system. The government must be accountable to the people it represents, and one means of ensuring this is access to information related to governmental policies and informed discussion about government. For this reason, the press is often viewed as the fourth estate that monitors the actions of the three governmental estates: the legislature, executive, and judiciary (Thomas B. Macaulay’s concept). Second, the use of inaccurate information contributes to a decline in the autonomy of the individual. Deception is an exercise of self-interest; it makes making choices harder and undermines human freedom.

One facet of truth in journalism is objectivity, that is, the commitment to impartiality, to reflecting the world as it is, without any bias or distortion. The journalist should be a neutral, detached observer who reports facts free from personal opinion. There are aspects of each event that are independent of the convictions of reporters. News reports attempt to capture the essence of an event and its underlying causes, and locate the event in a social, historical, and political context. However, perfect objectivity is impossible to achieve. First, there is a problem of selection. News is not just reporting what recently happened; otherwise the most trivial events would qualify as news. It is the selection of the news based on its importance for the community as reinforced by showing these events in a larger context. Also, what is news depends very much on where the reporters and cameras are. In the television era, reporters are influenced by the existence of good pictures and this, in turn, determines how much time is assigned to a story.

Second, journalism striving for objectivity relies on an unrealistic view of the separation of facts and values. For this reason, fairness usually becomes the goal as the best approximation of objectivity. Fairness, or balance, is evenhandedness in the treatment of a presented issue; it is the shedding of light on an issue from different angles. Its opposite, unfairness or bias, often means the misleading slanting of news; because it conflicts with the central journalistic duty to inform the public, bias should be avoided. Bias can be the result of faulty thinking (giving too much weight to eyewitness testimonies which are never purely objective; looking for confirmation and not falsification of a view; using unrepresentative samples; or committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc error), the way of presenting the material (presenting news out of context; using emotionally charged language; focusing on the negative; or using close-ups rather than medium-long shots), or the nature of the organization (insufficient time allotted for news presentation).

Although perfect impartiality is unattainable, making explicit journalists’ own prejudices and assumptions can bring them closer to the truth. If journalism did not make seeking the truth untainted by subjectivity its goal, it would severely undermine its credibility and usefulness. By assuming, after the postmodernist thinkers, that truth is just a social construct, the borderline between fact and fiction is blurred; whereby no news could be trusted.

It is often stressed that in the interest of objectivity, journalists should avoid, if possible, conflicts of interest and commitment. Not infrequently, story sources want to receive positive coverage, and attempt to influence journalists through gifts, free tickets to events to be reviewed, free travel, etc. Some codes of ethics explicitly prohibit receiving such favors, but for financially struggling organizations such opportunities can be hard to pass over. Also, there may be a conflict of interest when journalists are members of, or sit on the boards of, organizations they cover. Sometimes even the appearance of such a conflict can be as damaging to the credibility of the media outlets as the conflict itself. However, if a conflict cannot be avoided, it should be acknowledged to the public.

The position of truth in the context of advertising is different to that in journalism. The role of advertising is to persuade people to do something: in commercial advertising, to buy a product, or, in political advertising, to accept a person or views. This requires the stressing of the strong points of the product and omitting the weaknesses. Because the only goal of advertisement is to promote a product or idea, it is one sided and should not be expected to be balanced and complete. The public must be aware of this and treat the advertising accordingly: ca eat emptor. Also, advertising is a persuasive, not rational, communication. As such, it wants to catch potential client’s attention, and is not primarily concerned with the product’s quality. But this does not mean that truth is irrelevant for advertising. Advertising should not be deceptive by suggesting nonexisting qualities of a product; it should avoid deceptive means, such as using staged testimonials.

This element is particularly important in political advertising. Politicians must win public support to win an election, so they must have legitimacy obtained by favorable media visibility which stresses the positive and downplays the negative aspects of the politician’s views and activity. This often means diverting the public’s attention from important political and economic issues to what plays well in the media, particularly on television: polished demeanor, good looks, witty ripostes. It is claimed that the voters are more interested in trustworthiness of politicians than in their particular promises. Realization of this problem leads the politicians and their public relations advisors to project the best image of these politicians through the media, to shape in public opinion the image of their great personality and character. For this reason, political public relations advisors and consultants become increasingly important on the political scene.

2. Freedom and Responsibility

The freedom to publish opinions is defended with the argument that it is necessary for democracy, and that the discovery of the truth requires a free marketplace of ideas. However, others say, the powerful dominate the media, and consequently the competition of ideas is not genuine because the access to the media is unequal. Also, an argument is used that free speech fosters individual autonomy and development, but, on the other hand, it may encourage hate speech and obscenity.

Unqualified free speech, even in democratic society, is unattainable and it is legally restrained, e.g., in the interest of national security and public safety. There remains a problem of defining the situation when national security is endangered. It is sometimes maintained that the United States lost the war in Vietnam because the media coverage largely undermined the image of the military. Hence, media coverage of the British military operations in the Falklands (1982) and the United States operation in Iraq (1991) was restricted much more severely than necessary.

Most media practitioners realize that—notwithstanding legal issues—free speech must be qualified with responsibility. Journalists in a democracy have a responsibility to foster pluralism and diversity of political debate, and to refrain from perpetuating myths about different social groups. Also, the media must take into account the consequences of their actions. For instance, reporters can sometimes anticipate that their approach to news gathering may induce antisocial behavior: the camera can turn a demonstration into a riot, and a live coverage of a hijacking, which gives the hijackers free publicity, makes hard the release of the captives. When their stories bring some harm, journalists defend themselves by saying that they just report a story. But news organizations are very willing to take credit for positive consequences. News is created by journalists, so they need to be sensitive to possible influences their news may have. They need to take into account who may be harmed by their actions. This is particularly important in the context of citizens’ privacy/

2.1 Privacy

Journalists justify breaching someone’s privacy by saying that the public has the right to know. This is an important argument, because it implies that the media are obligated to publicize some reports, whereas freedom of the press merely permits such publicizing. However, the argument leaves unspecified what it is that the public has the right to know. Although the media, journalism in particular, ought to act in the public interest, it does not mean that they are obligated to fully satisfy the public’s interest. Public interest is not tantamount to mere curiosity. The critics indicate that the media much too often publicize information to satisfy the public’s curiosity, but refrain from publishing revelations about the media themselves; journalists routinely avoid stories that put other journalists in a negative light (Hausman 1992).

The problem of privacy violation is particularly acute in the case of public figures. It is often said that public figures relinquish their right to privacy by the very fact that they become public figures; the loss of privacy is a price for being famous and thereby for high social status, wealth, power, etc. For this reason, all details of private lives of public figures can be published. It is claimed that in the case of politicians such details are important, because their personal qualities can interfere with their public duties and affect their decision making, especially under pressure. Also, the character of the people associated with a politician influence the politician’s priorities and decisions. People elect a whole person, not only a public side; consequently, they should know about the private side as well. Hence, notwithstanding the motives of the media, they are acting on the public’s behalf as a watchdog of the political arena, and, therefore, they have the right and responsibility to know the facts concerning people who shape political and economic policies of the country. In particular, the media should expose the hypocrisy of politicians who publicize goals and policies that are at variance with their own life. However, others say, in line with La Rochefoucauld’s maxim, that hypocrisy is the homage which vice renders to virtue, and, hence, if positive policies are enacted in spite of violation of them by the enacters, so much the better for the policies. For this reason, a hasty exposure of politicians’ vices can be counterproductive because it may lead to the demise of the politicians and, consequently, to the demise of their positive and desirable policies. Besides, an invasion of privacy discourages many people from entering an election race, which is detrimental to the democratic process. It is also said that to maintain their mental health, public persons should have time off from the sight of the public.

Privacy is violated by undercover investigation and the use of long-range cameras, electronic eavesdropping devices, or surreptitious taping. The use of such means is often justified as indispensable in the investigation of crime and corruption, public health dangers, and safety negligence because it may be the only available means to unearth the story, and it may contribute to greater objectivity of the story. The critics maintain that the use of such means may lead to a general erosion of trust, and discussion of the news obtained by questionable methods often focuses on these methods rather than on the news itself.

2.2 Self-regulatory Mechanisms

The media recognize that some self-regulation is necessary to avoid an erosion of confidence and public demand for governmental regulation. There are several mechanisms used to develop and maintain responsibility of the media. Codes of ethics mark the stage of maturity of a profession, provide a framework for self-regulation, and can help to define and direct the work of journalists; however, they are usually vague and often leave open the problem of implementing the enforcement mechanism. Another mechanism is internal criticism by a neutral arbitrator within the organization to investigate and to respond to complaints; an ombudsman can increase an organization’s credibility, because the existence of an in-house critic signals to the public its sensitivity to public opinion and its willingness to modify the organization’s practices. Also, news councils are formed, with variable success, to debate complaints against the press (e.g., British Press Council since 1953, National News Council in the USA in 1973–1984). Finally, education offered in classes on journalism ethics, conferences, meetings, and seminars explore issues of media ethics.

3. Quality of Media Content

The media frequently argue that they show and publish what the audience wants, which is determined democratically by conducting polls, and that criticism of the media for low quality programs is elitist. This argument is rebutted by the claim that the media respond only to the immediate interests of the public, and what goes beyond these interests is inevitably disregarded. Also, this way of determining interests has a tendency to confine them to the lowest tastes. The pursuit of higher ratings leads to trivialization and sensationalism of journalism and entertainment. The proliferation of tabloid journalism is the result of a conviction that the media only reflect the public’s tastes; interests in sensational and bizarre aspects of our culture is natural, and no harm results from satisfying them. However, it is claimed that the constant exposure to tabloid journalism diverts public attention from important social and political problems, and gives credibility to sensational aspects of human existence. Tabloid journalism has become mainstream because sensationalism is one of the most important elements shaping the news, particularly in television, which, by definition, gives rise to distortion. Visual media call attention to conflict, magnitude, the unusual, the sensational, and the spectacular. Television relies on brevity and swift transitions. Visual events (fires, crashes) gain prominent coverage on television; an explanation of a tax reform receives only a short sound bite. The public will eventually come to think that the sensational aspects are the norm.

The reliance on sensationalism is apparent in entertainment. For example, talk shows live on the voyeurism of the public and exhibitionism of the guests. The primary goal of exposing the unusual behavior or appearance of talk show guests is to entertain the public, not to help the guests. The shows break taboos, exhibit deviant behavior, and make it appear ordinary.

Stressing the sensational manifests itself in the saturation of entertainment with violence and erotic content. Many media critics express a concern that watching violence stimulates violent behavior generally, and copying the watched behavior in particular, people who watch violence regularly become desensitized to its horror and may even develop a positive attitude to it. However, it is possible that pictures of violence increase the level of revulsion concerning its consequence, that it inhibits aggressive behavior, that is, has a cathartic effect—Aristotle claimed that a tragedy with its depiction of ‘serious actions’ has a cathartic effect (Poetics vi).

The effect on children of watching television is probably the most researched subject today in media influence on people. Results of many research studies indicate that television, especially depiction of violence, has a profound effect on children’s behavior. This is also true for computer games which have become increasingly saturated with violence. Also, action movies engage viewers’ emotions and reduce them to primal instincts, leaving out intellect (Sloterdijk 1993). However, some say, even granted that it may be difficult to establish empirically the existence of a causal link between viewing and future behavior, many actions of the media are predicated on the existence of such a link. For example, if there were no influence of the media on the public, no organization would invest any money for advertising. Therefore, if noncriminal behavior can be influenced, it is difficult to assume that the media have no impact on criminal behavior. Moreover, constant repetition is both a tool of education for acquiring and holding information, and of propaganda for putting across a political message. It would be remarkable if constant viewing of violence in movies or games did not have a similar effect. The media often use rating systems to indicate the content of films and shows, but, some contend, this system is often used as an allurement rather than a warning, and the movie producers are tempted to include gratuitous violence, pornography, and profanity in their products to make them more appealing.

The media create popular culture, and in this culture they gravitate toward what is most exciting. Therefore, popularity seems to be a crucial factor in deciding the content of the media. But if popularity is a deciding factor, then there is no room for creativity and acceptance of new ideas. There is little room for real choices because the media become the subject of a form of Grasham’s law which says that poor quality entertainment drives out high quality entertainment, news, and educational programming (Fink 1988).

 Bibliography:

1. Alix F X 1997 Une Ethique pour l’Information: de Gutenberg a Internet. L’Harmattan, Paris
2. Christians C G, Fackler M, Rotzoll K B, McKee K B (eds.)
3. 2001 Media Ethics and Moral Reasoning, 6th edn. Longman, White Plains, NY
4. Cohen E D, Elliott D 1997 Journalism Ethics: A Reference Handbook. ABC-Clio, Santa Barbara, CA
5. Day L A 1999 Ethics in Media Communications: Cases and Contro ersies, 3rd edn. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA
6. Fink C C 1988 Media Ethics: In the Newsroom and Beyond. McGraw-Hill, New York
7. Hausman C 1992 Crisis of Conscience: Perspecti es on Journalism Ethics. HarperCollins, New York
8. Kieran M (ed.) 1998 Media Ethics. Routledge, London
9. Limburg V E 1994 Electronic Media Ethics. Focal, Boston, MA Pigeat H 1997 Medias et Deontologie: Regles du Jeu ou Jeu sans Regles. PUF, Paris
10. Sloterdijk P 1993 Medien-Zeit: Drei gegenwartsdiagnostischeVersuche. Cantz, Stuttgart, Germany
11. Wiegerling K 1998 Medienethik. Metzler, Stuttgart, Germany