Let’s agree from the outset that, aside from various
Pleistocene grunts and gestures, the first “medium” for human expression was
the spoken word. However that initial mode of mass communication was limited by:
the distance the human voice can travel, by the number of possible listeners,
and by the limits of human memory. So for the most part, Media Ethics became an
issue with the invention of the written word and a series of successive technological
innovations (clay tablets, paper, radio, telephone, television, and Internet), all
of which allowed for the increasingly efficient transmission of information (Truth)
and disinformation (Falsehood) within and between communities and between generations.
These innovations also exerted a profound influence on the size, scale, and
nature of both business and politics.
Today, what we call “The Media” can be either a publically
owned (political entity) or privately owned (business entity). The primary purpose
of the modern media is to employ information and/or disinformation in order to shape
the relationship between public institutions, private institutions, and
individuals. In this course we will focus
on Media Ethics as a subset of corporate Business Ethics; and subject to moral
analysis via Stakeholder Theory and Stockholder Theory.
So what is a “good” privately-owned Media outlet? According
to stockholder theory ,
corporate success involves both cooperation and competition
between stakeholders: stockholders, employees, consumers, sub-contractors,
financiers, and the local community. Profit for the owners is earned based on
competition between buyers, between sellers, and between buyers and sellers. Profit
for most news outlets is contingent upon selling advertising to other
corporations. Profitability is ultimately based on how many buyers experience any
given news show, and how much of the advertised products and/or services are
purchased by buyers. Therefore, the most profitable media outlets must attract
and retain buyers who habitually experience their programs, and respond to
those commercials.
Entertainment of buyers is psychological, which inevitably
involves both reason and emotion. Some forms of news entertainment
invoke rationality or rational arguments; however, most rely on the cultivation
of emotions, especially stories that incite laughter, sex and/or violence. But news outlets are also in the business of
selling information (Truth), which often fuels conflict between Truth Value and
Entertainment Value. The lead news stories in both local and national news
shows are almost always “bad news.” World news shows are usually headlined by natural
disasters (earthquakes, hurricanes etc.) or warfare (especially terrorism). In
Cincinnati, local news shows usually emphasize: gang-related shootings, police
violence, murders, domestic violence, automobile accidents, and fires. According
to Stockholder Theory, if this is what consumers want to see on the news, then
this is what the market demands. Media ethics, according to stockholder theory
refers the morality of the owners. Ethical corporations are more likely to
survive and/or earn a profit.
Stakeholder theory argues that it’s the editor’s job to
pursue (blend) the interests of all of the various stakeholder groups, not just those
of the stockholders. Utilitarian critics of news shows might argue that even if
“bad news” sells, excessive emphasis on bad news leads to negative social utility
ratios; especially fearful communities that are prone to exploitation by those
who sell safety and/or security. Journalists who dutifully expose business
ineptitude run the risk of alienating corporate sponsors.
“Good journalists” possess a specific skill set that allows
them to uncover the Truth, and another skill set that allows them to present
that Truth clearly and accurately. The most skilled journalists possess both,
however many others lack one or the other. Being a less-skilled researcher or
presenter is not immoral. An immoral researcher deliberately fabricates the
known Truth or deliberately presents it unclearly; usually to incite fear, protect
a crony or punish an enemy. In the recent past, journalists were expected to
focus on researching and presenting the Facts; but not the moral interpretation
of those facts. Today journalists are also expected to interpret at least some
Facts and express moral judgments. Most news media outlets and journalists also
endorse various political candidates, which ultimately raises the specter of
conflict of interest.
Finally, since the time of Plato, totalitarian political regimes
seek to control the media; often under the guise of advancing the “greater
good.” However, there is also a long tradition in Western Liberalism that
values Freedom of the Press. Hence, a “Good Press” limits the power and growth
of government, by exposing governmental incompetency and/or corruption.
Unfortunately, this Western Liberal mandate is often in conflict with its
mandate to entertain and earn a profit. So, should the “news” be monopolized by
government (for the greater good), or should it be exposed to free market
competition? Is there a credible third option?
Discussion Questions
1. Does the “Media” really serve multiple purposes and do those purposes often conflict? Give examples.
No comments:
Post a Comment