Ever since the advent
of media conglomerates, most notably Hearst and Pulitzer, who controlled and
owned newspapers, wire services, radio, magazines, etc. (Nerone 184), the
monopolization of the media has concerned a number of people. John C, Nerone
points out that “there are tendencies toward monopolization in the media, that the
people or the public are inattentive and not concerned with the rights or
interests of those unlike themselves, and that commercialization produces a
debased culture and a dangerously selfish politics. In response, social
responsibility theory proposes that the media take it upon themselves to
elevate their standards, providing citizens with the sort of raw material and
disinterested guidance they need to govern themselves” (Nerone 185). This idea
that self-government should be taken into consideration; that fair, balanced
and responsible journalism, coupled with what the public audience will take
interest in the most, should be essential to news and reporting, has been
crucial to social responsibility theory. This idea, however, comes with a
number of strings attached. For example, as Baran and Davis show, media
professionals have the tough responsibility of weeding through certain material
when putting together news stories. In the wake of Virginia Tech shooting in
2007, NBC News received video, photographs and a written “manifesto” from the
murderer, and had to decide what was appropriate to show viewers, what could
possibly offend them, and what impact it would have on them. Many other journalists
did not agree with their decision to air the footage, as they believed it would
negatively influence other “‘deranged’” people to become a “copycat killer”
(Baran & Davis, 96). Was this a ploy to just simply earn more ratings from
viewers, or was it an honest act of good journalism? Was this material
necessary in order for the viewer to make an informed decision about greater
issues at hand, such as campus safety, gun ownership laws and mental illness?
Or did it just provide graphic, disturbing images inappropriate for families
watching the news? Questions such as these relate to what social responsibility
entails, and Baran & Davis’ inquiries (“Should media do something more than
merely distribute whatever content will earn them the greatest profits in the
shortest time?” (97)) can relate in a number of ways to the media coverage of
Whitney Houston’s recent death.
As a class, we have
already agreed that Houston’s death has been covered extensively because of her
status as a pop icon: she infiltrated the entertainment business and her death
is profitable for news sources. However, with the television airing of her
funeral on Saturday, February 18, the concept of social responsibility comes to
mind once again. Besides the funeral services being aired on national
television, news sources such as CNN posted photographic and video coverage on
their website to accompany their article “Whitney Houston’s journey ‘home’ ends,”
written by Chelsea J. Carter and Jason Carroll. In the article, the authors
honed in on the funeral being a televised celebration of the late singer’s
life, quoting celebrities such as Kevin Costner and Alicia Keys as they knew
Houston. It is clear that the article and the footage were used to draw viewers’
attention to a tragedy, but these two journalists also focused on the idea of
body and beauty image and the loss of self-worth as they applied to Houston’s
spiral into drugs and her eventual death: “Years after "The Bodyguard" hit theaters, reports of Houston's
struggles with drug addiction and a rocky marriage with Bobby Brown surfaced
and her album sales declined” Carroll et. al.) Costner, who was Houston’s co-star in The Bodyguard, related that Whitney’s
own struggles with self-esteem can help and inspire other young girls: “Maybe
they're thinking they aren't good enough,” he said. “I think Whitney would tell
you: Guard your bodies. Guard the precious miracle of your life” (Carroll et. al.)
So, does the idea that Whitney’s story can be used as a template for
other girls struggling with similar issues overshadow perhaps the immorality of
televising and covering a funeral that should have been excusive to mourning
family members and friends? The article also cites ex-husband Bobby Brown’s
controversial appearance, as well as his altercation with Houston’s family
during the service. This paints another controversial picture, hinting at the tabloid
stories that permeate credible news stories such as CNN. This alludes to the
fact that CNN is catering to what audiences are craving to read and watch; they
know that featuring such stories will not only improve readership and ratings,
but will simultaneously make audiences question their personal relationship to
Whitney’s death. Do you think it was appropriate and beneficial for audiences
to see live coverage of Whitney Houston’s funeral, or was it immoral, taking
away from social responsibility and fair, balanced and responsible journalism? What
other examples have you seen in the media that correlate with the media giving
preference to stories and material they know will interest audiences, despite its
controversial or immoral content?
Sarah Rosenberg
Baran, Stanley J.
and Dennis K. Davis, eds. Mass
Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment and Future, 6th ed.
(Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012).
Nerone, John C. “Social Responsibility Theory.” McQuail, Denis, ed. McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory. (London: Sage,
2002).
Carroll, Jason and
Chelsea J. Carter. “Whitney Houston’s journey ‘home’ ends.” "CNN News." CNN News. 19 Feb 2012. Web. 19 Feb. 2012.
Hey Sarah, I liked your post because it truly got me thinking. I believe that NBC’s airing part of the Virginia Tech shooter’s pictures, video, and quotes were both an honest act of good journalism and also to earn more ratings from viewers. This information was necessary to be aired so the rest of the world can see what happened. If this were not aired, how would the victims of Virginia Tech feel that their story did not get heard? That it was blown away and forgotten? By airing this, not only did it help raise awareness that something NEEDS to be done, but it also went to show how important the media is and how much we rely on it. On the contrary, NBC may have gone overboard with how much they showed and for that, they were attempting to build their ratings. Same as 9-11, we wanted to know what was happening so we tuned into the most informational station. “If you don’t like what’s on TV, just turn it off” (Watson 146). After this material was aired, I remember numerous accounts in South Dakota trying to change gun laws but it never fell through. An interesting fact is that, in 2007 “an ABC News poll released that 61 percent favor stricter gun control laws; the same percentage as in a Post-ABC poll last October and virtually unchanged in polls since 1989” (http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politicalblog/?p=2029). Overall, I think that this airing was necessary. Yes, I am sure it upset lots of people but in the long run, it raised awareness on issues that were being ignored, and issues that are ignored never end in a good result.
ReplyDeleteWe have heard a lot about Whitney Houston’s death. Those who “take the notion of ‘free press’ quite literally to mean that all forms of media must be totally unregulated” definitely accept personal stories that relate to them; for example, funerals, tragedy, drug/alcohol problems, love, or that desire to be a celebrity (Baran, Davis 100). Even though my views on the media covering funerals, even non-celebrities, disagree with those absolutists, I can see where they are coming from. For those who relate to drug addictions, Houston’s story is an inspiration. Houston did amazing things in her life, and she still had problems. That is a real-life story that girls, and even boys, can grasp and hopefully learn from.
CNN lowered their standards by “painting another controversial picture” about Bobby Brown and his argument with Houston’s family during the ceremony (in which I have not gone out of my way to learn about). This is what the audience wants. According to Baran and Davis, “most American media outlets allow-even encourage-their writers to maintain blogs to better engage readers” (123). It is obvious that society wants to be involved (just look at Twitter and how many of us follow celebrities). Despite all that, “more than 196 million Americans use the Internet” (Baran, Davis 121). That is over half of America, and it is given that Google News pops up for most of them; in which they take an interest in Houston’s death, or issues that they can relate to. I think that it was appropriate for the audience who wanted to see live coverage of Houston’s funeral to be able to. If the family thought it was immoral in any way, they could have held a private funeral in a small church, couldn’t they have? Overall, we see examples in the media that give preference to certain stories every day, despite its controversy.
In chapter five of Baran & Davis’s Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future, Baran & Davis discuss the social responsibility theory in relation to the press. “It emphasized the need for an independent press that scrutinizes other social institutions and provides objective, accurate news reports…It said that media should do this by prioritizing cultural pluralism—by becoming the voice of all the people—not just elite groups or groups that had dominated national, regional, or local culture in the past” (Baran & Davis, 115). With that being said, Sarah brings up a good point how media professionals must take responsibility of going through their material before putting together their news stories. The press is the voice of the people being heard. Therefore, what is being presented in the news should be what the people want and need to hear and read.
DeleteSarah provided the example that in class, we all seemed to come to the general consensus that Whitney Houston’s death was newsworthy however it was taken to a whole new level when the media decided to air Whitney’s funeral on national television. Her story was covered more than news about the presidential election or news about what is going on in other countries. Media professionals practiced the social responsibility theory here by placing importance on Whitney Houston’s death however not all of them did it in an “objective” way. For example, it was brought up in class how Diane Sawyer talked about Whitney Houston’s death as if she was part of the tragedy. Then, Sarah mentions how in another article, journalists focus on the negative aspects of Whitney’s life and talking about her possible influence on young women. Both of these situations are not talking about Whitney’s death as an “objective, accurate news report” and if the media is supposed to be “the voice of all the people” is it unethical to do reports with a spin of some sort of opinion, whether it is positive or negative.
We also discussed in class how we have all seen the film Outfoxed. The film essentially focuses on how Fox News has a tendency to show their personal opinions and political views in their reporting. Fox claims to be “fair and balanced” however, reporters such as Bill O’Reilly, like to place their own opinions in their segments and when someone disagrees with them, they try to make the person feel as if they are wrong. O’Reilly even sometimes tells his broadcast guest to “shut up.”
Comment Part 1!
ReplyDeleteThe social responsibility of journalists is an interesting topic – I wholeheartedly agree that journalists should maintain certain decorum in how they go about reporting news stories, and making sure that they are reporting hard facts, but I think that this theory places a lot of blame on journalists, when readers should be questioned as well. Journalists would be nothing without readers to consume and react to their writing. We as readers choose where we get our news, for a multitude of reasons, but the important point is that it comes down to us to choose what we want to be exposed to.
In regards to the airing of Whitney Houston’s funeral, I personally agree that the ceremony should have been a private affair, but with the media’s obsession with celebrity culture, there is no way the funeral could have been for Ms. Houston’s family only. Even if the ceremony had been made private, I am sure there would have been hundreds of reporters and helicopters flying overhead, trying to get a glimpse of the ceremony. I think this directly relates to Sarah’s question “What other examples have you seen in the media that correlate with the media giving preference to stories and material they know will interest audiences, despite its controversial or immoral content?” It is now commonplace for reporters and paparazzi to show up at celebrity’s private events, whether they are weddings, birthday parties, or funerals. I think the media gives preference to these affairs because they know that American’s are obsessed with celebrity culture, and reinforce our interest in the lives of the rich and famous, no matter what the occasion.
We have discussed Kim Kardashian’s marriage at length in class, and whether or not she should have televised her wedding, and if she profited off of it. I think the discussion was valid, because it allowed us as students to discuss ethical journalism within the parameters of a pop-culture event that we could all understand. As stated in "Ethics in Entertainment Television" by Mary Ann Watson, “Media educators need to infuse ethical considerations into all their courses, including production, programming, and writing. If we don’t convey to aspiring creators of popular entertainment that with freedom comes responsibility, we’re not living up to ours.” (Watson 148) I think that using examples from the media we are interested in to learn about journalistic practices is useful, because otherwise we might never learn about our own social responsibilities before we become part of the media industry.
Comment Part 2!
ReplyDeleteThis is not to say that journalists should always take the blame; I feel that it is the reader’s responsibility to choose content that they feel is vetted and appropriate, and meets their standards. However, this is not always the case – the music industry, for one, is a prominent example of audiences forgoing their ethical practices to get the latest in media content. As we read this week in “Rethinking the Music Industry,” music lovers don’t necessarily want to pay for the music they listen to. If it is available without having to spend money, why wouldn’t you click download immediately? “Music audiences use online tools to pool affect, create social identities, collect intelligence,
share interpretations, and create for each other. From their point of view, filesharing is part of a complex and rewarding social exchange system among themselves, not part of the industry’s economic exchange system.” (Baym 178) I understand that it is hard to wrap our heads around the fact that there are many people who profit off the sale of music, not just the artists themselves who we see living lavish and outlandish lives across the world. There are producers and musicians and writers who are being stiffed out of their hard earned money, but that’s something the American public tends not to consider. I too download music illegally on occasion, but I think that as in journalism, there needs to be more of an emphasis on responsibility for our actions. Whether you are a journalist or part of the larger public, I think both sides need to recognize the need for ethical integrity when it comes to media.
The social responsibility theory was first introduced in 1947 to combat the pressures that threatened the freedom of the press. The theory states that the media should serve the public, and in order to do so, should remain free of government interference. The theory defined guidelines for media professionals to follow in order to serve its obligation of serving the public with necessary news information. The theory holds a libertarian view, as it “adheres to the notion of a marketplace of ideas but acknowledges that the marketplace must be represented inside a medium.” (Nerone 191) Media and its marketplace are now intertwined in contemporary society, so it’s difficult to hold control based off of that notion. The responsibility of journalists will always be a topic for debate, because the traditional standards of journalism consist of objectivity and credibility, to name a few…but we have come a time when objectivity and credibility is questioned and challenged in a technologically advanced society we are in, where there are countless mediums to get our news, some opinionated and bias like online blogs, to credible news websites that report in a bias manner (cough, fox, cough). The theory, when introduced in the 1940s, was to “put control of media content in the hands of media practitioners, who were expected to act in the public interest. (Baran and Davis, 129) When it comes down to it, the theory needs to be modified to be appropriately applied to contemporary media, as there are completely different and modified media outlets than in the 1940s when the theory was introduced. Chapter 5 of Baran and Davis’s Mass Communication Theory outlines other normative theories used in the media, including concepts such as authoritarian concept, communism concept, democratic-participant theory, to name a few. I think there are too many inter-theories of social responsibility. It turns the media into a political game, where no side/theory(ist) will put their own beliefs aside to agree with another. There are also too many concepts for journalisms to take into consideration when they are doing their reporting. As stated by Baran and Davis, “many observers believe that social responsibility theory will be given new strength by emerging technologies that allow communities greater power to disseminate information.” (Baran and Davis 120) This brings me to Sarah’s post regarding Whitney Houston’s death announcement on twitter, where it was posted 27 minutes before official news outlets.
ReplyDeleteOn a related subject, I absolutely think that broadcasting Whitney Houston’s death was an immoral and unethical move by CNN. They are catering to the needs and wants of their audience, but if that was their main incentive, they could have done so in a more professional, ethical way. Whitney Houston is an icon in every way possible, so I think it was necessary for some reporting to be done on her funeral. CNN could have sent a reporter representative to the funeral to write a piece on the funeral, giving their readers an insight to the funeral without actually televising the funeral.
I can’t think of any example in particular, but I think the media should refrain from featuring stories that involve children. Yes, I think the public should be aware of celebrity divorces and other scandals, but keep the children out of it. I really don’t think it’s anyones business to know about who is awarded custody for a child, other than the direct family members.
The Social responsibility theory has two very different sides to it. Is it a journalist’s duty to report every aspect of what they know and broadcast it even if the material is of a sensitive nature? Or are they supposed to censor the news to an extent to protect sensitive cases such as victim’s families, morality, or encouraging any further behavior of what is being reported on? “Social responsibility theory retains a liberal notion of healthy public discourse” (Nerone 191). Some journalists fight that it is their duty to report all of the news no matter what. They feel as though the public needs to know and it is their responsibility to inform them. Often these journalists say that the reason they are reporting this kind of full disclosure news is for bigger issues at hand. Maybe it needs to be shown to teach people a bigger lesson or raise issues of a bigger nature. This could be the truth in some cases but I think journalists are likely to put some kind of information spin on a story so they can claim it is helping to inform someone and they aren’t accused of just doing it for ratings. But I do not think informing is their only motive. I think it defiantly has a large part to do with ratings. News outlets are businesses. A businesses’ main goal is to make a profit and to make as much money as possible. Television news outlets make money by having higher ratings, just as print news outlets make more money for more viewership. There are too many alternative motives that come into play here to make it impossible to think every journalist or news outlet is simply trying to inform their viewer because they feel it is their strict responsibility to reveal all they know to the public. Even if the media was only doing a story for ratings, “in the media industries, violation of professional standards rarely has immediate, directly observable consequences” (Baran & Davis 11).For news outlets that do decide to air all things they have come across no matter how sensitive, I wonder how they chose to do so. For example, after Gaddafi was killed the footage of his bloody self was aired on every news outlet for days repeatedly. If he hadn’t been this evil figure, do you think the media still would have relentlessly played the footage of his death over and over? Say it was an American ruler? Or what about someone not in the public eye? What if a little boy was murdered and it somehow got caught on tape and sent to the media, would they play that? Isn’t it enough to just inform the public that these people died and how it happened or do they really have to physically see the act being committed to get fully informed? Where does the media draw the line? I think back to JFK and the Zapruder film which captured his assassination. That media coverage was played repeatedly during the time on every news outlet. It goes down in history as one of the key images people think of when they think of the assassination. This film did have graphic images of our own president and beloved leader being shot in the head. Yet we still played it on repeat and still now continue to analyze the footage. What if the news outlets who obtained this film thought it was too sensitive to air? Without it, the whole event in history would have been remembered differently. Would everyone be informed on the event in the same way? I know I for one think of the video when I think of the event and that is how I always remember exactly what happened when he was assassinated. If I just read an article saying he died I don’t think it would have had as much of an impact on me and I don’t know if I would have remembered as much. But were these media outlets at the time accused of only airing it for ratings? I don’t necessarily think they were which makes me wonder if society is just becoming more and more critical of the media and social responsibility issues as time goes on.
ReplyDeleteWhen Sarah discussed the footage shown during the Virginia Tech shooting I started to think that showing the photographs and video was both beneficial for the viewers and beneficial to the NBC Network. Although people complain about it they love to watch violence; the more they see the more they can’t stop watching. In order to avoid future school shootings, or create better security in schools the securities in other colleges could use that footage they saw from Virginia Tech to learn from that so they can avoid Virginia Tech’s mistakes. People also need to take into account that although getting newsworthy news out is important, it’s also a business and in order for the network you get your news from is going to stay in business it needs to sometimes focus more on what viewers want to see then what they think needs to be seen. I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing because with access we have to information these days its not like we couldn’t et the news we missed out on from the networks. The problem isn’t these news outlets the problem is there Americans are lazy and won’t look for the information themselves when they know they could find it if they wanted. In the Mcquail book the chapter on “Social Responsibility Theory” by John Nerone states that, “The fear of censorship repeatedly led Hollywood to display its ‘responsibility’; most recently through the ratings system” (Nerone 186). The ratings system was created to get government to back off. Showing footage from Virginia tech is just as violent as showing footage from wars and news has been showing that kind of footage for years.
DeleteWhen it comes to streaming Whitney Houston’s funeral live on CNN I don’t think there was anything wrong with that; her fans deserved to say goodbye just as much as her family and friends. CNN was looking out for their audience interest; they delivered what they know people were very anxious to see. In the Mcquail book, Nerone says, “As long as the press is dependent on advertising for its subsidy, the press is well advised to perpetuate the notion that it is inordinately persuasive” (Nerone 190). As long as the news cast got paid to broadcast that funeral they were allowed to say whatever they wanted about Whitney even if it persuaded the audience more in their direction. I didn’t see the broadcast myself, but according to my timeline on Twitter during the funeral the news focused a lot more on the drama going on with Bobby brown being there and of course Whitney’s troubles with drug addiction over the years. Yes, they showed the funeral for the fans, but they still only focused on what they wanted you to think about her drug problems and Bobby’s presence at the funeral.
Another example of the news media giving preference to stories and material they know will interest audiences would be Lindsay Lohan’s drama over the years. According to TMZ, “Lohan’s career started getting interrupted in 2007 as 2 driving under the influence incidents and three visits to rehabilitation facilities led to the loss of several movie deals. She was later charged with a felony grand theft of a $2500 necklace reported stolen from a jewelry store in January” (TMZ.com). All the drama that’s happened with her over the years always seems to be all over different news outlets because to them Lindsay is newsworthy. My only worry is that with all the stealing, drugs, and alcohol that she’s been caught doing I hope her young fans don’t follow in her irresponsible footsteps. In the article “Ethics in Entertainment Television” by Mary Ann Watson it states, “It is getting harder for those in the entertainment industry to deny that there is a connection between what they produce and a dangerous coarsening of our society” (Watson 148). The content that young people see on television definitely affects their lives; sometimes all people have to look up to at home can be the people on their television screens.
DeleteWorks Cited
http://www.tmz.com/person/lindsay-lohan/
Watson, Ann Mary . Ethics in Entertainment Television. Journal of Popular Film & Television; Winter 2004; 31, 4; Arts Modul
Nerone , John . Social Responsibility Theory . London: SAGE Publications, 2002. 185-192. Print.
Post Part I
DeleteI think you brought up a very interesting point Allie by comparing the JFK assassination footage to the material that the media airs today. The media in the age of JFK was not as competitive as the media of today. The media channels for the footage of the assassination were limited, and it would seem the intention of the media producers was to get the video out there so the audience could fully comprehend what happened to the president. They were not doing it to get ratings; they were doing it to share important information. There was no competition for the best footage or audience. There was one film that everyone was watching. I do not know for sure, but I believe that when the news media got a hold of the JFK assassination footage, there was a great deal of debate on whether or not it should be shown to a mass audience. Ultimately, the media producers aired the film even though it was sensitive in nature, I believe, because it appealed to the visual learner in all audience participants, and was what they wanted. That is a constantly repeated rule in the media. Give the audience what they want. In general, people are very visual. They need to see something in order for it to seem real or fully understood. When airing sensitive visual material, like a murder, the audience has a completely different reaction than if they just read a story or listened to someone talk about it. The film of the JFK assassination can be seen as the first time the question of social responsibility, when airing a murder, arose. As time as passed the question of social responsibility in this respect has gotten even fogger with the advent of an increasing number of media technologies and availability. It has become fogger because the intent of the media producer is put into question.
In Mass Communication Theory Baran and Davis quote journalism scholar Ann Cooper who says “Freedom of the press now belongs not just to those who own printing presses, but also to those who use cell phones, video cameras, blogging software, and other technology to deliver news and views to the world (Baran 122). There is a race for media producers, especially news media producers, to get the best information out there the first. Audiences can get information instantly and share it with others just as quickly. Because they know the audience will respond better to visual image, the best information is visual, like videos and pictures. Because they do not want to get beat to the punch, news media producers do not think twice about airing sensitive material. They need the attention of the audience, and know that even if they get criticized for showing sensitive photos or film, they will get the viewership they desire. So when it came to airing the Gadaffi murder, or the photos from the Virginia Tech murderer, the news media producers knew that in order to get the attention of the audience they needed to air the footage, especially before another news source got a hold of it.
Post Part II
DeleteAllie, you questioned whether the audience could be satisfied with just hearing that someone died. Whether that person is famous, or Joe Smith from a small town, with the ability to capture visual images in so many ways, I do not think it is enough. Audiences see murder and death so much on television, within video games, and on the internet, that they have grown numb to the sensitivity of it. They only see that it is sensitive image if it directly affects them. The majority of the time curiosity, interest, or being too lazy to read a story, will drive the audience to the visual images. As to where the media draws the line, I believe that changes everyday According to the social responsibility theory as Baran and Davis presented, “Social responsibility theory put control of media content in the hands of media practitioners, who were expected to act in the public interest” (Baran 129). Does this mean that the media practitioners are the ones defining what is and isn’t public interest? Or is it the public who defines their own best interest? If the public interest is to understand fully understand an issue, and airing sensitive footage, will accomplish this, that means the media practitioners have the responsibility to air it does it not?
~Natalie Acone
Baran, Stanley J. and Dennis K. Davis, eds. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment and Future, 6th ed. (Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012).