This week, we have examined the values, ethics and professionalism within journalism and the media at present. For me, what ultimately emerged is the conflict between the social responsibility theory and the changing dynamic of professionalism in journalism, especially with an increased internet and social media presence. Additionally, there has been a merging of media outlets. Today, a viewer can go from online, to television, to print and ultimately find the same quality of journalistic work. This presents a problem. Today, which is ultimately more important, the level of professionalism in the news being reported, or the rapid delivery of news to the public?
At it’s conception, the social responsibility theory, “put control of media content in the hands of media practitioners, who were expected to act in the public interest” (Baran & Davis 129). Ultimately, it is the individuals who work within the media who are in charge of delivering news to the public. Ideally, and until recently, journalists would do such in a professional, trustworthy manner. This practice fulfilled both sides of the issues. However, our time has changed, and the press has had to adjust accordingly. Today, we see the media attempting to juggle professionalism and social responsibility all while staying ethical. Television and newer media has had a difficult time adjusting and finding this balance. Watson acknowledges the influences that television has on its viewers and how they react and interact within their society (146). With this, the professionals within the television industry have had to change in order to stay current and to vibe with the audience, but still performing their duties and staying true to traditional journalistic values.
Most recently, we saw this difficult dynamic executed through the passing of Whitney Houston. The star’s death broke on what most would assume to be an unprofessional journalistic source, Twitter. This announcement occurred on the social media circuit 27 minutes before it aired or debuted on major press outlets (Anderson). Almost instantly, the news was picked up by popular entertainment bloggers, who are in most fashions less professional journalists. Within this example, we see that the social responsibility theory and the demand for public knowledge took priority over the need for professionalism and reliability. As a society, that has had a tradition of rewarding true journalism and holding the ethics and professional of such practice in high regard, how can we allow ourselves to be trapped in a frame of mind where the fast delivery of news is more valuable than the accuracy and legitimacy of such information? How would a true figure of trusted and professional journalism, like Walter Cronkite, feel to know that news is being broken via the Internet instead of a legitimate news source? Is the most trusted man in America rolling in grave? Why is there so much more emphasis on the constant update of unreliable news instead of the deliverance of correct, but less timely news updates? My fear is that the stream of superfluous updates will soon overshadow the traditional structure of delivering information and bloggers like Perez Hilton will quickly become the new face of true journalism.
My argument is no to say there is not a place for less structured or professional outlets of information within the media. Rather, the point is to make the distinction between the types of areas of preference of where to get information. I believe that reliable information is much more valuable than a constant flow of less trustworthy information. Perhaps, that thinking is too tradition for the media market that is developing. But in a world where knowledge is power, I stand firm in my thinking that confirmed and accurate information is stronger than nontraditional fast spreading information. Even in a society where efficiency is number one, credibility is still key. Professionalism should still prevail over popularity, and accurate news should conquer over weaker journalism.
Anderson 12, February. "Twitter Breaks Whitney Houston Death News 27 Minutes Before Press." Social Media News and Web Tips Mashable The Social Media Guide. Mashable. Web. 20 Feb. 2012.
Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. "Normative Theories of Mass Communication." Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2012. 96-131. Print.
Watson, Mary A. "Ethics in Entertainment Television." Journal of Popular Film & Television 31.4 (2004): 146-48. Print.
Both Normative Theories at the beginning of chapter five in our text book, Mass Communication Theory, by Baran and Davis represent the far the left and right sides of Mass Communication and how our society should address it. Radical Libertarian ideals suggest that the government should not regulate Mass Communication at all and strongly supports the First Amendment; while Technocratic Control ideals suggest that media must have some type of oversight in order to provide the public with the best service possible. In my opinion both theories are too drastic. With out regulation I agree that media outlets will have trouble being objective, opinion free and have trouble gathering and reporting truthful information. However, too much regulation will have a negative effect on what is reported and may give the government or industry giants too much power to affect public opinion for their own personal gain. There must be a happy medium between the two that regulates media enough, but still allows for freedom of expression.
ReplyDeleteThe rise of the Internet has connected people exponentially and has given us the ability to communicate with a push of a button. The public no longer has to rely so heavily on news outlets for important information. Do you think normal people can be trusted to report on current event? If so, are we capable of doing so or should we rely on documented journalist and the consolidated ownership of mass media outlets to tell us what is important? Investigative Reporter Jane Mayer describes us as, “cheeto-eating people in the basement working in their underwear” (2009,page 50) I think she feels threatened by the rise of Blogging, just like teachers fear online education.
cont.
ReplyDeleteBlogging has created a place for people participate in “public discourse” (Baran, Davis page 122), which educates people on topics like politics and current events and allows them to voice their own opinion. I think the ability to interact with others, tricks people into learning about boring subjects like politics. The information presented by the bloggers is not influenced by politics and economic pressure like other news media outlets. But how much of what bloggers post is affected by personal emotion and opinions? Could it be possible that blogging can be viewed as a regulating entity that keeps mainstream news media honest? The book addresses some negative aspects of the blogging world that are important to consider when relying solely on blogs as authentic information source. Bloggers lack the resources and capital to practice “real” journalism. Instead the book reports that they depend on “established news gathering organizations” for content. (Baran, Davis, page 123)
“The internet is an open sewer of untreated unfiltered information…”
Tom Friedman
(baran, Davis , page 122)
An Article titled, Ethics in Entertainment Television by Mary Ann Watson discussed the amount of inappropriate content that has flooded our communication pipeline and how the senders should be morally aware of the externalities produced. I don’t think that news media should have to worry about reporting on stories about indecent material. I think the public needs to be completely informed on current events. I am more offended by celebrity and entertainment news being deemed the most important information.
Works Cited
Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub., 1995. Print.
Watson, Mary A. "Ethics in Entertainment Television." Journal of Popular Film & Television (2004): 146. Print.
sorry for dropping in on your post kali, I couldn't figure out how to be a lead blogger and I only had 4 min to post.
ReplyDeleteCheers;
Greg
Emily Martin
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Kali when she says that credibility and professionalism is the most important aspect of journalism. When I consume information from media outlets, I want to make sure that it is confirmed and accurate before I tell others about what I heard. Kali mentioned that many people found out about Whitney Houston’s death through Twitter. Since joining Twitter last year, I have noticed constant rumors about celebrity deaths on the social network. I have read death rumors about Denzel Washington, Adele, Demi Moore, Kim Kardashian and Lindsay Lohan just in the past year! So when I read tweets about Whitney Houston’s death, I had to check other news sources, like CNN.com to make sure it was true. When writing about social responsibility theory, Nerone states, “responsibility, after all, can be exercised only by those with some kind of power” (Nerone, 185). Sites like Twitter, and bloggers like Perez Hilton have millions of people getting information from their media outlet, does that mean they should hold more responsibility?
The website TMZ is known for breaking news first. But many critics feel as though their journalism ethics are wrong. Personally, I love watching TMZ’s television show and reading their website. But I always search for another source just to make sure what they are writing is true. I believe there is so much emphasis on the constant update of news rather than credible yet slower news updates because our culture is extremely fast pace. We are constantly on our smart phones or on the Internet wanting to know what is going on in the world each and every second. I believe we are a very impatient generation. Everything is at our fingertips due to the fact that the Internet is essentially available everywhere we go. Thus, it has become in some ways unacceptable to not give information to the public immediately.
In the article “Ethics in Entertainment Television”, Mary Ann Watson writes, “critical analysts of popular entertainment are often accused of being judgmental censors. Instead of complaining, we are told by those who profit, just turn it off. It is a tiresome and arrogant piece of advice” (Watson). Our culture wants to hear about celebrities’ lives and is very interested in entertainment news. Just because you don’t watch a specific program doesn’t mean you won’t hear that news from somewhere else. Media outlets produce news that the public wants to hear, just because a small group of people choose not watch it, doesn’t mean the majority of society won’t spread the news to other people and other media outlets won’t debut it as well.
I know better not to believe everything I read on social media outlets like Twitter. But if I am interested in knowing what is true and what is false, I will look to more credible sources that might not be as fast paced. This being said, I think having both media outlets is useful. We are not only entertained and quickly informed with one media out, but the other also correctly informs us. Which is why I believe slower but accurate news sources and entertaining, fast pace news sources are both valuable media outlets in our society.
Kali asked in her blog, “How would a true figure of trusted and professional journalism, like Walter Cronkite, feel to know that news is being broken via the Internet instead of a legitimate news source?” She wrote this question after talking about the recent death of Whitney Houston and how the announcement was first seen through Twitter. Well, I think he would appreciate what Twitter has done to spread the news and how great it can really be. Some of the best news information I get is through Twitter. Following CNN, Fox and other news media sources helps fill you in on some of the most important stories of the day. Not to mention it reaches so many people quickly.
ReplyDeleteWhen referring this comment to the social responsibility theory, social media websites make it easier on the producers to release information they feel will be a good read for us, the audience. In the McQuail Reader, John Nerone wrote, “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 184). We have talked so much about how news stations decide what stories are important and what are not so important. Social responsibility theory basically says that the news should just release all kinds of news, without adding the nonsense of strange videos and pictures. We would then decide what news we want to read. Nerone believes that the government should regulate the media. That seems like an awfully big task and it would take away from the competiveness of the major news companies trying to appeal to the most amount of people. If you are really interested in a certain topic, you can easily find it somewhere on the internet. There is no news that can be forced upon us so these news media companies try to make it as appealing as possible.
While trying to release appealing and interesting stories to a large amount of people, ethics can quickly come into question. In the Mary Watson article titled “Ethics in Entertainment Television”, she starts off with a great quote, “If you don’t like what’s on TV, just turn it off” (Watson 146). That is a saying that a lot of people say to basically excuse some of the odd or unethical things that the station shows. She went on to talk about how movies and television do have a strong influence on American society. Therefore, they should be careful what to show us, the viewers, as we tend to pick up any stereotypes that are often seen on the screen. We talked about how there was a lot of outrage on Modern Family when they had a little girl pretend to curse. People thought it was insane and it is not what they want to see from children. We develop opinions of many topics based on what we see, so when something on television goes against the norm there is often outrage that comes about.
Social responsibility theory and ethics go hand and hand these days. With social media being a big source of how we get our information, you must be sure to release accurate information that will not offend people. I follow many journalists on Twitter and I love reading their headlines and going in to read the rest of the story. I choose what I read and anything else that I cannot find, I just simply search on the internet.
Kali brings up a few good points in her blog on what is more important the level of professionalism in the world of journalism or the rapid delivery of that news. A lot of the time when you go to the news websites or turn on the TV you will see a breaking news headline. Within minutes of something happening the news coverage stations are there reporting without many facts about the action that took place. Personally yes I like the breaking news stories but because you are informed of an incident that has taken place but, like most people I would believe, I want all the facts then and there. Well that’s not going to happen every time I know but that made me think as to what I would rather have, a station that reports news without knowing many facts right as it happens or a station that waits to find the entire story then airs it. now as far as the responsibility theory goes I believe that our media has been following it just because it’s been the backbone so to speak for the last hundred or so years. “Social responsibility theory was formulated at a time when the United States was coming to terms with what commentators have called ‘late capitalism’ and, in retrospect, it may have been only a reaction to changing public expectations.” (Nerone, 185). I could not agree with this more in that I feel news does have a way in which they are trying to chance the public’s views. If we look back at last week’s class with the clip from out foxed with Bill O’Reilly. Fox swings everything they can to go with what they are talking about and as soon as they have a guest who speaks against them, he or she is cut off. Now if we are talking professionalism this is absolutely ridiculous because they are nowhere near acting professional. Yet the station continues to go about it in their own way because the head of the company tells them to. Nerone goes on to talk about the powerful men who owned many of the media sources stating, “These powerful and successful media owners controlled large newspapers, wire services, radio stations, movie studios, and magazines. They were politically active and used their positions to support candidates and influence elections and legislative action.” We still see this today, celebrities who are indorsing political candidates is seen everywhere. Looking at Mary Ann Watson’s article “Ethics in Entertainment Television” it was the first sentence that hit me, it states, “If you don’t like what’s on TV, just turn it off.” (1). This is absolutely true and I can honestly say I do this. If I don’t like what new announcers are saying or the way in which they are saying it then I am going to change the channel or just turn off the TV all together. Sometimes if the announcer is being very unprofessional I will continue to watch just to laugh at them. It has begun to really make me question the reliability of our news with all the bias towards a topic, and also makes me wonder how certain people got the jobs they currently hold. I bet there are more professional people in our communications department that could do a better job on the news then some of the current anchors or reporters.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kali’s argument because I also believe that I rather have the facts of news story than have it available to me faster. According to Nerone, “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 184). Every news station wants to get out the big story in a timely manner, but they have to self-govern themselves and make sure the people are getting the right information. Now with the rise of new media such as blogs and Twitter, it is getting harder for news professionals to not report every juicy story they hear before getting all the facts. I was surprised to hear that the news of Whitney Huston’s death broke on Twitter. Personally, I am not sure I would have believed that because the source of the news isn’t seen as reliable. As mentioned, it was 27 minutes later that the story broke on major press outlets. I think that this was a good call on the professional journalists, and a sign of social responsibility, because they waited to make sure the news was accurate.
ReplyDeleteEven though new media, such as Twitter and blogs, might not be the most credible sources of news, I do think that it helps keep the journalists in check. It is common knowledge that you can’t believe everything you read on the Internet, which is why we can’t use Wikipedia as sources. That is why whenever I hear a breaking story on a website such as PerezHitlon I check other sources to see what they have reported. I personally rather get all my information from one source, especially since those such as PerezHilton are more entertaining, but I rely on the professional journalists from the major media outlets to give me the right information. I think that many people would agree that they rely on professional journalists to give them all the facts and that is why social responsibility is so important for them.
If journalists didn’t hold themselves up to these standards then we as a society might not even know if the information we were getting was true. It is no secret that every news source wants to be the first to report on a big story, but if that information isn’t correct then journalist’s credibility goes down. That could spiral and affect the credibility of the whole news station as well. I think that especially with the new media in today’s society it is more important for journalists to have the facts than report false news, even if that means the public doesn’t hear the story from them first. But major news stations are trying to compete with this new media and according to Baran and Davis, “Most American media outlets allow-even encourage- their writers to maintain blogs to better engage the readers” (Baran and Davis 122 ). Here is another example of how the media is changing in order to fit the wants of the general public, and yet these blogs still are held up to the same social responsibility that regular news has. These blogs make it easier for major news stations to report on things such as celebrity news and other stories that the public is interested in. It also allows the consumer to both get the most credible news while being entertained, and helps to make up for the fact that these news sources might not be able to break the story first.
I agree with Kali’s comments indicating that it is scary how drastically the expectations and professionalism of journalism has changed. The social responsibility theory was at once accountable for “embracing professional autonomy for journalists” (Nerone, 192). According to the text professionalism was associated with a sort of elitism. Therefore, what was once a very prestigious source of news and information is now growing increasingly less elite due to time pressures of society. As Baran and Davis point out, “the internet has greatly expanded the number and variety of “media outlets” all with varying commitments to traditional standards of social responsibility” (100). With the changing sources and outlets for obtaining news there has come a change in the reporting techniques.
ReplyDeleteAs Kali touched upon in her post, “the social responsibility theory, “put control of media content in the hands of media practitioners, who were expected to act in the public interest” (Baran & Davis 129). However, our time has changed, and the press has had to adjust accordingly. Today, we see the media attempting to juggle professionalism and social responsibility all while staying ethical. I think that the news industry is simply trying to adjust to the changing generations and culture” (Kali).
I don’t necessarily think that the change in media outlet directly correlates to a lack of professionalism within the industry however, I completely agree with Kali’s observation of the chapter in noticing the conflict between the social responsibility theory and the changing dynamic of professionalism. I agree that the news industry is undergoing a lot of change and it seems to be struggling in its attempt to balance the professionalism and ethics of news telling with the increasing time pressure but I think it is only a matter of time before they have it resolved. The social responsibility theory has come a long way since it’s original conception. I find it a little unsettling that some news stations are warped into thinking that getting news out fast is more important then taking the necessary steps to ensure accuracy and details however, I am really not all that surprised. As the text states, more than 196 million Americans use the internet, and computers sit in more than 80 percent of their homes. With such easy access to information through the internet why would people look for information anywhere else? News is so easily accessed through other outlets that that stations once on top are now slipping by the wayside. The technological advancements of our time must be making it very difficult for news stations to compete in the industry and maintain ratings. Between the various social media sites that now exist and the accessability people now have to these accounts with their smart phones, internet access, ipads etc. the news industry must be feeling pressured. Last year, when the killing of Osama Bin Laden occurred and when the earthquake/ tsunami/ nuclear meltdown occurred in Japan my first bit of information did not come from the local newspaper or NBC news or CNN. Instead, I learned of both events from facebook. Two very significant and monumental occurrences of that year were first brought to my attention through social m
media sites. This is very representative of the changing era.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, is the issue of blogging. Although I do not completely agree with Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald when he responded that, “it was the many failures of the “old fashioned way” that paved the road for bloggers’ new roles. It was traditional journalism, he wrote, that produced the news “that Saddam Hussein had purchased aluminum tubes that were used to build nuclear weapons…” (122) I do see how such an accusation can be made. I would not sit here and explain the increase in blogging and internet news outlets as the fault of traditional journalism I would simply chalk it up to the fact that times are changing. In my opinion, the popularity and growing dependence on blogging for information was just a matter of time. As Ann Cooper puts it, “freedom of the press now belongs not just to those who own a printing press, but also to those who use cell phones, video cameras, blogging software, and other technology to deliver news and views to the world” (122). As I’ve mentioned in previous arguments, the technological advancements of our time are changing the ways in which news is delivered. It is not that the traditional way was faulty or that news is no longer an important entity in our community, it is simply a result of the changing generations. I think that our community and society will eventually develop a new role or definition for the social responsibility theory, one that better suits the needs of this generation.
The analysis of social responsibility theory is unique because it goes far beyond just studying mass communication; it is directly connected to how our nation is governed. Our nation is founded on the first amendment, but there is nothing that says there should be a responsibility to those entities that are capable of spreading expression and option to do so in a manner to better the country. It is clear that the media has a profound effect on our society in many ways, now the issue is whether this power should be more strictly regulated. How do we convince the media magnates to abandon o their niche audiences, which of whom have fostered their success, to produce content for the benefit of the public as a whole?
ReplyDeleteIn Kali’s blog post, the concept that the media is “attempting to juggle professionalism, and social responsibility, all while staying ethical,” is a tremendous point. A major issue to the social responsibility theory is competing media industries, and without an increase in profit year after year, it is very difficult to maintain these organizations. Often in order to gain the extra edge over competitors, media representatives will stray from professionalism, ethical practice, and the responsibility to produce work for the greater good of the public. Denis McQuail acknowledges the business aspect which interferes with the theory stating, “The inherent obstacles to that ideal in the nature of competitive, profit-oriented, mass-marketed media (page 190).”
Another interesting thought Kali made was about our culture’s addiction to immediacy. She states that she prefers a reliable flow of information rather than instantaneous access untrusting information. I connect this to what is going on in the music industry. Enabling people to download songs illegally and broadcasting unreliable news gives the individual instant gratification, however it hurts the general public as a whole. As Nancy Baym explains in her article, Rethinking the Music Industry, “I encourage the creation of symbiotic systems that benefit both audiences and artists, understanding the social value that music and its appreciation has for both (page, 2).” As Nancy stated, there needs to be a common ground respecting the news entities’ goal to make profit along with the public’s attraction to entertaining content. Ensuring professionalism and ethical standards is the difficult aspect in satisfying both sides.
As stated in Mcquail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory, the social responsibility theory is difficult to criticize (page 189). The backbone of the theory is centered on honesty and selflessness in order to help promote the governing structure of our country. In a perfect world, I completely agree with this but I don’t see it happening. There are plenty of media representatives such as the muckrakers of the past and investigative journalists today who really aspire create content for the good of the nation. Considering that magnate industries have such a strong socio-economic impact on the world, competition and monopolies will remain intact. There are so many industries that thrive by unethical practices. I find it hard to believe, as an example that Fox News would be shut down by the government before many of the chemical plants emitting massive amounts of toxins. As long as capitalism fuels our economy it’s difficult to think there will be any sort of unanimity among media behemoths.
As Bob Dylan once said, “the times they are a-changin.” Our world, especially in regards to news has been rapidly changing over the last few years, especially with the fine-tuning of the Internet. Along with more media outlets, the way of living for most has become so fast paced and on the go, that having all of these options is great for society. People can choose which outlet they like the most and what works for their schedule the best, thus remaining an informed citizen on their own terms.
ReplyDeleteThese days, social media now falls under this category of a news outlet. Twitter and Facebook are influential sources in this field because, as we know, they are fast and have a huge reach. However, I do not necessarily see this as an issue. Of course it is going to take some time for large media outlets to get together a story after a tweet breaks first, but it is because they are taking the time to be professional and to provide accurate information. Many years ago, there was no option of that fast, rapid news. People had to wait until the Sunday newspaper landed on their doorstep, until the nightly radio broadcast, or until the nightly news at 6pm. Now, we have this wonderful tool to keep society informed as fast as possible. I guarantee that if Facebook and Twitter were around in the early 1900s or in the days of iconic television news, they would have used it. Twitter and Facebook are ways of grabbing attention. Yes, the news of Whitney Houston’s death broke on Twitter before it did on television or in any major press outlets, but after they read the tweet(s), I am sure that they went to look at major media outlets for further information.
In addition, social media users are becoming more and more familiar with rumors, such as the celebrity death hoaxes. As John milted said, “good and truthful arguments will always win out over lies and deceit”, therefore, users will always continue to go to their trusted news source to find out the true information. (Baron & Davis 102) If they find that that first source is unreliable, they will not trust it because of its lies. People take Twitter and Facebook, especially from celebrities or celebrity bloggers, with a grain of salt. However, if CNN were to tweet, it would probably be done in the most professional manner possible, and people would count on it to be accurate. When it comes to the saying “if you don’t like what’s on TV, just turn it off,” I say, “if you don’t like what’s on TV (or in this case, Twitter or Facebook) find another news source.” (Watson, 146)
Society is very wrapped up in rapid news, yet people have always been that way. Just look at the concept of gossiping. In a world before social media, and even television, there is no doubt in my mind that people would hear rumors about issues from unreliable sources and then debate them until the cows came home. That potential gossip and news that was talked about face-to-face, can now be projected to the world via social media, thus why it is so much more noticeable. Since people have always been this way and it is just more visible now, I do not think that there is a huge issue. If it means that people are staying informed and are hearing things and are continuing to be curious about what is happening in their world then that is great. The younger generation can be quite apathetic when it comes to news, and if Twitter and Facebook can help educate young people, then bring it on.
ReplyDeleteSocial media is not necessarily a less credible or weaker outlet. One just must look at the person, company, etc. who is posting the information, and determine whether or not they are credible or weak in their knowledge. Take social media out of the picture- one person may think that Fox News is not a credible organization, but CNN is. This goes back to the marketplace of ideas theory, in which “the public will choose the best” out of what they are presented with. (Baron & Davis 105) Credibility and the idea of being “weak” is an issue everywhere, yet the decision to view it is ultimately up to the viewer.
Overall, I believe that despite the changes in the way news is released, professionalism has (for the most part) remained apart of the most significant and well-known news outlets. No one is just going to stop relying on Fox News or CNN (for real world issues) because they think Perez Hilton is better for that. If someone does that, although that is their prerogative, they probably just don’t actually care about what is happening in the world, and that is their problem.
I agree with Kali, ‘professionalism should still prevail over popularity, and accurate news should conquer over weaker journalism’, but today’s society and media reinforces the opposite practice. Not only in news, but in all fields of media, popularity always comes first, even if it is not professional or benefitting the community. Television is plagued by popular shows that reinforces negative gender roles, obscene behavior, and provides kids with role models like Kim Kardashian. Our entertainment is in such a state of trash, should we expect high standards of our news? What was once considered gossip now fills in every available slot in news reports, and the lives of celebrities have become more important than the lives of the masses.“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.”(184) The media has failed at social responsibility; every outlet has a bias, and professionalism is dying. I do believe that professionalism should triumph, however, in today’s age it isn’t always necessary due to the immense availability of information from infinite sources. In most cases, the source should have accepted credibility in order for one to consider it reliable and professional, but in cases such as Whitney Houston’s death, I believe that a twitter post should suffice. News about a death is a timely issue, and there isn’t always time to write up a professional article when countless unprofessional sources are sharing the news already. Whitney Houston’s death is celebrity news; sure it should be covered by reliable news sources on the day of the tragedy because she is well known, but coverage of her death for more than a week just shows us the sad state news is really in. If people care about unprofessional issues, then unprofessional sources should do them just fine. For news that is actually important, reliable sources triumph, but even they twist the story to cater to their audience.
ReplyDeleteNerone, John C. “Social Responsibility Theory.” McQuail, Denis, ed. McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory. (London: Sage, 2002).
Kyle Barry
While reading Watson’s “Ethics in Entertainment Television” I found a quote perfect for my life and my views on television. “If you don’t like what’s on TV, just turn it off” (Watson 146). Every time I have watched a TV show that I do not think my family would like I try to hide it. We all have been in that position that we are watching a movie, a TV episode or video blog that we are embarrassed about. Be it because you are 21 years old and watching SpongeBob, you are a straight man obsessed with the L Word, or a girly girl who is watching Overhaulin’. Every time I am embarrassed with the TV I’m watching I usually do so in my apartment or on my laptop, so nobody can comment on it. I remember when Tila Tequila had her show on MTV about a shot of love. My mother was disgusted by the fact that this woman was making out with other women and men within minutes of each other. I honestly think its just because of the girl on girl action, but hey it’s the 21st century and gay people exist! Okay I will not go off on a rampage about that because that would be a very long-winded response. But essentially I want to prove that part that TV is how you make it. Most of it is scripted, sexual, violent or comedic, but honestly if you do not like what’s on, switch to one of the other 315 channels you have. We like what we like and nothing will really change that. But one thing I did realize is that Baran and Davis do have a point, “The internet is an open sewer of untreated unfiltered information…”(122). Last week I thought of the most outrageous videos I could find on YouTube. There were fake news reports about Whitney Huston saying how she died was murder, suicide, ect.
ReplyDeleteEveryone wants to put their two cents out there and have their voice be heard. Which is a problem in our society. As we discussed in class Internet bullying equates for the majority of bullying in this day and age. If you watched glee last night you would have the same opinion as me. The original bully of Kurt, David Karofsky was bullied himself for being gay. He bullied Kurt for months but couldn’t even stand receiving the same bullying he was dishing out, for a week. He ended up trying to commit suicide because he was so bothered by how he was being treated. This is something that can strike home for many people. Being bullied is not an easy thing, and you see how strong you are by how you deal with it. It is horrible that it does happen to people even in 2012. We should be okay with the fact people are different by this point, but I guess that thought escapes some people’s minds. I really valued the PSA with Daniel Radcliff on last nights edition of glee. He discussed how there is always help and gave the number of the Trevor Project. As you probably know Trevor was a student at Rutgers who was gay. His roommate posted a webcam in the room and caught Trevor kissing another boy. He then posted the video on YouTube. Trevor was so distraught that he threw himself off the GW bridge. Things like this need to stop occurring in our world, and the trevor project is a way to help with that. I know I have felt so terrible being bullied about myself being gay, but it is one thing to be able to look yourself in the mirror, go day by day, and realize it does get better. The internet is unfiltered which gives these people the ability to post on Facebook walls saying “better luck next time” to a suicide attempt. The thing is with TV you can just turn it off if you don’t want to watch it, but with the Internet you do not get that luxury. So maybe if there was the same professionalism and ethics on the internet as there is on TV, we wouldn’t have this problem.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thetrevorproject.org/
DeleteThe relationship between the public, the government, and the media seems to be in a serious conflict over who holds the responsibility of America’s and each-others ethics. There have been instances when all three outlets have gone too far. However the public looks mostly to the media and government for answers to issues being faced in society as well as how we should conduct ourselves.
ReplyDeleteThe “social responsibility theory” is that the media wants the public to be able to govern themselves, according to John C. Nerone, author of “Social Responsibility Theory” (McQuail, 184) Medias values used to be based off of wealthy media tycoons and exploited for personal gains. However it has been changed to being run by elite medias such as, New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and NBC. It seems as though the media is also in charge of the governments actions as wells. I am uncomfortable with this idea as often the media revolves around fear and negativity. Media sensationalizes violence, sex, and celebrity news. Are these the ethics that I want to be listening to on the news? Baran and Davis describe the “normative theory” as “a type of theory that describes an ideal way for a media system to be structured and operated...they describe the ways things should be if some ideal values of principles are to be realized.” (Baran & Davis, 99) Thus the media should be represented the publics ideals in a professional manner. I think back to when I took my Media Law and Ethics class with Professor Levine, where she showed us a video of the news in Canada. It consisted of stories about new speed bumps being implemented, the boring and mundane things in everyday life. This is strangely different then the news I see when I turn on my television in America.
Not only the television but the vast number of different medias, such as the internet, newspapers, blogs and magazines are filling society with information chosen by the media. To these outlets it is all about viewership, readership and ratings, and not always ethics and morals. Sometimes they go too far, like in the torture of the prisoners during the War on Terror, and the Casey Anthony case. I do not want to be bombarded with disturbing images or images of a child who was slain. The media is simply glorifying an unseemly act.
I do feel that there are ways that media can use their power in positive ways. I think about “Amber Alerts” that help children who have gone missing be found by the public. I think if media has found person threatening to commit suicide, that media should publicize and try to stop bad things from occurring. However things that have already occurred are a different story completely.
Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. "Normative Theories of Mass Communication." Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2012. 96-131. Print
Nerone, John C. “Social Responsibility Theory.” McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage, 2002. 183-195. Print.