Monthly Archive 

The Golden Mean

A Weblog of Media Ethics by MED581 students at Missouri State University

« February 2008 | Main | April 2008 »

March 29, 2008

The Privacy Issue

The issue of privacy has been an ongoing debate for several decades. Exactly when does good journalistic investigation turn into invasion of personal affairs? It's a difficult question to answer since media outlets feel they have the right to publish the sordid details of public figures and citizens feel they have the right to know.

I feel that as far as publication of personal information goes, politicians or people that have huge influence over public policies have very limited rights to privacy. Many of these people were elected to office and serve the public interest; therefore, I feel their personal life is not necessarily off limits to us. However, I do feel that media practitioners should practice good judgement when it comes to what they publish about public officials.

However, other public figures, such as celebrities, deserve more rights to privacy than they get. I'm not necessarily saying that they should be given complete privacy. Actions they take in public, issues they endorse, even who they're dating should be open to the public, if purely for interest sake. However, I don't feel it's right when they're being followed on their way to the gym, or taking out the trash outside of their home. In what way does this serve public interest? Also, many times this constant harassment of celebrities can cause accidents, which is dangerous not only to the celebrities but the public as well.

It's a hard issue to define, but I ultimately feel it's up to the journalist to decide what should be published and what should remain private.

March 24, 2008

Media Influences

There is no question that Reuss is correct in saying that the media are not omnipresent. There is no way that they can collect all of the news about the millions of interests in the country/world. They need help. While each journalist could do their best to collect information that is of popular interest to many, there would surely be some bias involved, for I feel that they would (even without knowing it) automatically be swayed to stories of interest to them. However, with organizations and other sources exposing them to stories, I feel that the viewer/reader would be much better off.

With such a variety of interests out there, there is no way the media worker could cover all bases, yet it would be much easier for the interests to seek out the medium in which they would like their message sent. This will ensure variety for the news. Still, to support Gordon’s claim, the media workers would still need to be very active in gate keeping these stories, certainly not allowing all of them unlimited access. As Reuss states, the practitioners would evaluate its newsworthiness through proximity, timeliness, and significance just as with any other story.

In addition, I feel that news releases should be used more heavily than press releases, for they should convey more factual information than simply create an image for the company/interest/organization. More importantly, with so much information flowing to the media practitioners, they should be sure to convey more than one side of the stories they choose, thus representing even more of the public interest, staying fair, and helping to avoid manipulation from these outside sources. Finally, the media must also, unfortunately, allow room for “tasteless” performance, for even the “tasteless” interest must be represented as it seems to be of overwhelming public interest.

March 19, 2008

Influence on the Media

It's obvious that the media is influenced by outside sources all the time as well as be manipulated without too much effort. However, should the media allow these outside sources to influence them is the question. Of course the initial thought in my mind is no; the media should avoid all influences. However, after reading this chapter I've come to realize that it's almost impossible to avoid all influences sense there is so much that can be influenced.

I agree with Reuss when she says that there is no way for a individual media outlet to get enough information to report simply on their own because it's true. Even though reporting the news is their job, the amount of time demanded for such an act to be followed through with while maintaining some kind of appeal to an audience in a highly competitive field would be ridiculous. They have lives outside of their job as does everyone else in the world.

I don't necessarily like media manipulation or influence when it comes to things such as politics but in some cases there are a lot of good things that occur because of media influence. Protest groups get their voice out to a larger group by manipulating the media to cover their stories and some, not all, of those groups have a good message or an important point that they're trying to bring to attention. If media was to ignore all inflences, many of those messages would go unheard.

March 16, 2008

Media Influences

Media is constantly being influenced and manipulated, whether externally through organizations and other factions; or, internally by its own reporters and editors. However, I don't feel that the possibility of being influenced or manipulated by a group or PR firm should stop a news outlet from using press releases or information gathered from these sources. Just because information comes from someone that might be promoting an idea or agenda, doesn't mean they should not be heard. However, I do feel that it is the responsibilities of the news outlets to make sure what they print or broadcast is accurate and/or newsworthy and that it doesn't contain anything that is blatantly offensive to one group in particular.

I agree with Reuss when she points out that the media can be influenced and manipulated just as easily from the reporters and editors themselves as by outside sources. They are the gatekeepers, the ones who control what we, the audience, hear and see. We are being manipulated just as much by them as by some group with an agenda.

March 10, 2008

Blue Laws

[WARNING... nothing to do with ethics...]

So wikipedia tells me that blue laws are still in existence in much of the South and Midwest as well as some areas in the Northeast... some of those laws tracing back to the good ol' Puritan days.

However, in another article... it states that Missouri has "no alcohol blue laws." It is in fact one of the more lenient states when compared to our neighbors on the issue of the sale of alcohol. ie. Kansas and Oklahoma.

"Missouri does, however, limit the hours of retail alcohol sales to between 6:00 AM and 1:30 AM Monday through Saturday,[33] and - for an additional license fee - between 9:00 AM and midnight on Sunday."

I guess selling alcohol after those specific times are banned in an effort to keep people from drinking the night away... or maybe legislatures are just slow in recognizing the emergence of 24 hour convenient/drug stores and wally worlds.

There is "data" that shows that alcohol related traffic accidents and deaths increased after blue laws were repealed in New Mexico. This of course is just common sense. Alcohol related car accidents and deaths will increase on a certain day if it is available on that certain day...

In the end I think the argument that makes the most sense is that lawmakers have kept some blue laws so that people will be productive on Monday, the first and most important day of the work week... because lets face it, if you have a crappy Monday the rest of the week is probably going to suck too.

This way at least on one day of the week, workers will actually get something done.

Just a final thought. In places where owning a car is unheard of... (ie. cities where the population density, available public transportation, and other factors make owning a car financially unpractical) alcohol consumption is not as big of a problem. In the United States the car seems to be our Achilles' heel in more ways than one... think -> obesity, the environment, costs of living, deaths, time wasted in traffic... and the list goes on...

Don't get me wrong, I love my car! And until we have access to efficient public transportation, or if I can get to where I want without walking/biking for an hour or the costs of owning a car eats up my meager income (which it basically already is) then i just might be willing to give up my car...

March 9, 2008

So I guess we are on Chapter 6 now..

If not, too bad because I read that one last night. As someone who grew up with only two broadcast channels (pbs and abc) and no internet, I have no problem seeing Gordon's point of view. And as someone who just realized they have to continue to pay the mediacom monopoly an ungodly amount a month just to keep basic cable and internet, I find it easy to agree with him. I know, I am biased.

Sure, there will always be the free broadcast/digital signals (we can hope), but more networks are focusing their public programming on their cable/satellite spheres, like msnbc and such. However, I don't think the scenario will become as extreme as Gordon describes, where presidential debates will be available on only paper-view channels.

As for Reuss's argument, I disagree with her statement that media access to information is more important than the public's access to media. If everyone in the nation was able to afford reasonable access to public affairs programming that cable provides, then far more people would vote and make logical decisions instead of acting on what they have heard from another media consumer. Of course, even if this were true and everyone had equal access, a more democratic and logical society would not happen just like that. It would take the less affluent some time to become media literate.

March 8, 2008

Josh - Chapter 5

I think Gordon's a little off his rocker on this one, as there is no way to disregard all outside sources while still being objective. If anything your own personal view, or that of the company's would become blown out of proportion. The best option here seems to be to screen all media and attempt to determine if there is bias, as well as document in one way or another where the material is coming from.
Today’s media seems to focus more on the upper crust society and how/what they are doing, while in the meantime serious events are taking place that should be covered. What baffles me is how this happened. How, in twenty (maybe ten?) years, did most major media companies seemingly abandon the posts they had always held and jump into this cesspool of not-news? I’m afraid in ten years, when it is to late, we will all be sitting around saying, “Why didn’t we do something?” I think half the reason is that Americans have grown up trusting media to deliver them news, and they have. But in the recent years as media focuses less on important events (and why?) and more on the not, Americans are willing to follow, because we always have. We are sheep, and the wool is being pulled over our eyes. Ethically, I don’t like the idea of sheep on sheep action. Or is it shoop?

Josh - Chapter 4

"A reporter who lies deliberately isn't a reporter of course, but a whore.” Ha! That made my day! The fact is though, that reporters lie deliberately in the media all the time. That is assuming that you consider withholding of fact, or “truth” lying. Again I believe we’re coming back to the definition of what truth is and who it is serving. As per usual, I would like to side with Gordon, and like the Code of Ethics on the wall, his approach is ideal but I see it as ineffective. There will always be bias, no matter how hard the reporter tries to conceal his or her beliefs and intentions. I would certainly always prefer a reporter who was trying for objectivity than not, however.
It seems to me that modern media has slipped away from this ideal and is quickly losing any ideal altogether. With accuracy being so easy to flaw, as Kitross noted, and fairness and objectivity seemingly sliding down that slope as well, I wonder if there is any way to get media back on track, or should we rather look to media-litical info-tainers for the information we assumed could be found in more established outlets?