The Skins Controversy: Ethics and Responsibility - Case Study Example

The Skins Controversy: Ethics and Responsibility Teenagers are highly impressionable, and while MTV’s show, ‘Skins’, may be a reflection of what happens in the real society, the programme producers left much of the hard work to parents of teenagers. For example, dangerous driving kills, but the show does not dwell on this much. Additionally, sexually transmitted diseases are real, but the programme does not pay specific attention to such issues either. Drugs use does not always end in fun and dangerous driving does not always end without any casualties. Arguably, the show could be faulted for creating the impression that risky adventures are always fun and that no risks are involved. Arguably, MTV failed the social responsibility test when it chose to air ‘Skins’ because it failed to consider the social norms and values that its target market holds on to. For example, teenagers are advised against irresponsible sexual behaviours, driving without licences, and drug use among other socially irresponsible behaviours. The society therefore expects the media, teachers and other people who interact with teenagers to teach them responsible living habits in the hope that such teaching will make them responsible adults in future. Skins’ does the exact opposite since it creates the impression that people can engage in irresponsible behaviours and still be happy for it. The ethical imperative that MTV has, just like other corporate and not-for-profit organisations, is to do things that better the society and avoid things that worsen the same society. Arguably, ‘Skins’ raises several ethical issues which include worsening the society by creating the impression that irresponsibility among teenagers pays. Another ethical issue relates to MTV making money from advertisers through programmes whose values and morality are in question. As Chris MacDobnald (Cited by Carr, 2011) asks, “You have to wonder if there isn’t a better way to make a living”. Another possible ethical issue relates to child pornography in the content TV of programmes. Notably, the Parental Television Council (PTC) argued that the content of ‘Skins’ was “too graphic and extreme for a young audience or for young actors to be portraying” (Hoops, 2012, p. 12). In other words, not only was the programme exposing young people to pornographic content, the underage actors in the programme were possibly going beyond what was permissible for their age limit. The legal aspect in ‘Skins’ mainly relates to child pornography, especially in relation to casting teenagers to act in nude scenes. Whether nudity comprises pornography is a widely debated issue, with Collins (2011 cited by Holloway, 2011) stating that terming scenes in ‘Skins’ pornography is demeaning the meaning of the term ‘pornography’ as used in law. Even when sexually implicit content was shot, it could only be considered pornography if MTV actually distributed such content in ‘Skins’ episodes. Otherwise, sexually explicit scenes that had been shot but edited, hence meaning they did not make it into people’s screens, do not constitute pornography. The foregoing argument is founded on New York v. Ferber (1982) – a Supreme Court case in the US where it was ruled that one of the criteria of determining whether a party is guilty of pornography is the distribution of the sexually explicit content. Critics of this argument would however argue that the ruling in New York v. Ferber (1982) reiterated the prohibition of any person from deliberately promoting “sexual performance by a child under the age of 16” (para. 1). The ruling went ahead to define sexual performance as “any performance that includes sexual conduct by the child...sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse or lewd exhibition of the genitals” (New York v. Ferber, 1982, para. 1). Arguably therefore, the producers of ‘Skins’ could be accused of promoting sexual performance of actors who are younger than 16 years. The more controversial a television programme is, the more viewers may be attracted to it. This position emerges from human beings being curious and wanting to know what the source of the controversy is. The question of whether or not to gain viewers from a controversial programme is best answered by first understanding what an ethical way of doing things is. The utilitarian ethics perspective argues that something is ethical of it is done with the aim of providing the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people. Judged from this perspective, gaining viewers from a controversial programme would be unethical since the people broadcasting the programme would be ignoring the opposition by those who are against the programme. The rights view of ethics on the other hand indicates that ethical decision-making involves adopting decisions that do not interfere with other people’s rights. On this perspective too, gaining viewers based on a controversial programme would be considered unethical too. The theory of justice view of ethics opines that justice relates to fairness, impartiality and equitable treatment. A programme that gains viewers based on controversial content would therefore not be fair to those opposing it, and it would not be impartial or equitable either. Another way to judge whether gaining viewers through a controversial programme is ethical is by looking at whether the programme’s content has negative implications on the morality, values, experience or the culture of the targeted audience. When discussing issues relating to teenagers, several important stakeholders need to be considered. The Oxford English Dictionary (2014) defines a stakeholder as the “person with an interest in something” (para. 2). In a programme like ‘Skins’, the stakeholders include the teenagers themselves, their parents, their teachers, programme producers, advertisers and the government. Teenagers are an important stakeholder segment because besides being the main target audience for programme producers and marketers, it is them who are most affected by the programme content as well as the debate surrounding the programme. Parents on the other hand are an important stakeholder group because oftentimes, teenagers ideally need their permission to act in or even watch a programme such as ‘Skins’. Most parents undoubtedly believe that they are acting in the best interest of their teenage children. Those who allow the children to act in the controversial programme may for example be inspired by the need to push their children to stardom. Their intentions may be right, but this does not mean that their decisions are always right. This calls for the government’s intervention, especially through the justice system, where laws exist to protect the rights and privileges of the teenage children. Teachers are also an important stakeholder group since they interact with the teenagers daily. Indeed, teachers can moderate debates about a controversial programme that takes place among students, and correct any misconceptions that the teenagers might have. There are several things that MTV might do to ‘look better’ after airing ‘Skins’. First, it is important that MTV acknowledges that it has deviated from being a music television to a reality TV programme. In theory, MTV still targets teenagers aged between 13 and 18 years. As such, airing ‘Skins’ and arguing that the show was meant for a more mature audience amounts to lying to the public. The first damage control that MTV should do is to admit that it erred in airing ‘Skins’. The reality however is that the TV station will not admit to any wrongdoing. In fact, when it refused to renew the second season of ‘Skins’, MTV stated that the programme did not receive the attention it had hoped it would. The one good thing MTV did however was refusing to renew the second season. This could be interpreted to mean that it become receptive to the opposition that had been expressed about the programme. Respecting the rights, values and opinions of others could in some way be interpreted as being ethical. It is also important to note that ‘Skins’ is not the only controversial programme that MTV has aired. As a result, the TV station needs to re-evaluate its target audience, understand the different stakeholders that have the target audience’s interests at heart, and strive to air programmes that are in the best interest of that target audience. The company should specifically replace controversial shows with programmes that showcase the talents held by teenagers (e.g. aspiring musicians) and those who have already succeeded in their different aspirations. This would not only be an ethical decision to take, but one which would attract young people across the country to view more programmes, especially if such programmes have educative and entertaining content. Ideally, MTV’s actions should help it reconnect with its target audiences, some of whom have been discouraged to watch the programme by their parents, and earn the respect of advertisers. Finally, MTV needs to acknowledge that its target audience (i.e. the 13 to 18-year old teenagers) are a very impressionable group of people. With the foregoing in mind, the programmes aired on the TV channel should target doing the greatest good to the greatest number of teenagers. The TV station for example should ask itself these questions about each programme: Does the programme entertain? Does it educate? Does it inform? Does the content reflect societal values? Is airing the programme ethical and responsible? Arguably, a programme can be purely entertaining; however, MTV should set ethics and responsibility as the bare minimum that each programme aired in its channel should have. References Carr, D. (2011). MTV’s naked calculation gone bad. The New York Times. Retrieved October 7, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/business/media/24carr.html?_r=0 Holloway, D. (2011). Is MTV’s ‘Skins’ child pornography? A legal expert weighs in. The Hollywood Reporter, Retrieved October 06, 2014, from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/thr-esq/is-mtvs-skins-child-pornography-100545 Hoops, J. L. (2012). ‘Skins’: A contemporary moral panic. Honour College. Paper 54. Retrieved October 7, 2014, from http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/honors/54 New York v. Ferber (1982). New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). Retrieved October 7, 2014, from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=458&invol=747 The Oxford Dictionary. (2014). Stakeholder. Retrieved October 7, 2014, from, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stakeholder Read More