Responsibilities of Broadcasting - Assignment Example

1. “Television programmes too often invade individual privacy; they have no clear sense of the difference between the public and the private.” When asked what the purpose of journalism is, the near automatic reaction is to say that it is a journalist’s responsibility to gather information, to sift through the information gathered for newsworthy items, and to present it to the public. This is what distinguishes journalistic reporting from the rest of mass media. It follows a supposedly clear division between that which is newsworthy and that which is only considered as entertainment. And while this division is all often disregarded, it still makes the process of studying the possibility of the invasion of privacy less messy (Or does it?). However, because most media outlets are not considered as mere sources of information and are seen more as commodities that people purchase for their pleasure and media companies create to make money (Miller), the line between the private and the public often blurs. This is especially true for television programs. The nature of most television programs is geared towards entertainment, whether the show might be about surgery or gossip or teen drama. They were all created to appeal to an audience, and to invoke a certain pleasure in the act of viewing. They are made that way because, unlike newspapers, television programs are not limited by the act of dispensing information. They are a medium for storytelling, whether it be fictional or not and they can pretty much present anything it wants but with one very important catch – it has to sell. A media corporation is a business, which means that its goal is to make profit. The more popular their shows are, the more money they make out of advertising. They also generate income by plugging certain products or certain people. But if they don’t have an audience, then their capacity to make a profit disappears. And the competition between media companies is extremely aggressive. Media moguls are bent on eating up the smaller companies so that they can add to their reach. Which is why a hit show is something to be desired, and they can’t get a hit show without knowing what people want. And one only has to sit through a couple of hours of primetime TV to know that the public has gained a taste for something very akin to voyeurism. We live in the day and age of the reality TV. Although those two words that make up that phrase inherently contradict each other, it has become popular enough that hardly anyone ever really questions it. There was a sudden explosion of new wave voyeur shows that began, perhaps, with Fox’s “Survivor” (Poniewozik). The success of these shows has led many to wonder about the voyeuristic appetite that seems to be present in the public, and the seeming desire to penetrate the private. Which raises the important question of whether television’s tendency towards the invasion of privacy is merely a reaction to the public’s desire for it? Most people are drawn to these shows because there is a secret pleasure in seeing people in situations that one would usually not be privy to, an example of this being the “Big Brother” show. It also gives a feeling of superiority, when you see other people mess up or draw the ire of viewers. You can laugh at them and know that they are real people, and that they exist (Poniewozik). Therefore, a viewer can feel better about himself or herself, and say that at least there’s someone out there who’s worse. In identifying this exploitable need in the public audience, we can return to the issue of Personal Privacy vs. Freedom of the Press. Earlier in the article, we touched briefly on the journalist’s responsibility to recognize the newsworthiness of a story and to recognize whether the news item is something that the public will need to know, or whether it is merely going to be a cause for public excitement (or outrage) and will then generate more attention and inevitably more profit. While it is indeed the core responsibility of any form of media to deliver truth to the public, it should not just be any truth. It can be said that we are experiencing too much freedom of the press. Publications nowadays have adopted a sensationalized way of giving information. It has become common among publications to unnecessarily inject misplaced excitement in their stories in their determination to sell themselves to their readers, which might end up giving the readers a warped perception of the stories. In the news article “Journalism Under Fire”, the authors described members of the media as “rude and accusatory, cynical and almost unpatriotic. They twist facts to suit their not-so-hidden liberal agenda. They meddle in politics, harass business, invade people's privacy, and then walk off without regard to the pain and chaos they leave behind. They are arrogant and self-righteous, brushing aside most criticism as the uninformed carping of cranks and ideologues. To top it off, they claim that their behavior is sanctioned, indeed sanctified, by the Constitution.” (Henry, Bruns and Ogden) Manny others have spoken of the way tabloid techniques have infected mainstream press and television. There are several cases that have drawn the attention of many, cases in which the media used their capacity in reporting to go into the realm of the private, and went too far. Such cases include press invasion into the business of Gov. David Walters of Oklahoma, whose college-age son committed suicide after drug paraphernalia were found in his apartment near the University of Oklahoma (Goodman). What should have been a private family affair of mourning was turned into a media frenzy, turning the solemn and sad event into a circus. While local stations later conceded that they might have gone a bit too far (Goodman), it was already beside the point. The media often steps into the private lives of people in disregard of their right to privacy because of the aggressive competition that exists between media companies. They have forgotten that the media is first and foremost a service to the people, and an avenue which requires responsibility because of the trust placed in the information that they disseminate. The question raised in media companies is no longer ‘is this something important that people should know?’ but has become ‘is this something that people will want to know?’ Bibliography Adorno, Theodor. "Culture industry reconsidered." The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture. London: Routledge, 1991. Goodman, Walter. "Review/Television; Personal Privacy vs. Freedom of the Press." Time 8 October 1992. Henry, William, Richard Bruns and Christopher Ogden. "Journalism Under Fire." Time 12 December 1983. Miller, M. (1995). The Clout of the Media Giants. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/themes/mediagiants.html McChesney, R. (1997). The Mythology Of Commercial Media and The Contemporary Crisis of Public Broadcasting. University of Wisconsin-Madison, http://www.com.umontreal.ca/Spry/spry-rm-sum.html Poniewozik, James. "The Decency Police." Time 20 March 2005. Poniewozik, James. "We Like To Watch." Time 26 June 2000. Silverstone, Roger. "Complicity and Collusion in the Mediation of Everyday Life." The London School of Economics and Political Science (2002). 2. Faking is inevitable in television. In fact all television is fake, and audiences are happy for it to be so. The belief that the Media has taken on a less-than-healthy influential form in our society is something that media critics have been screaming bloody murder about for decades. They say that we have come to “depend on the media, particularly on news organizations, to help us make sense of our lives” (Bishop, 2000) and that we unwittingly rely on the Media in making decisions that will dictate the details of how we live, whether it is in choosing our breakfast cereal or deciding which university to go to. They claim that we have become so dependent that it has directly challenged the drive for enlightenment in our society and replaced it with conformity. No form of media is more potent in delivering information than the television. Despite the onset of podcasts and the internet, and the continuous existence of radios and newspapers, the combination of audio and imagery to reach an audience remains unmatched. This is because, unlike any other form of media, the television can provide the closest imitation of reality. It is one of the strongest influences in our culture for the precise reason that it is able to present information in such a way that it is very believable to its audience. Because the very nature of television (and other forms of media) is rooted in the fact that it has to generate profit, it is not a fitting form of reflection of reality. While it can be a source of information for its viewers, it should not be perceived as an ultimate truth. It is merely a means of receiving knowledge, but it is up to the viewer to sift through the various information that he or she receives and try to understand which of these things make up reality. We must therefore maintain our responsibility as viewers in the same way that the media also maintain their responsibility to their viewers, through media awareness. While there is a grain of truth in the information gleaned from watching TV, it cannot be taken as a complete truth. To do so would be to render television as truly fake. To take television as a complete truth would also be very dangerous. The power of television and its role in shaping how we perceive our reality has been delved into through the film “The Truman Show”. In the film, we have our protagonist Truman Burbank who, unbeknownst to him, lives in a fake world. Everything is made up and has been constructed for the sole benefit of keeping Truman from finding out that he lives in an unreality, a false world that serves as an elaborate cage. He is kept within that cage because his life has been made into a ‘reality’ TV show, a hit TV show for that matter, and the continuing existence of his company and the continuing patronage of his audience all depend on the fact that Truman believes that his life is real (Weir). When Christof, the producer, director and creator of the show, was asked about accusations that Truman’s world is artificially constructed and is therefore fake, he answers that while Truman’s environment is admittedly artificial, Truman’s reactions are not which means that the show is not and can’t ever be fake (Weir). As part of the television audience, we find ourselves inevitably cast in the role of Truman. If we are completely dependent on the television in our perception of reality, are we not slaves to it? Do we lose our ability to discern and to reach our own conclusions? Do our reactions remain unconstructed and original, or are we left to imitate and repeat instead of create? But the more important question is do we still have the desire to discern, to reach our own conclusions, to participate instead of imitate? In “The Truman Show”, Truman eventually discovered that he lived in an artificial world, and that his life as he knew it was a constructed artifact that was monitored and maintained. This led him to search for the truth and to fight for his freedom. He eventually braved the seas (which he was deathly afraid of as part of a trauma that was also induced by the show’s creator), the last avenue of escape unexplored. Standing beside the door that would lead to his freedom he has a parting conversation with Christof. Truman said “nothing was real” to which Christof replied “that’s what made you so good to watch” (Weir). Truman and Christof’s final words to each other raise the question of whether this unreality presented by television is preferable to reality? Do audiences seek television because of the very fact that it is ‘fake’? This closely follows the saying ‘ignorance is bliss’, and many might even argue that if the truth had never been revealed to Truman then he would have continued living a blessed and safe life free of dangers and free of worries. After all, if he had been unaware of the artificiality of his life then artificiality would never have become an issue. This is somewhat reflected by the continuous reliance of people on television to make sense of their lives. Despite the fact that media awareness and the dangers of the media’s power to influence our perception of reality has colored many a discussion and has been the topic of several films and papers, people continue to drink in television without sifting though the information. Either it is too much effort for viewers to practice media awareness or television has finally succeeded in its bid for portraying reality (Heuvel). While the dangers of having such a passive attitude towards a form of media that holds such a prominent position of power in influencing people, all discussions remain academic and hasn’t quite influenced any practical means of dealing with the issue (McChesney). Knowing this, it can therefore be said that while people are aware of the artificiality of television, it is not something that they find alarming. In fact, given the ratings and television’s continuously growing popularity, they might even prefer it to be that way. Bibliography Bishop, R. (2000). Good Afternoon, Good Evening, and Good Night: The Truman Show as Media Criticism. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 6-17 Brown, Mary Ellen and Linda Barwick. "Fables and endless genealogies." The Australian Journal of Media & Culture (1987). Gutierrez, M. (2004). Fewer Players, Less Freedom. InterPress Service, http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=22950 Iglesias, M. (2006). How Concentrated Is The Media? TPM Café: Politics, Ideas and Lots of Caffeine. http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/yglesias/2006/jun/16/how_concentrated_is_the_media McChesney, R. (1997). The Mythology Of Commercial Media and The Contemporary Crisis of Public Broadcasting. University of Wisconsin-Madison, http://www.com.umontreal.ca/Spry/spry-rm-sum.html Heuvel, K. (2007). Dean Takes On Big Media. The Nation, http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=1140 Meier, W. (n.d.) Media Ownership – Does It Matter? http://www.lirne.net/resources/netknowledge/meier.pdf Sanes, Ken. "Truman as an Archetype." 2001. 9 May 2009 . Turnbull, D. (2007). The blogosphere as coffeehouse. University of Minnesota. http://www.mediahistory.umn.edu/archive/blogging.html Turner, T. (2004). My Beef With Big Media. Washington Monthly, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0407.turner.html The Truman Show. Dir. Peter Weir. 1998. 3. First, outline what, in your view, are the most important areas of public concern about the depiction of real and fictional violence on television. Some of the most prominent news items in the media nowadays involve violence. This is due to the fact that violence sells. One of the public concerns with violence is that it can lead to more violence, in the sense that exposure to violence will lead to familiarity with it which will then lead to an increase in the possibility of acting violently. This is especially true for the younger audience, since an early exposure to violence can lead to a predisposition towards it. Another concern with violence portrayed in the media is that too much of it portrays a bleak world or reality and can lead people to become depressed, or hopeless, and paranoid. It lowers the ability to trust and encourages members of the audience to be suspicious of one another. It is heartening to know that media corporations have guidelines in addressing these public concerns towards violence. It means that our concerns are being taken seriously and that the media is not belittling their power to shape people’s perceptions and their influence over their viewers. This could mean that they aren’t taking their responsibilities lightly, responsibilities which come with power. These guidelines are not only encouraged, they are listed in the various websites of such influential media companies such as BBC and Ofcom. They are meant not only to show their public that they are responsible companies, but the guidelines are also there so that their respective media members can act accordingly. While it is good to know that there are guidelines to the process of disseminating information in the media, there is still the question of whether these guidelines are being followed. Also, there is the question of whether these guidelines are enough. The BBC website states that “our reporting of crime and anti-social behavior aims to give audiences the facts in their context. It must not add to people's fears of becoming victims of crime when statistically they are very unlikely to be so” (BBC News). Ofcom’s website also states that “Viewers must not be materially misled by what they watch. Deceiving or misleading viewers is unacceptable and undermines the relationship of trust between Five and the viewing public. Undermining the relationship of trust also adversely impacts on Five's status as a public service broadcaster and its business and will therefore not be tolerated” (Ofcom). As can be seen from these statements that are part of each company’s viewer guidelines, the media is seeking to address the public’s concerns directly, and are working towards presenting information that need to be presented within the context of the story – nothing less and certainly nothing more. Because of the rise in awareness of the public and the various studies conducted about the media’s having too much power and too little accountability, there has been attention given on the guidelines for creating stories which is reflected on the various statements of BBC and Ofcom. However, it is one thing to set guidelines and quite another to see them enforced. Though it can be argued that these media companies screen their news and broadcasts so as to meet their set guidelines, it cannot be denied that even the act of deciding which news meet these guidelines and which don’t are indistinct at best. The question of who decides whether video clips are ‘within context’ can be raised, and the definition of what is ‘within context’ is also vague at times. Still, effort is being made to minimize unnecessary shows of violence through the media, and rising awareness among viewers is a testament to this. It is also the standing practice to air a rating (such as G for general audience or PG for parental guidance) before every show, which goes with a warning for the possibility of violent scenes so as to forewarn the audience. This will allow parents an opportunity to screen the videos that can be viewed by their children or at least monitor their viewing habits. Despite their efforts, the prevalence of violence in the media still continues, and while ratings are useful for parents in monitoring their children’s viewing habits, it does not prevent children from watching these violent shows when adults are not around. Thus it would be better for the guidelines to be dependent on the media companies and not on the viewers to enforce. It would help if their guidelines addressed specific limitations to the airing of violent scenes, whether fictional or non-fictional. An example of this would be to ban the act of rape from airing in their shows. The statement for this could be “the act of forced sexual relations known as rape will not be visually portrayed by our company, whether through fiction or non-fiction,” instead of just referring to these violent acts generally, thereby inevitably making their guidelines too general and somewhat vague. In this sense, I do not feel that the guidelines being set by media companies such as BBC and Ofcom are enough to deal with the portrayal of violence in their shows. While their efforts are commendable, I would suggest that they make an effort to concretize their guidelines and not leave up too much of the decision making in the hands of the people who are the creative minds of their various shows. While this can be mistaken as a form of suppression of the freedom of expression, it is more of an act of taking responsibility for the possible effects of certain actions. And if it is the media companies themselves who act to regulate the information that they disseminate, then it will still be possible to have a creative avenue while also controlling the material being released. Given the influence of the media and its vast audience, it would only be conscientious of these various media companies to avoid the possibility of causing fear or paranoia or acts of violence among those who patronize their shows. Bibliography Bishop, R. (2000). Good Afternoon, Good Evening, and Good Night: The Truman Show as Media Criticism. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 6-17 BBC News. 9 May 2009 . Caplan, G. (1997). Advancing Free Media. http://www.impacs.org/pdfs/advancingfreemedia.pdf Fiske, John. "TV: re-situating the popular in the people." The Australian Journal of Media & Culture (1987). Gutierrez, M. (2004). Fewer Players, Less Freedom. InterPress Service, http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=22950 McChesney, R. (1995). What’s This Doing To Kids? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/themes/doingtokids.html Miller, M. (1995). The Clout of the Media Giants. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/themes/mediagiants.html Ofcom. 9 May 2009 < http://www.independentproducerhandbook.com/ >. Postman, N. (1982). The Disappearance of Childhood. Laurel Books, p.4 Rushkoff, D. (1995). Where Are The Adults. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/themes/whereadults.html Shah, A. (2007). Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership. http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Corporations/Owners.asp 4. Viewers expect a greater degree of responsibility from the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 than they do from other specialist digital channels. On April 30, 2009, a news report stating that a new strain of swine flu had been reported in London. The article continued to state that the virus is able to restart the heart of its victim for up to two hours after the initial demise of the person where the individual behaves in extremely violent ways from what is believe to be a combination of brain damage and a chemical released into blood during “resurrection.” It was pretty much a news article describing what could only be an outbreak of zombies, very similar to scenarios depicted in horror films such as “Resident Evil” and “28 Days Later”. While the article was obviously a hoax, it was presented in such a way that it appeared genuine because the perpetrators had painstakingly copied the BBC website and had even provided links to related stories. It was also flagged as a genuine BBC article. The link was passed on from person to person, with the sentence ‘it has to be true, it’s from BBC. Believe it or not, it added to the panic caused by the outbreak of swine flu. People were willing to believe the story because they thought it was released by BBC. This shows the amount of trust placed by the public on the media organization, and on other media organizations such as ITV and Channel 4. The amount of trust placed on these media organizations stems from the fact that the public expects a certain amount of responsibility in these same organizations. They are expected to be a reliable source of information, and their research is also expected to be meticulous and thorough. Despite the growing criticism on media irresponsibility and the growing attention on media awareness, people are still able to turn to these media organizations for information. They take in these information without much questioning its validity. This is because of how well established these media organizations have come to be. Their reputation and standing are acknowledged not just locally but internationally as well. This longstanding relationship is also based on the fact that these companies have been around for quite a while. BBC, or the British Broadcasting Company, was founded in 1922. ITV, or Independent Television was created in 1954 following the Television Act of 1954. Channel 4 Television Corporation was founded in 1982. They’ve survived the test of time and their current popularity is a testament to their good relationship with their audience. People have come to expect a greater degree of responsibility from these news companies because BBC, ITV and Channel 4 have also had a history of maintaining a certain standard and showing a certain level of responsibility. Through time, as these media companies proved themselves to be reliable sources of information, and as their shows proved to be educational and based on fact rather than being bent on sensationalism, people grew to expect this standard to be maintained. It is also no coincident that it is these companies who make an effort to create guidelines to their programs while also making an effort to live by these guidelines. They are not the kind of media organizations which air violent clips or neglect their research or allow fakery through implication. They maintain a sense of professionalism which shows in their programs. This standard of professionalism and good journalism is probably what has allowed these three companies to outlast their competitors and to remain competitive even in this day and age where media companies are being swallowed up or absorbed by other media companies. They continue to be viable and are still patronized by audiences, not just by the older generations but by the younger ones as well. Indeed, it is through this continuous show of professionalism in terms of their broadcasting that allows people to almost take the truth behind their reports and their programs for granted, barely even seeking to verify the research behind these programs. In fact, these programs are treated as official sources within themselves. While it is still possible for these companies to lose their longstanding good relationship with their public, they have established themselves so well as a source of information that could be trusted and whose sources are reliable that such a loss of trust has become highly improbable. As can be seen from the ruckus that the swine flu hoax perpetuated, to say that the source of information is either BBC, ITV or Channel 4 is tantamount to having it stated as fact. I therefore cannot help but agree with the statement that people place expect a greater deal of responsibility from the media organizations BBC, ITV and Channel 4. Because they have built their reputation around ascribing to responsible media practices, I would like to believe that the continuance of their existence as media organizations would depend in continuing their current practices which include closely ascribing to their set guidelines of remaining within context when broadcasting their programs and meticulously researching the basis for their shows. The expectation of responsibility that comes from the trust placed by their audiences will only last for as long as they will be able to meet those given expectations, without falling to the increasing trend of media organizations to resort to sensationalism to increase their audiences. Thus, it is to these media organizations’ benefit to uphold the responsibilities expected of those who wield the power and influence of the media, and to not abuse their capacity to sway opinion and enrich understanding. If they are able to withstand the rise and fall of so many media organizations, then the higher standard which has been set for them will not bar their way but would instead be beneficial to their cause and to their continued existence. Bibliography BBC News. 9 May 2009 . Channel 4. 2009. 9 May 2009 . ITV. 2009. 9 May 2009 . Thompson, John. "Mass communication and Modern Culture: Contribution to a Critical Theory of Ideology." British Sociological Publications (1988): 360-79. http://bouncewith.me.uk/. 9 May 2009 . Read More