The Relationship between the Media and Terror Organizations in the Context of Helds Claim - Essay Example

Media Ethics Introduction The of this essay will be an examination of, Held’s argument that the media sometimes sacrifices its integrity and the security of the public by indirectly promoting the interests of perpetrators of political violence for financial gain. Firstly, I will extrapolate on the nature of the relationship between the media and terror organizations in the context of Held’s claim. Thereafter, I will describe the interaction between the two showing how the media at times promotes the agenda terrorists and attempt to prescribe alternative methods they could apply but they appear to ignore. Ultimately, I will conclude that the primary reason many media organizations may find themselves “aiding” terrorist is not out of the inevitability of an incidental connection, but a money-oriented strategy. Unlike other commentators, Held does not try to invoke the role of news media as a fourth branch or government, but takes the position that everyone in a moral society is obliged to promote the reduction of political violence. This position, in her opinion is partially relevant for those working in the media since it plays a key role in shaping public opinion, which is ultimately the objective of those that engage in political violence. She bases her argument on the claim that the media cannot be relied on to play its moral role in the war against terror since it is predominantly driven by profit motives. Even from a laypersons perspective, the media assist common sense in decreasing incidences of political violence. However, this is not as obvious to members of the fourth estate who tend to present news in the most dramatic and emotive way possible so as to exploit public outrage or fear for increased rating and create a sense of dependency. Given current reporting trends, it is clear that the infamous adage, “tell the people what they want hear” is alive. For example, they will rarely provide objective coverage of the arguments for and against the views by political dissidents unless they happen to be iconic figures such as Dalai Lama. She suggest that the press should air the view of everyone involved in an incidence since many acts of terror are committed by people who feel they are ignored and want to force society to acknowledge their existence and grievances. Her proposal on this matter is on point since in many cases, would be perpetrators of political violence will not get attention from the media unless they do something drastic. Held preeminently talks about the profit motive, which she cites rightly as one of the key reasons why the media acts in such an irresponsible manners about political violence. For example, if a terrorist group has executed some people, one of the means by which they may be perpetrated, their objective of terror is by displaying the bodies for all to see and presumably be intimidated. Given the public reaction to the images, they will be motivated to carry out such acts to make themselves relevant. However, while the media can and should report on the executions, they do not necessarily have to publish the images. This is because in the end, they will be promoting the terrorists’ agenda of creating panic and fear among the public. However, most media houses will publish the pictures since a story that contains graphic pictures is more likely to attract a reader or viewership. In case some media houses do not air the footage, their competition will capitalize on it to maximize the sales and create a competitive edge for themselves. Clearly, taking the above factors to account and comparing them to contemporary reporting trends, the media is frequently acting in the interest of its shareholders rather than its readership and by extension the public to whom they have a moral responsibility to protect from violence. Over the last 4 decades, there have been numerous occasions in which the media’s scope of demonstrations of political brutality has been condemned for being untrustworthy and advancing the motivation of the terrorists. This is particularly so in the contemporary time where power of the press is regularly abused by profit centered media houses eager to run any story regardless of the impacts it may have on security. Admittedly, the media plays a central role in educating the public and keeping it informed matters that concern them as well as keeping the government in check. However, the fact that like terrorist they benefit from acts of political violence through increased ratings and viewership should not be overlooked. In essence, activities of terror activities are good for business in the media since they sell more papers and improve news ratings. However, this correlation ought to be purely incidental and it should not be forced or manipulated for the sake of increased profits. In case, the media wished to contribute to the reduction of political violence by making the right choices in their presentation of political violence. They would ensure they avoided dramatizing incidences and exaggerating the impacts of the actions. Who commit an act of violence for example? Was it a criminal, a terrorist or a freedom fighter? They should go further than just describing the actions; they should investigate the causative agents and what are the direct and indirect implications. News reports should also not ignore the political disaffection that is inevitably a part of political violence. Her argument is fairly justified given that it is always easier and cheaper for a media house to simply report on a story without going too deep. All they have to do is focus on the colorful “newsworthy” bits and ignore the rest of the story and they will have thousands of readers at very little cost. Conversely, in-depth investigation take time, effort, and they may not allow the news organizations to capitalize on the immediate hype generated by the story. This greatly compromises the bottom line and return on investment since as soon as a story breaks the competition will run whatever they have even without substantive proof. From Held’s argument, one can conclude that if the media gave as much time and attention to exploring the ways the problem could have been solved without violence as they do to covering the dramatic elements of the story; they substantially reduce the incidence of such crime. The modern media instead of doing these things tend to foster violence by making the public and victim look even more helpless than they already are. They also exaggerate sensational issues such as the rates of crime making people believe they are higher than they actually are. Taking in consideration the capitalistic manner in which the press operates, there is little doubt that profits are directly related to the nature of reports and stories. As a result, they will keep publishing stories that favor perpetrators of political violence as long as they are guaranteed increased profits. Restriction on violent content are often fiercely resisted by the media and sometimes even when they are instituted the quantity of violence content does not reduce. This is because there has been a proven connection between violence and increased profits; therefore, as long as covering political violence will positively affect profits the media will keep doing so irrespective of the consequences. Held proposes restriction on violent content and speech and suggests that in the same way the law is used to protect citizens from control by the state the same should be done in regard to corporates, which use violence to generate profits. In view of the points considered above, it makes sense that Held is mostly right in claiming that the reason the media has failed to assist in curbing political violence is that it is driven by profits rather than as sense of responsibility or duty to the masses. Furthermore, even when this is present it takes a second place to profits such that a story is only as good as the number of papers it will sell. When there are different angles, though which the same could be told the one that results in the most emotional and sensational reaction is prioritized even when it may be playing right into the hands of the instigators of violence. In summary, because of their obsession with profits, the media has become a tool for terrorist and other actors involved in political violence. Many terror organizations gage their effectiveness based on the number or hours or pages dedicated to them by major media outlines. This is common knowledge even for those in the media, but it does not motivate them to change their methods of reporting violence so they can focus on reducing its incidence rather than increasing their ratings. Consequently, as long as political violence keeps bringing profits, media houses will keep reporting in the most dramatic and sensational very possible. Ultimately, this benefits the media and the perpetrators of violence only leaving the public more vulnerable by creating an environment where criminals are rewarded through attention, which motivates them to more violence. Work Cited Held, Virginia . How Should the Media Act if they are to fulfill their Defining Principles? Today. Media Ethics, Class 8 Resource Material Read More