"The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have
the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and
that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses."
Malcom X
There is a fundamental issue that
exists today and I want to call it the greatest existential crisis of our time;
it is the choice to make money or to do the right thing. I understand that this
choice is not something mankind is facing for the first time and that we have always
grappled with it in capitalist societies, but my concern is that the tilt in
favour of making money, today, seems to override standing on our principles and
ethics. More than ever before in our history. Today, the vast majority of
corporations and individuals seem to feel that bottom-line growth justifies the
means, and this is something that should concern us all, greatly.
Media is the most powerful
communication tool. In fact, I would argue that with the advent of social
media, where anyone with an internet connection can spread news, the role of
the mainstream media has not diminished but become even more important. The
internet is filled with rumours and falsehoods, and social media in large
part fuels stories that are unverified but popular and trending due to their
sensational or gossipy nature. In such a world, the role of established media
outlets as the arbiters or truth and fact checking, takes on much greater
urgency. And it requires far more responsibility from editors and publishers
than ever before in history. Yet driving eyeballs and making money has become
an equally important goal for all these media houses that are struggling to
survive in the digital age; a situation that has created a serious dilemma
between chasing revenue and applying ethics in journalism. The question is
whether to break news first (to drive maximum eyeballs and revenue) or wait to
check the facts and risk being an hour late to the party - which in social
media standard time is roughly a decade late.
Even though the reality is that
speed and being first count for more eyeballs than being factually correct, it
does not absolve so-called reputable media outlets of the greater
responsibility that they have to society. With great power comes great
responsibility. Granted, mainstream media is no longer our only source of information.
For that reason, it is even more important for them to be sources of trusted
and reliable information. Here, I make a distinction between cable news and
mainstream news; the former is largely opinion, gossip and entertainment, while
the latter needs to be the opposite. However, both should aspire to greater
truth, based on some of the ethics and principles that have driven responsible
journalism for centuries. They both wield tremendous influence over the masses
and our minds.
Money can be made, but a reputation
cannot be regained or fixed (with all the dollars in the world) once the trust between
reader and institution has been broken. There should be absolutely no place for
the sensational half-truths and lack of fact checking that we see from
even the most venerable media institutions today. In the race to break a story
or get retweeted into becoming a trending topic, they are all willing to put
principles aside. Rolling Stone’s recent cover story on the horrific UVA campus
rape, and the Fox News interview with a Seal Team Six member who was part of
the Bin Laden raid, are both examples of the lack of ethics to which I am
referring.
Rolling Stone clearly chose to run
with a story based on the “sensational” aspects and in doing so chose to forego
the most basic tenets of journalism: fact checking, investigating, and corroborating
to ensure the integrity of the storyteller, all with a healthy dose of
skepticism that every journalist is meant to have. None of this is about
disrespecting the victim or doubting her story – it is simply about being
thorough and finding the truth. Equally, Fox News did a disservice to our
country by agreeing to give the Seal Team Six member a
platform on which to speak publicly. There used to be an unbreakable code of
honour among men who serve our country in the shadows. They did it knowing that
nobody would ever know their sacrifice by face or name; there is no greater
honour or valiance. I believe these men were the bravest of the brave because
they were driven by a sense of duty, honour and the noblest quality in humanity,
not by fame, fortune or personal glory. For this reason, Fox should have turned
down the Seal Team Six member, even knowing that other news outlets like CBS or
CNN would likely jump at the opportunity to do the same exclusive interview
with him. If Fox News had done this, they not only might have won my and many
peoples respect, but also would have set a very important precedent that
is much needed in journalism today – doing the right thing.
Equally, I was shocked by the number
of media outlets that jumped to disseminate the embarrassing Sony Studio emails
and other private and personal information of executives and
employees. Everyone was aware that this information was stolen and released
to the public by hackers. We live in the age of WikiLeaks, but there is a
fundamental difference between a whistle blower and a hacker. The latter is
always theft and extortion. I have no problem with media reporting the hacking,
even debating the state actors behind it and investigating the fingerprint of the
hackers, but institutions like The New York Times, The Wall Street
Journal and The Washington Post should have stopped short of sharing
the stolen information. They can and will probably justify their actions using “Bartnicki
vs Vopper,” where the Supreme Court ruled that “...the playing of
illegally intercepted material under these circumstances was constitutionally
protected, at least when the broadcaster wasn’t involved in the illegal
interception...” (Source: Washington Post Article).
They are legally within their rights, but my point is not about legality. It has
to do with guiding principles and ethics; things that used to be the
cornerstones of our society and journalism just a few decades ago. My
expectation would have been for these outlets to refrain from publishing any of
the stolen information; leaving that to less reputable
sites. A refusal to publish would also have sent a very strong message to
future hackers and served as a great disincentive to take the risk. It is
notoriety, through widespread exposure, that drives these cowardly criminals.
Media outlets who want to be
regarded as respectable should consider hacked information off-limits, much the
way eBay considers stolen goods listing unacceptable or how Sotheby’s will not
try to auction a painting for which the provenance is in serious doubt. Doing
so will draw an important ethical line in the sand which is so desperately
missing in journalism today - integrity. They may also gain our respect and their
eyeballs, as others start to follow suit.
I stopped watching the "news" long ago...I hate to think how much worse it will become. As for longtime print institutions sharing stolen information...shame on them, it's despicable--who's side are they on? Let's just hope that karma won't catch up to them the same way.
ReplyDeleteApprecciate your blog post
ReplyDelete