TV Tropes Org

Forums

On-Topic Conversations:
Media Ethics
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [28]
1
2

Media Ethics:

 1 Inhopelessguy, Fri, 25th Nov '11 3:20:33 PM from Birmingham, Greater Europe Relationship Status: Less than three
Part of the LIGHTS Army
Over the past six months or so, the UK's press have been bombarded with allegations of smear, invasion of privacy, illegal activities, and countless other things.

So, this is the thread to discuss the media/press across the world, how they behave, why so, and articles and sources pertaining to such.

You know I'm a pushover.

So you pushed me over the edge.

Thank god you think I'm good in bed.

 2 The Bat Pencil, Fri, 25th Nov '11 3:31:15 PM from Glasgow, Scotland Relationship Status: I'm just a hunk-a, hunk-a burnin' love
Although freedom of the press must be an untouchable absolute, both individuals and organisations must be responsible for what they say and how they act. Stalkerish paparazzi antics, hacking phones, bribing cops for information - the whole thing reveals a sense of untouchability, as well as a lack of professional and ethical responsibility.

It's an embarrasment to any proper, professional journalist and it is a huge problem in printed press in Britain. I don't buy newspapers anymore, because I won't contribute to gutter journalism, their sickening conduct, their populist pandering and the straight up lies that they print.

Personally, I put it down to the growth of new media. Printed news is dying a slow death as online services replace it. This is just the horrible, zombified version of an outdated, obsolete medium staggering around on its last legs.

edited 25th Nov '11 3:32:12 PM by TheBatPencil

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)
 3 johnnyfog, Fri, 25th Nov '11 4:14:52 PM from NYC Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
^ Word. But hasn't the printed media always been sleazy, shoddy, and ruthless?

The best you can hope for is Italy, where they never bother looking in the Who's Who and merely spread gossip.
What I lacks in brains I make for in…um…I make up for in…in…um…gummy bears. Yeah, that's the ticket.
 4 Silasw, Fri, 25th Nov '11 4:25:09 PM from The UNITED Kingdom Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Globalist Bunny
See I don't see this as the death of print news. I would like it to be the death of the tabloids but even that is unsure. Keep in mind that in the UK it was the Guardian (a broadsheet) that pushed so hard to get what the tabloids where do exposed.

If we could keep the proper papers such as the Guardian the Independent (and even though I'm not a fan of it) the Telegraph than I would be more than happy. The main problem is that even with these people having been exposed as the scum they are people still buy the papers.

I am increasingly tied of the double standard with have with the press in this country. We allow them to do things that would cause massive backlash if it was anyone but the press doing them. I'm not even talking about phone hacking I'm talking about the perfectly legal things, like a bunch of big burly men chasing a single 20 something year old woman down a dark ally and photographer s being sent to take pictures of small children in their swimwhere. (Note both of these are real occurrences and I can find references if people want)

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael

"If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
 5 Inhopelessguy, Fri, 25th Nov '11 4:52:03 PM from Birmingham, Greater Europe Relationship Status: Less than three
Part of the LIGHTS Army
Indeed so. I don't understand why television news has to be bound by impartiality regulations by Ofcom (The Office of Communications), whereas print media isn't. There's a difference between free speech and printing "IMMIGRANTS ARE STEALING OUR JOBS AND BENEFITS" without credible evidence. If Sky News were to put that as a main headline, the nation would be up in arms.

But it's okay for the Daily Fail, Telegraph, and other right-wing papers to do so, isn't it?

You know I'm a pushover.

So you pushed me over the edge.

Thank god you think I'm good in bed.

 6 The Gloomer, Fri, 25th Nov '11 5:12:09 PM from Northern Ireland
Inadequate law student
[up]You see, televised news has a SNEERING LEFTIST ANTI-BRITISH CULTURAL MARXIST BIAS which excuses the indiscretions of the tabloid press.

It must be so because I read it in the Daily Mail.

 7 Inhopelessguy, Fri, 25th Nov '11 5:17:35 PM from Birmingham, Greater Europe Relationship Status: Less than three
Part of the LIGHTS Army
Indeed so. Did you hear that TV Tropes can give you cancer? I read in the Mail, so it must be true.

You know I'm a pushover.

So you pushed me over the edge.

Thank god you think I'm good in bed.

 8 Silasw, Fri, 25th Nov '11 5:23:52 PM from The UNITED Kingdom Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Globalist Bunny
Yes but it also cures cancer...
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael

"If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
 9 The Gloomer, Fri, 25th Nov '11 5:29:23 PM from Northern Ireland
Inadequate law student
[up][up]Nah, the Express is the one that's obsessed with cancer. The Mail is immigrants, house prices and occasionally some sort of atheist conspiracy.

 10 Inhopelessguy, Fri, 25th Nov '11 5:45:11 PM from Birmingham, Greater Europe Relationship Status: Less than three
Part of the LIGHTS Army
Well, the Mail makes a good point. There's people like me, with my muslamic raygun and iraqi law.

No, but seriously, how can stories like the ones they print be acceptable? Ofcom will crack down on our TV shows for spewing this crap, but whoever regulated the newspapers must be brain-dead.

You know I'm a pushover.

So you pushed me over the edge.

Thank god you think I'm good in bed.

 11 Silasw, Fri, 25th Nov '11 6:20:32 PM from The UNITED Kingdom Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Globalist Bunny
They regulate themselves.

It works so well for the police.

While I do hate the media for the blatant lies they spew I don’t think the lying is going to be what brings them down. It will be things like this where they have effectively attacked people for no other reason than that they want a story. While the lies will hurt people indirectly with stories like this you can put a human face on the victims. Something that is much harder to do which lying and manipulating.

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael

"If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
 12 Inhopelessguy, Fri, 25th Nov '11 6:23:41 PM from Birmingham, Greater Europe Relationship Status: Less than three
Part of the LIGHTS Army
Indeed so. I believe that celebs and public figures do surrender their right to privacy - that's part and parcel of fame - but I don't think spying on them, stalking their kids, and doing whatever else is dubious anyway is exactly right.

I kinda feel sorry for those celebs, a little.

However, I feel sorry more, for the non-celebs, e.g. people who were interviewed after 7/7, who got their phones hacked, and whatever.

The press need regulation. Hard. Choke them till they get the message. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to spew.

edited 25th Nov '11 6:24:35 PM by Inhopelessguy

You know I'm a pushover.

So you pushed me over the edge.

Thank god you think I'm good in bed.

 13 The Bat Pencil, Fri, 25th Nov '11 6:34:33 PM from Glasgow, Scotland Relationship Status: I'm just a hunk-a, hunk-a burnin' love
[up] About celebrities and other famous people, I think that a policy of "public interest" needs to be restored. Is what you're saying so important to the public that it is worth invading someone's privacy for? Unless he takes it to his dad's levels, I don't care if Max Mosley has a Nazi fetish.

It's all down to this weird celebrity cult we've got going on. But that's a different topic for a different thread.

But hasn't the printed media always been sleazy, shoddy, and ruthless?

Probably. But it's certainly became more pronounced now that the internet has given us so many better options and made printed media obsolete. Maybe we can just see how bad it is by comparison with something better or it's actually gotten worse, but the end result is the same.

See I don't see this as the death of print news. I would like it to be the death of the tabloids but even that is unsure. Keep in mind that in the UK it was the Guardian (a broadsheet) that pushed so hard to get what the tabloids where do exposed.

If we could keep the proper papers such as the Guardian the Independent (and even though I'm not a fan of it) the Telegraph than I would be more than happy. The main problem is that even with these people having been exposed as the scum they are people still buy the papers.

Most papers already have online versions anyway. I often read Guardian articles when someone provides an interesting link, and that's a hell of a lot more convenient to me than actually buying the thing.

It's only a matter of time until sales drop to the point where going fully online is the only way to survive. As the Internet has long shown us, people don't pay for what they can get for free and my (actually, given from what I know about Tropers I'm going to say our) generation just aren't going to bother with printed papers when the same information is available in our hands via internet. It offers everything papers do, plus more, and in a more convenient manner.

edited 25th Nov '11 6:39:06 PM by TheBatPencil

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)
 14 Inhopelessguy, Fri, 25th Nov '11 6:38:31 PM from Birmingham, Greater Europe Relationship Status: Less than three
Part of the LIGHTS Army
Britain is probably the last bastion of the newspaper. But that shouldn't be for much longer. I mean, our generation will not miss the newspaper. The older ones may, but they're not to fussed about it.

Also, I'm not sure if this is a typo or not, but my Politics textbook stated that the circulation of The Independent was 0%. [lol]

You know I'm a pushover.

So you pushed me over the edge.

Thank god you think I'm good in bed.

I believe that celebs and public figures do surrender their right to privacy

Which is an idea that's been heavily pushed by the media who make so much money out of celebrity gossip.

Sorry, but when I got my Equity card it didn't include any fine print saying that a tabloid reporter has a right to search through my dustbins and take photos of my kids if I ever get offered a regular part on Eastenders. My job may be interesting; I see myself as boring as hell, frankly. And for most actors 'celebrity' is a lottery; they didn't pick it, it picked them.

The thing I find really strange is the idea that actors have surrendered their right to privacy on the grounds that their work is seen by millions. However reporters appear to have retained their right to privacy - even if their bylines are read by millions.

Because you don't read that many stories detailing the private lives of the Fleet Street Editors. evil grin
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.
Three-Puppet Saluter
I'll just say that truth should be an absolute standard for media, but objectivity (being impossible the instant there are too many stories for the allotted space) should not. Hence, Fox News was wrong to run an unflattering photoshop on those state officials back in 2009, but it can go right on ahead being right-wing.

Oprah-style unsubstantiated scares would be the main offender of journalistic ethics on TV, I think.
Hail Martin Septim!
I think some celebrities surrender their right to privacy. I'm not impressed with people who constantly invite cameras and reporters into their life in order to get more famous - or famous at all, in the case of reality stars - then, once they're big enough, suddenly turn around and declare that they don't want the tabloids around any more. Just seems kind of ungrateful.

But not all celebrities are like that, and even when they are, there should be limits, and if something tragic happens, anyone deserves privacy to grieve. And, obviously, blatantly illegal stuff - like phone hacking - shouldn't be considered as an option.

It's kind of sad that we need laws to tell people this, really. I think the best solution is for the media to have to thoroughly investigate any journalist who they're thinking of hiring, and make sure that the person has some kind of grasp of basic decency.

edited 30th Nov '11 8:53:03 AM by ArlaGrey

 18 The Bat Pencil, Wed, 30th Nov '11 1:43:56 PM from Glasgow, Scotland Relationship Status: I'm just a hunk-a, hunk-a burnin' love
I think it's a form of dehumanisation, myself. They're not people with lives and rights but celebrities and that changes all the rules. I realise that there are plenty of fame-whores out there who love being the centre of attention, but that doesn't justify treating people like objects.

Just today I saw this one magazine in the shop - the Inquirer or something - and it was plastered with crap about "stylists spilling all" and stuff about celebrities with BO or bad breath or who wears a padded bra or whatever. It's proper creepy when you think about it, and it shouldn't be encouraged. To say the least.
And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)
 19 Enkufka, Tue, 20th Dec '11 2:24:19 PM from Bay of White fish
Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ
Sorry for the Necro, but I think a discussion of Journalistic Code Of Ethics should happen.

Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
— Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
— Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
— Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
— Never plagiarize.
— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.
Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
— Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
— Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
— Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
— Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.
Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Journalists should:
—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.
Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:

— Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
— Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.
Very big Daydream Believer.

"That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray

"Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry
 20 The Bat Pencil, Tue, 20th Dec '11 2:28:51 PM from Glasgow, Scotland Relationship Status: I'm just a hunk-a, hunk-a burnin' love
[up]Bingo smile
And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)
 21 USAF713, Tue, 20th Dec '11 2:29:27 PM from the United States
I changed accounts.
Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.

Pfft.

Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.

Pfft.

You know, I'm not going to keep quoting all the things that are totally ignored most of the time. I'd be quoting almost every line.
I am now known as Flyboy.
 22 Enkufka, Tue, 20th Dec '11 2:33:04 PM from Bay of White fish
Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ
I know. Its a travesty that they are ignored.

This sort of thing should be enshrined in law so we don't get bullshit like this.

If you can't see what's wrong with it, this is a demonstration.
Very big Daydream Believer.

"That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray

"Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry
 23 CDRW, Tue, 20th Dec '11 2:36:43 PM Relationship Status: Mu
Wow, it took me a second to get it, but that's really bad.
 24 USAF713, Tue, 20th Dec '11 2:47:21 PM from the United States
I changed accounts.
I seriously didn't get it without the lines. I thought they were just manipulating the scaling.

Then I saw the lines and I was all

I am now known as Flyboy.
 25 Enkufka, Tue, 20th Dec '11 2:51:47 PM from Bay of White fish
Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ
Fox also rounded up to the nearest point of the unemployment figure, from 8.6% to 9%.

You just don't do that and claim honesty.

edited 20th Dec '11 2:53:02 PM by Enkufka

Very big Daydream Believer.

"That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray

"Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry
Total posts: 28
1
2


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy