Media Ethics

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.

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 This is just the horrible, zombified version of an outdated, obsolete medium staggering around on its last legs.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

^ 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.

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)

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 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.

Indeed so. Did you hear that TV Tropes can give you cancer? I read in the Mail, so it must be true.

Yes but it also cures cancer...

Nah, the Express is the one that's obsessed with cancer. The Mail is immigrants, house prices and occasionally some sort of atheist conspiracy.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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%.

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.

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.

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

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.

Sorry for the Necro, but I think a discussion of Journalistic Code Of Ethics should happen.

Bingo

Pfft.

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 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.

Wow, it took me a second to get it, but that's really bad.

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

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