Are Ethics Necessary in Media?

Media’s influence on society is immeasurable. While there are legions of studies, theories and plenty of evidence showing that there is certainly a relationship, it’s impossible to precisely gauge the leverage media has on society, behavior, individual thought process, world communication, opinions and so forth. Personally, I think the impact is even more significant than we think. We get our facts and opinions from several agents in our life such as primary groups (parents), secondary groups (friends, teachers), opinion leaders (preachers, intellectuals) and media. The fact our minds are so vulnerable and accessible to these communication channels is a profound thought.

News can manipulate and be manipulated. To avoid this, most businesses and media adhere to stringent ethical guidelines. Where laws can’t protect from the public from malevolent or negligence, ethics are implied to. Unfortunately, humans’ altruistic intentions aren’t the most reliable for such a power and written guidelines are in place for things you can’t necessarily outlaw.

A new documentary called Hot Coffee was shown at Sundance about how corporations can spend money to influence the media and the significantly persuade the public in another direction. The story of Stella Liebeck and the infamous burns from McDonald’s coffee was incredibly distorted and made Stella a national mockery instead of exposing what really happened and the drastic negligence from McDonald’s.

Committing to business and humanitarian ethics is the socially responsible thing to do; and it’s smart business. When companies and people are trustworthy, they’re listened to. It’s just becomes the chicken and the egg when one decides what to do after they’re listened to-- a successful cycle for good behavior, and usually damaging to the unethical.

"Education is the only Thing given that cannot be taken away."

The nature of school is…complex to say the least. Like many others, I’ve spent a huge part of my life engrossed in academia and kind of enjoyed it for the most part. I understood school is "required" for a “bright future” and important for the chance to succeed. I knew turning in my homework, studying for tests and paying attention were necessary, but I didn’t really remove my mind from the system that programmed it. I would go to class like a zombie, do my homework without really thinking about it, while complaining the whole time.

There [hopefully] comes a time when young adults fully grasp the true nature and purpose of school, maybe when the irrelevant core classes are satisfied and they get to focus on studying their passion, or maybe after they graduate and realize they yearn to keep learning. My time came a little over a year ago. I was 22, past the time of normal graduation (which is interesting in itself because I don't believe one can be mature enough to think like this before graduating "on time"), and had this life-awakening epiphany. I realized what’s taught is essentially how the world functions and how to maneuver in this intricate society. The information given isn’t a secret, it isn’t impossible to know, it’s just handed over to students rather than buried in books and websites for non-students to find. I no longer went to class grudgingly, rather with ears perked eager to know the secrets of the world and information that took lifetimes to find. I wasn’t learning for grades anymore, I was learning for me. This gave me a whole new appreciation for school, and fueled my quizzical thoughts over knowledge in general.

Thinking about the concept of knowledge can spin your brain in every direction. What is it? Where did it come from? How reliable are these sources? What does reliable even mean? I don’t want to diverge totally to the study of epistemology, as interesting as it may be, but it’s important to consider as an implicit foundation. Teachers are notoriously undermined for what they’re providing, for they are probably the most trusted source for young adults and second most trusted for children. With this sense, teachers are expected to transfer the most objective, absolute truths, and we are expected to believe them. Trust is a dangerous thing, but overconfidence in knowledge is even more threatening. As Descartes said,

“And such studies, whether or not carried to excess, have their own inherent dangers. Fables make us imagine many events as possible when they are not. And even the most accurate histories, if they don’t alter or exaggerate things’ importance so as to provide a better ‘read’, are likely to falsify things in a different way: such histories omit most of the meaner and the less striking factors in a situation, so that what they do include appears in a false light, looking grander than it really was. And a result of that is that those who regulate their conduct by examples drawn from these works are liable to fall into the excesses of the knights-errant in our tales of chivalry, and make plans that they haven’t the power to carry out.”

Last semester I took a class over sociological theory. Fascinating and eye opening, but I had issues with the teacher. He was personable, relatable, attractive and sarcastic, and used all of these traits to basically “blind” students. He made it clear he hated UNT (I mean, being from NY clearly makes him more sophisticated) and Dentonites, centered lectures around himself, dismissed Marxism and disregarded feminism. His bias on certain things and subjects was undeniably clear to me, but seemingly unapparent to the oblivious faces around me. They laughed when he laughed and rolled their eyes along with theories he subtly perverted; they offered almost no relevant input or feedback, showing they weren’t actually learning anything. I sat quietly in the back shaking my head at almost every point. This particular classroom of kids will undoubtedly continue life thinking Karl Marx was some irrational, misogynist, unrealistic bigot that failed and nothing more. Feminism has its place, it’s there, but no one will ever know, or care to know, more than that. Whether his conjectures are parallel with yours or the majority, they have no place in the vulnerable classroom.

This semester, I’m already wary of one of my professors. He teaches sociology of correctional systems, which I assumed to be a fascinating objective course studying the system that includes just as many fallacies as justifiable appearances. He reminds me of George W…if that doesn’t say enough already. He injects degrading humor derived from a Midwestern upbringing and sternly demands unwavering attention while he lectures (rambles?) about organizations supporting guns or his resolution to be nicer due to his wife’s bitching…but then again she might be divorced by the end of the year (his words, not mine). When talking about impoverished populations' predominance in jails, he says, “Yano, they don’t just end up in prison, they might grow up with idiot parents, are half-dumb themselves, be those little pukes in the day care, throw rocks through windows, then rape a woman.” Following a complacent confession that he doesn’t know where Puerto Rico is....who's half dumb again?

My urging point is that pretending like you know something is far more damaging that you can imagine. Besides the point that it’s embarrassing when you get questioned, but also it perpetuates the false pretense that most everything is “common knowledge” and we continue as ignorant as ever in a toxic cycle. You’re not alone when you feel uncertain about anything, people fake intelligence all day everyday and for some reason our culture damns admittance of ignorance, when, ironically yet totally affirming my point, we’re possibly the most ignorant leading nation. Doubt everything, down to the root basics; I don’t care who told you what. You will find proliferating truths behind life, and undeniable satisfaction.

Oh, if you haven't already, check out Saul Williams' music/poetry.