Taking Your Word For It

Even from a young age, the idea of wanting to trust and being skeptical is ingrained in our minds. Watching Reading Rainbow as a child always ended with children talking about and suggesting their favorite books to viewers. However, each critique always ended with "But don't take MY word for it..." 

(Source)

In today’s age, we tend to see humans and humanity as two very different and yet similar ideas. Upon meeting someone, we like to give people the benefit of the doubt. What they say about who they are, where they come from and what their opinions are becomes the basis for how we understand human behavior as a whole. Collectively, we are all quick to judge that society as a whole, or even no one in particular, has something up their sleeve and perhaps a hidden agenda that only works for their own benefit. Media is often seen as a mix of faceless corporation and the faces of leaders, spokespeople and journalists. The ideas of who or what can be trusted are blurred and confusing lines.

If I lived in my own fantasy world, my dream job would be sitting in the comforts of my own home being a blogging critic. I would love nothing more than to add some comedy, sarcasm and pithy text to my opinions on news, products, ideas, television shows, and businesses to be regarded so highly that I could make a living off blogging about them. However, with opinions comes skepticism. Deni Elliott wrote in An Introduction to Ethical Decision Making how media myths can fog a consumer’s view of ideas giving reasoning behind why all opinions are NOT all equally valid, that coming up with a right answer to an ethical issue is nearly impossible and that self-interest almost always trumps the idea of ethics. Readers would often wonder how much they can trust my opinion as a consumer that they have never met. They would question whether or not I was perhaps paid by the company to give them a good review. If too many negative opinions are given in a row, my (fictitious) blog could be seen as the place where products and shows go to get slammed and burned forcing a company to decide whether or not to take action. Bias is a fine-line and readers would become less interested in a person, or me, if they felt they have less in common with what is presented to them.

In the second chapter of Media Ethics by Patrick Plaisance, he quotes Milton Rokeach in saying that ethics is a “particular mode of conduct or that a particular end-state of existence is personally and socially preferable to alternative modes of conduct or end-states of existence.” On an individual basis, we want to believe that people are telling us the truth. We see their face and they are looking us in the eye and we have little choice but to put faith in their words and believe them. When these faces or groups become a third-party mix of capitalism and greed, it is harder to give as freely of this faith.  Plaisance also says “which argument you endorse will largely depend on which values you feel should be given greater weight in this case and the quality of your articulation of the reasons why this should be so.” If I were to actually have an opinions blog, the opinions themselves would be secondary to the delivery in which I would give my reasons behind why I felt my opinion mattered.

Credibility and popularity in this case would walk a fine-line in helping people trust my opinions. In the same Media Ethics chapter, it states “If a communicator is believed to be deceptive or dishonest, unconcerned with others’ welfare or oblivious to everyone’s obligation to use media in a socially responsible way, that communicator provides potential audiences with little or no compelling reason to pay attention to his message.” Knowing this person can be trusted is the biggest piece of the puzzle.

Recently, a court ruled in favor of a journalist who had refused to reveal her sources to lawyers about information obtained about Aurora, Colorado shooter, James Holmes. This is a perfect example of knowing credibility is at stake and making a case against a violent killer. The television channel, A&E, was recently facing a dilemma concerning one the stars of their hit show Duck Dynasty. Coming from the extremely conservative roots of the south, star, Phil Robertson, was quoted in coming out against gay rights. 

(Source)

The Internet took this story by storm with social media users giving opinions on whether or not the show should be allowed to continue at all, continue with or without him, or whether he had any right to give his feelings on such a socially sensitive topic. Journalists, columnists, bloggers and social media users alike rallied around this story. The ethical argument about whether he was within his constitutional right or was abusing his fame for his own agenda became a highlight story. Opinions are taken into account on an individual and whole basis and the average reader no longer knows where exactly to turn.

During my undergrad career, I took a semester-long program at American University focusing on journalism. The two biggest topics covered were the plentiful career opportunities as well as the ethics behind creating compelling content. We discussed journalists’ abilities to alter and manipulate photos and quotes to create a story they deemed worthy. It is interesting to see how far media will allow a story to go before it is decided it is unethical.

(Source)

Since there is no right or real answer, it is hard to say where the proverbial “line in the sand” can or should be drawn. As this current class in Media Ethics progresses, I look forward to hearing and reading more about individual case studies that fight our beliefs in ethics and morality and how it influences public opinion on news, society and the world as a whole.