Objectivity and being Unbiased are two characteristics usually attributed to professional journalists. Although when it comes to media the term objectivity seems to be empty. There is invention of new stories (and sometimes in the case of photojournalists, invention of photographs) and there is also false representation of different groups.
Another highly important matter is the privacy of individuals. To what extent journalist are allowed to invade privacy of celebrities and politicians? But there are other questions like should journalists pay informants let’s say in a crime story? Should newspapers publish names or pictures of criminals?
Another issue is the relationship between governments and media. Some governments try o control the flow of information through censorship or manipulations. Their tactics vary from ownership of mainstream media to intimidating and jailing journalists and shutting down the media outlets.
Another ethical issue concerned with media is the depiction of Violence and Se*x and using profane and obscene language in media outlets. Although there are some regulations and rating systems in different countries, but this function of media still makes many people anxious.
Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, in an entry for media ethics also mentions “intercultural dimensions of media ethics”. Under this title it reads “If values differ interculturally, the issue arises of the extent to which behavior should be modified in the light of the values of specific cultures”. Wikipedia mentions “Google's self-censorship in China” and “The Jyllands-Posten Prophet Muhammad cartoons controversy in Denmark, and subsequently worldwide” as two examples of controversy from the field of media ethics.
***
Here regarding to media ethics, let me outline an imaginary (but still possible) scenario. Suppose there was an earthquake in a very large scale somewhere in the world. The damage was substantially great and the human loss was unspeakable. Here the journalist wants to draw world’s attention to the scale of the disaster.
The ethical issue here lies with the refugees and quake-stricken people. Should journalist be allowed to use those disaster-stricken people as the subjects of his work?
Of course there is not any clear consensus of opinion over this question among journalists. Many believe that it is not ethical to use people who are gravely suffering the consequences of a disaster, to bring attention to the story. They argue the story of a quake is such big that does not need any emotional overdose. But others say that if those who are racked with pain does not oppose, journalists can tell their stories.
May 10, 2008
May 5, 2008
Social Distance
Emory S. Bogardus is one of the first scholars to create a scale for measuring social distance among different groups. He defined social distance as “the degree of sympathetic understanding that functions between person and person, between person and group, and between groups”.
His scale comprises of seven items ranging from total acceptance of an out-group to absolute rejection. The first one is determined with acceptance of marriage of a close relative to a member of an out-group, and the last is indicated with request of exclusion of an out-group member.
Lawrence Bobo, American sociologist observes intermarriage as the “last taboo” in race relations (Weaver, 2008).
But Bogardus scale also received some criticisms. Some believe that Bogardus Scale measure psychological distance, not social one. They argue that there are people that like each other very much, but still there is a significant social distance among them.
Another argument by Bogardus is that social distance among different social groups in the United States decreased in the course of 20th century. This argument supported by some other scholars. Recently Weaver (2008) in an essay titled “Social Distance as a Measure of Prejudice among Ethnic Groups in the United States” observed “another decade of decreasing prejudice among ethnic groups”. But he also discussed “despite strong evidence that prejudice has decreased slowly [in the United States], the findings of large and significant differences between almost all of these groups suggest that considerable ethnic prejudice still exists”.
He argues that still different ethnic groups in the US stick to significant differences among themselves. I.e. in a Bogardus scale they usually rank themselves as the most favorable in desirability of ethnic groups as neighbors and acceptability of ethnic groups as marriage partners (Weaver, 2008).
Finally he quotes Smith’s conclusion that the “recognition of the mass of prejudice, discrimination, and inequality that persists [in the US] is sobering and discouraging”.
References
Weaver, Charles N. (2008). Social Distance as a Measure of Prejudice Among Ethnic Groups in the United States. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.38(3). pp. 779-795.
His scale comprises of seven items ranging from total acceptance of an out-group to absolute rejection. The first one is determined with acceptance of marriage of a close relative to a member of an out-group, and the last is indicated with request of exclusion of an out-group member.
Lawrence Bobo, American sociologist observes intermarriage as the “last taboo” in race relations (Weaver, 2008).
But Bogardus scale also received some criticisms. Some believe that Bogardus Scale measure psychological distance, not social one. They argue that there are people that like each other very much, but still there is a significant social distance among them.
Another argument by Bogardus is that social distance among different social groups in the United States decreased in the course of 20th century. This argument supported by some other scholars. Recently Weaver (2008) in an essay titled “Social Distance as a Measure of Prejudice among Ethnic Groups in the United States” observed “another decade of decreasing prejudice among ethnic groups”. But he also discussed “despite strong evidence that prejudice has decreased slowly [in the United States], the findings of large and significant differences between almost all of these groups suggest that considerable ethnic prejudice still exists”.
He argues that still different ethnic groups in the US stick to significant differences among themselves. I.e. in a Bogardus scale they usually rank themselves as the most favorable in desirability of ethnic groups as neighbors and acceptability of ethnic groups as marriage partners (Weaver, 2008).
Finally he quotes Smith’s conclusion that the “recognition of the mass of prejudice, discrimination, and inequality that persists [in the US] is sobering and discouraging”.
References
Weaver, Charles N. (2008). Social Distance as a Measure of Prejudice Among Ethnic Groups in the United States. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.38(3). pp. 779-795.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)