In his chapter ‘Contesting War’, writer Klaus Dodds examines the British media reporting and coverage of the 1982 South Atlantic War (Falklands). He defines the management of the British media during the conflict as ‘a classic example in the history of journalism of how to manage the media in wartime’. Looking back on the event so of the war and how they were reported in the British media, he discusses how the delay in transmission of news copy affected the relaying of news and how the government had control over what was being told to the public.
Dodds cleverly uses the contrasting images of the Vietnam war to portray the differences in media coverage of both events. Where the Vietnam war was significant in terms of the reality provided to the US public through graphic and intense media coverage, the Falklands War was not a ’television war’, in that there were relatively few actual images being brought from the battlefield. Instead, the UK public had to make do with radio reports and what they read in their newspapers. An newspaper article can be easily edited, a picture cannot.
Critics have labelled the Falklands conflict as ‘the worst reported since the Crimea’, making reference to the delay in copy and images being received from the frontlines and to the general desire to censor from the British government. War reporting is a sensitive issue in any event, with mass debate being over just how aware the public should be made of the brutal horrors of war or whether the government should attempt to relay a positive message to improve moral. Bad news stories leads to an unhappy nation and that is the last thing any government would want in an already fractious time.
In the passage, Phillip Knightley concludes: ‘The Ministry of Defence were brilliant - censoring, suppressing and delaying dangerous news, releasing bad news in dribs and drabs so as to nullify it’s impact, and projecting their own image as the only real source of accurate information about what was happening.’ Knightley’s attitude paints the picture of an approval towards the media-political management system employed by the Thatcher government.
Dodds then examines the reasons for the conflict and the initial events that took place at the beginning of the war. His detailed insight into the various causes from both sides is both interesting and though provoking. He then discusses the media-political relations and the initial reticence of the military to allows reporters to accompany them. As Phillip Taylor points out in the passage, ‘Real war is about sounds, sight, smell, touch and taste of the nasty, brutal business of killing people… Media war, however, is literally a mediated event which draws on that reality but which, in and of itself, is confined to merely an audio-visual - and therefore inherently desensitizing - representation of it.’
Media war is an alternatively different prospect to actual war, in the sense that media war can be adapted or edited to suit a function. To protect the public from the harsh truth perhaps or to raise moral. It may be a desensitizing process but often it can be an effective one. Dodds makes reference to the reluctance from the government and military towards the media and uses a recollection from Bernhard Ingham, then press officer for the Prime Minister, in which it is stated that there was considerable hostility, even, from the Royal Navy towards journalists to accompany the task force being sent to the South Atlantic.
The Ministry of Defence eventually thrashed out an agreement with the media allowing 29 all British journalists to be sent to the Falklands. Task force commanders, perhaps alarmed at the potential of the media to interfere, were reluctant to fully accommodate the working needs of the reporters, which inevitably led to complaints. Throughout the conflict, the media accused the military of using technical excuses in order to prevent the transmission of material.
Another key issue with media reporting the war was the delay in transmission. The geographical location of the Falkland Islands meant that transferring film and images back the UK was a lengthy task. With zero means of direct transmission, film was transferred to Ascension Island and then flown back to Britain, providing a frustrating delay for journalists eager to dispatch their copy to their editors. As Dodds notes, the average gap between filming and transmission was 17 days, an unwelcome time lapse in the modern world of media news.
Dodds then provides extremely interesting examples of actual MOD censorship. He cites the example of the MOD beginning to withdraw accredited contact with journalists with the effect of denying access to additional task force information. As BBC journalist Peter Snow recalled in the passage, ‘And there was a sort of barrier building up between the press and the MOD that was really hurting both sides‘. The decision was reversed eventually but evidence continued to mount that the MOD was engaged in a deliberate policy of misinformation, especially when it came to releasing details of British casualties.
Many view the media coverage of the Falklands as the perfect example of how to utilise the media during a conflict situation. While other wars may have been more directly reported (Gulf War, Vietnam, etc), the geographical distance between the conflict (the South Atlantic) and the media audience (Britain), in this case, was a useful tool for the censorship and manipulation of news information. Dodds’ informative account of the situation and the problems that arose though the Ministry of Defence’s determination to release news as they wanted it to be released is a remarkable insight into the inner workings of a media system and of a government desperate to be seen in the correct light.
10 November 2009
6 November 2009
Media ethics paper
Critically assess the following: ‘Is a good journalist one with high principles or one who brings his employer, within the deadline, stories that will boost circulation’?
In the book Journalism, Ethics and Regulation 2nd edition, the author Chris Frost attempts to fully examine and analyse the ideas and principles behind ethics and morality and how these themes can be applied to journalism. Frost looks at the arguments for media ethics and considers the question of whether a good journalist should be defined by the moral and ethical principles that they adhere to or the number of stories and the amount of circulation they provide.
He begins by applying the idea of ethics to a common journalism case: ‘At their most praiseworthy, the journalist’s tussles are going to be between the right of the public to know and some other moral tenet - perhaps the invasion of an individual’s privacy - which would militate against publication’.
Frost sums up the issue of media ethics quite succinctly in that he implies a common struggle. The very idea of journalism ethics revolves around the right of the public to know information. If a journalist’s duty is to report the truth then one can argue that the public have a right to know what is happening truthfully. However, the pursuit of these truths can be a difficult path for a reporter to take as it may involve, as mentioned, an invasion of privacy or a period of apparent harassment. It may not necessarily be about getting the truth to the people but about how the journalist gets that truth in the first place.
Frost then provides an argument against the right to know of the public and claims that this ideal has fundamentally led to the creation of what he terms ‘circulation-boosting journalism’. “All too often the right to know is used as an excuse to publish circulation-boosting journalism. Whether this is designed to appeal to reader’s prurient natures or pander to their prejudices does not seem to matter as long as there is a profit to be made from increasing sales.”
What Frost is trying to imply is that the rise of ‘soft’ news (e.g. entertainment/celebrity stories, ones that are considered to be trivial and insignificant by comparison) has been exacerbated by the idea that the public have a right to know absolutely everything.
Matthew Kieran, in his book Media Ethics: A philosophical approach, provides a plausible explanation by saying that light news stories do have a function. “At best, an entertainment story may serve as a light-hearted leavener between the real news of significant events and disasters. Thus a story about Princess Diana and her children going white-water rafting in Aspen might be a therapeutic sweetener at the end of a bulletin cataloguing the latest serial killing, the day's proceedings of the 0 . J. Simpson trial, the disasters in Bosnia, or some current dispute between the president and the White House.”
It is clear that these types of stories do serve a purpose. Frost’s insistence that they are written mainly to boost newspaper sales may be true but there is a public demand for them. It may not be considered ‘hard’ news and, in some quarters, it may not be considered as real journalism. But if it is truthful, well researched and in the interest of the audience then it should be considered no less a journalistic piece than any other.
Frost then discusses the difficulty of ethics in journalism, stating that a perfectly ethical journalist is very much an almost impossible concept. “A reasonable definition of a good journalist is 'someone who gathers, in a morally justifiable way, topical, truthful, factually-based information of interest to the reader or viewer and then publishes it in a timely and accurate manner to a mass audience'. However, all too often journalism falls far short of this ideal.” He opines that many see the ability to ‘get the story’ as the yardstick by which a good journalist should be measured.
He goes on to imply that the means taken to access the story aren’t as important. “How the news was gathered and sourced, together with the degree of accuracy, would seem to be secondary considerations in this definition of a 'good journalist'. 'Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story' is an instruction that has been heard in more than one newsroom.” This description of journalistic values would seem to point to the notion that a good journalist is simply one who provides stories time and again which boost circulation of the publication. This theory certainly removes credit from the idea that journalism is a noble and high-principled profession.
It’s a long running argument; is money the key factor and motivation in journalism or is it about seeking the truth? In an interview with ZENIT, journalist and author Gabriel Galdon, a professor of journalism at Madrid’s CEU St. Paul University, states clearly his belief in high-principled reporting rather than consumerism. “Journalism's mission is to proclaim the truth that is good and the truth that serves for the good of society. Obviously a newspaper does not cover everything that has happened in the world. There must always be choice. That choice can be made with various things in mind: trends, looking to satisfy a certain audience, economic interests, power, etc. It can also be made by following the criteria that to seek truth is good, which citizens need to know to be freer and have more dignity.”
Perhaps the answer is a simple one. Frost goes on to suggest that a good journalist needs to be a bit of both. They need to be able to gather news stories in a fair and accurate way yet they need to be able to provide as much circulation as possible at the same time. If there’s a lack of stories then people won’t buy the newspaper and if there’s no newspaper, then what purpose does the journalist have then?
In a perfect world, it would seem that the arguments for good ethics do seem are stacking up. A high principled journalist will do all the things that Frost mentions; gather stories fairly, report the truth as accurately as possible, be careful not to impeach on any strict harassment rules. As a result, the stories produced will be honest and the readers will form a trust with that reporter, which is an essential component in the relationship between reporter and reader. Without trust, the journalist loses credibility in what they are saying and could be deemed a ‘bad’ journalist.
Lecha Neace, in an article on helium.com, says, “You want to say, ‘a journalist has to be honest’ but this is not always the case. There are so many types of journalism in the world. Yes, there is the journalist that stands politically correct, and then there is the kind that writes about things that are not so true. Journalism should be completely honest, have integrity, they should be accurate, they should avoid stereotyping, they should give a voice for those who don't have one, make sure to tell both sides of the story (if there are two sides), and always show respect in their work towards everyone. Good journalism is something that is priceless.”
It certainly highlights the pressures in which journalists work these days. With all these apparent ethical requirements - honesty, integrity, identifying sources, etc - it’s a wonder that any are considered to be highly principled when they have to contend with so much when writing a story. And it lends support to the reporter who is more interested in churning out stories to tight deadlines (regardless of how they gathered the story) than taking the time to be 100% accurate and honest in order to please the reader. Frost sums up the situation succinctly in the quote, “All too often a journalist can forget his or her loyalties to the reader in the rush to show loyalty to his or her employer.”
It could just, however, be a case of what counts as high principles. What is regarded as good ethical judgment for a journalist? Is it simply an idea of moral obligations to do what is judged as ‘the right thing’?
The principle of utilitarianism is widely accepted as a valid ethical system and is one that can have sizeable appeal for journalists. People who believe in utilitarianism believe that an action that brings more beneficial effects than detrimental ones must be the right action. In essence, it’s a case of the positives outweighing the negatives. Frost uses the following example to demonstrate it’s pull for journalists: “It justifies, for example, ruining the life of a children’s home superintendent by exposing him as a child abuser on the basis that it has saved children of the future for a good deal of misery.”
There are problems with this system however, as Frost points out. “For instance, one could justify the killing of a homeless down-and-out who has no family in order that his organs could be donated to several desperately ill patients on the basis that four people could live with consequent benefits to their families for the loss of only one life.” By using utilitarianism, an evil act can be defensible, provided that as a result there is an increase in happiness.
Perhaps a significant ethical theory is the concept of duty ethics, developed by Immanuel Kant. Kant determined that a moral act was one that followed only obligation and duty to others. Frost goes into more detail on Kant’s theory, explaining the implications for journalists. “Kant's theory allows the development of a set of universal laws for journalists that can be applied in many varied circumstances. Kant also believed that one would have to examine the motives of a person to see whether their behaviour was good or bad. If they acted solely from a sense of duty and not out of self-interest, then their action could well be morally justifiable no matter what the consequences. If a journalist were to report something that was not true, despite thorough checking (perhaps he or she had been lied to), then the journalist could not be blamed for the consequences, even if these were damaging.”
However, Kant’s theory raises a problem when you consider conflicts of interest. Kant uses the examples of a journalist being asked by the police not to publish a story about a kidnap in order to protect the victims life. How could the journalist not publish a story of such public interest? Yet, it must also be a duty to protect the victims life? Frost sums up the situation with the quote, “Since much of the ethical debate within the media is balancing the right to publish against some other right, such as a person’s right to privacy, Kant is not always that helpful.”
The debate is set to rage on. There are compelling arguments to suggest that being a good journalist requires impeccable ethical standards, just as the need for circulation would paint the picture of a good journalist being one who provides as many stories as possible, with little regard to preparation. In many cases, a sense of context is required. It’s very easy to cling to principles and ethics when sometimes the truth just needs to be reported regardless of damaging consequences. Just as at times a sensitive and moral approach is required to gaining as much as one can from a story.
Perhaps the opinion of today’s journalists is the most important one and it would appear that ethics are becoming secondary concerns. Andrew Marr sums up the cynical view in My Trade: A Short History of British Journalism when he suggests that the phrase 'responsible journalism' should be ignored: “Responsible to whom? The state? Never. To ‘the people‘? But which people, and of what views? To the readers? It is vanity to think you know them. Responsible, then to some general belief in truth and accuracy? Well that would be nice.”
(University essay on Media Ethics, 2009)
In the book Journalism, Ethics and Regulation 2nd edition, the author Chris Frost attempts to fully examine and analyse the ideas and principles behind ethics and morality and how these themes can be applied to journalism. Frost looks at the arguments for media ethics and considers the question of whether a good journalist should be defined by the moral and ethical principles that they adhere to or the number of stories and the amount of circulation they provide.
He begins by applying the idea of ethics to a common journalism case: ‘At their most praiseworthy, the journalist’s tussles are going to be between the right of the public to know and some other moral tenet - perhaps the invasion of an individual’s privacy - which would militate against publication’.
Frost sums up the issue of media ethics quite succinctly in that he implies a common struggle. The very idea of journalism ethics revolves around the right of the public to know information. If a journalist’s duty is to report the truth then one can argue that the public have a right to know what is happening truthfully. However, the pursuit of these truths can be a difficult path for a reporter to take as it may involve, as mentioned, an invasion of privacy or a period of apparent harassment. It may not necessarily be about getting the truth to the people but about how the journalist gets that truth in the first place.
Frost then provides an argument against the right to know of the public and claims that this ideal has fundamentally led to the creation of what he terms ‘circulation-boosting journalism’. “All too often the right to know is used as an excuse to publish circulation-boosting journalism. Whether this is designed to appeal to reader’s prurient natures or pander to their prejudices does not seem to matter as long as there is a profit to be made from increasing sales.”
What Frost is trying to imply is that the rise of ‘soft’ news (e.g. entertainment/celebrity stories, ones that are considered to be trivial and insignificant by comparison) has been exacerbated by the idea that the public have a right to know absolutely everything.
Matthew Kieran, in his book Media Ethics: A philosophical approach, provides a plausible explanation by saying that light news stories do have a function. “At best, an entertainment story may serve as a light-hearted leavener between the real news of significant events and disasters. Thus a story about Princess Diana and her children going white-water rafting in Aspen might be a therapeutic sweetener at the end of a bulletin cataloguing the latest serial killing, the day's proceedings of the 0 . J. Simpson trial, the disasters in Bosnia, or some current dispute between the president and the White House.”
It is clear that these types of stories do serve a purpose. Frost’s insistence that they are written mainly to boost newspaper sales may be true but there is a public demand for them. It may not be considered ‘hard’ news and, in some quarters, it may not be considered as real journalism. But if it is truthful, well researched and in the interest of the audience then it should be considered no less a journalistic piece than any other.
Frost then discusses the difficulty of ethics in journalism, stating that a perfectly ethical journalist is very much an almost impossible concept. “A reasonable definition of a good journalist is 'someone who gathers, in a morally justifiable way, topical, truthful, factually-based information of interest to the reader or viewer and then publishes it in a timely and accurate manner to a mass audience'. However, all too often journalism falls far short of this ideal.” He opines that many see the ability to ‘get the story’ as the yardstick by which a good journalist should be measured.
He goes on to imply that the means taken to access the story aren’t as important. “How the news was gathered and sourced, together with the degree of accuracy, would seem to be secondary considerations in this definition of a 'good journalist'. 'Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story' is an instruction that has been heard in more than one newsroom.” This description of journalistic values would seem to point to the notion that a good journalist is simply one who provides stories time and again which boost circulation of the publication. This theory certainly removes credit from the idea that journalism is a noble and high-principled profession.
It’s a long running argument; is money the key factor and motivation in journalism or is it about seeking the truth? In an interview with ZENIT, journalist and author Gabriel Galdon, a professor of journalism at Madrid’s CEU St. Paul University, states clearly his belief in high-principled reporting rather than consumerism. “Journalism's mission is to proclaim the truth that is good and the truth that serves for the good of society. Obviously a newspaper does not cover everything that has happened in the world. There must always be choice. That choice can be made with various things in mind: trends, looking to satisfy a certain audience, economic interests, power, etc. It can also be made by following the criteria that to seek truth is good, which citizens need to know to be freer and have more dignity.”
Perhaps the answer is a simple one. Frost goes on to suggest that a good journalist needs to be a bit of both. They need to be able to gather news stories in a fair and accurate way yet they need to be able to provide as much circulation as possible at the same time. If there’s a lack of stories then people won’t buy the newspaper and if there’s no newspaper, then what purpose does the journalist have then?
In a perfect world, it would seem that the arguments for good ethics do seem are stacking up. A high principled journalist will do all the things that Frost mentions; gather stories fairly, report the truth as accurately as possible, be careful not to impeach on any strict harassment rules. As a result, the stories produced will be honest and the readers will form a trust with that reporter, which is an essential component in the relationship between reporter and reader. Without trust, the journalist loses credibility in what they are saying and could be deemed a ‘bad’ journalist.
Lecha Neace, in an article on helium.com, says, “You want to say, ‘a journalist has to be honest’ but this is not always the case. There are so many types of journalism in the world. Yes, there is the journalist that stands politically correct, and then there is the kind that writes about things that are not so true. Journalism should be completely honest, have integrity, they should be accurate, they should avoid stereotyping, they should give a voice for those who don't have one, make sure to tell both sides of the story (if there are two sides), and always show respect in their work towards everyone. Good journalism is something that is priceless.”
It certainly highlights the pressures in which journalists work these days. With all these apparent ethical requirements - honesty, integrity, identifying sources, etc - it’s a wonder that any are considered to be highly principled when they have to contend with so much when writing a story. And it lends support to the reporter who is more interested in churning out stories to tight deadlines (regardless of how they gathered the story) than taking the time to be 100% accurate and honest in order to please the reader. Frost sums up the situation succinctly in the quote, “All too often a journalist can forget his or her loyalties to the reader in the rush to show loyalty to his or her employer.”
It could just, however, be a case of what counts as high principles. What is regarded as good ethical judgment for a journalist? Is it simply an idea of moral obligations to do what is judged as ‘the right thing’?
The principle of utilitarianism is widely accepted as a valid ethical system and is one that can have sizeable appeal for journalists. People who believe in utilitarianism believe that an action that brings more beneficial effects than detrimental ones must be the right action. In essence, it’s a case of the positives outweighing the negatives. Frost uses the following example to demonstrate it’s pull for journalists: “It justifies, for example, ruining the life of a children’s home superintendent by exposing him as a child abuser on the basis that it has saved children of the future for a good deal of misery.”
There are problems with this system however, as Frost points out. “For instance, one could justify the killing of a homeless down-and-out who has no family in order that his organs could be donated to several desperately ill patients on the basis that four people could live with consequent benefits to their families for the loss of only one life.” By using utilitarianism, an evil act can be defensible, provided that as a result there is an increase in happiness.
Perhaps a significant ethical theory is the concept of duty ethics, developed by Immanuel Kant. Kant determined that a moral act was one that followed only obligation and duty to others. Frost goes into more detail on Kant’s theory, explaining the implications for journalists. “Kant's theory allows the development of a set of universal laws for journalists that can be applied in many varied circumstances. Kant also believed that one would have to examine the motives of a person to see whether their behaviour was good or bad. If they acted solely from a sense of duty and not out of self-interest, then their action could well be morally justifiable no matter what the consequences. If a journalist were to report something that was not true, despite thorough checking (perhaps he or she had been lied to), then the journalist could not be blamed for the consequences, even if these were damaging.”
However, Kant’s theory raises a problem when you consider conflicts of interest. Kant uses the examples of a journalist being asked by the police not to publish a story about a kidnap in order to protect the victims life. How could the journalist not publish a story of such public interest? Yet, it must also be a duty to protect the victims life? Frost sums up the situation with the quote, “Since much of the ethical debate within the media is balancing the right to publish against some other right, such as a person’s right to privacy, Kant is not always that helpful.”
The debate is set to rage on. There are compelling arguments to suggest that being a good journalist requires impeccable ethical standards, just as the need for circulation would paint the picture of a good journalist being one who provides as many stories as possible, with little regard to preparation. In many cases, a sense of context is required. It’s very easy to cling to principles and ethics when sometimes the truth just needs to be reported regardless of damaging consequences. Just as at times a sensitive and moral approach is required to gaining as much as one can from a story.
Perhaps the opinion of today’s journalists is the most important one and it would appear that ethics are becoming secondary concerns. Andrew Marr sums up the cynical view in My Trade: A Short History of British Journalism when he suggests that the phrase 'responsible journalism' should be ignored: “Responsible to whom? The state? Never. To ‘the people‘? But which people, and of what views? To the readers? It is vanity to think you know them. Responsible, then to some general belief in truth and accuracy? Well that would be nice.”
(University essay on Media Ethics, 2009)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
