Media ethics related ( Written by Amitabh bachchan )

As the horror of the November 2008 attacks on Mumbai was unfolding, India’s hyper-aggressive cable news media took a beating for its breathless coverage. It even faced criticisms for broadcasting details that could have been helpful to the attackers at the Taj Mahal Palace and Tower and Oberoi hotels.

   Amitabh Bachchan has lambasted media for their coverage of Mumbai blasts.

The circumstances of the latest attack – three blasts on Wednesday that killed almost 20 – were sufficiently different that the media couldn’t be accused of aiding the attackers. Rather than an armed rampage that lasted days, Wednesday’s attacks were blink-of-an-eye explosions detonated in crowded places, resulting in widespread carnage and a huge rescue operation.

The media came in for some lambasting nonetheless, most prominently from Amitabh Bachchan.

“Once again TV channels shall give exclusive reports from the site of the action, claiming how they were the first to bring this tragedy to your doorstep,” Big B wrote on his blog. “At the end of the day, even when you are fighting an adversary the desire by certain forces to capitalize on the situation does not change. And it does leave a very bad taste in the mouth.”

Presumably he wouldn’t consider blogging about the attacks a desire to capitalize on the situation.

At any rate, he noted in his commentary that the blasts represented another “dark night” for the city of Mumbai and a “dark moment” for the country.

The actor had just flown to Delhi where his daughter-in-law, actor Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, was to receive an honorary medal from the French embassy. Then they heard the news.

“Minutes before we were all set to leave for the function, the news started trickling in on the blasts in Mumbai and we stopped in our tracks too shocked and dismayed at what had happened yet again in this beautiful city of ours,” he wrote. “The first reaction of course was for the safety of people, but as time passed by the horror of those killed and injured became prime.”

Mr. Bachchan said in the wake of the attacks the family had decided to cancel any celebrations. “It would not be proper to celebrate a personal achievement, when this horrific tragedy of wanton and meaningless killing has occurred in Mumbai,” he wrote.

Media Ethics (wriitten by Hamid Ansari )

Vice President Mohammad  Hamid Ansari has added his own stinging criticism of the Indian media, echoing the recent condemnation of the industry by Press Council of India Chairman Markandey Katju.

Speaking at the National Press Day program in New Delhi, Mr. Ansari, who is also the chairman of Parliament’s Upper House, made the observation that “the convergence between news media, entertainment and telecom has meant that the demarcation between journalism, public relations, advertising and entertainment has been eroded.”

Mr. Ansari then asked who “will step in to address the gap when the government, the polity, the market and the industry are unable to provide for full-spectrum systemic regulation that protects consumer welfare and citizen interest?”

To that, he said  India can take its cue from other democracies like the U.K., the U.S. and Australia. “You would notice that the experience and practice of other democracies indicates that media licensing and regulation is seen as a normal and essential activity to help its functioning as the watchdog of public interest,” he said.

“Our democracy is poorer without active media watch groups engaged in objective analyses of the media, discerning prejudices and latent biases, and subjecting the media to a dose of their own medicine,” Mr. Ansari said. “For an industry that has over fifty thousand newspapers and hundreds of television channels, systematic media criticism is non-existent in India.”

He then launched into editors for what he saw as “the erosion of the institution of the editor in our media organizations.”

“When media space is treated as real estate or as airline seats for purpose of revenue maximization, and when media products are sold as jeans or soaps for marketing purposes, editors end up giving way to marketing departments,” Mr. Ansari said.

Utilitarianism in Media Ethics

Ensuring that data are accurate becomes a cardinal principle in professional codes of journalism ethics. Fabrications, fraudulent materials, omissions, and contrivances are both nonscientific and unethical. Data that are internally and externally valid are the coin of the realm, experimentally and morally. In an instrumentalist, value-neutral understanding of media practice, the definitions entailed by the procedures themselves establish the ends by which they are evaluated as moral.

Although it appeared in concentrated form during the 1920s, actually utilitarian rationalism has served as the prevailing paradigm in communications for more than a century. Consistent with philosophical ethics generally since 1890, communication ethics has presumed that individual rationality marks all legitimate claims about moral obligations, so that the truth of those claims can be settled by formal examination of their logical structure. Serious-minded communication ethics entails an ethical rationalism that requires autonomous moral agents to apply rules consistently, formally, and self-consciously to every choice. But utilitarianism’s dominant mode at present, professional and practical ethics has been unable to address many complicated problems adequately. Dramatic technological innovation and the negative side of market-driven global commerce have pulled the news profession away from its traditional role in facilitating democratic life. Hence there is need for an entirely new model of communication ethics. Rather than searching for neutral principles to which all parties can appeal, our ethical theory should rest on a complex view of moral judgments embedded in duty and thereby in society.

Utilitarian ethics has major weaknesses, despite its democratic appeal. It depends on assessing the consequences accurately, when in everyday affairs the results of our choices are often unknown, at least in the long term. Blogging is a revolution in journalism at present, but how can we calculate all the changes even a decade from now? The short-term benefits of exposing corruption in a political campaign may be offset by long-term negative consequences—public hostility to an overly aggressive press. The results are frequently complicated and intertwined so that a theory staking itself on results often does not provide adequate guidelines for morally acceptable action.

Utilitarianism as a single-consideration theory does not simply demand that we maximize general happiness, but renders irrelevant other moral imperatives that conflict with it. As Charles Taylor argued, the exactness of this one-factor model is appealing, but represents only ‘‘a semblance of validity’’ by leaving out whatever cannot be calculated. In some media situations, consequences are a reliable guide. But in many of the most crucial issues we face at present, utility is not adequate— for understanding distributive justice, diversity in popular culture, violence in television and cinema, truth telling, digital manipulation, conflict of interest, and so forth. We face the anomaly that the ethical system most entrenched in the media industry is not ideally suited for resolving its most persistent headaches.

An Overview of Ethical Scenario in Contemporary Media

Indian press today is over 220 years old. Indian Radio is about 100 years old and Doordarshan is about 50 years old. In Jan 1780, James Augustine Hicky started the first newspaper, a weekly, variously called as the Bengal Gazette or the Calcutta General Advisor or Hicky Gazette. He is still regarded as the father of Indian Journalism.

Before Independence, Media was a mission. Its mission was to free India from the clutches of foreign rulers, the British. There were many restrictions on Media in the form of regulations. The infamous gagging act was brought to suppress the vernacular press, for example, is one such regulation. After Independence to there have been many commissions but those were to streamline the working conditions of journalists; categorization of newspapers into small, medium and large; commercial orientation for revenue earning by radio; constitution of press council; establishment of national level news agencies and the like.

Radio in India, as an organization is only 2 years behind British Broadcasting Corporation. Now it is terrestrial radio or sky radio reaching 100% geographical area of Indian subcontinent.
Television developed for a mere local cast of Adult education program in 1959. Now it is DTH and IP TV covering all parts of the country. Private channels are innumerable with more than the required freedom.

If we look at the various functions of the Media, they are Information, Interpretation, Education, Entertainment and Evaluation. Media informs the people on what is happening around. It interprets the issues for the benefit of the people. It educates the people on various schemes, plans and programs of the Govt. It entertains the people through various arts and cultural forms. It also evaluates the functioning of the systems in the society.
Gandhiji said "A free press should be neither an ally nor adversary... but a constructive critic". Media is the bridge between the ruler and the ruled for transport of information inputs. The Media, particularly the Press, the Radio, the Television and the Cinema together or independently have the potency to either reform or deform the Society.

But what is happening today? Media that was a mission before independence grew as a profession after independence and of late it is being criticized for becoming a business without ethics and without any social responsibility. It is because the owners of print and private electronic channels are the owners of either a business establishment or an Industrial house or a financial institution. News, naturally in the hands of these businessmen became a commodity. News, which shall be a bare fact is now angled or slanted to make it marketable news. Media wanted stories in place of plain news based on facts. Editorial has become either dictatorial or proprietorial.

It is therefore, often being quoted as "bad news is good news and good news is no news" We read newspapers, listen to radio and watch TV to find a murder, a molestation of a minor girl, an atrocity, a celebrity's divorce, an unholy alliance, a bomb blast, a vehicle plunging into depths, an insurgent attack, an encounter, a political coup, a plane crash where people died or hurt or made to suffer rather than the news on development. Very recently an electronic channel captured an event where a chain snatcher was beaten up by the mob, a policeman tied him to his motorcycle and dragged. It happened in Bihar State. Those visuals were telecast repeatedly creating a kind of vexation in the minds of onlookers. In another incident where a celebrity shook hands with the policemen led to their suspension. It happened in Maharashtra State.

Looking at Media from this point of view, we have to ask ourselves whether Media is in its right direction or going in a wrong way leading the society along with it. The answer would be "Society is the cause". Any Institution or Organization or mission or profession is the reflection of the very society and its individuals. Individual is a measure of the Society.

If the society wants bad, media shall be ready to supply it. If the society demands for good, the media shall make such arrangements. It all depends on the society and its individuals and their taste being the consumers of news. Some experts visualize that very soon a particular medium or its programs will be accepted if they are good and will be rejected if it is bad. But before it could happen sufficient damage will be caused to the Society.

Now the question is who shall change? Should media change or reform it-self to discharge its social responsibility? Change it for the welfare and happiness of the public at large? Or the Society shall change for the better. For this, a set of values and a code of ethics are necessary for both Society and the Media.

Press council of India that is supposed to enforce values and ethics in print medium is said to be teeth less. It has to be rejuvenated. There is no regulation on electronic media. The owners of the Media will have to be oriented towards adoption of values and ethics. The Society being a composition of many individual ethnic groups belonging to various cultures, religions, various levels of economic status, in order to put this on right path all the concerned i. e. political leaders, social leaders, opinion leaders, religious teachers shall strive for restoring values and ethics in Society.

Media reflects Society. Contemporary media is reflecting the society in its entirety. Therefore, the Government, the Political Parties and the Media Owners etc. shall make efforts for restoration of values and ethics in the Society.

The Lack of Ethical Standards of Online Social Networking

The Internet is becoming an increasingly popular forum for communication and self-expression in today’s society. Its users span all generations, seemingly beginning at the age at which one master the hand-eye coordination required to use a computer mouse. Internet use varies from “surfing the web”, buying and selling merchandise, and playing games, to downloading music and watching television shows and movies. The Internet is also a source for social networking. This latest trend is becoming a cause for concern, however, as many Internet users do not apply the societal expectations of behavior to their online postings of photos and videos, written communication, or self- representation. Online social networking is becoming increasingly popular. Researchers note that the use of the Internet for communication purposes supersedes music and film.

The use of social networking websites and online chat rooms is staggering. The widely popular Facebook.com began in 2004 as a way to connect students at Harvard University. The website now boasts “more than 200 million active

users” who collectively upload over “850 million photos and 8 million videos to the site each month” (Facebook.com).

The leading US competitor for Facebook.com is MySpace.com, which reached just 125 million users worldwide in

December 2008.

Additionally, many Internet users do not censor their written conversations when communicating through online media such as e-mail, chat rooms, or social networking websites. The informal nature of e-mail leads many people to

discuss things “they would never put in a letter”. Without a doubt, the same observation can be applied to online

social networking as well. These instances all indicate a lack of ethical consideration for the impact of one’s actions in social networking on the Internet.

Not only does the Internet provide an environment that is far less disciplined than the actual world, it also allows for the use of anonymity and modified or entirely different identities. “In anonymous online chat groups you can play charades, wear a mask, and pretend to be of a different age, gender, or appearance”. Although the study authors

note that this model does not accurately predict or apply to all online behavior, the idea that many individuals do not consider the ethics of their online behavior certainly appears to hold true.

Adolescents often find the exploration of the social parameters that define acceptable online behavior quite appealing: The ability to be relatively anonymous in one’s online interaction can engender a sense of freedom from the constraints and expectations placed on a person by those who know him or her. It also reduces the risks and

costs of incurring social sanctions for what is said and done in the online environment.

On the other hand, in comparison to those who are not truthful when communicating about themselves online, individuals who feel that they express themselves accurately online tend to form more intimate relationships with those whom they meet. While self-exploration may allow one to become more outgoing and socially energetic, it is

important to examine the ethical concerns such behavior invites. Internet users should be mindful of the extent to which they truthfully express themselves, and the risks involved in being completely honest online. Moreover, individuals would do well to take into account the ways in which individual expressions of self – including text, video,

and photographs - may be used by others. Those who socialize online should be aware that although one party may

be entirely honest online, he or she cannot expect that a new online friend is using the same degree of sincerity. Finally, there is no definition of how far is “too far” in regards to exploring a new identity or pretending to be someone else on the Internet. The actions of a few people, however, indicate the wide range of problems that may arise from a disregard for the implications of unethical online portrayal.

Today, the number of sexual predators who use the Internet to seek minors willing to meet and have sex is astounding. In just three days, 50 men arrived at a house in Southern California prepared to be sexually intimate with a twelve or thirteen-year-old child (Hansen). The men, who were age 19 to 65 and included a high school teacher, rabbi, and an employee of the Department of Homeland Security, had actually conversed with police decoys instead

of children (Hansen). Though this example provides an argument that there are benefits of creating illusory and false personas on the Internet, the fact that such methods are needed to capture criminals surely highlights a lack of ethical standards.

With such extensive consequences of many aspects of online social networking – photos, videos, written

communication, and intentional misrepresentation of self – it is hard to introduce new ethical standards that will adequately address problems without being too restrictive of the freedoms that make the Internet so unique and popular. Instead, Internet users should simply apply the same societal parameters that exist in the non-virtual world. A good place to begin is by evaluating the possible outcomes of online activity and setting specific restrictions on behavior. Given the knowledge of the possible repercussions of documenting illegal or unethical behaviors, one should consider the effects before posting such actions online. Many Internet users might critique this suggestion –

and rightly so – by noting the relatively small number of cases in which people are held responsible for their actions in proportion to the total number of instances in which individuals make their photos, videos, and comments available

online, even within the confines of a private forum or profile. However, a more cautious perspective on the issue would surely argue that it is better to be safe than sorry. If a reasonable person might expect harm from online behaviors, those actions should be avoided. Furthermore, if an individual would not feel comfortable having his or her actions exposed to others in person – that is to say, if the thought of an individual’s questionable activities being discovered by one’s mother, professor, or coworker is uncomfortable – he or she should not consider it acceptable (or

a good idea, at that) to make such information available online.

Clearly, there is an immediate need for the application of those ethical guidelines present in the physical world to be imposed upon the realms of online social networking. Currently, there is very little recognition of the fact that use of the Internet for communication presents many of the same risks one might find if their actions were present outside of the virtual world. The current misuse of the Internet for photo and video postings of socially unacceptable behaviors, uncensored speech, and misleading self-representation exemplify the concern for a revision of behavior in regards to online social networking.