Let's talk about media ethics

[Meg]

OHBOYOHBOYOHBOYOHBOYOHBOY! Sorry. Mass media and mass communications is my favorite!!!! AH! Sorry.

*ahem*

Okay, well I've been thinking about all this a lot, and I thought I'd ask the bright and awesome people of REN for their thoughts.

We've seen two examples of overly sensationalized media recently. As usual, the school shooting in Connecticut led to widespread, constant media coverage. The coverage focused almost exclusively on the killer: almost glorifying him into some sort of anti-hero. This type of coverage is typical every time there's a shooting. It has been shown that an insane amount of coverage focusing on the killer can lead to more shootings. Some maniac somewhere sees how much attention they can get if they go around shooting people, so they do the same.

This is similar to the Tylenol murders in the 80s. Some, still unidentified, idiot decided killing people with cyanide is a great idea. So (s)he poisoned bottles of Tylenol and killed seven people. The media was all over this. There was a national scare, and thankfully Johnson & Johnson reacted accordingly. They did what they could to help find the killer and prevent this from happening again. Unfortunately, it did happen again. Twice. People saw all the coverage and thought killing their spouse for money was a great idea. They poisoned bottles of medicine and tried to make it look like random attacks. Again, the media was all over it.

And noooow, we have the classic Dec. 21, 2012 foolery. The media has been blowing this out of proportion for years now, and it's only been getting worse as we get closer to the 21st. This is really pathetic because it isn't even news, and facts are being made up and all sorts of stupidity. Thanks media.

My point and question is, what can be done about all this? I understand sensationalizing media to an extent can be necessary to get people to watch or read. And hey, the news is a business first after all. They need to make money in order to exist. But when is it too much? When is coverage, the type and amount, too much? When's it no longer ethical? And what can we do? There can't be any formal restrictions put into place because that would be against the First Amendment (in America).

Thoughts?

 

[Gar Bageman]

Seeing as I'd like to not develop some kind of hysterical hypertension I'm not going to get into this too much, but I want to say that the way the media handles things has been a constant source of frustration for me for as long as I've known that 'the media' was a thing.

 

[Romero]

Some maniac somewhere sees how much attention they can get if they go around shooting people, so they do the same.

I have been thinking the same many times, when there have been large media coverage on crimes. But the media often like to ask if it is possible to put the blame on other things, like video games or movies. Or the government because their politics "failed" in one way or another.

But the press must be free, so there's no quick fix. They offer the news because there is a demand for it, and the demand is people like you and me buying newspapers or watching TV.
Personally I try to avoid some of it, and this shooting is too much for me. I protect myself by not following it every day. The fact that it's so far away from me also helps me doing this.

 

[Sonnentreppe]

Well, first and foremost, there is a benefit in discussing and understanding the killer's motive(s) because we can then attack the problem internally and discover why someone would do something heinous like murder innocent children. However, killers in these sort of cases are glorified in the media, and it's mostly for entertainment. Sadly, we cannot do anything about it, though. I take the first amendment highly, and really, whatever the media portrays is just a reflection of how ugly our society is because our media simply shows what we want to see. When we stop watching, they'll stop covering stories in this fashion.

 

[Meg]

Well, first and foremost, there is a benefit in discussing and understanding the killer's motive(s) because we can then attack the problem internally and discover why someone would do something heinous like murder innocent children. However, killers in these sort of cases are glorified in the media, and it's mostly for entertainment. Sadly, we cannot do anything about it, though. I take the first amendment highly, and really, whatever the media portrays is just a reflection of how ugly our society is because our media simply shows what we want to see. When we stop watching, they'll stop covering stories in this fashion.

Yes the media does reflect what we as an overall culture are like and interested in, but doesn't what the media show then influence us in some way? Can't it reinforce what we think or already believe? In other words, if we think one thing, and the media shows it to us, then wouldn't that further cement our thinking? And the cycle continues.