by Note Fleurie
This article is about the need for a more humane media corps.
|since the 1980s, there has been a sharp rise in the competition among news sources due to the rise of new and innovative sources. This rise took place, “roughly between 1980 and 2000. That timing correlated to the advent of cable and the deregulation of electronic media, which ended rules like the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time Rule and made one-sided or more partisan electronic media … free of any challenge.” (How we studied moral values to understand trust int the news media, by the Media Insight Project.). But have these changes or challenges in the media brought about better new sources or increasingly immoral and unethical news? Does the media shape the value of its readers? |
“Most media don’t reflect people’s values.” (How Does the media affect the values of children and adults, by Daniela Kirowa). In fact, a survey conducted shoes that people who resonate toward certain moral values in the survey also resonated toward stories that touched on or demonstrated those values in the news.” (How we studie moral values to understand trust in the news media, by Media Insight Project). This could be due to the fact that there is so much media available for consumption, that one must be selective in choosing from the overload.
90% of the mainstream media is liberal and this affects reporting. Nick Rokke said that, “At The Daily, we usually ignore the mainstream media because they either miss the picture or sensationalize stories with their fear-mongering headlines.” (John Stossel on why the media are 90% liberal, by Nick Rokke). This point indicates that both liberal and conservative media do bear some bias in their reporting and may be responsible for censorship, even if the bias of conservatives is meant to counteract the liberal bias.
The American FBI scandal does show that censorship and control of the media does have an impact on important events like elections in America. The coverup of the corruption of Joe Biden and his son made a difference in the last presidential election. And it was found that corruption in the FBI, linking an agent to a Russian agent was an impressively impactful finding post-election. There is significant danger to a democracy or any type of government regime wherein the policing / spying agencies of a nation team up with the media, as was the case of Twitter and the FBI affecting the election. This is an indication of how outside governments can impact national or global infrastructures. And England’s media is a prime example of a media that has been deployed to damage its Monarchy.
The UK public is not fooled by the media. A poll by Statica indicated that the public agreed that Meghan Markle is the member of the royal family “that gets the worst treatment.” (“Chart: which Royal gets the worst treatment by the press?). And the “publishers now ‘prioritize quantity, often over quality.’” (Harry and Meghan: What’s the Media’s ‘invisible control’ with British Royalty?). One wonders if the publishers even concern themselves with accuracy. What is, after all, the point of reporting fake news? It is no wonder there is a lack of trust in what the media reports.
And, “the ever-growing dominance of digital news has altered this relationship [with the royals] as the press scrambles for profitability,” in the “race for clicks.” (Harry and Meghan: what’s the media’s ‘invisible contract’ with British Royalty.” When one considers that there were 74,000 articles about the Markels since they decided to leave the palace, one can see how lucrative the lives of the royals has become. For example, imagine the impressive jump — 600% — after an interview with Harry and Meghan was announced. Thus, the financial gain for the press outweighs their good standing with the Royals.
Already out-of-control and spiraling more so, media can become a vehicle of destruction everywhere all for the almighty pound. Everyone already know about the over-indulgent paparazzi and their daily onslaught of the royals. They became vicious in their pursuit on the day they contributed to the death of Princess Diana. They seem to have no remorse or regrets as they go from damage to damage of whatever Royal they wish on any given day. There was likely no woman in the world who viewed the photo coverage of Kate topless as necessary or as news (though those pictures were in an English publication.) It was an attack against every woman and her privacy. Surely, at least some of the press seems to exhibit no morals or ethics.
Even though some if not “most journalists are professionals [who are] worried more than anything else with beating the competition,” there needs to be some ethical and moral guidelines enforced. It is clear that, “willingly or not, [the media] are also a part of a media establishment that has attitudes and values that seep into its coverage the ways cigarette smoke at a bar gets into everything you wear; it doesn’t matter whether you smoke or not, you stink.” (The High Priests of Journalism: Truth, morality, and the media, by Richard Lowry). And that stink needs to stop!
There should be a high degree of and standard of morals and ethics of media selected for use by such an important institution such as the Monarchy. The monetary compensation given should not supersede the loyalty giventhe monarchy. Therefore, the “ … ethical challenge is to articulate guidelines for dealing with rumors and corrections in an online world that are consistent with the principles of accuracy, verification, and transparency.” (Digital media ethics: school of journalism and mass communication, by StephenJ.A. Ward).
Rather than utilizing the Royal Rota, perhaps the monarchy could begin the use of an in-house press corps which is comprised of a salaried staff, one that is contractually forbidden to contribute to other news outlets - by written or photo media. It would be important that they be willing to pledge undivided loyalty to the crown. Those selected would be required to abide by fundamental principles of morality, decency, and ethics. Another benefit for the Crown would be that they benefit from their own clicks.
Whether or not the Monarchy chooses to use its own salaried media, one thing is certain. There needs to be a more humane media for the Monarchy.