Ethical Question

[Crunchy English]

I don't want to get into too specific a scenario since there are others involved in this, but right now I'm facing a small conundrum. Let me just ask you this, how much responsibility does any media outlet have to its audience? Is it enough to "give the people what they want" and aim for the lowest common denominator? Or does media have a responsibility to educate and better people?

On the one hand, we'd all like to think that everyone is out for the betterment of society, regardless of other alternative goals.

On the other, is it really media's job to preach at us? If people want to watch "Jersey Shore" or similar crap, don't they have the right to enjoy that regardless of its social trappings?

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

Um... I can PM you a consequentialist theory (determines the ethics by the consequences of all those affected) or a deontological theory (focuses on rules and duties that should never be strayed from). it would, however, probably be a rather large post for the forums depending on the elvel of detail.

Also, I know a little bit of virtue ethics, but that's fucking complicated comapred to the other two

 

[Crunchy English]

Cool, the first response is a Philosophy major. Yeah, shoot me a PM, I got nothing better to do. Meantime, any personal opinion?

 

[Melancholy_Ocelot]

Media outlets are mainly run by corporations. If you think corporations are out for the betterment of anyone please teach me how you've gone for so long without becoming a cynic like me so I can better my outlook on the world.

The name of the game is profit margins and the lowest common denominator has the time, cash and the right lack of inhibitions. They'll spend it on ANYTHING marketed with half a brain.

 

[CitySquirrel]

I'm curious as to why you would call it a "right".

 

[CitySquirrel]

However one thing that did piss me off was the american courts rulings that news content is allowed to be fabricated.

When did this happen? Do you remember the case name?

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

Cool, the first response is a Philosophy major. Yeah, shoot me a PM, I got nothing better to do. Meantime, any personal opinion?

Not a philosophy major, but I've taken multiple ethical courses and I have a rather good grasp for these things

 

[Baby Tea]

How much responsibility does any media outlet have to its audience? Is it enough to "give the people what they want" and aim for the lowest common denominator? Or does media have a responsibility to educate and better people?

A media outlet has none.
A News channel or website would have responsibility, but every other channel, like every other company, is out to make money. Some do it with shows like Jersey Shore and Jerry Springer. Some do it with historical documentaries and 'Shark Week'. However it's done, it's done for the same reason: Make money.

Do you think they care about people not liking Jersey Shore when it's so stupidly popular?
No. They do care about the ad revenue coming out of it, though. And that's going fine.

The 'betterment of everyone' idea is nice, but not even close to happening.
People don't care about people. Not for the most part, at least.
How many thousands die every day from starvation and preventable diseases? How much do you hear about that? Where is that story on the covers of magazines on the news stands? Behind the one where some other Hollywood broad is said to be having an affair or some other useless information? Or behind the Cosmo with 108 new ways to please your man? No. It's not there. It's not even on the most 'reputable' news channels.
People don't give a shit.
People care about what effects them.
This means television channels will air what makes them money, not what 'betters' their audience.

 

[Marmooset]

I don't want to get into too specific a scenario since there are others involved in this, but right now I'm facing a small conundrum.

Well, make sure it doesn't snap, or come off during... you know... and you should be fine.
And if it is small, coming off shouldn't be that much of a problem.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

Alright, so I have it all typed up, if anyone wants it in the forum, let me know

 

[Lullabye]

I don't want to get into too specific a scenario since there are others involved in this, but right now I'm facing a small conundrum. Let me just ask you this, how much responsibility does any media outlet have to its audience? Is it enough to "give the people what they want" and aim for the lowest common denominator? Or does media have a responsibility to educate and better people?

On the one hand, we'd all like to think that everyone is out for the betterment of society, regardless of other alternative goals.

On the other, is it really media's job to preach at us? If people want to watch "Jersey Shore" or similar crap, don't they have the right to enjoy that regardless of its social trappings?

People have the responsibility to educate and better themselves. If the media claims to help people do this, like news and such, then a rather large portion of responsibility is claimed by the media. However, media/programs that do not claim to do this, and are there for pure entertainment have no reason to. or at least that I can see.