Lecture 8 – Ethics
Clearly, the purpose of this lecture was to get us to think
further about how ethics might affect our work in journalism; our journalistic
integrity and our ability to effectively critique journalistic trends.
The ethical theories dictating what we deem “right” or
“wrong”, in the objective sense, are broken into three distinct modes:
Deontology, Consequentialism, and Virtue.
Deontology is the belief that following the rules,
principles or duties laid out for you constitutes doing the right thing. In
journalistic terms, this implies that ethical reporting would involve following
established rules and procedures which, to my mind, is a corruption of the idea
of a free press, as it allows room for restrictions on what content can
actually be reported. I firmly believe any step towards censorship is a
dangerous, backwards move. Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but it does seem
flawed.
Consequentialism is the idea that doing what is right is
essentially to do whatever is necessary to get the “right” result. The quote
used to illustrate this in the lecture was:
“What’s good for GM (General Motors) is good for America.”
I love this quote, for a number of reasons. For one, it is
actually a misquote (the actual quote, according to Wikipedia, was in fact: “…because for years I thought what was good for
the country was good for General Motors and vice versa”) which has been
used, alternately, to demonise corporate America or to boost support for
government subsidies and bailout packages. Its versatility is boundless, both
as a sardonic missile for the anti-corporate left, and as a pillar of
commercial economics for those with an interest in where money comes from.
But I digress. The idea of Consequentialism as a guiding light
bothers me, because this kind of utilitarianism, referred to in the lecture as
the Tyranny of Majoritarianism, is the same kind of thinking that has led to
some of the worst acts humans have ever committed. The Final Solution, for
instance, wasn’t an evil act for the sake of doing something terrible. It was
the result of committees and boards trying to solve a problem, which,
evidently, was “What to do about all these damn people.” So, in short,
Consequentialism seems like a bit of a shit way to conduct oneself.
Virtue, on the other hand, is a simple guiding factor to
decision-making that is available to all but the deeply sociopathic, and is
reliant on simple habits of behaviour designed to cause no harm and express the
finer aspects of human character, listed in the lecture as: courage, justice,
temperance and prudence. I could go on about these ideas for a while, but I
would hope any readers would have an understanding of what these terms mean in
a practical sense. We’ve all seen movies, we know what these traits look like.
The term “Golden Mean” was used, and I think it gives the concept a beautiful
symmetry to think that these character traits represent a mean average and that
there is a certain balance to life that we intrinsically recognise and adhere
to. I think it’s nonsense, as a nihilist and a fan of chaos, but as a guiding
set of virtues it both keeps us on an even keel and allows a certain
wiggle-room to do what is necessary. In a journalistic sense, that allows a
great deal of room to work without compromising our virtues or our integrity,
which is important to me.
The ethical theories covered in the lecture – Deontology,
Consequentialism and Virtue – lie at the heart of religious and ethical
philosophy, but I’ve honestly never considered their place in the theoretical
framework of journalism. I’ve always instinctively known what was ethical and
what was in poor taste. I’ve not always cared, but I’ve always felt I could
recognise it. I, personally, operate with a degree of poor taste but I always
try to maintain an ethical stance in both my writing and my personal
interactions, otherwise known as “moral superiority”, or “being an uppity
prick” – a trait which should get me punched more often than it does.
Incidentally, the Sam Kekovitch lamb advertisement and the
anti-smoking ads kind of made me want a cigarette and a nice lamb roast.
Lecture 9 – News
Values
News values is a concept which seems very fluid. There is an
ever changing impact on what we, as consumers, want to know. And, clearly,
there is an ever changing influence on that because of what people want us to
know, or sometimes what they don’t.
The first principle of agenda setting that I learned, and is
still a prevalent principle in agenda setting for content, is the old doctrine “If
it bleeds it leads.” It’s a fairly crass way to think about news, but it’s also
somewhat accurate about audiences. There are obviously exceptions, but I
remember the week that Michael Jackson died. I don’t remember anything else
that happened that week, and I’m sure some important stuff happened, I just
remember that Michael Jackson died. And I don’t even care that Michael Jackson
died. I’m a cynical shithead, for want of a better term, and his death didn’t
particularly interest me. But news networks, social media, newspapers –
everyone – was talking about Michael Jackson dying. Like nobody thought it
would happen.
I use this example because it segues neatly into the twelve
identified factors of news values and what makes news. The twelve factors are:
Negativity
Proximity
Recency
Currency
Continuity
Uniqueness
Simplicity
Personality
Expectedness
Elite Nations/People
Exclusivity
Size
We can use the death of Michael Jackson, and the
unbelievably thorough media coverage of it, to illustrate what these terms mean
and how they translate to content.
First we start with Negativity, of which there are a couple
of factors where Jackson is concerned. There is, of course, his tragic death on
the eve of his final ever concert tour. There is also the erratic and bizarre
behaviour he had exhibited in the years leading up to his death. Those things
combined to make amazing fodder for media all over the world.
Proximity was less of a factor, unless you count all the
people who say things like “He was in my heart” or some other esoteric
weirdness. I won’t debate that right now, because it actually aids my point
that his death fulfilled another factor of news value.
Recency and currency are obviously relevant because his
demise was reported immediately and coverage simply accelerated from there. Continuity
comes from the fact that his death brings with it questions regarding the
cause, his estate, his family and, in some cases, the future of pop music. As a
side note, Microsoft Word clearly doesn’t think “recency” is a real word.
Uniqueness is a factor that Michael Jackson had a good grip
on, given that he was a white black man without a nose who made his children
wear veils while he tested the effects of gravity on them from hotel balconies.
Simplicity, perhaps, is a debatable factor given the mystery
surrounding his death, but it is also best summed up by the simple headline,
used by publications all over the world, which read “The King Of Pop Is Dead.”
The factor of Personality is another easy one, and here we
would look directly at Louis Theroux’s interview with Michael Jackson, the
confused man-child with the Peter Pan complex, who was once the biggest child
star and pop singer on the planet and was later accused of multiple acts of
child endangerment and molestation. In terms of a cult of personality, you
couldn’t get a more dynamic character.
Expectedness was another factor, because while his death was
sudden and the timing tragic, given his upcoming live tour – which seemed as if
it was to be a kind of redemption for all the years of weirdness –, he was also
a visibly frail man who had suffered a number of health scares and who had been
plagued by unsubstantiated rumours of prescription drug abuse for years. People
could kind of see this coming.
One factor which relates neatly is the factor of Elite
Nations or People. Michael Jackson was, after all, the King of Pop, he once
owned a tiger and a chimpanzee. Hell, he purportedly owned the Elephant Man’s deformed
skeleton. If that doesn’t make you an Elite Person, I simply don’t know what
will.
Exclusivity is a factor which was only relevant as the story
progressed. After the initial story broke, the race was on to find anyone
related to or employed by Jackson who might be willing to speak, as well as to
find anyone within the police or medical examiners offices who might be able to
shed some more light. As events unfolded, more and more news outlets broke
minor exclusives with minor players to keep the momentum rolling.
And finally, Size. Well, he was a small man, so that’s not
it. Although, there was that giant gold statue in his likeness on the cover of
the “HIStory” album. But I don’t think that counts. The King of Pop status
would account for it though, as his death relaunched his albums – most particularly
“Thriller” – back into the charts all over the world, illustrating that his
sheer influence was massive.
And so, we can see exactly why nothing else seems to have
happened that week in the public consciousness. Michael Jackson’s death simply
covered all of the necessary bases and nothing else needed to happen. He had us sorted. Good looking out, Jacko.
Thanks.
Lecture 10 –
Agenda Setting
I hate charts. This lecture started out well with a very
funny video but was followed with a bunch of charts. A gaggle of charts. An
unkindness of charts. I’m not sure what the plural is for a group of charts but
whatever it is, I hate it. Here, I even made a chart illustrating how much I
hate charts.
My only note in my book at this point was:
“So bored already, I think I’ll make a chart.” Then I drew a
flying whale instead.
The different modes of agenda setting were interesting, and
having them broken into their respective categories (ie. Public, Policy,
Corporate and Media agendas) makes it easier to compartmentalise issues by
their relevance to each agenda.
I’ll be honest and say I wasn’t completely awake or
concentrating for this lecture so I did write down the name Harold Laswell
followed by the words “Hypodermic Model” and “Magic Bullet Theory”. I think I
understood the idea as a distillation of ideas ‘injected’ into the media for a
specified purpose, but I might have misunderstood because at this point I
started sketching Lee Harvey Oswald cooking black tar heroin while trying to
shoot the president. I might have drifted off a little.
However, eventually I turned all of my mental faculties
towards the lecture again and caught up with the notion that there are two
distinct types of agenda setting theory. The first level of agenda setting is
what the public should focus on, in terms of actual content. The second level
is how the public should focus on it,
in terms of coverage and, to a degree, stylistic content. There was a nice
quote from economic/media/political commentator and regular talking-head Noam
Chomsky but when I looked up some interview footage with Mr Chomsky, the first result
I got on Youtube was a less than helpful interview with Ali G. So, I abandoned
that idea in favour of more Ali G. I’m sure everybody understands.
The idea of agenda setting as propaganda is an interesting
one with significant implications for world media. There have already been a
number of examples of it, and the example given in the lecture is the famous
Nazi propaganda film, Triumph of the Will, directed by Leni Riefenstahl. I
actually have this on a DVD playing in the background as I type this. I bought
it in a box-set which also included Glen Or Glenda, Plan 9 From Outer Space,
The Fatal Glass Of Beer and House On Haunted Hill. How those things are
connected is beyond me, but I have no doubt that Triumph…’s inclusion is
another step in the Third Reich’s heinous master plan. I just haven’t figured
out how yet.
There was more in the lecture, including some talk about
agenda surfing or bandwagon jumping, of which the clear example is the goddamn
motherfucking Kony2012 farce. But if I’m honest, at about this point I sort of
lost focus again. I have notes, but they don’t completely make sense and they’re
littered with drawings of eyes and spiders. It was not my most diligent effort,
I must admit.
Lecture 11 –
Investigative Journalism
Investigative journalism is, I guess, where my core interest
lies. I regard investigative journalism as a pivotal factor in our society’s
system of checks and balances. Covered in this lecture was the “deeper meaning”
of investigative journalism, which I found to be a concise disambiguation of
what I mean when I refer to journalism as such. As listed in the lecture, the
four purposes of investigative journalism are:
-Critical and thorough journalism, to provide “active
intervention” on public thought, if not on an act itself.
-Custodians of Conscience, or the keepers – and, to some
degree, publicity agents – of public morality.
-To provide a voice to those without one and to hold the
powerful to account, a concept favouring public interest where the practical
application in news media is self-explanatory.
-Fourth Estate/Watchdog, a role designed to keep a close eye
on the decision makers and alert the public to wrongdoing or travesty.
There are questions raised about this role, regarding the extent to which a journalist may be allowed to stretch the rules and laws established by the very people one intends to watch as a matter of public interest, as pointedly illustrated by the Julian Assange/Wikileaks affair.
I won’t weigh in on that debate right now, as that would
extend this essay by a good few thousand words, but I will say that I am
encouraged that the public responded to the Wikileaks scandal so vociferously –
on both sides of the debate – because it means people are paying attention.
However, for me, the guiding light of investigative
journalism is scepticism and, perhaps to a degree, cynicism. One of the quotes
given in the lecture illustrated this brilliantly:
“If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”
As such, I have launched a full-scale investigation on my
mother and I’ve found instructions on how to build a lojack-tracking device
from a crystal-radio kit which I will fit to her car so I know her movements
through the day. I will also endeavour to locate any potential secret families
that she may be hiding, and, working off a monetary scale and an estimate of
fiscal-representations of love, I will mathematically establish whether she
loves me, or if she loves her secret son more.
Lecture 12 – What’s
In It For Me?
This lecture, delivered by special guest Steven Molk, was
focused on controlling your brand and using that image to gain employment. This
immediately got me thinking.
And I’m beginning to think that my literary style is simply
too hostile for regular employment so I will have to bend to some conventions
to become employable as a journalist, despite my ability to effectively distil
news and my interest in current affairs.
For one, I joke where it’s objectively inappropriate. And I
appreciate cursing as a poetic form of its very own; a linguistic element that
I am so familiar and comfortable with that I barely even notice when I swear. I’m
currently limited in the people who will speak to me for an interview, as I’m
still only a student and at first glance I’m a hairy liberal berk with occasional
crazy-eyes. The only people who are happy to speak to that guy are musicians,
and everybody is a music journalist.
So, I’m left in a bit of a stylistic void, where I’m trying
not to ape Hunter Thompson or Tom Wolfe, but I’m left with similar interests
and what could objectively be called a sardonic, vitriolic style not unlike
those people I’m trying not to be. However, I’m seemingly incapable of becoming
Laurie Oakes because I simply am not that organised, and I don’t’ want to cut
my hair.
I guess I have to play a little with my style and work on my
ability to reign myself in. But I can’t escape the innate appeal of being one
of the fearless outsiders of the journalistic community who bring you the
insane, dangerous and terrifyingly funny tales of what is happening in the
parts of the world normal people avoid.
I think of John Safran, the journalist/television-presenter/white-rapper/radio-host,
when he spoke about his time on ABC TV’s Race Around The World. In this series,
contestants were provided with a video cameras and sent to various locations
around the world where they were given a short amount of time to complete a
video about their location. During this series, John Safran showed viewers how
to break into Disneyland, amongst other insane feats of journalistic gratuity.
But one particular incident caused him to break what he referred to as his “Fear
Barrier”. This, naturally, involved streaking naked through Jerusalem as crowds
of angry locals began baying for his blood. This made for interesting
television, and gave us an insight into why cricket isn’t huge in Israel. Since
that day, he has revealed a loophole in Ku Klux Klan law that would allow a
Jewish male to join under certain circumstances, explored the inner workings of
the music industry by door-knocking for the Jehova’s Witnesses dressed as
Prince, and had himself crucified in the Philippines.
I’m not sure what being crucified would say from a
journalistic standpoint, but maybe there’s a career in that. I’ll look into it.
Karl Anderson (s4288383)
