Gina Edwards

Dr. Debatin
Media Ethics- Reading Journal #2
May 27th, 2009
As a rising journalist, I should watch more intellectual programming. This is a fact that I

have “committed” myself to on various occasions. Nevertheless, I am continuously captivated by

the comedic styling of shows like “The Colbert Report,” or websites like the Onion. I’m

convinced that buried in these hours of wasted time is useful information that merits my

attention. Although I’ve never considered this rationalization to be valid, recent research proves

that art and entertainment carry more value than typically perceived—in what is said, what is

changed and what is censored.

Jane Kirtley explores the power of art and the freedom of expression in her article

“Giving Offense: When Religious Beliefs, Good Taste and Freedom of Expression Collide.” She

supports her claim that creative liberties trump most other considerations by citing two

prominent examples: the cartoons satirizing Muhammad, and a legal battle over photographs

taken in Times Square. Both situations exemplify how art can “spark a collision between two

competing clauses of the First Amendment” (Kirtley, 74). She explains how even offensive

material and intrusion upon privacy can be usurped by artistic freedoms.

The first example is a familiar one—a controversy that transcended borders and angered

both Muslims and non-Muslims across the globe. Many were outraged that the cartoons would

dare to besmirch the name of a revered prophet of the Islam faith, and more importantly, that

media publication was permitted. News outlets had to reluctantly choose to publish the cartoons

or simply describe them. This choice was weighed the duty to inform against avoiding
attachment to criticism. Kirtley ultimately concludes that while sidestepping offensive content is

“just good business… it isn’t good journalism” (Kirtley, 74).

Her other example dealt with a photographer named Philip-Lorca diCorcia, who set up a

camera in Times Square to capture candid pictures of passersby, which he included in an

exhibition called “Heads.” His edition prints sold for thousands of dollars, the exhibition

received a favorable review and the photos were published in catalogs. Erno Nussenzweig, a

Klausenberg Hasidic Jew, sued diCorcia claiming that he misappropriated his likeness for

commercial purposes, therefore intruding upon his privacy. However, once the legal battle was

fought, diCorcia prevailed. The judge presiding over the case stated that this was “the price every

person must be prepared to pay for in a society in which information and opinion flow freely”

(Kirtley, 74).

The notion of artistic freedom is explored further in “If Looks Could Kill: Digital

Manipulation of Fashion Models.” This article juxtaposes the values of creative liberty against

public health to identify their greater implications upon society. The authors evaluate perceptions

of photo enhancement by analyzing its effect upon body image and social norms. Their

experiment shows how “new technology can amplify, mix and create new ethical issues”

(Reaves, Hitchon, Park & Yun, 57).

The article first describes the health problems facilitated by excessive photo editing and

how this deception can be fodder for diluted mentalities. Vulnerable girls experiencing mental

illnesses like anorexia use these “digital mirages” to “gratify their distorted cognitions” (Reaves,

Hitchon, Park & Yun, 59). The authors argue that these facts prove digital manipulation is

anything but trivial. Although they recognize that computer editing may be a means of freeing

artistic expression, they argue that the detriment to societal health is a more substantial issue.
 Their experiment consisted of presenting a photo of an extremely thin model next to a

healthy restored one. The photo chosen was from Vogue, a magazine that appeals to the

demographic they tested, ages 18 to 24. One half of the group saw the extremely skinny

photograph first, and the others saw the restored one first. The girls were asked several questions

afterward using rating scales of 1 thru 7.

The research participants noticed a large difference between the skinny and restored

photographs, and perceived the manipulation to be “dishonest, unethical and unfair” (Reaves,

Hitchon, Park & Yun, 67). Despite these vehement opinions on the matter, very few of the

participants were in favor of imposing any regulations or sanctions on the editors of the

magazines. According to the authors, “such reluctance is consistent with an appreciation of

artistic freedom, and with a cautious attitude toward implementing any form of regulation”

(Reaves, Hitchon, Park & Yun, 59-60).

However, it is interesting to note that those who saw the healthy photograph first were

more fervently against the manipulation and inclined to protest against it. Therefore, since the

thin ideal is currently the status quo in our society, people are less likely to rebel and more apt

accept an unhealthy standard as the desirable norm. As eating disorders in this demographic

continue to rise, media literacy and an understanding of “reality” becomes even more crucial to

maintain public health.

Visual media in print form surely stirs its share of controversy, but video content is

increasingly becoming a subject of intense debate within the media today. Mary Lyn Stoll’s

article, “Infotainment and the Moral Obligations of the Multimedia Conglomerate,” discusses the

overlap between journalism and entertainment, and explores the need to protect diverse content

amidst conglomerate pressures.

 Stoll references two examples in her dissection of this topic. She cites Moveon.org’s

failed attempt to air a political advertisement critical of the Bush administration during one of the

coveted Super Bowl commercial slots on CBS and Disney’s refusal to distribute Michael

Moore’s controversial documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. Through these examples, “the rightness or

wrongness of corporate censorship” is more thoroughly examined (Stoll, 253).

Because the lines dividing journalism and entertainment are increasingly blurred, Stoll

argues that the media’s codes of ethics and mission statements should be rewritten. The

traditional perceptions of entertainment avoiding offensive content and journalism ensuring

thorough reports are no longer completely applicable. Often times media outlets must offend

sectors of their audience in order to disseminate a message, but entertainment does not have the

same leeway. We must then ask, how do we deal with infotainment?

Advertisements and films may traditionally be categorized outside the purview of the

journalism world, but Stoll maintains that this is untrue. She states that “ads are believed to play

a significant role” in the political arena, while “the power of film will only increase as news and

entertainment grow increasingly similar” (Stoll, 255-256). Therefore, as the media evolves into a

nontraditional format, so must the restrictions and barriers upon it.

To reinforce this idea, Stoll utilizes the philosophies of Kant, Mill and Rawls. Using the

Kantian theory of universal laws, the author finds that CBS’s policy was “morally objectionable”

and Disney’s “simply inconsistent” (Stoll, 256). Both companies’ decisions were not justifiable

if made into overarching rules. Although their choices were the best fiscally speaking, “the

corporate right of silence is lost when it conflicts with protecting free speech rights for

individuals” (Stoll, 256).

 After exploring utilitarianism and Rawlsian values, Stoll concludes that the true problem

lies in the structure of the media conglomerates themselves. She advocates that “business must

be provided a set of ground rules that protect free speech expression” and that the “distribution of

media access is not fair and equitable” (Stoll, 258). Therefore, the entire framework of media

conglomerates and news judgments are in need of change. Although Stoll provides sufficient

evidence as to why the current process is unfair, she is slow to offer any solution to the issue at

hand. She acknowledges the problem of profit influencing content but does not provide a viable

alternative to the current system.

The phenomenon of infotainment is also evaluated in “The Role of Journalist and the

Performance of Journalism: Ethical Lessons From “Fake” News (Seriously),” as the authors

discuss an angle of these entertaining programs often missed. Borden and Tew argue that when

viewed as media critics rather than imitators, programs like “The Daily Show” (TDS) and “The

Colbert Report” (TCR) can essentially function as watchdogs of the watchdogs.

The article begins by first discussing the role of a journalist. It highlights the values of

gate keeping, factuality and objectivity as pillars of a true journalist. Although Stewart and

Colbert perform the functions of journalism, that “is not sufficient… to fully inhabit the role of a

journalist” (Borden & Tew, 301). The authors maintain that motivating factors are what truly

determine a journalist, not the mere appearance of them.

More importantly, Colbert and Stewart do not even consider themselves journalists. On

talk shows and interviews they have stated that the term “comedian” or “comic” is most suitable.

However, amidst parodies of the government and even journalists themselves, these satirists

perform the crucial function of media criticism. Their freedoms as entertainers allow them to

“routinely challenge cable news journalists for the role-appropriateness of their performances”
(Borden & Tew, 306). Because Colbert and Stewart define themselves as solely comedians, they

are not attempting to fool or deceive their audience. Colbert once stated in an interview that his

audience has to work hard to keep up with his character changes throughout the show, as he

frequently shifts back and forth from his “Bill O’Reilly” persona to the “Colbert” persona. This

assertion shows that both programs are not trying to deceive the audience into misunderstanding

their intentions.

Interestingly, TDS and TCR balance the art of internal and external criticism. Though

both shows are hosted by non-journalists, “the creators of both programs are familiar with the

moral standards and performance conventions of journalism” (Borden & Tew, 309). With this

perspective the hosts can say what the media cannot, and “highlight the nonsense of what is said”

(Borden & Tew, 309). Traditional journalists are bound by restrictions that prevent most

advocacy, subjectivity or audience involvement. TDS and TCR can circumvent these boundaries

and partake in greater creative freedoms, allowing an easier connection with the viewers.

However, these boundaries also work in reverse as the public is unlikely to perceive issues

seriously when addressed by Stewart or Colbert. Genuine calls for media reform and policy

changes are not seriously considered. In this way, they are oppositely limited.

Ultimately, while the authors recognize and discuss the limitations that “fake” news

sources have in the scope of journalism, they argue that comedians like Colbert and Stewart still

serve an important function that is worthy of discussion.

As art and entertainment is evaluated within media ethics, many conclusions can be

made. Perhaps the most important of these realizations is that visual media can impact the

journalism sphere in ways that print media cannot. And as our society continues to shift toward

technological progress, analysis of these ever changing mediums is necessary.

 Media that was once considered frivolous now plays significant roles in the decisions and

culture around the world. Advertisements and films can sway votes, and television programs

serve as journalists’ watchdogs. Even digital alterations of already skinny models can have

significant detrimental impacts upon the state of public health. These new technologies and

alternative media have both positive and negative consequences, and both are worthy of further

discussion. In today’s internet world of YouTube celebrities and blogger “journalists,” it is a

crucial time to evaluate the ethical standards that we as journalists aspire to uphold. With these

facts in mind, the incorporation of new media into the scheme of ethical decision making is

imperative.

Another truth that is revealed through these articles is the importance of media literacy.

This might sound very simplistic and second nature for any good journalist, but its value is often

forgotten. Perhaps we have come to accept an unnaturally skinny body as the normal ideal, but

what does this truly say about our country? How can we explain an audience who feels betrayed

by the very magazines they read, yet feel little motivation to take a stand against them? These

accepted facts of our culture can be frightening once explored, and reveal truths that merit

change. Once certain norms become accepted, the public loses its ability to completely

understand the functioning of the media. Therefore, these issues raised by research must continue

to be evaluated and discussed so that journalism does not leave its audience behind.

Furthermore, visual media offers lessons about journalism in an often debated and

denounced format. Controversial films and satirical television shows say what the media will

not; the public, media conglomerates and critics are poised to attack these programs, chastising

their invalidity and writing them off as unworthy of viewing. However, if we immerse ourselves

in this photo and video culture, we discover truths about journalism that were previously ignored.
And in my opinion, this is what’s needed. Because if these alternative mediums do not exist, who

watches the watchdogs?

Influence continues to take shape in evolving ways, and with these innovations come

additional dilemmas and choices. Old problems have reemerged in completely new platforms

leaving journalists unsure of the correct path. When attempting to solve ethical dilemmas with

visual media, it’s important to analyze the same ethical methods. However, a journalist must also

evaluate the environment in which the message will be produced, and recognize that the potential

controversy may not be over the content itself, but the medium. As people adjust to the evolving

technology, there is likely to be discomfort. However, this should not deter a watchdog from

doing his job.

Overall, the articles offered insight into aspects of art and entertainment which I was

previously unaware. Their references to actual cases and situations were helpful in

contextualizing and understanding the background behind the situations. These tangible

examples are useful in providing a framework to conceptualize visual media in new ways.

Although a couple of the authors made heavy assertions without providing a solution, their

claims were still pertinent in that they spur debate that could yield a clearer understanding of the

issues at hand.

Every type of medium, be it print, online, photo or video has its inherent flaws. However,

there is no escaping the fact that our culture is extremely visual and relies upon these pictorial

representations to demonstrate reality. While there are certainly many issues that accompany

these technological innovations, the informational gain outweighs the negative problem. Training

the eye to be visually astute is an ongoing process, one in which the media public are

experiencing together.
 Works Cited

Borden, Sandra L., and Chad Tew. "The Role of Journalist and the Performance of Journalism:

Ethical Lessons From "Fake" News (Seriously)." Journal of Mass Media Ethics 22.4

(Dec. 2007): 300-314. Communication & Mass Media Complete. EBSCO. Alden

Library, Athens, Oh. 27 May 2009 <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=ufh&AN=27441555&site=ehos t-live>.

Kirtley, Jane. "Giving Offense." American Journalism Review 28.2 (Apr. 2006): 74-74. Literary

Reference Center. EBSCO. Alden Library, Athens, Oh. 27 May 2009

<http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lfh&AN=20411315&site=ehos

t-live>.
Reaves, Shiela, et al. "If Looks Could Kill: Digital Manipulation of Fashion Models." Journal of

Mass Media Ethics 19.1 (Mar. 2004): 56-71. Business Source Complete. EBSCO. Alden

Library, Athens, Oh. 25 May 2009 <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=bth&AN=12733685&site=ehos t-live>.

Stoll, Mary Lyn. "Infotainment and the Moral Obligations of the Multimedia Conglomerate."

Journal of Business Ethics 66.2/3 (30 June 2006): 253-260. Business Source Complete.

EBSCO. Alden Library, Athens, Oh. 27 May 2009

<http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=22089849&site=ehos

t-live>.