Carlene as she appeared in last Saturday's edition of The Gleaner.
File photoDonna Ortega, News Editor
How are ethical choices made?
There is a running debate as to whether or not the media makes ethical choices in the selection of articles and reports for public digestion.
A reader told this reporter recently that he believes, generally speaking, ethical choices are made from a position of "enlightened" self-interest, rather than mere self-interest.
As we look at certain trends in the media which the Press Association of Jamaica (PAJ) has openly declared to be in contradiction of its Code of Ethics, one could easily be tempted to believe the contrary.
The PAJ, last weekend, voiced concerns about declining standards in the media though noting the positive elements that emerge from time to time such as a fresher, more appealing product appearance in our major newspapers as well as the younger radio and television houses. The PAJ found some things to be proud of and also endorsed these attempts to present 'good' news (despite the gratuitous reports which sneak in).
But this professional organisation, which has a mandate to monitor standards in the media, continues to be disappointed at the inconsistency in the production of quality work in the print and electronic media.
True, deadlines and fierce competition in a widened media landscape cannot be excuses for the shoddy work, lack of follow-up, adequate research, fairness and balance in our reporting that ultimately leave our professional ethics open to question.
From the plethora of information that is available to the public, journalists and broadcasters must guide the understanding of their readers, listeners and viewers; help them turn information into knowledge that increases their ability to make sense of a rapidly changing world. But as The Gleaner's Ken Allen often reminds us, there is a particular art to writing analysis and commentary that you don't acquire overnight. It is not to be confused with the ubiquitous form of editorialising in news reports, as many of us often do.
Now the PAJ has come out against the preoccupation in all commercial media with the baser aspects of human nature, viz. violence, licentious behaviour and occultic practice, a preoccupation showing that we are missing the mark when it comes to responsible journalism. There are cracks in the media mirror. Yet are these only reflections? Or have the communication channels become distorted too?
Who decides that these will dominate the media?
What real emotional benefit can be derived from being advised to take certain baths, spin around a few times and apply potions when desperate and oftentimes disturbed persons cry out for help?
Where do we draw the line?
Where is the disclaimer that views and opinions being presented are not necessarily those of the media house?
Why do we have reports targeting young minds which present in raw terms the exploitation of young girls by adult men without a balancing statement that this is not healthy behaviour?
How could we have been spared the picture of Carlene's buttocks bared before our very eyes?
Some of these are ethical questions. How often do we stop to consider them in choosing editorial content and making up our newscasts?
Ours is not simply a mirror image. In reporting the facts, exposing corruption and abuse we have, at the same time, the task to lift people's vision of themselves, to remind them that though societal values and ethics may be decaying all around them that this tragedy may be overcome, that the indomitable spirit who lives in us and in whose image we were created can achieve so much more.
The challenge is to buck the trend and lift our eyes to a new horizon where the sun also rises.
Your feedback is welcome.
dortega@gleanerjm.com
