refLECTURE VIII: "Crocodile Tears"

Journalists 'scrutinise power, but also exercise it, and should be accountable. Accountability engenders trust. Without trust, journalists do not fulfill their public responsibilities' according to the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance. And so we had this coming. 'The Talk'. The first of many talks about ETHICS. Good taste verses bad taste. Ethical verses unethical. Who decides where the lines are drawn? The journalist, the corporation they work for, the regulatory body, or the consumers? This was what I was left wondering.

Before I walked in there was obvious expectations to hear regurgitated ramblings about 'Uncle Rupert' and News of the World. And more about how phone hacking celebrities boarders on distasteful and unethical, while doing the same to a deceased school girl is outright unethical... at least according to public opinion. But rather our ethical and taste radars were put to the test on several controversial advertisements. Never did find out how I scored...



Times change. You only need to look at advertisements to see by just how much. Once an innocent beer ad from the 50s, now its socially unacceptable for its sexism. Distasteful yes, but still ethical. The next one however... Firstly, there's children. People are already dusting off their 'unethical' banners before anything else is said. And then there's the suggestive stance... and then there's the suggestive word. It's one or the other when it comes to selling icy poles. Children or sex. Not both. Never together.

While there are hundreds of ethical theories out there, according to our lecturer they can all be dissolved into just three. None of which, I had any idea of so I did the only thing I knew... Googled it. There was consequentialism, where the end justifies the means. Pretty succinct. Then there was virtue ethics, whereby 'goodness' or happiness comes from good habits of character. Pretty straight forward. But neither are practical in terms of a business or professional conduct. So enter...

Deontology. Just follow the rules. The only thing... which rules? Every media organisation seems to have their own set of rules. Now, I don't know how much they differ, nor am I willing troll through the hundreds, probably thousands, to find out. So to same time and valuable internet space let's focus on the MEAA principles. There are only four (well... three and twelve, so technically fifteen): honesty, fairness, independence, and respect the rights of others.

The best part about most kinds of media is that it's a choice to consume it. No one is forcing it down your throat. So there's no need to add to noise pollution by complaining about being 'offended', just switch it off... but then there's advertising.

No one goes looking for ads. We will be bombarded by hundreds of ads throughout a single, monotonous day. In order for one to be memorable, it has to spark interest and get our attention. And what's one of the best ways to spark interest without matches? Controversy. You only need to watch 10 minutes of The Gruen Transfer to know the effectiveness of an ad that pushes itself up against the ethical divide. But what about other media types? Do we just expect this from advertising, but not from our news? Maybe I'm over stepping the mark, but at least in terms of commercial media, it's provide what sells. So long as controversy sparks interest, and that interest sells media, does anyone really care if the ethical envelope's pushed too far? Or is it all just crocodile tears.