The media

The media is something I read a lot and think about a lot. Ever since I studied 1 module on the history and role of the mass media in society (and wrote two 5,000+ word essays on it) I have been intrigued in the linkages between various aspects: ownership, power, influence, politics, education, democracy and so on.

Some people have huge amounts of power and one hopes the more power one has, the more responsibly that power is used. Actually one of my text books during my course was titled "Power without Responsibility" (Another one was "Get me a murder a day") and there was good reason for it. The history of the mass media, especially in Western countries (although i have mostly studied the UK and some US) is so interesting I'll briefly explain some of the key highlights which i remember from my course.

First there was the scribes and bibles and so on -creating and distributing media was expensive thus was ostensibly used by the rich (often related to the church) -since most people could not read, those that could had power, and would read aloud to the listeners. The Church had a great way of controlling people, giving them orders and so on (this was 17th century or so). Next the printing press came a long providing cheap technology to the common man. Journals, periodicals and more all sprung up and literacy grew, intellectualism grew and there was a lack of control.

Next the governments tried to limit this growth since it eroded their control -they taxed paper and other resources. It was quite effective, but underground media prospered and 1 newspaper was often seen by 10-15 people in pubs or households. But then market took over, with popular media making money and gaining in reach and quality. Drowning out the smaller ones. Rich people realised they could subtly control the messages of these media so bought them and invested more money in them.

With the beginning of the radio and TV, a new era dawned -these were controlled by governments (who governed the spectrum) and the technology needed to produce was high -plus its effect was greater than print media. Although a labour union could save up money to print (and distribute) its own newspaper, it certainly could not afford a mass audience radio or TV station.

And now, now we have global conglomerates, achieving cost efficiencies, owning magazines, tv, radio, internet, advertising boards, local and national evening papers and so on. The little man with little resources has no chance. The market of advertising has reinforced this -advertisers pay more for greater distribution, this will come from greater success (quality), which comes from investing more money in the media.

My essays focused on the role of the internet changing all of this (or not?); has it given the little man a way back to influence: where money does not matter. Well weblogs certainly have made a small impact and there are some web-based media that is successful. It seems that there will be a need for mass media that is respected for integrity and that might not be the internet, but there is a place for it somewhere. Without going on much more I hope this serves as an introduction -and I won't even touch the other aspects that are involved (for example how the mass media also tend to be the mainstream media and might serve to narrow the spectrum of political thought...)

I write this post because there is a lack of responsibility in the media. I recently re-watched 'Elephant' and read a review of it which I want to copy here. For those who do not know 'The Columbine Massacre' was when some school kids caused chaos in their school shooting randomly and killing/injuring many people for no real reason.

The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that.".......

......"Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory." In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. Roger Ebert

It provides a good example of the power of the media. Personally when money is involved (and it is for most private media) responsibility is rarely a priority. Responsible leaders in this case must treat their business as more of a business -since its a social organisation, it has social responsibilities. Maybe the media is aware of things like this (if not, they should do some research!) -if they are, why do they choose to continue? So responsible leaders in these organisations need to know the consequences of their actions -many unintended, and understand the greater role they play in society. For an IT company, this might be less than a media company, so media companies need to be even more responsible, for their power is great. How great is their responsibility? In fact the problem is that they maybe do not feel responsible to society, but to someone else (shareholders?). This seems to be the case for those who own the media (even if those in it, like reporters, are the opposite).

My advice: try to understand who you should be responsible to, try to understand how you affect them, and try to ensure those affects are positive.

I want to end with two of my favourite websites: Asia Times and Open Democracy. A great example of interesting media. The second specifically questions the role of the media and provides interesting debate as well as information. Highly recommended.

ethical dilemnas

Drinking games are taking off in the USA leading to drinks companies, retailers, distributors and so on to cash in through innovative new ways of getting young people to drink more alcohol, more often.

Is this right? Diageo, the global beverage company (owners of Smirnoff, Guiness and more) recently announced a 5 year plan to put warning labels (and nutritional information) on all of its products -as did the rest of the UK drinks' industry. This on one hand is a good thing. The way this is happening (as with the banning of cigarettes) seems to be a balance between government legislation/threat and voluntary/market opportunity means.

I think most people will agree with these steps despite the interesting discussions about free will that this leads to. For example, banning advertising of cigarettes might seem to make sense (especially since they are so effective in attracting new, young smokers) but who will ban smoking in films (by the way, pressure groups publish a list each year of those films that most endorse the iconic image of smoking)? Who has the right to set an age for buying products or refusing you access to them? Well I think the discussion is really interesting (especially when leading onto drugs or prostitution -regulate or drive underground?)

In the area of CSR one big issue is about partnering or accepting sponsorship from a bad company -are you using 'blood money' for example? Is it ok to use money these companies make in order to put them for a good cause? But, is your use of the money strengthening their brand and therefore supporting the company? This is never easy -policies and clear statements would be great, but when push comes to shove, will you take the money? Hopefully there is a solution -you can take their money and spend it without giving them any credit for it, for example (although you may still decide this is not good enough). Maybe through engaging with the (bad) company you can make a bigger difference than by tackling them?

Another big issue on this topic is about working for (or purchasing from) a company that makes bad products -cigarettes, arms etc. But then it gets complicated.... you might make innocent little buttons for car handles, and realise they are also used on airplane, or microchips for radios that are also used in missiles..! And when you look at the case of CISCO who make filtering technology for the internet, are they responsible for how their technology is used (by the Chinese government for censorship), or in fact, should they care how it is used? How can they even control their product's use?

All of this makes for tough, complicated, choices. What should a responsible person do? Well it all depends on your priorities and what the options are. At the least an analysis of the options should be done, and if possible the ethical choice should be made (in terms of the last example). For the responsible leader, running a company (like the first example) there is not much of an excuse for looking for such a quick-win if it leads to harm. Of course, its hard to define harm, and hard to work out the difference these drinking games are having -but paying for some research to be done would be a good start. And for a global company (such as Anheuser-Busch who are behind Bud-pong -but claim the instructions say to use water) they might consider whether the profits they will make will make up for the potential loss in brand value (from supporting this product, although of course they value this as adding in brand value through greater sales and marketing) or law suits or negative media etc. I would be interested in seeing if they did such an analysis.

In any of these situations, the best thing to do is to undertake the relevant research on the issues, see what the options are, see what your priorities are and then proceed. The key aspect of ethical dilemmas is that once you make one mistake, it could cost you -big. So be careful and don't make that mistake. If you are really comfortable working for a cigarette company then so be in. Personally I wouldn't -but ethics is a personal thing. What are your ethics, and how far would you go to support them?