First, a "History of Journalism Ethics" by Stephen J. A. Ward of the University of British Columbia. It's a good, concise explanation of how the role(s) of the media have evolved since the 1450s into the 21st century.
One thing that's maddening, though. Ward summarizes an important book titled Four Theories of the Press (1956). But he only lists three:
Authoritarian. Prevailing theory when kings and inquisitors censored the press -- or tried to! -- during the 1500s and 1600s.OK, OK. But what's the fourth theory of the press? Read on.
Libertarian. The English and American theory of a free press owned by private enterprise as a counterbalance to government.
Social responsibility. A 20th-century offshoot of the libertarian model, with more emphasis on the duty of the media to society.
An online journalism course for high school students in Oregon has an excellent summary of the "Four Theories of the Press." There you'll find out the fourth theory was called "Soviet-Totalitarian." (Remember, the book came out in 1956 at the height of the Cold War.) It's basically the same as the authoritarian model.
Also on Oregon's COOLSchool website is a thought-provoking discussion of "Four Functions of the Press." For the record, they are: (1) To Serve the Economic System: (2) To Entertain; (3) To Inform; and (4) To Influence.
How do these functions complement and/or conflict with each other?
"Knowing the functions of the press will help you understand the media and how it works in a free society," suggest Sue and Dean Barr, Eugene, Ore., authors of the curriculum. "Remember, the purpose of a free press is to guarantee free and open debate and discussion. If the media is too cautious, then people come to think the press should make them feel good and bring consensus. There should be a level of discomfort; if no one is ruffled, then the media has failed."
I would add only this: These issues, and how any conflicts among them might be resolved, were all over the midterm spring semester.
11 comments:
Doc,
Were does the press, that ignores major issues and focuses on celebrity bs fit into? Sorry, but social-responsibility seems to be taking a back step to a glittering decoy theory. Is this any better than an authoritarian model?
In short, I think that the entertaining function of the press has gotten a little to predominant, and informing, influencing and serving the economic system have all been squashed. Well, maybe not serving the economic system. The advertisers and corporations are still making money.
I wouldn't say it's taking a back step. It's certainly not moving forward. Celebrity coverage has become a part of today's media coverage. That doesn't necessarily mean it's more important. It just means that our media coverage is expanding.
What is our media coming to in this day and age. Their visions are warped and out of focus. The news is being over run by celebrities and other usless information. Where are all the great stories and articles going? They need to get their priorities in order and start making it a more informative world.
Thanks for helping me figure out what was keeping me from logging in.
All in all the 4 functions of press should get along....If this was a perfect world.HaHaHa
Maybe our media coverage is expanding, but the media are our agenda setters. What kind of agenda are they setting for our society when Anna Nichole takes up most of the time in the news room?
Media today is more focused on entertain ment rather than what is really going on in the world. Britney Spears shaving her head is more important then the war overseas. Is that ethical? I wouldnt think so, what about the economy? What about losing resources such as gasoline and oil? It seems like the VMA's are more important.
Im not saying we shouldnt report news coverage on celebrities. But... Something has to give. We have people in other countries dying for us every single day. And what kind of coverage does the media give the soldiers? 5 minutes of fame. And people dont think we arent living up to our social-responsibility? We are making a moral trade and someday we will have to pay for that
The coverage that is happeing these days is very focused on celebrities, such as who didnt where panties today and which celebrity is going to jail. The coverage doesnt really cover the impt facts such as how many soldiers are dying and how the war is just getting worse and not better.
1. The media coverage today is focused on entertainment. I don't think the media care about social responsibility look how every time you turn on the tv they are talking about Brittney Spears. The media is just trying to sell whatever they can and informing us doesn't make money.
Today the world is more focus on entertainment, whereas we have far more important things going on. Britney Spears should not have front coverage, soldiers from the army should. They are ones that are risking their lives, not Britain Spears. Unfortunatually, they recieve five minutes of fame, or a small portion in the news. what inspiration will that have on our children?
Post a Comment