Socially Responsible Media

As much as the general public complains about the bias in their media outlets, the United States should count itself as lucky in comparison to other countries around the world. The US follows what can be considered the “social responsibility model” when it comes to media outlets, meaning society is responsible for the media that becomes available. News providers try to make news pieces on topics that they think will be popular, topics that will sell papers or hike up the station ratings. In a lot of countries around the world, most notably in Asia and Africa, media outlets follow a “state” or “authoritarian model.” In a state model, the government directly controls what media is released and in an authoritarian model, the organizations in control of the media omit and slant information to achieve a certain end. (Cambell, Martin, Fabos. 480) Sometimes these ends can be benevolent, but sometimes they’re not. I think that we’re fortunate to have a system of media that focuses around free speech and the First Amendment, but there are obviously several distinct drawbacks, as there are with anything.

            Perhaps the most obvious shortcoming of the United States’ socially responsible mass media is how often personal opinion creeps into stories. When you read a newspaper article, you can tell whether it’s an account of an event or an opinion or editorial piece based on where in the paper it’s located. Television is much more difficult to distinguish because they don’t usually preface an opinion with something that tells you outright that you’re hearing an opinion. Television talk shows and news interviews aren’t scripted and edited like a newspaper is, so where a reporter has a chance to try to make his article sound more objective, an interviewer on television doesn’t have the time to take that sort of care. There’s also a very fine line between direct quotes and libel.

            News providers are always careful not to broadcast or publish or post anything that could be considered libelous, because that’s where their rights as news providers end. Libel is a form of expression that’s not protected by the First Amendment as free speech. So news companies can effectively be sued by someone who feels they were offensively and falsely portrayed by one of their articles or broadcasts. This, I think, works as a good incentive to keep reporters of all kinds a little more neutral than they may otherwise be. It doesn’t, however, stop them from quoting two opposing sides to try to get the story across. There are numerous articles on sites like the Huffington Post and NYTimes that are full of slander and mudslinging, but are presented with impartiality. In cases like these, it’s easier to figure out who stands where in relation to certain issues, because the reporter is simply telling the reader straight out. A lot of times, though, article writers use direct quotes as a way to get their own opinions across. This online article from Salon’s politics directory, for example, is full of name calling and spitting contests, but mainly in the form of direct quotes. [ http://www.salon.com/2012/10/01/the_billionaire_obama_hate_club/ ] But still, the writing that ties them together into a story is anything but impartial. So, although the threat of prosecution for libel stops news providers from creating their own slander, it doesn’t stop them from using pre-made slander to tell their stories, for better or worse.

            The one place where reporters really don’t have to worry about libel regulations is the internet. It’s very easy to maintain and write under a penname, thereby avoiding any ramifications on personal reputation that would be associated with unpopular inappropriate reporting. Because of this, it’s virtually impossible to sue an internet reporter for an offensive or unfavorable article. So there’s nothing to regulate the news that’s published on the web because there’s no threat of real consequences for writing a piece that’s full of libel. Just this week, legislature was passed in the Philippines in an effort to hold internet publications to the same standard as printed and broadcast media. Section 4 of the new law “criminalizes libel, not only on the internet, but on any other similar means which may be devised in the future.” [http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/10/02/12/anti-cybercrime-law-takes-effect ] This makes me wonder how long it’ll take for other nations to attempt something of this sort, or if they’ll even try. In a country like the US, where media is a direct product of the many people living here who feel they have news to share, I wonder if it would even be possible.

            And even with the insane amount of information out there and the high ratio of it that’s made up primarily of opinions, it’s still preferable to media that’s directly regulated by government. American media has more of an opportunity to regulate government by making media consumers aware of political events. Its greatest merit is that it comes directly from society to inform society. We have democracy of media, and for that I’m personally grateful.

Additional Sources:
Fabos, Bettina, Christopher R. Martin, and Richard Campbell. Media & Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication, 8th Edition. 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012. Print.