Here in Australia, we have a television program called 'A Current Affair' (ACA). It often picks up stories of the average person on the street who has been 'hard done by'. At least that is what it appears to do.
In the process of telling the story, ACA is likely to show interviews done with 'victims' and the people associated - family, friends, third party interest groups such as lawyers and government spokespeople.
What it also does is show interviews of or attempts to interview the supposed perpetrators of whatever acts of injustice or crime are in question, often catching these people unawares or in protest against being filmed. It is not uncommon to see ACA journalists at their door or chasing after them while repeatedly asking them questions such as "Do you think you should have done such as such?" or "How do you feel about cheating so and so?"
I don't often watch ACA but on the occasions that I have done, I have experienced a mixture of feelings. On the one hand, I am often sympathetic towards the situation of the so-called 'victims'. On the other hand, I am appalled at the way ACA appears to hound people whom they seem to have judged and found 'guilty'.
These people have not been legally found guilty, yet they have been portrayed on national television as offenders, often without the benefit of choosing whether or not to appear on public television. At least, this is how it appears to me as an average viewer. It seems to me that even legally accused criminals are given more privacy - their faces often kept concealed before, during and after a trial.
So, here are my questions:
- Do you think the media should be allowed to reveal the identity of people whom they consider to be bullies, cheats and otherwise 'morally deviant' on national television?
- Does the plight of a 'victim' justify making public the identity of someone they name as the perpetrator? Whose job is it to determine if the 'accused' is in fact 'guilty'?
- Would it make a difference if the 'accused' is a group of people or a larger entity such as a business corporation or a religious institution?
- Do you think that the media has become our unofficial and unappointed judge? If so, how do you feel about this?
LC
Stay sharp!
I have been wondering about the negative role of media (these days) for a while now. Since the advent of television journalism, I think journalists have moved more and more towards shock as a means of catching attention. I think viewers are also guilty of propagating this kind of journalism by asking for more and more shocking stories.
What this does is that it trivializes journalism and in the end as you say society as a whole loses because there is no premium on the truth.
Thanks for your comment Venkata. Yes, indeed, the media would have nothing to sell if there wasn't a demand for it. However, it could use its influence to shape people's attitudes and appetites more positively, couldn't it? I believe some journalists are trying to do this.
I would love to know what you mean when you say '...it trivializes journalism'.
Unfortunately, a lot of media does use 'shock and awe' in their presentations. These are not true reporters, they are just rating-grabbers, most of which I will not watch. I try to stay with those journalists who have integrity and real, not purported, balance. Thet s&a media do often stand as judge and jury which shows an unfair bias. Tune them out.
what happened you ran out of ideas to write....or have you been too busy to write?
Hi Venkata!
Thanks for checking in and enquiring :)
Yes, I have been otherwise occupied...but I intend to start a new discussion soon. Hope you'll join it!