Ethics and Media Law

Occasionally, media networks have toed the line of accuracy and fairness.  Reporters are trusted to cover an event truthfully and avoid conflicts of interests.  However, ethics concerns are raised when a subject or organization protests the truthfulness of a report or TV spot.  It is very hard to regulate or punish breaches of ethical conduct in the media because there are very few defamation or libel laws in the United States. Freedom of the press is guaranteed in the First Amendment in the Constitution so over the centuries many libel laws have been struck down by courts because they violate this basic right.

The United States does have a defamation law. Defamation is defined as a false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel.[i] This law was established in the pre-Revolutionary period of the United States in the Zenger case.  John Peter Zenger was an editor and journalist in New York City who often wrote critical piece on Governor Cosby in the New York Weekly Journal.  Cosby had Zenger arrested for seditious libel and tried in court.  Alexander Hamilton successfully defended Zenger by proving the articles were not libelous because they all contain facts.  This case heavily influenced the passage of the first amendment which guaranteed freedom of the press.[ii]

The next major case that dealt with the issue of libel and slander was New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The Supreme Court ruled that there had to be intentional, actual malice in the report for a suit of defamation or libel to be filed.  Public figures rarely try to file suit against the medial because it is extremely hard to provide enough evidence of deliberate disregard of truth.  Their privacy is invaded because of the high public demand for information about their actions.

Despite defamation rulings, the media continues to stretch the truth or provide false reports about an event or person.  Ethical breaches are common, but the public is able to distinguish between the truth or outlandish statements.  Major media networks pride themselves on their ethnic, fair, and accurate approach to reporting.  News stations would not be deemed credible by the public if they provided too many false reports.  It is true that coverage may not be completely accurate or biased, but news outlets try to double check and find trustworthy sources before releasing a story.

Sensationalist journalism still does exist in the United States.  Some media sources only report on stories with “shock-value.”  Their sole purpose is to capture the attention of the reader through flashy headlines and pictures.  Tabloid journalism has continued to be popular even when readers subconsciously know these stories are not true or exaggerated.  The National Enquirer and Star are some of the more notorious over-the-top publications.  These tabloids are frowned upon because of their unethical practices like paying sources for tips or editing pictures to fit into a specific news line. More respectable news outlets complain that tabloid publications ruin the ethical standard and create distrust of the media from the public.  Even so, tabloids are hardly ever sued because their stories are not malicious in nature; they are solely written for shock and profit.

Ethical issues are a grey area when dealing with the media.  What may be seen as malicious to one party may not be to another.  Freedom of the Press protects the media and allow for the revelation of news that is deemed worthy of public attention.  If there were more strict defamation or libel laws in the United States, the public would not have the advantage of being well informed.  Other countries in the world have strict laws that prevent criticism of the government or any of its officials.  If there were the case in the United States, the majority of the media would be imprisoned or punished.  The First Amendment allows the media to report; the public has to judge the story and decided what to do with this information.

---

[i] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defamation

[ii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

The Hollywood Message

In modern day, celebrities and movie producers are often seen endorsing their preferred political candidate or cause. Hollywood figures and productions have often shed light onto problems like hunger in third world countries or the high risk of AIDs in our population.  Movies are a very popular linkage institution for those who would like to send a political message to a wide audience.  In some cases, star power and prestige can be used to promote a platform without sending that message in a film.  Hollywood is full of political activists who use their status and media followings to make their personal opinions and beliefs known to their fans and viewing public.  While this is popular today, it would have been highly criticized about 80 years ago.

In the 1930s, films were almost completely void of any political message. This ban included the absence of any political themes or social issues.  There was no criticism of the government or mention of rebellion or violence. The film industry supported the government throughout World War II. During the outbreak of the Communist Revolution, the movie industry was heavily targeted as a source of many communist supported. Censorship increased and many movie stars and industry workers were put on trial for inciting “Un-American” activities. The Hollywood blacklist hurt many actors, directors, and industry workers careers because people would boycott the movies of these “known” communist supporters.

Since the end of the Cold War, it has been harder for the government to exercise censorship over the Hollywood industry.  Congress has had to carefully consider whether censorship laws would infringe upon the promise of freedom of speech. Outside groups put a lot of pressure on Congress to control and prohibit material that is offensive or “obscene” to their particular group or beliefs.  Interest groups have been known to protest certain movies based on their content.  For example, a mass boycott of the move The Golden Compass was called for by various religious groups because they believe the movie carried an atheist message that would be harmful to young children.  Different moral and social values of the American public create an obstacle for public officials. A movie that may be “obscene” and “offensive” to one group may be the favorite movie of another group.  Thus, lawmakers have kept their distance in creating too many barriers on the movie industry beyond the accepted social wrongs like films with pornographic or overly violent content.

Political activity is not always against the movie industry.  On the contrary, Hollywood often creates and stimulates a political message or advocacy. Actors have been known to be quite involved in the political arena.  Arnold Schwarzenegger, know for this role in the Terminator series, used his star power to campaign and win governorship of California.  President Ronald Regan also came from a Hollywood background which aided in the public being able to recognize him. Actors have also chosen to be public advocate and endorsers of political figures.  In the 2008 election, President Obama was supported by many celebrities. Scarlett Johansson and Will I Am sang in the promotional video “Yes We Can” for Obama’s campaign. Actors George Clooney and Ben Affleck openly supported Obama’s campaign and remarked that Senator Obama had “an aura of a rock star” and that “Hollywood loves Obama.”[i] Endorsement by a popular figure brings extra “free” publicity to a candidate’s campaign.

In the 21^st century, Hollywood has become even more outspoken.  A growing number of celebrities have become spokespersons for various causes. Audrey Hepburn spent the latter part of her career as an ambassador for UNICEF[ii]. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt have recently taken particular interest in Africa. Jolie serves as a UN ambassador for Refugees and both she and Pitt have made several trips around the world to help in areas of need, particularly dealing with children.  Hollywood has also been very critical of the actions of government.  Famous documentarian Michael Moore used the current state of the economy to draw attention to what he deems “the evils of capitalism” in his recent documentary Capitalism, a Love Story.  Although Moore’s movie contained some factual evidence it is a good example of warning to the American public not to believe everything that is produced by Hollywood. Movies and documentaries may originate in fact; film writers, producers, and director have enormous capabilities to sway the audience towards a certain message or value.  The Hollywood industry is often accused of having a liberal slant to all their material.  Whether or not this is true is completely up to the viewing public.  It is for each person to decide how to process and use the story or messages presented to them and not believe everything that they see in the movies.

---

[i] Top 10 Celebrity Obama Supporters. The Huffington Post. April 20 2008. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/20/top-10-celebrity-obama-su_n_96313.html

[ii] http://www.unicef.org/people/people_audrey_hepburn.html



The Fourth Branch of Government

“The American fourth estate operates as a de facto quasioffical fourth branch of government, its institutions no less important because they have been developed… haphazardly.”[i]

The media play a vital role in all areas of American life.  Whether commenting on the Oscar attendee’s fashion do’s and don’ts or the U.S ranking in the World Cup, the media is always front and center to broadcast the event to the nation.  In the realm of politics the media holds an even more important role because of their extreme power to influence the American public.  The media traditionally plays three roles when dealing when the government and political affairs: the scorekeeper, the watch dog, and the gatekeeper.

The media’s steps into the role of scorekeeper when the newspapers or television networks keep a close watch, or “score”, in a political race or decision.  The media may cover how a politician votes in a Senate decision or what political party supports a certain bill.  This role is particularly important in the year and months leading up to a presidential election.  For example, in the 2008 presidential election, the media kept a close watch on how the two candidates voted in decisions concerning the stimulus packages.  Obama and McCain were also criticized on all their votes cast while a member of the US Senate.  By keeping score, the media was able to present the American public, in particular the eligible voters, with the histories of the two candidates so that voters could make a well informed decision in November.

The media also takes on the role of watchdog.  They follow the actions and proceedings in the political world waiting to report any misdealing or corruptions that may occur.  The media’s job is to keep the people well informed so that our representative government works as the Founders intended it to.  The media has been playing watchdog since colonial times, beginning with the reports of the Crown’s corruption.  More recently, the media has played a vital role in exposing corruption and fraud in the government. Woodward and Bernstein were the famous reporters who broke news of the Watergate Scandal during President Nixon’s reelection campaign.  The Washington Post acquired an inside source, “Deep Throat”, and broke the story to a shocked nation.  This was one of the first major instance in which the media forcefully asserted its job as watchdog. As a result of the new leak, Nixon’s campaign was investigated and he ultimately resigned. [ii] Tax fraud by public officials is another area closely covered by all the different branches of the media. The role of the watchdog is designed to keep the government as honest as possible by reminding government officials that if they deal in dishonesty they risk the public, the voters, discovering the truth.

The gatekeeper’s role is to deem which stories are worth covering and to what extent they are covered.  The media has complete authority on how much or how little a story is covered.  Selective coverage increases the amount of influence that the Media has over the public. For example, if one station only covered one candidate’s good deeds and voting record and ignored his charges of fraud and corruption, the public’s image would be misguided.  The public can only be as well informed as they chose to be. If they only rely on one source for their information then they have a higher risk of being misled by the media source.  The media can be swayed by government insiders on their decision of what news to cover, but ultimately the media has the greatest influence on how public opinion is swayed.

Since the Media holds such great power, it is often referred to as the fourth branch of government.  Its role as scorekeeper, watchdog, and gatekeeper serves as another type of check and balance on the dealings of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches.  Since public opinion is so vital in a republic, the government and its officials work hard to make media connections that will shed them in a good light.  If officials have good media coverage it will have a positive impact on public opinion. The government works hard to keep the media content so that in times of crisis public officials can call in favors in order to put a positive spin of the story.  Some officials do have an adversarial relationship with the different branches of media which is often extremely destructive to their campaign or public work.  The media can correctly be classified as the fourth branch of government since it works so closely as a linkage institution between the public and the US government and has a colossal amount of power to wield over public opinion.  As of late, many citizens have been questioning the media’s motives for exposing government scandal and whether it is for the public good or for profit.[iii] The media now faces a battle to prove that itself to the American public and show that it is still here for their betterment and good, not their money.

---

[i] Douglass Cater, The Fourth Branch of Government (Boston: Houghton Mufflin, 1959), p.13

[ii] http://www.watergate.info/

[iii] Warren Francke, The Evolving Watchdog: The Media’s Role in Government Ethics .Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.Vol. 537, Ethics in American Public Service (Jan., 1995), pp. 109-121 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. in association with the American Academy of Political and Social Science