Can we talk about an ethical media?

The term "moral media" raises a problem, and therefore it is usually avoided by media professionals, and some prefer to use "multi-media", as Alan Gresh did in one of his articles, while others prefer to use the word "professional", which is the common expression;

The problem in the term "moral media" is due to two things:

The first: the

comprehensiveness and broad meaning of "media", as it is in the traditional sense that it includes radio and television work, films, theater, the printed press and the Internet, as well as news media, entertainment and entertainment media, etc., and now there is a "new media";

That is, the media has become a broad concept, and it is not possible to talk about an "ethical media" of this broad and varied nature.

Because the evaluation standards for each type differ from the other type.

Second:

The term "moral media" refers to an ethical function that makes those message-carrying media "moral" means, which does not fall within the function and tasks of the media;

As the job of the journalist is not to broadcast moral calendars or messages, he defines his job in conveying the truth or reality and criticizing the practices of those in power, or so it is assumed.

Third:

The questions raised by media work are still difficult to ethically address, and opinions may differ as well. In addition, some principles that are usually included within "media ethics" are subject to discussion.

Such as the concepts of impartiality, objectivity, independence, balance, and the public interest.

In fact, the term "profession / professional" refers to a broader meaning than that of "moral media" despite its problematic;

Because what is professional may not fall within the circle of what is ethical (meaning that it may not carry an ethical content), although the professional and ethical belong to a field of what is normative, but not every normative is considered ethical, but the ethical is one of the sections of the normative;

When we say: This is a professional or non-professional, we undoubtedly refer to a standard evaluation in the custom and traditions of the professionals themselves, while in the ethical we are looking for right and wrong, or the good and the bad, or the good and the ugly, in the moral sense.

Yes, there are undoubtedly aspects of media subject to moral evaluation, and they usually fall within what is called "media ethics," which is one of the branches of applied ethics (which includes several fields such as biology, professions and the environment).

Here, ethical principles and standards are set to control the work and performance of the owners of these professions, and to determine what is good and invalid, or to determine what is right or wrong in specific cases.

For example, displaying victims' photos or publishing information about individuals that may lead to a violation of the principle of privacy, for example.

The idea of ​​establishing ethics for journalistic work goes back to the year 1926 - as far as I know - when the American Association of Newspaper Editors drew up an ethical charter, and then major media organizations used to draw up their own charters.

So the International Federation of Journalists developed its charter in 1954 (it was later amended by the World Conference in 1986), and in 1973 the Sigma Delta Chi Foundation wrote its own charter (and then amended it through successive stages in 1984, 1987 and 1996), and a year 1994 The Associated Press Editors Administration adopts its revised charter, the Association of Professional Journalists adopts a charter, which has been adopted by thousands of writers and news editors.

And all of these ethics revolve around general principles: (1) searching for the truth, (2) being careful, (3) minimizing harm, (4) acting independently, (5) being responsible, (6) impartiality and impartiality.

Under these major principles falls a set of ethics that seek to control the profession and set standards that regulate the work of journalists and media professionals.

However, endorsing these principles does not mean that media practice becomes an ethical one.

Because there are several problems raised here, I mention them:

The first problem is

related to the distance between the adoption of general principles and the application of these principles to facts and partial cases, and whether this or that principle is applicable to this or that incident.

The vast landscape of apps is open to lots of details and controversies, and even lots of fraud as well.

In the field of medical ethics today, there is the same problem, and therefore we can distinguish between two trends in it: one that triumphs in the idea of ​​adopting universal principles that allow workers flexibility in applying them to partial cases with their own diligence (Principlism), and one that believes that the principles are not sufficient. Each case is one-on-one (Casuistry Ethics).

What applies to medical ethics can be withdrawn as much as to other applied fields such as media and politics, for example, which imposes partial cases in which some complications that cannot be morally evaluated without being briefed on their details.

The second problem:

that there is no binding authority in practicing these principles and their applications except for the media organization itself (I will refer to some of its problems shortly), and the conscience of the worker in this field.

The third problem:

that some of the principles established in these ethical charters are problematic, such as the concept of independence that is contained in almost all charters, and it is almost an ideal concept in view of the factors that control the reality of media institutions, and it can be summarized in 3 main factors, namely:

The first factor:

the technological revolution that raises many philosophical and ethical problems that do not limit the role of the mass media to merely being tools, but rather make them a producer of messages and content.

In addition, it is part of an investment field.

This makes them investment institutions and subjects them to the policy of major financial institutions, countries or owners.

That is why Jacques Derrida considered that news is manufactured when he said, “News is not given, but is effectively produced, examined, employed and interpreted in a show-stopping manner; through a set of deceptive and imaginary tools according to priorities, selectively, and in the service of forces and interests that the recipients and agents cannot perceive Adequately. "

The second factor:

that the media are the product of the victory of liberalism and the openness of political systems, which made the media a power of the authorities that invade in various ways without any moral considerations ruling other than the laws of the market.

The media is part of the cultural act. Rather, it constitutes an important arena for the manifestations of this wide cultural difference, even if the rules and ethics of the profession are united in terms of the sentence. Therefore, some of the statements that define the function of the media or the media as seeking to convey the truth or portray reality are statements that need a critical approach.

The third factor: the

integration of the media system into political power through various forms;

Because whoever owns the information controls the media, and it is not possible to liberalize the media or separate it from the institutions, companies and the major countries that own and control it.

Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman previously referred to the brakes that control the American media in particular, which raises important doubts about the concept of independence, and these brakes are summarized in: ownership, commercial advertising, official sources, criticism and ideology.

The American media is owned by a small handful of wealthy media men and giant companies, and no matter how independent it is, it cannot broadcast anything that negatively affects the interests of its owners, and commercial advertising occupies a large part of its imports, and the form of press coverage may negatively affect the flow of advertisements that are pre-governed by positions and convictions. Specific political and pressure groups.

As for the sources, the most important source of news is the official source, and maintaining the flow of information and contacting direct sources requires a kind of politeness and courtesy.

The American media is afraid of criticizing the official and influential authorities at times.

According to Chomsky and Herman, which imposes some self-restrictions on it, although this does not mean the absence of independence altogether.

Cultural variation does not stop at the boundaries of "the most important", but rather extends to include the dictionary of concepts and terms, especially in conflicts, conflicts and revolutions such as (terrorism, martyrdom, rebellion, coup, revolution ...), which are concepts and terms that reflect the separation of perceptions, interests, values ​​and political positions.

The media is part of the cultural act. Rather, it constitutes an important arena for the manifestations of this wide cultural difference, even if the rules and ethics of the profession are united in terms of the sentence. Therefore, some of the statements that define the function of the media or the media as seeking to convey the truth or portray reality, are statements that need an approach. Critical, as the concepts of "truth" and "reality" are relative in the field of practice, and to explain this, I distinguish here between 3 concepts that clarify the space that is manipulated or interpreted according to the media, or are disagreed around by factors that are due to what we call here the cultural variation that characterizes media societies media.

These three concepts are: the faces of reality, the parts of reality, and the important reality.

With regard

to reality faces:

we find that cultural disparity makes reality in multiple faces sometimes, and it appears through the difference in news coverage from one channel to another of the same event, and usually the context, conflict or interpretation that is mixed with the narration of reality constitutes the largest role in the multiplicity of these faces.

Hence, talking about an "ethical media" will not lead to presenting a single narrative at the end, as there will remain different points of view that will struggle with each other, especially at the international level;

As long as the media reflects the balance of power, competition and conflict locally and internationally.

As for the

parts of reality

, it must be clarified that highlighting only a part of reality does not make that novel a pure lie, nor does it make it a transfer of reality as it is.

Because conveying a part of the reality may affect the overall picture of the event and make it different from the reality, and even omitting some parts of the fact may sometimes make it a contradictory to the reality.

The part of the art painting is not the painting itself, and if one opinion is problematic then the opinion and the other opinion is also a problem.

In terms of researching the representativeness of these opinions, or their credibility, and sometimes the other opinion is invented if it does not exist, in addition to that it may gain its importance from being another opinion, and in this way the media transcends the evaluation or normative aspects to an editorial policy formulated by those in charge of this or that institution.

Thus, we find that what the media presents is not the reality in its entirety, because all media work is necessarily partial or selective, but it may resemble the work of a sculptor who denies all the parts that he deems unfit for drawing his statue, or it may resemble the work of a cartoonist that exaggerates some parts or characteristics Others are marginalized;

The picture comes out humorous or sarcastic.

This raises the problem of a political and cultural complex, which is how to determine the important and unimportant events and facts that must be covered in the media, a determination that may be driven by authoritarian and local factors as well, as media coverage is produced increasingly in light of the cultural background and biases that drive each media organization.

Cultural variation does not stop at the boundaries of "the most important", but extends to include the dictionary of concepts and terms, especially in conflicts, conflicts and revolutions such as (terrorism, martyrdom, rebellion, coup, revolution ...), which are concepts and terms that reflect the separation of perceptions, interests, values ​​and political positions.

The offensive caricatures (Danish and then French) were divided and reflected two different values ​​perceptions: those who see it as part of freedom of expression and those who see it violating the principle of respect for beliefs.

As well as the disagreement over describing what happened in Egypt from the coup against the elected president in 2013 as a "coup or revolution?", Or labels such as describing the protest movements against the regimes as "rebellion or revolution", or the dispute over describing the victims of the occupation as "martyr or killed?";

And they all reflect a difference in the values ​​in which the professional policies decided by the editorial policy of a particular channel are intertwined with political stances and interests, and there is no room for taking moral stances or evaluations.