Workshop Number One Fun!

Discussion Questions (assigned on 23.7.07):

1. Which media function do you think is most important and why?

To put it simply, I'd have to say that the accurate representational slogan of Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, "Fair and Balanced" (on which it prides itself on being), is the most important media function. It is the role of the journalist to be, despite postmodern thought and recent philosophical arguements on the issue of truth, to report an accurate and balanced representation of a given event or current affair as objectively as possible, so as to allow the responder to the story formulate their own opinion based on their own personal values and attitudes.

2. To what degree should journalists be concerned about their employer's profitability and readership/viewership figures?

This, I believe, is a very tricky ethical situation which is important to discuss and have a broad knowledge of, especially in today's society where advertising is the driving force behind much of the reported news and current affairs through a variety of different mediums. In fact, through my studies, I have even come across some theories that such news and current affairs shows apparent purpose of informing and educating the viewer isn't the main driving force; it is simply a 'fill in' for advertisements which clearly dominate prime time slots, driven by profit, chasing ratings and viewership figures. On the contrary, the journalist should acknowledge this and develop strategies by which to be respectful, and not fall victim to the mass media machine which attempts to manipulate on a large scale basis. The other flip side is of course, that your employer is paying you via this crucial funding from such corporate advertisers, so there is a certain trade off or sacrifice that many journalists have to assess in their careers!

3. Is it reasonable for the owner of a media outlet to direct editorial policy and to make editorial decisions on political and other issues?

Any media outlet shouldn't favour any particular party in any organisation, whether it be political, social or cultural. Of course they should provide both sides of an arguement or point of view, and again, it is entirely up to the responder to formulate their own opinions based on the 'facts' given to them. There have been bias allegations against certain media outlets that I know of, and that is why there are watchdogs to monitor the issue. Although it doesn't help that in Australia, most major news corporations are owned by so few organisations which dominate the media landscape, and hence diversity can be significantly hindered at times! Luckily for the general public there are programs such as Media Watch and the Chaser's War on Everything to point out and make light hearted comments and satirise such issues that arise in the popular media!

4. Does investigative journalism really matter? Does it sell newspapers or increase ratings?

Consumers of such a vast tapestry of media, whether it be newspaper, radio, online, television broadcast, are all seeking the best possible, and most reliable angle to a story as told by a journalist, and so one who has gone out of their way to present myriad perspectives from a variety of sources is immediately appealing to the general public. With a generation that has developed an overall distrust and distaste of journalists, and the emergence of the 'stereotype' which has proven an ongoing problem over time, people will most definitely give preference over, in this case, and investigative journalist, than one who has simply appeared to sensationalise the issue with minimal fact, more fiction! And so, in my humble opinion, it does sell newspapers, and hence increase ratings = $$ PROFIT $$

5. Discussion of dilemma:

I've decided the best approach is a for/against method, as there is no immediate, obvious answer to this problem:

FOR (Publishing the Story):
- basic journalist ethic (newspaper has policy of recording all such convictions)
- the public want the truth, not some obscured 'fact'
- why publish a story about my own son regarding the same issue (drink driving), and hide an identical case? Is anyone/anything sacred?
- money and profits certainly isn't what it's all about when it comes down to it - many other advertisers out there that would be willing to fund the newspaper

AGAINST: (Not publishing story):
- lack of funds = possible closure of paper or retrenchment of several editorial and print-room staff
- your personal reputation and job is on the line as it is your responsibility/decision alone (future job prospects?)
- if it isn't published, it could be uncovered in the future and create even more controversy than if it was published in the first place; reputation of many people significantly tarnished (perhaps permanent); even heavy fines for such a scandal!

Hope you've enjoyed my insights!! :-)