Ethics sucks?!

Having ethics sucks sometimes.  Imagine all the juicy, controversial stories the world would have known if journalists can just get away with everything.  This world would be so much different, I'm sure.

Different not better.  That is the tricky part about ethics.  Having a common ethical ground is necessary to maintain order.  However, it sorts of puts everything on a weighing scale.  And it's hard to weigh because rarely, if at all, does one really hit a balance.

And it's even harder now.  Where does ethics stand in the era of social networks, surveillance cameras, hardball one on one interviews, and essentially, live TV?  Don't we sometimes feel like "hey, you're not giving me the entire picture" and yet we know there is no way we are ever gonna get them? 

The line between right and wrong in broadcasting is so thin.  Often, it turns into that line between what's true and what's ethical. That line is always blurry and unsure.

But here's what I like about ethics in mass media.  It gives the necessary reality check.  Media organizations, however influential they seem to be, may not go beyond what is right and acceptable.  That to me is important because the kind of media we have is far from perfect, or responsible at least.  The media we know today is as dynamic as it could get.  It is not afraid, it does not cringe, it keeps exploring, it breaks rules, but it is also careful, it tries hard to matter.

Off the record is a classic example that media people can't have it all.  Just as soon as you get the "scoop," ethics comes knocking and tells you not to get too excited.

And just like that, the information that meant the world to you becomes useless.

But again, rules like these are necessary not only to maintain order but for everyone's protection -- protection from harmful information, protection from media men who are too full of themselves, protection from information we don't need, protection from getting too much of the good thing.

Trusting the audience

So that's how being a spokesman to someone feels like.  Imagine having to defend someone else's position regardless of your own opposition.

For really stubborn people like me, that is pretty hard to take.  "Asian audiences can resist Western influence," are you kidding me?

But just like everything else, it is a matter of getting used to.  You stare at the proposition long enough, go through it over and over again until you get the hang of it.

I remember thinking of examples to prove our position.  All Serena and I could come up with are points for the other team.  Then we got a little creative. :)

Thank God, it's over.  :)

Speaking of getting creative, that's what the local media must do.  As it is, the form is second-rate, the content is predictable.  I'm guessing this is one of the reasons why western media is such a hit. It trusts its audiences more. 

The last movie I saw was "Babae sa Septic Tank."  The Eastwood cinema was full packed, and with people who are obviously satisfied.  Every now and then, there are movies or television shows that offer a breath of fresh air.  This every now and then has just got to be more constant.  Local audiences are gonna get used to them after a while.

Does it help or does it hurt?

Over the phone:

Boss: What's your story?
Reporter:  Wait sir, I'll google it.

True story.

Of course, this ended with the boss putting down the phone on the reporter, loud enough for everyone to ask "sino kausap niya?"

That's how awesome Google is.  This journalist was at a two-hour presscon and still Google knows better.

If you or I were this reporter, it's probably time to give Google a break.  This is a clear path to self-destruction.

Google, like other innovations, is bound to happen.  If it were up to us, wouldn't we want Google to be the third half of our brain? 

But that would be too much, isn't it?  Scary, even. 

I wrote about technology versus content in News productions for my last entry.  (I was kind of hoping I reserved that for this week's blog, but anyway...hahaha!)  It's so easy for technology to overshadow content.  But that's not technology's problem.  So bottomline, does it help or does it hurt?

As I am writing this, I am monitoring the UST vs DLSU match in the UAAP via Twitter.  Talo ang UST, ouch!  It was so close.  No TV, no commentator, no warring pep squads, but I felt like I was at ringside. 

This is what technology does to us, I think.  It makes us feel like we're part of something amazing.  It makes us feel important. 

And to a certain extent, vain.  That is according to a scientist at Oxford.  According to Baroness Greenfield, social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter have made this generation obsessed with themselves.  Greenfield asks, "Why should someone be interested in what someone else has had for breakfast?"

The more vain part is users actually wait for several people to comment.  In short, Greenfield is suggesting that over-exposure to these websites create mini-celebrities in us.

Pathetic, isn't it?

But the good thing is, we are in control.  Technology can make robots fall in love but why should we fall for that?  There is no stopping these innovations.  They are just a matter of time and they are I believe, necessary.  AS to how much of it we take in is up to us.

Technology is for the most part helpful.  Makes life easier.  It could only hurt if we let it.