ETHICS for Media Psychology |
Resources for Week 7- Media ethics and literacy
Media ethics and literacy supplementary pageMedia Ethics: Vague, Expansive and Important
The word "ethics" is vague in itself. But the word "media" is truly confusing in an era in which our media ecology is roiling with change. Taken together, the term "media ethics" can be very vague and imprecise. After all, when we talk about "the media" these days, what does this refer to? When I was growing up, "the media" referred to corporate, centralized, broadcast media; a very few media companies created and distributed content to the masses who had no role in content creation- thus the term "mass media." But today does "the media" include Twitter as well as TV? Reddit as well as radio? Even though the term "the media" is evolving, to many it still refers to legacy media: print, TV, radio and their associated use of new media. "Media ethics" also tends to refer to traditional journalism as it relates to legacy media in the sense that news is peer-reviewed, as well as centrally collected, synthesized and distributed. Clearly, in an era of citizen journalism, this is no longer the only way we disseminate and receive news, very little of which is peer-reviewed. However, our legacy approach is still very prevalent and occupies a good deal of our news attention. Media ethics can be approached from two perspectives: distributors' and consumers'. From a distribution point of view, media ethics typically refers to journalistic standards that professional mediasts are expected to observe. As you might imagine, these vary among cultures, media, and particular media producers. The other perspective comes from the consumer's point of view. In the early days of mass media, a formalized response to mass media was a movement known as media literacy. Media literacy is practical, behavioral ethics in action. It often refers to an educational movement that is basically built on the suspicion that mass media purveyors did not have our best interests in mind in terms of how they used the persuasive techniques of media to package content, which they sculpted in ways to promote particular perspectives. This is where we will focus our efforts this week. Where Did Media Literacy Come From? Thomas Jefferson remarked that the success of a democracy depended on the literacy of its constituents. There are many points to be drawn from his comment. Here are only two. First, even in the 1700s, literacy was considered the gateway to social status and economic opportunity. In this perspective we can see the beginnings of a secondary economy - an information economy - that would produce the technology we take for granted today. Being literate in the use of that technology - from print to video - would become vital to having access to the power structure. Second, one needed to be literate to protect oneself from all the charlatans and rumor mongers who mislead the world, which, according to Jefferson, was just about all of us. Our approach to government is based on a healthy distrust of human motive. We have three branches of government, two houses of congress and an involved system of checks and balances because the Founding Fathers realized citizens would be foolish to trust politicians to take the ethical, virtuous course of action. People were always trying to sell us something, whether themselves, their candidacy, their products or their perspectives, and we all needed to keep an eye on each other. The literate mind would be best prepared to defend itself in a world like this. For more information on this, I recommend Pink's book,To Sell is Human. The Evolution of Mass Media Media 1.0 is the era of "mass media." During this period, content was created by professional media organizations, largely in the areas of radio, TV and print. The rest of us could only consume what they created. Because we could only consume media, and not produce it, our participation in media literacy was limited to being suspicious, educated consumers. The earliest iteration of media literacy - let's call this media literacy v. 1.0 - addressed how to understand how media persuaders worked their magic so we could gird ourselves emotionally and intellectually to mitigate their effects. Steve Goodman said "Media is a filter while pretending to be a clear window" (2003). Media literacy is all about how to see media as a filter. Media 2.0 is the era of consumable AND producible media Mass media 1.0 still exists today; there are still many large media organizations that produce content we, the masses, consume. But Mass Media 1.0 co-exists with a world in which each of us can make and perform media using tools that are often free, easy to use, and widely distributed. We should pause to consider how new this is. Not until the iMovie generation was upon us, and the Internet provided a free venue to show our work, was user-generated media truly possible. Now that we can all participate in the development of media using free social media and media development tools, media literacy v. 2.0 also includes being able to create media that is effective and literate - that is, persuasive. We live with the following rather intense irony: the best way to understand how media persuaders persuade us is to create persuasive media ourselves. This did not start with electronic media. Being able to write a persuasive essay has been a hallmark of literacy ever since civilized society decided to require literacy of the general public. Likewise, if we don't create professional, persuasive media, we will be considered amateurish, or worse - illiterate. Media Literacy 3.0 is the era...? Perhaps we have enter a period of Media Literacy 3.0. Above I compared and contrasted Media Literacy 1 and 2. We could argue that we have entered the era of Media Literacy 3, characterized by participatory media development and analysis. That is, imagine Media 2, and adding to that the world of social media, which allows distributed, transmedia project development. What kind of media literacy does this require? What will media literacy 3.0 look like? |