Topics Education

Question Philosophers / Journalism / Truth If we can agree upon the premiss that Man is not a solitary creature and that Man wants to belong to a group, why isn't there more movement towards getting the mass-media to use this longing to propel mankind to a higher level by 'punishing' (exposing) the Bad and 'rewarding' (admiring) the Good? Is this at all possible, you think? And if not, why not? As far as I am aware there is not a single major/popular newspaper or news program or internet site that reports a selection of objectively gathered news in a framework of comparison to the eternal value of 'Good vs Bad' on which the great philosophers agree. For example: Only reports (aknowledge and admire) of true 'good' deeds - esp. from role models - and ignore all the other trivial actions (non-news) as much as possible. Sorry for my poor English. Please translate into proper English ... Compliments for the site!!!

Accepted:
November 25, 2005

Comments

I suppose that at least part of an answer to your question would come from a clearer picture of what we take to be the proper role of journalism (or the mass media). Your question seems to suppose that it is the proper role of the media to "propel mankind to a higher level." But why shouldn't those involved in the mass media simply reject this, claiming instead that it is their role, at most, to keep us informed about what we are most interested in? In this view, the media serve--rather than fundmentally shape--public opinion and our actual interests (as opposed to what, perhaps, we should be interested in).

In fact, of course, it is not quite as simple as this--for surely the media also help to shape our interests, which is why, for example, businesses and industries use the media to advertise their products, thus shaping our interests to suit their commercial goals. But I do think there is a very delicate and ethically precarious balance between provisions to allow freedom of the press, on the one hand, and the insistence that the press use that freedom in ways that are responsible and for the overall public good. It is difficult to see how the latter aim can be assured as long as we allow freedom of the press and also support that freedom primarily through private commercialization of the press. In other words, as long as the freedom of the press is maintained by funding from commercial sources, there is no reason to suppose that the press will be dedicated to the overall improvement of society, as opposed to providing whatever sells the most effectively for those using the press and media for advertising.