The network executive did it: Law & Order indicts network programming practices for ethical lapses in reality TV - Critical Essay - 2
Ethics of Production Crew Members
The person in the best position to prevent tragedy on Deal with It was the camera operator. Because he was ordered to videotape the rooftop meeting, he knew there was a promise of trouble. He knew the purpose of the videotape--to produce a segment that would heighten the show's popularity. As a responsible adult, he knew the inherent danger of physical conflict on an unfenced roof several stories Descriptive Essays above the street. He was also detached from the actual conflict and in a position to act rationally. If the law does not require a person to intervene in the midst of an accident or crime, how can we assess whether the camera operator's inaction was a violation of any ethical code?
Claude-Jean Bertrand offers a model for measuring media ethics that goes beyond standards that apply only to producers. Bertrand delves into the details of ethical codes but also works from a basic framework of fundamental values and prohibitions. Under fundamental values, he lists Descriptive Essays "respect for life" and "promoting solidarity among human beings;" for fundamental prohibitions, he lists "lying," "appropriating another's property," and "causing needless harm" (45).
Bertrand assigns responsibility for upholding ethics to non-producers as well as media creators. In the present study, the camera operator was functioning not only as an employee but also as a professional videographer, no different from a journalist who is sent by his or her network to cover a developing story. Journalism has long held to a code of ethics; but the status of ethics in entertainment is not so well developed Descriptive Essays (Bertrand 17, 56-57). And the continued blending of entertainment values with reality programming has further confused the issue.
The professional status of a camera operator is ambiguous with regard to responsibility for content because of traditions that develop in academe, trade schools, and within the production industry. This confusion is exacerbated by the distinction between electronic news gathering (ENG) and electronic field production (EFP) (see Medoff and Tanquary). In practice there is a hair's-breadth separation between the two forms. Both involve single-camera shooting followed by postproduction editing. Although some aesthetic differences related to composition, lighting, Descriptive Essays and technique do exist, the technology is basically the same in both endeavors.
The key difference relates to intent: How will the content be used? For ENG, the material gathered could become part of a news report. For EFP, the footage may be for a documentary, corporate video, advertisement, or an artistic expression. Because EFP can be employed in so many different venues, there is a tendency when teaching to focus on the technology without dealing as much with content.
Many of the journalistic guidelines for shooting could apply equally to camera operators working in entertainment. Descriptive Essays For instance, a camera operator, or other crew member, like a news photographer, is not just accountable--he or she is accountable to someone, first of all to himself or herself. He or she should abide by personal convictions and "refuse any assignment contrary to ethics" (Bertrand 52).
In assessing journalists' account-ability, Bertrand lists four groups that are affected by their work and thus deserve ethical consideration: peers, sources, people involved in the news, and media users. It is actions toward peers that hold equally for EFP camera operators: "Journalists [and videographers] should not in any Descriptive Essays way discredit the profession" (Bertrand 52).
Although a camera is not a scalpel, it is as intrinsic to the work of the videographer as the knife is to the surgeon--an essential instrument when utilized skillfully and harmful when used carelessly. Certainly, the stakes involved with videotaping pale in comparison to those involved with medical surgery; but, within the contexts of their respective professions, the user of each instrument should honor rather than discredit the ethical codes of the profession.
Videographers, like photojournalists, must also give consideration to end users of their work. They have a duty Descriptive Essays toward their communities and should respect the "moral conscience of the public" (Bertrand 53). And they should service the needs of society as a whole: "Merely abiding by the laws is not enough. They must look after the interests of the public instead of satisfying its curiosity" (Bertrand 53).
Although the Deal with It camera operator was an employee of the show and bound to follow orders, he could have voiced a warning about the location of the forced confrontation. Had he been asked to carry electrical equipment over a wet floor, or to shoot Descriptive Essays inside a burning building, he could have asked for a safety concession from the employers to protect himself from injury. The same applies regarding the safety of those being photographed or filmed.
While on site, the videographer also has leadership responsibility because usually he or she is the one telling others what to do. If he were shooting a commercial and wanted to position a fashion model at the edge of a roof to make the subject appear to be floating in mid-air, he would not keep telling the talent to "step back, step back Descriptive Essays ...." The model would likely comply with the camera operator's instructions, assuming that he or she would not do anything that could result in injury.
On reality TV sets and locations, the camera and camera operator are omnipresent reminders of the jurisdiction of the show's producers and owners. If the camera lens is an unbiased observer, the camera operator need not be. Without the presence of the camera, there is no shot, no event, no show. So the camera and its operator are essential players in the production of the show, and the camera operator Descriptive Essays should be obliged to interpret what he or she sees through the viewfinder and weigh it on an ethics scale.
But this can be complicated. When a guest on The Jerry Springer Show appears from behind the curtain and a camera operator picks him or her up in the lens, is the camera operator unethical, knowing that what is likely to unfold is some kind of raucous reaction to someone being hurt, insulted, or mistreated, in carrying out the director's orders to stay with the shot? Referring to Bertrand's ethical fundamentals, the camera operator would Descriptive Essays be an accomplice in "causing needless harm" and would not be "promoting solidarity among human beings." The same would apply to a camera operator shooting bare breasts on Howard Stern's show, which diminishes the status of women to that of objects of the male gaze, or recording the nasty competition that accompanies Survivor and similar reality contests.
The ethics of employees also pit one's right to earn a living against the collective needs of a civil society. Automobiles contribute to air pollution and sport utility vehicles consume more fuel than conventional passenger sedans. Is it Descriptive Essays unethical, then, for an assembly-line worker to build cars or SUVs that guzzle fuel and pollute the air?
The laborer in this instance has no authority to influence the design and manufacture of automobiles and can do little more than suggest to designers and executives the need to be more careful with the planet's scarce resources. But there is no shame in making an honest living by building cars. Manufacturing automobiles does not do direct individual harm in all cases, and the inherent shortcomings that are associated with vehicle transportation are offset by many social Descriptive Essays and economic advantages that cars provide.
The same might be said for a worker in a handgun plant. Not every handgun is destined to be involved in a crime; many are built for law enforcement. For cigarette makers, it is tough to defend the manufacture of a known lethal product, except in cases where perhaps there are no reasonable employment alternatives.
Camera operators, however, unlike assembly-line workers, have direct effect on the product and ample opportunity to interpret the setting and aesthetic content of the footage they record. In the realm of reality television, all of Descriptive Essays the shots have a voyeuristic purpose intended to satisfy the desire for titillation among television viewers. Furthermore, the voyeurism is generally accompanied by some form of ridicule of another human being, albeit a willing participant. Therefore, although there are (1) economic reasons for camera operators to shoot what they are told without question, (2) a First Amendment right to record reality material, and (3) an accepted commercial structure in place to traffic in recorded reality images, the ethics of the type of shooting presented in Deal with It are at worst outside acceptable standards Descriptive Essays and at best open to debate.
Ethics of Reality Show Participants
Whether participants on reality television programs or similar types of confrontational of confessional talk shows, such as The Jerry Springer Show or The Jenny Jones Show, violate an ethical code is also a complex question.
If cast members of reality programs--or the group involved with Deal with It--are informed in advance about the nature and goals of the program, and corporate and creative limits in place to shape it, they can judge for themselves whether the proposed scenario falls within their own values of social conduct Descriptive Essays and comportment. If program producers, executives, or production crew members alter the negotiated environment and create a situation that offends a cast member's personal code, that individual would not be guilty of any ethical violation unless he or she continued to participate under the new rules, against his or her own better judgement. If, however, the corporate and creative limits would potentially place others in harm's way, either physically or emotionally, a cast member cannot escape accountability for contributing to the injury of others.
Suppose a rifle manufacturer wanted to sponsor a sporting game show. Descriptive Essays Television producers develop a scenario in which contestants would attempt to shoot live ammunition at alleged, suspected terrorists or "enemy combatants" running through a maze of camouflage or jungle-like terrain. Apart from the criminality associated with such a frightening scheme, it would be unethical for any cast member to agree to participate in such an endeavor because the prime intent is to injure human subjects, just as it would be unethical if the "terrorists" were replaced with wild boars, released into the jungle as proxies for alleged enemies, because of the intended injury to Descriptive Essays animals.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
This horrifying example establishes an endpoint of a continuum useful as a gauge for evaluating reality show ethics. As the assault is ratcheted down from murder, to gunshot wound, to paint ball splat, to water balloons, to verbal insults, to a pie in the face, at some point the injury is reduced from physical to emotional and then comical. The contestant, though, is never removed from the role as assailant and accomplice in an entertainment scheme designed to enrich the rifle manufacturer, or sponsor, and the corporate parent, or network, by diminishing the Descriptive Essays worth of the contest's prey.
Furthermore, the scenario itself diminishes the real pain and suffering felt by members of civilized societies because of the threat, anguish, and real danger associated with terrorism. No matter what premise is substituted, the potential harm exists and is enabled only by the willing participation of guests and cast members. The prey could be fat people, depressed teenagers, insecure adults, divorced men trying to recover their lives, transvestites, people with loose morals, abusers, unintelligent adults, or women who like to expose their breasts. The premise is always a sport with Descriptive Essays designated assailants and designated prey. To participate at any level is to violate "fundamental values" and "fundamental prohibitions" of ethical conduct.
Ethics of Viewers
Television viewers of Deal with It also share responsibility for the climate that resulted in a man plunging to his death, just as real audiences cannot escape responsibility for the true injuries triggered by guest appearances on reality and confessional talk shows.
In "Swept Away," the prime motivation for the executive vice president in charge of programming to manipulate the "reality" of the show was a desire to raise the ratings during the Descriptive Essays forthcoming sweeps period. Despite the hollow echo ringing in the age-old argument by the television industry that viewers easily can avoid undesirable programming by changing the channel, the corollary also holds: Television shows are sustained by the direct participation of audience members as indicated by ratings. A program generally survives only because viewers make an effort to tune in.
The commercial success of media, by definition, is linked to audience participation. A Detroit Free Press headline referring to controversial rapper Eminem stated, "5.4 Million Fans Can't Be Wrong." The article sanctioned Eminem's music on the Descriptive Essays basis of audience purchases of his compact disc and used commercial success as justification of the medium's message. In ethical terms, though, millions of fans can be wrong if they support programming or other media that focus on or celebrate violence or injury to others. Millions of German citizens embraced a demented dictator between world wars, and they were wrong.
In terms of entertainment ethics, the viewer cannot escape responsibility for what is on television. Bertrand deals with this concept in the book Media Ethics and Accountability Systems. From this perspective, everyone is responsible for Descriptive Essays media quality and should work to improve it.
Scholarly thinking on audience accountability is beginning to appear in the field of journalism. Recent ethical studies have explored the "citizen-reader," the "duty of civility," and the "ethics of democratic citizenship" (Schroll). At the core of these theories is the premise that responsibility for improving society "should stem from the ethical dimension of active democratic citizenship" (Schroll 327). Building from the work of Rawls, Dauenhauer, Walzer, and others, Schroll explains, "more than voting and holding office or being a member of a civic association, citizenship entails a Descriptive Essays fundamental decency and respect that is enacted toward others in daily interactions" (328).
Rawls identifies the "duty of civility," in which people are obliged not to exploit others or social-political "loop-holes" (such as commercial and First Amendment freedoms) for unfair personal advantage (Theory 355). Civil duty asks a person to widen his or her perspective on social happenings and commit to the betterment of others and to respect other people's interests and human development--even though such support may mean sacrificing one's own concerns (or television enjoyment) (Schroll; see also Walzer). Schroll writes, "To move from Descriptive Essays being simply a newspaper reader interested in public affairs to being a citizen-reader, the concept of readership must be coupled with the duty of civility" (328).
Schroll urges readers to use journalism to foster a culture of interactive responsibility in which people use their faculties to safeguard the well-being of others (see Booth 136). He goes on to say, citizen-readers should shift from self-directed actions (as in the onanism of watching others mocked in reality TV) into "other-oriented sentiments" and to exercise their capacity to subordinate their interests for a common good (335).
In his nascent Descriptive Essays development of communication theory, Schroll credits the simpler sentiment of literary figure-head Walt Whitman as the basis for his intellectual argument. Whitman, he explains, asked that the reading (or viewing) citizen see herself or himself as a "microcosm of the democratic whole" (Schroll; see also Nussbaum). Just as the television industry appears monolithic, but in fact is run by individuals like the fictional network programmer Byron Stark, the television audience comprises millions of individuals who bear singular responsibility for the ethics of their programming choices.
We all have the right to watch reality TV, which Descriptive Essays seems, on the surface, to be an innocuous, victimless pleasure. But with that right comes an ethical responsibility to determine whether our participation in the audience for programming based on ridicule serves the common good or merely our own self-gratification.
Conclusion
Law & Order premiered on NBC in 1988 and was controversial from the start (Courrier and Green 51). Although critics praised the show, advertiser pullouts pressured NBC's Brandon Tartikoff and Warren Little-field to cancel the series. The gumption to withstand the early criticism was linked to the creative goals, which reflects Miller's point about individual Descriptive Essays ethics stemming from corporate structures. Supervising producer David Black said:
My dream for every Law & Order is that it presents issues the country
is trying to deal with, moral issues. It presents both sides equally
strongly and when the show goes off the air, people start arguing with
each other. It's good for the civic dialogue that a country must have
to remain free. No one side should corner the market on righteousness,
for dramatic reasons and for the health of republic. (qtd. in Courrier
and Green 52)
By using an episode of Law Descriptive Essays & Order to show the dark side of reality TV, the series' producers are saying: Television shows exist because of the specific actions of individual network executives, who have choices to make and who should face the consequences for the effects of their actions. In this fictional example of a reality TV show, one man threw another man off a building to his death. In this case, and at other times on television, it didn't just happen--the network executive did it.
|
