Ethics and entertainment are not
linked, but go hand-in-hand. Both entertainers and supporters, those whom own
record labels and television companies have a responsibility to not create nor
allow media airtime, which may negatively impact adults and more easily,
children. There is a moral code to be followed, to promote peace and solid
values within the American society. This paper will explain the arguments of
entertainers and supporters and the questionable content produced. Moral,
artistic, and commercial underpinnings will be evaluated and questioned; as
well as types of content which should be censored, along with the explanation
of who should ultimately be responsible for censoring content and why.
Arguments of Entertainers and Supporters
Arguments made by entertainers and
supporters to support their content range from the issue that no media alters
the perceptions of individuals enough to cause violence, lesser crimes, or
unstable characteristics; to every person is entitled to their own opinion and
rights to free speech. This argument is shallow and contains little substance
of questioning an underlying matter and going deeper to research the causation
of what violence in media, whether movie or song can do to people, both old and
young. Everyone who is connected to media, is also connected to its
repercussions, mind altering effects, and ethics, “However, it goes beyond the
boundaries of professional ethics and covers the entire domain of media, which
is the whole world. In this sense, everyone associated with media, is also
connected to media ethics” (Poyraz, 2011, p. 125). This states that
media whether one wants to believe it or not, has the possibility to cause
ill-effects and as a society there is a responsibility of professionalism to be
used in regards to what media goes public and what does not. To go deeper than
expectations and question what actions violence in media could really cause in
people.
Moral and Artistic Content Underpinnings
One may question, what
is morality? Morality is the ethics individuals follow, by which sound and
ethical decisions are made. Poyraz’s (2011) study assessed the following:
“Morality is a multiple meaning term and
corresponds to moral in Latin, and ethik in Greek. Both morals and ethics have
similar etymology as morality. Ethics is derived from ethos, which means
character and habit. Similarly the Latin word moral is derived from mos (plural
mores) which means customs, habits and character (Sahakian, 1974: 6). Morality
can be defined as a set of beliefs and patterns that dominate the conscious life
of an individual, a people, and a social class, or an era (Delius, 1990:312)” (p.
125).
With that said, what
would the underpinning or bedrock actually matter, if negative morals and lack
of ethics are the message in the entertaining content? Going beyond the issue
of commercial profits and questioning how content can impact a society; to its
adults and children and encompass the capacity to deteriorate future
generations is a plausible argument. Even the debate of criminal artistry: violent
content holding artistic value in showcasing the minds of killers and intentions.
Murder is not an art it is a crime which ends lives; it is not a painting to
ponder over. There is no justification for entertainment which devalues humans
or opens opportunities for crime as an option; for murder to be an option in
solving any altercation is
unacceptable.
Censored Content
Some content is not suitable for children,
hence ought to be censored. Censored: not showcased on children’s networks,
during time of day that children may be able to watch the content, nor on regular
television stations. In regards to music, regardless of the Parental Advisory–Explicit Content stamp
which is placed on a CD covers which displays content not suitable for children;
but acknowledging the possibility that a young person may hear the music outside
of parental control is a reasonable argument, “For this reason, media that make
up the cornerstones of the history of public opinion have become a vehicle of
power and authority” (Poyraz, 2011, p. 126). Criteria from an ethical
perspective in regards to limiting access to inappropriate content would entail:
parental codes on televisions where parents can monitor what their child can
and cannot watch, limiting access using movie theater ratings--not allowing
fornication or minor violence in any rating below an R rated movie; maintaining the freedom given to musical artists but
altering the values of record labels and other companies who may have a biased
view on selling the products for profit. These criteria are ethically
appropriate because they are preventing heinous crimes committed stemmed from music and viewed media. Recognizing
crimes will forever take place, but ridding society of any elements which
promotes and encourages unethical behavior is a step forward onto a moralistic
culture.
Responsibility in Censorship
One many ask, who should be responsible
for censoring content and why? First
handedly, the owners of movie and television networks along with record labels
have a responsibility to a society to protect its people. The chain link begins
here and if not appropriately monitored, unethical behavior trickles down onto
the viewers (society). At a hierarchal
standpoint, if the top of the totem pole does not resist wrong behavior, then
how will millions of parents then protect their children from negative media? Cronin’s (2009) study found the following:
“What Kuhn sets out to demonstrate is
that the power to censor texts does not lie in the hands of a single public body;
instead, the regulation of cinema takes place within the context of a network
of relations between a number of interrelated though frequently competing
institutions, practices, and discourses” (p. 3).
It is imperative for
those responsible for releasing materials to not overstep boundaries for
profits sake, but rest on the possibility of the effects of media and what that
does for one’s country when not taken seriously and as a fragile matter.
Conclusion
In conclusion, although entertainers and
supporters have a right to free speech, does not exclude the responsibility toward
the people and for the people. It is up to corporations to not promote or
encourage criminal behavior in movies or music and that begins with censoring
it. Those in media business for money find excuses for their actions, including
justifiable reasoning such as artistry and using the term, “It’s just a movie”.
It’s important for no one to think criminal acts are an option, as it promotes
chaos within a country. Adults as parents and corporate bosses must take full
responsibility in censorship, as it is crucial to prevent generation
deterioration and retaining ethics in media is the first way to begin.
No comments:
Post a Comment