Perhaps the most ironic and humbling aspect of the Leveson
Inquiry is that the public themselves become the media cohort; the journalists
and reporters are now open to attack and ruthless questioning.
Various celebrities have already stated that their lives
were made hell through the media onslaughts that employed gross tactics of
misconduct: from bribery to pursuit. Even more concerning then, the idea that
not only were these everyday, public figures under attack, but the average man,
who may have once hit the spotlight, or have been an obscure relative of
someone famous, was equally in question.
The role of social media is to inform, not to violate.
The fine line between freedom of the press, freedom of
speech in its entirety and invasion of privacy is surely a daily trouble for
those in the journalistic profession: but the need for certain degrees of
integrity remain ever more valid and ever more lacking in practice.
With the upsurge in trending on the twittersphere and
sharing en masse to facebook ‘friends’, news is instantly leaked online and the
press feels it needs to maintain this competitive edge.
Whilst a number of the news stories may very well have
concerned areas of public domain, the use of this illicit material is somewhat derogatory
to the victims and to the standards of the pront publication itself.
Inquiry chairman Lord Justice Leveson said that the freedom
of the press could not be undermined in its role and function as a symbol of democracy
across the country. However, the role of the court case should involve a close
examination of what regulations are in place for these companies and who is in
fact in charge of guarding the guardians of free speech.
Although the report will give its official verdict in one
year’s time, the approaches and stringent management of sources need be in
place with immediate effect.
One may sympathise with the fact that newspaper print is a
shrinking industry and the stakes are highly competitive: however the
dependence on sensationalised journalism is highly irresponsible and breeds a
culture of moral bankruptcy. How are citizens of Britain expected to maintain
levels of privacy across facebook, twitter, google plus, and other outlets,
when the example given by these enterprises preaches shock value consumption?
Moreover, these actions implicate the nation, as consumers
of the product. We are the people who demand this extra detail, this personal insight,
for our own satisfaction. Our modern prerogative to galvanize and submerge
ourselves in the fantastical worlds of those more ‘successful’ than ourselves
leads to certain isolation: we only feel pleased should those in the spotlight
cause scandal or fail to meet expectations.
How far then is the media misconduct a sign of internal corruption
or external vices of humanity?
No comments:
Post a Comment