Infinite space = moral vacuum?
I don't want to get into the politics of the Danish cartoon that has forced both the east and the west to reexamine their cultural values and the relationship between those values. I do, however, want to make a general comment about an argument I heard last week on NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5193569. In general, the US printed news media has banned the reprinting of the cartoon that has offended so many people around the world. The editor of the Boston Globe cites a policy already in place that prohibits the publication of images or words that are "grossly offensive to a religious group or racial group or ethnic group."
But an interesting, and to my mind scary, argument came from Jacob Weisberg, the editor of Slate.com, who says that "his online publication doesn't have to think about offending people the way newspapers do." He claims that because he runs an online news source he doesn't "have to make that same choice...I think we simply operate on the Web in a less paternalistic environment. In a newspaper or print magazine there is finite space, and you're making decisions about what you can fit into it and you're inevitably making decisions about what's suitable for your reader."
One implication of his argument, as I see it, is that since the internet does not demand editing, editorial choices aren't really necessary. Considering that the ethics of print jounalism often comes under fire, it seems alarming that internet journalism may have even lower ethical standards, or no standards at all.
It seems like standards are going to be necessary eventually. People talk about the Internet as a great "democratizing force." The editor of the Washington Post recently called the Internet the "wild, wild west." Can a healthy democracy really flourish in the "wild, wild, west?"
Comments
Ethical standards? I think back to Bugs Bunny when he said"What's up Doc" to Elmer Fudd. The term What's up Doc was a term used as slang to describe a person of color in some areas of the south.So why was it allowed to be used and not deem offensive? It all about a matter of tastefulness. However it would seem that ethical standards would rest on the chest of those that do the writing and not some governing body. One thing I learned from a paper dating back to the 14th century - An African king said: " My people, it is up to the people to hold our code of living,the code of marriage and the code of war scarred. If anyone is found not respecting these codes of the tribe they will be cast out into the jungle." No one wanted to be eaten by lions so they upheld the codes. However can we (the great United States, land of the free)censor free speech,the right to express our selves in any medium even it is offensive to some but maybe not all. Some countries have already started making the internet live by the rules/code of standards set forth by their governing body. Case in point:China bans AltaVista searches.http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,39020369,2122018,00.htm So it would seem the internet is not the wild wild west, that the editor of the Washington Post stated. Because it can be tamed but at a cost. The web would fall into the same bucket as the evening news:). But instead I see it as "Space ... the Finial Frontier "
a place no man(or woman) has gone before." Buckle up for the ride of your life. All and all I would think good judgment is the key to not printing or posting something in
the major news media that my be deemed offensive. Good Old Fashion Judgment. That's That's.
Posted by: carlos jackson | February 15, 2006 04:25 AM
Good points, both, about the absurdity of claiming that the Net might somehow be exempt from journalistic, or other behavioral codes. One thing that is clear to me is that distinctions between print and online, cell phone, billboard, cinema, are all breaking down. Carlos boils it down well--decisions must be weighed. Sure, different forums will shift the scales some, but that does not take away the onus of making them.
Posted by: Daniel Anderson | February 16, 2006 08:19 AM