Social Responsibilities of Media

Media ethics is given a broader concept of social responsibility. In presenting the facts and news around the globe, the Media is expected to have certain responsibility inherent within or imposed upon, namely responsibility towards the society to which it serves. The question of social responsibility comes to be highlighted whenever there are certain controversies that are reported without foreseeing the consequences that would follow. Every one is entitled to have information. When the information is passed on media personnel have their own perspective to present. 

In certain cases, the presentation of certain facts may have negative impact. And media personnel has been seen to supporting a side and opposing another side, which is threat to true journalism. Hence, there comes the question of social responsibility. Defining social responsibility and regulating the aspects of it are to be careful figured out. One may talk of theoretical grounding of the concept of social responsibility. Yet the concrete reality of practical journalism may have particular difficulties in the applications of these theoretical values. To bring about a more comprehensive understanding of social responsibility is a challenging task. Formulation of media laws are to be effective and should have a potential to result in improving the role of media.

Accountability in the media is often defined in terms of producing records like evidence to support what has been reported. The journalist is accountable in the sense he or she is held liable for the consequences of the reporting. The liability is both in ethical and legal in nature.

Responsibility for the act of reporting is on the journalist.

There is a distinction between accountability and responsibility, “Whereas accountability often is referred to as the manifestation of claims to responsibility, the latter is the acknowledged obligation for action or behavior within frameworks of roles and morals”.

Responsibility is in this sense the obligation for proper custody, care and safekeeping of one’s audience. In social responsibility the interest of the society is given a top priority. From the Hutchins Commission(Commission on the Freedom of the Press) the following five guidelines are briefly given for a free and responsible press. These principles, though valid, are lacking in precision.

1. A truthful, comprehensive, and intelligent account of the day’s events in a context which gives them meaning;
2. A forum for the exchange of comment and criticism;
3. The projection of a representative picture of the constituent groups in the society;
4. The presentation and clarification of the goals and values of the society;
5. Full access to the day’s intelligence.

Social responsibility is an obligation of the media to provide trustworthy and relevant news and information as well as opportunities for diverse voices to be heard in the public arena.

It is to see that all sides are fairly presented and that the public has enough information to decide.

Gifts of Nature by John Locke

John Locke (1632-1704) recognized that the free gifts of Nature (land, forests, the water in lakes and rivers, fresh air, the flowers and fruits that grew wildly) belong to no one but if you “mixed your labour” with any of them, you acquired a “right to private property” of them. The water in the stream belongs to everyone, but the water that I went and fetched in my bucket belongs to me. The trees in the forest are anyone’s, but the one I cut down is mine. So too as regards the fruit and flowers that I have carefully picked. Fair enough. But, what if I put my labour to erecting a fence around a whole lake? Does that entitle me to private ownership of this entire “free gift of Nature,” such that I can reserve its watery wealth all to myself or, perhaps, charge a fee to anyone who wants to draw a bucket from it?

Fallibilism in philosophy

Fallibilism is that some parts of accepted knowledge claims could be wrong or at least flawed. In contrast, a fallibilist is not so quick to discount the possibility of having knowledge. For the fallibilist, the lack of absolute certainty does not undermine our ability to know the truth of some particular claims. Fallibists are willing to accept a justified claim as true until it is shown to be false. 

This idea is not as essential as some found in philosophy, since often human knowledge is founded on observed interactions that could be interpreted incorrectly. Numerous times our understanding of the world is found to be fallible, not perfect, and we discover mistakes after new empirical observations are made. The response of the scientific community in that case is to revise the knowledge claim, not to deny the possibility of knowing anything for sure. 

Two philosophers have contributed significantly to the philosophical understanding of fallibilism. 

1. Charles Sanders Peirce was the first to say that our knowledge about science is naturally fallible. This is not to say that we should deny its validity, but at least be aware of its shortcomings.
2. Willard Van Orman Quine took what Peirce said a little further. He not only applied fallibilism to science, but to any analytic statement as well. Since our statements are founded on a fallible science, then the natural laws which the statements express are also fallible.

Referance: 

• https://www.rit.edu/cla/philosophy/quine/fallibilism.html