Introduction to ethics

12.3 Introduction to ethics

Initially this chapter began out of a need to find a better method for analysing and describing the impact and consequent organisational changes new technology brings to the media industry. New technology is a main driver for change within mature media production markets. Describing the web and its functional form, or digital television and its capability and effectiveness in being able to produce cloned copies of a tape, leaves us with only a description of bigger and better, or smaller and faster. The nagging feeling remains – so what? Do we make ‘better’ programmes? What does this mean for the programme-maker and the audience. Will the medium remain the message?

Marx suggested that rapid progress occurs in the infrastructure, the economic sphere of activities which then supports the superstructure. This superstructure or secondary level is the social sphere of art, politics, law and prevailing traditional attitudes. He suggested that the superstructure evolves more slowly and is more resistant to change than the economic infrastructure, especially in the modern industrial age of advanced capitalism. To rephrase the point, we are always looking to develop and work on technologies for which we have not yet developed systems and techniques for coping within society. The ethical application of new or contemporary technology within the media industry is clearly party to this process. Do we have the moral and ethical tools to deal with these rapid technological changes? Many think not. The scientists plead that they are not the moral

Managing in the Media

guardians of their research; it is for society to decide. From the steam train and the spinning jenny to atomic energy and the human genome project, society has had to grapple with the consequences of technological advances, often not very effectively.

Individuals implicitly or explicitly make decisions within a moral framework; it just might not be one shared by others. This chapter offers the reader some points of reference by which the debate on shared moral and ethical structures can take place. By considering technology as the herald for change, we see the enormous impact it will have upon the following:

1 Working practices within the industry

2 Time taken to produce a product

3 Ownership and control of that product

4 Re-purposing of the raw assets (how they may be used, re-used and manipulated for other means)

5 The channels to the marketplace (the audience and the consumer)

6 The level of distribution control over those assets (tagging the material and therefore licensing its use).

Call centres have become synonymous with new technology. In Notes from

a Big Country , Bill Bryson writes that he cannot cope with the simplest of questions being asked by a 20-year-old who requires a 10-digit number before help can be offered. Meanwhile that 20-year-old is armed with a script to answer calls, and the call conversation and the time to resolve the problem is being monitored by management. Technology has not freed the individual but has rather given greater control to the employer.

In the last quarter of 1999, the media industry reached the seemingly much desired position (sic) where an individual researches, writes, presents, records and edits an insert to a broadcast programme. A media manager’s dream come true? Low wages and possibly low skill is part of the media ethics debate.

If, for the moment, we maintain the idea that new technology is the main driver for change in the media industry, the following need to be considered:

1 Why use it? Because it is more reliable, cheaper, faster and more efficient.

In the case of portable broadcast cameras, the lighter body meant that the issue of physical strength became an irrelevance. Another gender barrier was broken, as it was argued at one time that only men could be camera operators.

2 What price digital technology? It was suggested by Chris Smith, the Culture

and Heritage Secretary in the UK in 1999, that the transfer to digital

Media ethics

technology would take place over 10–12 years (by circa 2010). Already this has been brought forward to, possibly, 2005. The caveat is that he wants to know that 95 per cent of the UK population are in a position to receive digital transmission before the analogue signal is turned off. Despite this, it seems doubtful that the government will wait until this figure of 95 per cent is met before the analogue signal is switched off.

Taking the team with you

You are an experienced media manager and producer, and for the past

2 years have been working with Company A as the line producer. The production director is not only a working colleague but also a close friend. You have together built up a successful team. You are then offered a new post as production manager for Company B. The work is broadly the same as in your current occupation; the advantage is that you will be offered some equity in the new firm, and a broader remit for the role with hire and fire responsibilities. Part of your remit in the new firm will be to build up a new production team. Ideally you would recruit the members of your old team with Company A to join you in the new venture. What would you do? You might like to bear in mind that the media industry is relatively small. Your old boss in Company A is a well-respected member of many of the guilds and trade associations. If you were to poach staff from your old company, do you think it would have an impact on your reputation within the industry? Should you consider the financial implications for the old company?