Publication Date: 5-13-11
By: Hubert O'Hearn
As truly historic as theinterview was that Barack Obama granted 60Minutesregarding the decisions made leading up to the death of Osama binLaden, there was still a question left hanging that I wish had beenasked and answered. It occurred to me the night it happened, afterthe American President made the 'We got him' statement in the EastRoom of the White House and crowds started to gather in Times Squareand elsewhere to celebrate their relief.
Iwondered, What is it like, what truly goes through one's mind whenone man gives an order for another man to die? To laugh, to dream, tothink no more, to know in that tiniest split of a second that it isall over. Is that something the President thought about, or does theweight of the over-all scene - the political implications as it were- drive those kinds of considerations aside?
Don'tget me wrong. While I don't think I could have personally pulled thetrigger (and that too would have been an interesting question forObama), I'm satisfied that someone did. After all, it's a questionasked by some wise-ass student in every classroom where the TenCommandments have been taught for the last seventy years.
Teacher:Thou shalt not kill.
Student:What about Hitler?
Teacher:Yes, you can kill Hitler.
Student:Yay!
Teacher:But first you have to finish your homework. Then you can kill Hitler.
Student:But my homework is about killing Hitler!
Teacher:(sigh) You're going to law school some day, aren't you Bobby?
But I digress. The point is that in an age where people will more or less proudly proclaim on the cover of People or in a TMZ interview everything they’ve smoked, stolen or snogged, the one great reluctance is to delve deeply into personal ethics. What are a person’s ‘Hitler exceptions’ to those Ten Commandments or other such code of conduct? Sorry, now you’re getting personal.
That can apply to media in general and television networks in specific as well as the individual. I was putting in a comment on a story on guardian.co.uk the other day when I was prompted to do a quick survey by the world’s greatest on-line newspaper. It was most interesting as it was asking for input on the Guardian’s own ethical stances. How flattering to be asked.
I won’t repeat the entire survey here, but I am going to adapt some of the questions for TV. What do you think? Should a network:
1) Refuse controversial (i.e. sexist or homophobic) advertising?
2) Admit to a political slant if it has one? (and they all have one)
3) Make a concerted effort to put forward the concerns and grievances of disadvantaged peoples in both its news and entertainment programming?
4) Look to put environmental concerns forward in news, entertainment and advertising?
5) Refuse to air or endorse religious content?
6) Invite complete and free comment, or moderate viewer commentary?
I believe these are all legitimate questions for media to answer and for viewers to consider. Consider the answers you would like your own media outlets to give, and then see what they actually do. If you like what you see - endorse. If you don’t - complain. Be seeing you.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar