by Jasmine Starr

Created on: March 18, 2009

This commentary can be subdivided into a three-pronged discussion of what the media's obligation is to the public, what the media's obligation should be to the public, and what the public expects the media's obligation to be.

To establish the cold hard truth at the outset, it should be understood that the vast majority of the media are businesses expected to generate a profit. No real or perceived societal obligation is going to interfere with profits. To generate profits, the various media outlets measure their ratings in order to sell advertising as well as subscriber services. Given these two primary motivators of the media, any supposed obligation to the public is tertiary at best.

So starting with current reality, what the media's obligation is to the public, we can state that it is at best their number three priority. The often cited first amendment to the U.S. Constitution restricts the government's interference with the press; it does not even imply any responsibility on the part of the so-called free press to serve the public's best interests, or even maintain any degree of accuracy for that matter. This broad freedom, for better or worse, has allowed the proliferation of junk tabloids, pornography, obscene' art, and even public burning of the flag all under the protection of the first amendment.

I believe there are some exceptions in the media from a corporate basis to an individual journalist basis. There are some media professionals and businesses that hold their obligation to the public as well as to the accuracy of their reporting in higher esteem than average. The average, however, is probably less than adequate. Even the better performers are not going to put their perceived obligation above the need to make profits, get good ratings, and sell advertising.

The second argument, what the media's obligation should be to the public, is fairly simple. Most would probably agree that what the media should be providing the public is a complete, well researched, unbiased, and truthful accounting of the facts (with respect to journalism), and wholesome, educational, informative, and otherwise constructive programming (with respect to entertainment). Detailed discussion of how well the media currently rates with respect to the second argument is pointless, as most of the public already has an informed opinion on this.

The third argument is a bit more complicated than it may seem at first. It could be argued that what the public expects is Argument Two.
Argument Two, as good as it sounds, is of course a collection of idealistic platitudes. Most of us learn quickly in life, especially those of us who have been involved in the vast experiment in abnormal psychology known as marriage', that often what a person says that they want and what they really want can be two entirely different things.

This is reflected by observing the incongruity between the speech and actions of individuals within the public. A deacon in the church may vote strictly for a family values political candidate, denounce abortion and any form of obscenity, and still go out on Tuesday evening to get the latest issue of Hustler magazine. Someone else may claim they want a balanced view in reporting, yet listen to partisan talk radio for the majority of their information on politics. Many of us will say we want less violence in the media, but we don't want to talk about how much we slow down and gawk when we pass a bad automobile accident.

Ergo, Argument Three merges back into Argument One. It is my humble opinion that the media is, in fact, obligated to the public because they give us what we really want, whether we like to admit it or not.

Learn more about this author, Jasmine Starr.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.