While I may not presume to lecture morning show hosts on the ethics of their chosen profession, it is evident that every media outlet has its own bias, style, and tagline for each show or segment.
What perplexes me is the fervor to act as regulatory authorities over each other’s content.
In my view, there are always three sides to every story: what you know, what I know, and what the audience interprets from the narratives presented.
For me, every media organization bears the responsibility of keeping their audience informed on various issues, without necessarily delving into the specifics of other outlets’ viewpoints, especially if it’s not part of their agenda for the day.
Avoiding Sensationalism: Media houses should avoid sensationalizing or exploiting personal conflicts or controversies involving media personalities for the sake of ratings or entertainment. If discussing the host of another show crosses the line into sensationalism or gossip, it may raise ethical concerns.
I am troubled by the trend of media practitioners aligning themselves with particular political interests. Why have journalists chosen to become mere mouthpieces for those in power?
Why resort to hurling insults at each other over disagreements that could easily be addressed with a phone call? If you come across a publication you find misleading, the best course of action is to provide superior information to counter and refute what you consider to be incomplete, rather than resorting to naked insults.
Ultimately, the ethicality of a media house making the host of another show the subject of discussion depends on the specific circumstances, including the motivations behind the discussion, the manner in which it is conducted, and its impact on all parties involved.
There is certainly room for improvement, and I believe media professionals can rise above personal animosities and strive for a higher standard of discourse and professionalism.
There is always room for improvement.
By Charles MCarthy