301🇦🇲’s Post

When looking at ethics in media production from a broad view, we must understand that ethics in media production guide content creators to produce responsible, truthful, and socially aware content that respects not only individuals, but cultures, and the principles of journalistic integrity. We must adhere to ethical standards which help maintain trust with audiences and contributes to a healthy media ecosystem.

Was watching an interesting documentary last night about the internet and how social media has changed how information is shared. If you're reading this, you're part of that change. One topic discussed was the right to post whatever you want under the umbrella of "freedom of speech". Fact or fiction. Truth or lies. All OK under the law and First Ammendment rights. But where does that right begin to infringe on an individual's right to privacy. What if I don't want to be exposed to that information? Does a social media algorithm have the right to flood my feed with unwanted information? Am I not afforded some degree of choice? Unfortunately, the age of ethical journalism was washed out to sea when Fox News won the court case that their reporting was entertainment and not news. So now the public is being exposed to all kinds of information and the burden is on the reader to figure out if its based on fact or fiction. What has happened is that we, as a public, are being exploited to divide us into political divisions, like pawns on a chess board. The social media algorithms being generated by friendly and foe factions are designed to establish divisions and distrust. The conspiracy theories that are baseless are influencing opinions. It's also eroding our democracy, and allowing fascism extremes to be given political relevance in our national debates. I found this topic interesting. At what point does it make sense to regulate social media? Is there an ethical responsibility that we should be holding media outlets to? Does those same ethical standards apply to future Artificial Intelligence? And if so, who defines what those ethics should consist of?

The rise of #AI needs to be matched with #regulations that can encourage innovation & positive use but also curb threats & ensure safety. PR pros must keep up on #AILaws & be ready to make #ethical decision. To help prepare Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) have listed five laws PR pros need to be aware of: https://bit.ly/pr_AI_2509

Revisiting a crucial conversation on our blog: "Striking the Right Balance: Ethics in the Digital Ad Space" 💡 In a realm where the line between persuasive advertising and unethical practices can blur, understanding and maintaining ethical standards is more important than ever. This piece dives deep into the significance of ethics in digital marketing, exploring how transparency, respect for consumer autonomy, and truthfulness not only foster trust but also define the legacy we leave in the digital world. As we navigate the complexities of digital advertising, let's commit to strategies that uphold integrity, ensuring our marketing efforts benefit our audience as much as our business. Explore how ethical considerations can elevate your digital advertising strategy: https://lnkd.in/gipTrkjz #DigitalMarketing #EthicsInAdvertising #MediaPulse

Meta continues its flippant disregard for ethics, integrity, and democracy as it plans to shutdown CrowdTangle (a critical tool for fighting misinformation/disinformation + promoting transparency, used by fact-checkers, researchers, journalists) next week, with a high-stakes election around the corner. They're accustomed to near-total impunity, so it's just another chapter in the ever-expanding volume of Big Tech's outsized influence on politics, business, markets, culture, and the human condition. Groups like the Coalition for Independent Tech Research are in the vanguard of research + advocacy towards understanding the harm caused by tech, mitigating that harm, and creating policies + practices for tech that benefit society. Blurb and link to their recent report below. ---- "A new survey of researchers and journalists reveals that Meta’s planned shutdown of Crowdtangle, set for two weeks from today, will conceal the nefarious acts and actors on Facebook and Instagram from the public. In the middle of the biggest election year ever, the celebrated data access platform is a crucial tool to uphold electoral integrity and the public’s right to know, and the survey from the Coalition for Independent Technology Research found that Meta’s proposed replacement Content Library is not yet a sufficient replacement. The survey of journalists, academic institutions, researchers and civil society organizations who have used CrowdTangle was conducted in May 2024 and shows that they all still need CrowdTangle for essential work. The study found: - The consequences are far-reaching: 88% of researchers surveyed expressed concern that CrowdTangle’s shutdown will hinder their work, as projects have to be revised or scrapped, with some considering stopping their work entirely. - The replacement is insufficient: Neither Meta’s proposed substitute Content Library nor other available tools offer the same functionalities as CrowdTangle, especially the ability to track and download all posts and engagement from any public figure, its comprehensive download capabilities, its ease of use and the timeliness of data accessibility. - Access is extremely limited, especially for journalists: According to media reports, only a small percentage of CrowdTangle’s tens of thousands of users have been granted Content Library access, while many remain stuck in the process or have not bothered to apply at all, anticipating they will not be allowed due to tighter restrictions on users. Currently, for-profit newsrooms are categorically banned from the Content Library." https://lnkd.in/gpECyXH9

The moment the government steps in to set a standard, that means they hold the control too. With that, out goes any semblance of free press. Malaysian media never had any real press freedom. We were always under the government’s watch. The government always dictated how our media should behave. And now, we have a new media ethics code that is to be used as a standard in return for media accreditation. This is just to make sure the government controls who writes and what is written. Media practitioners are aware that the laws of the land can come down hard on them over a long list of alleged wrongdoings - from something as small as causing mischief up to sedition and threatening national security. There also also laws covering criminal defamation, breaching the official secrets and improper use of network, among others. For me, anyone who is a journalist must ensure their work is fair, objective and balanced, with no personal attacks or malice. We must give space to everyone to have their say, no matter however much we disagree with that view. Anyone who veers away from this standard is not a journalist but a hack who writes on personal agenda. https://lnkd.in/grFK-Nr9 #pressfreedom #writeresponsibly  #savethejournalists #goodjournalism

The media's business model is at a crossroads, not because solutions are out of reach, but because the industry often stops short of embracing them. This hesitation is frequently cloaked in the guise of ethics, with the prevailing belief that a journalist's integrity is maintained by not receiving money directly from sources. Yet, this perspective overlooks several critical points: • Journalists often aren't compensated adequately by their own media houses. • Money still flows from sources to publications, albeit indirectly. Whether it's PR professionals taking journalists out for coffee or paying for PR software, financial exchanges are happening. •Many media outlets compensate their contributors, blurring the lines of direct and indirect payments. So, why is direct payment still considered a taboo? The argument usually centers around the fear that paying journalists directly for their interest could lead to biased articles. However, if the payment is simply for a "Yes, interested" or "No, don't bother" response, does the question of ethics still stand? Critics may worry about the potential for these financial interactions to foster unethical relationships. But let's face it, can we be entirely sure such dynamics aren't already in play under the current system? The key to navigating these ethical waters isn't to shun direct payments but to ensure transparency around them. If all financial exchanges between sources and journalists were made transparent, it could serve as a check against unethical practices. By bringing these transactions into the open, the industry can maintain integrity while exploring new models that could offer a lifeline to struggling media houses. The question we face is not just about maintaining ethical standards but about redefining them in a way that acknowledges the realities of the modern media landscape. It's time for a frank discussion about money, ethics, and the future of journalism. #ethics #journalism #businessmodels #pr

The issue before the court was the validity of Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 as amended by the Amendment Rules of 2023. This rule allowed the Central Government to set up a Fact Check Unit (FCU) to identify and flag fake, false or misleading information related to the "business of the Central Government". The Judge allowed the Union of India to notify the Fact Check Unit (FCU) during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the validity of Rule 3(1)(b)(v). However, the final decision on the validity of the Rule was left to be decided by the Referral Bench after considering the opinions of all three judges.   We have summarised the decision for you, together with the decision of Justice Patel and Justice Gokhale in the decisions given on 31 January 2024. The main issue there, before the court was the constitutional validity of certain amendments made in 2023 to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 by the Central Government. Specifically, the court examined the challenges to Rule 3(1)(b), which requires intermediaries (social media platforms) to make efforts to prevent users from hosting, uploading, publishing, etc. any information that the government's fact-checking unit (FCU) deems as "fake, false or misleading" related to the Central Government's business.   J Patel struck down the 2023 amendment to Rule 3(1)(b) as unconstitutional, citing concerns about excessive government power, the "chilling effect" on free speech, lack of procedural safeguards, and failure to meet the tests of proportionality, classification, and legislative competence. In contrast, J Gokhale upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 3(1)(ii)(A) and (C), finding them to be narrowly tailored to target only misinformation shared with malicious intent, and meeting the tests of proportionality and legitimate aim.

What are the ethics of AI-written reporting? Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication assistant professor Benjamin Toff is quoted in this CNN story about national news outlet Hoodline, which has begun widely publishing AI-written stories, with questions rising around the origins of the articles' contents and the ethics of putting out AI articles with fake human names for their byline. https://lnkd.in/gYMBWhR7

Two news articles today (one in comments) showing why the global #advertising industry needs to help create a safer #internet for society #ethical #digitaladvertising #brandsafety #saferinternetday