Lori Rasmussen

If I had to name my one most important takeaway from our ICC 602 class this term, it’s how vitally important is the ability to knowledgeably critique the media that pervade our life every day. As we’ve learned over the course of the class, the need for that literacy applies to all media. In my mind, however, advertising requires an especially keen and discerning eye – the material we covered and discussed during Week 9 illustrates why.

Of all the various types of media we have studied, the advertising with which we are inundated is the economic driver of it all, for better or worse. Consumers are the commodity in this structure; audience size determines price. Ads make a lot of money for both the media and the advertisers, and when money is at stake in our society, public interest takes a backseat. History has shown this to be true over and over again. This particularly impacts news quality and trustworthiness. Commercial news in particular is forced to serve two masters: the almighty dollar and the public trust. Which one loses in a conflict?

On a personal note, this is why I am partial to public broadcasting. It’s easier for me to trust news outlets that don’t rely on ad revenue, though relying on corporate and government grants comes with its own set of problems.

When I see ads masquerading as news, such as the case study involving the New York Times “Orange is the New Black” piece, I think we all need to have our radar up for ethical lapses. That particular piece may have had noble intent and been ultimately harmless (or even a good report), but if that is what the ads of the future are evolving into, it’s a problematic outlook. Lines need to be drawn more clearly than that. It is up to us as communications industry professionals to be wary of such content and point out abuses when they occur.  We must hold our own accountable. To do that, we must know what to look for, and that is why media literacy is so important.

Where ethics are concerned, we must be vigilant to guard against the slippery slope of lapsing standards. When we talk about the digital revolution, we must remember that media – across the spectrum – changed seemingly overnight in the last few years. All this emerging technology allows for lots of cool, innovative and engaging content, but the speed of change may be outpacing our ability to self-monitor and consider impact. Tactics can, should and will evolve, but in an ideal world, change should be slow and gradual.

That slow evolution is not the current state means the educated and media literate among should put an additional burden upon ourselves to critique and cry foul when appropriate.  That likely won’t win any friends, but at stake is the principled foundation on which journalism stands. It’s worth pissing off a few people in power.