Morality of Profit

MEDIA’S ROLE IN THE SOCIETY: Watchdog, Is it?

Abstract
This essay is a personal reflection of my observation, daily occurrences, and experience as a media trainer/consultant. Its focus is the media’s role as a society watchdog. The essay attempts to draw attention to the implication of market economy on media’s role as the society’s watchdog. Media practitioners, like everyone else, have to break even in their dealings. How then do they balance their profit motive with the society watchdog role? This reflection asks more questions than it provides answers. It highlights three major characteristics of a watchdog and relates it to the reality facing a Kenyan media practitioner.

Many scholars have debated the acceptable role of the media. Most of these debates revolve around media’s role as a public servant, agenda setter, and society watchdog, among other roles. However, my attention is drawn to the media’s role in the society as a watchdog and it’s implication on a Kenyan media practitioner.
Who exactly is a watchdog? As far as my experience is concerned, the main role of a watchdog is to provide protection for members of the household that has adopted it. It is important to note that the better a watchdog is taken care of by the people he is assigned to watch, the better his protection services are likely to be. A watchdog that is not well fed will accept food offer from any stranger. If a watchdog is left free to roam around looking for its own food, it gets well acquainted with the purported enemy he’s expected to protect members of the household from. This way, he fails to provide maximum security required. Most Kenyan ‘watchdogs’ that provide maximum protection are well fed and kept off the public eye.
Generally, there are three basic characteristics of a watchdog: A poor watchdog is likely to greet a burglar with an affectionate wag and wet kisses: A fair watchdog will bark to alert you to strange sounds or people, but doesn't look very intimidating. A good watchdog was originally bred for sentry duty, is large and can look intimidating, and will bark to warn you of any strange noises or people. When shopping for a watchdog, the common advice is: If you want a dog to do more than bark, you should think carefully. A good protection dog that will be safe around your friends, family, and innocent "strangers" requires extensive handling and training. And although many intruders will be discouraged by a barking dog of any breed, a determined and experienced criminal knows how to disable a guard dog.
What has this ‘watchdog’ analogy got to do with the profit motive and the media’s role in the society? What is its implication on a media practitioner? For a journalist to play the ‘watchdog’ role well, they have to be well trained and financially sound. The number one dilemma is; who is to make this provision? Let’s critically reflect on the above cited characteristics of a watchdog. First, a poor watchdog is likely to greet a burglar with an affectionate wag and wet kiss. What are some of the circumstances that can force a media practitioner to behave like this ‘poor watchdog?’
Besides religious, educational or community stations, most operational media houses in Kenya are commercial stations. Kenya Broadcasting Corporation (KBC) is meant to be a public broadcaster. One may be tempted to believe that only KBC can amicably play the watchdog role since its journalists are ‘presumably’ well taken care of by the taxpayer. But is this the case in reality? The other dilemma is; KBC airs commercials on all its channels. Does it then qualify to be categorized as a public broadcaster? What is the danger of a ‘public broadcaster generating its income from advertisements?
Suppose an organization that provides major share of advertisement business to a media house becomes a ‘burglar’ - gets involved in corrupt deals that ought to be brought to the attention of the general public. Would the media house (the watchdog in this case) publish or broadcast this deal thereby risking losing revenue (the corrupt company is likely to withdraw business)? You would agree with me that the media house would be safer playing the poor watchdog role - greet the burglar with an affectionate wag and wet kiss by covering up the corrupt dealing thereby earning constant revenue to meet its operations? Or better still, a fair watchdog’s role: merely bark but do nothing of substance. This state of affair poses a major challenge to Kenyan media practitioners.
Picture another scenario; the government of the day is involved in corrupt activities that ought to be brought to the attention of the general public. Unearthing such deals may render the media house being in bad books of the government thereby risking withdrawal of the broadcast license. Moreover, the public broadcaster is dependent on the taxpayers’ money that is issued by the government that has become the ‘burglar’ in this case. Would it be fair to accuse the media house of being the government’s mouthpiece if it fails to alert the society? Can the pursuit of profit, at such times, be understood as a good in itself or a necessary evil? I call on you to be the judge and the jury here as well.
The second characteristic of a watchdog is worth mentioning here again: A fair watchdog will bark to alert you to strange sounds or people, but doesn't look very intimidating. The media has been at times referred to as a ‘toothless watchdog’ in the society. Does this imply that the media at times only bark at ‘burglars’ who are not directly involved in their business, but shy away from the ‘untouchables’ – those who are their major clients? There are times reporters, especially correspondents, are sent out to gather news without transport fare or enough money for other journalistic ventures. They are, hence, at such times forced to hike ‘lifts’ and some small ‘cash’ from the ‘burglars’ to cater for their transport and lunch. This is now likened to a ‘poor’ or ‘fair’ watchdog that is not well fed and is left to roam around looking for its own food. Would such a watchdog deserve blame if it merely barks to alert the society to strange sounds but fail to be intimidating to the ‘burglar?’ Is it fair for the society to expect such a journalist to be ‘intimidating’ to the same ‘burglars – who provided help when they needed it most?’ Of course, the best they can do in such a situation is to alert the society – perhaps draw our attention to the ‘small burglars’ but let the ‘big burglars’ enjoy maximum protection instead of us. Is it justified for the profit motive to, at such times; make media employers subject their journalists to such demeaning situations?
The third major characteristics of the watchdog states: A good watchdog was originally bred for sentry duty, is large and can look intimidating, and will bark to warn you of any strange noises or people. It is my hope against all odds that Kenyan journalists will fully display this characteristic. Nevertheless, let us not forget, as cited earlier, that a good protection dog that will be safe around your friends, family, and innocent "strangers" requires extensive handling and training. The trend in Kenya of late has been hiring celebrities to work in media houses – particularly radio stations. Most of these celebrities have very little or no media training. Consequently, journalistic ethics are rendered questionable. It’s generally believed that journalists working with commercial media houses are better compensated than their counterparts working with the so called ‘public broadcaster.’ However, there is lack of job security resulting in most journalists hopping from one media house to another. How then do you expect such a journalist to amicably play the role of a society watchdog – especially taking into consideration rampant unemployment and high levels of poverty prevailing in Africa?
Moreover, commercial media houses rely heavily on revenue from advertisement to run their stations. In their pursuit of attracting advertisers, they have to provide content that appeal to their target audience. This has resulted in what is normally referred to as hyper commercialism. This simply dictates: hire a celebrity to attract as many viewers/listeners as possible then sell the audience to an advertiser in exchange for revenue. The profit motive once more poses ethical and moral dilemma to media practitioners who are expected to play the society watchdog role.
Modern technology; the digital age and liberalization of the air waves have resulted in the birth of all sorts of media houses in Kenya. This has resulted in cut throat competition for the available advertisers. Consequently, many media practitioners have been overtaken by the profit motive. The goal is to offer anything, at a minimum cost, that would appeal to audience members regardless of the negative impact it might have on the society. The higher the number of audience members the media house attracts the higher the number of advertisers, and the higher the profit margin. At this stage one rightfully wonders: Is profit a means, or an end?
It’s beyond the shadow of a doubt that most Kenyan media content that appeal to the youthful generation is considered culturally unacceptable by the older generation. As media practitioners, what are our core ethical responsibilities as we seek profits? I would confidently – in journalistic terms - say we have a responsibility to make profit but at the same time play our role as the society watchdog. What exactly do I mean? It is in order for Kenyan media practitioners to rely on revenue from advertisements to make ends meet since the most reliable way they can break even is by running their media business at a profit. To attract advertisers their programs must attract high listenership or viewership. For this to be realized they must air programs that appeal to tastes of the general public and more particularly the youth as they form greater percentage of Kenyan population.
The paradox here is: most young people are very curious. As a result, programs they will love to tune to are the same ones the society claim have negative effect on them. Of late, there are a lot of hype programs that entail sex innuendos. It’s no surprise to tune to a commercial radio station and hear issues that are culturally considered taboo being talked about live on air during the popularly dubbed ‘phone in sessions’. One would call with a problem or an issue they need advice on. People normally then call in and air their opinions on how best the affected person can solve the problem facing him/her.
Severally, I’ve tuned to some of these Kenyan FM radio stations and hear discussions centered on marital infidelity, gay relationships, abortion and incestuous relationships, among other issues considered to be very sensitive. Such discussions are acceptable and ought to be encouraged if they are not blown out of proportion. One day a married woman phoned in and claimed that the first time she ever had sexual orgasm was when she had sex with a ‘matatu tout’ (public transport vehicle worker considered of low status in Kenyan society) – not her ‘highly esteemed’ husband. As many other callers aired their opinions, the impression created was that marital infidelity guarantees a woman sexual enjoyment she can not attain from her husband. Another day, a young girl called on the same radio station and claimed that she was having an affair with the father. Many callers jammed the line to respond to this. Surprisingly, most young callers viewed this as no ‘big deal’ as long as the mother has no idea of what was going on.
What is the moral implication of all these? What then is the relationship between greed and profit? Here I see greed camouflaged as profit. This raises important questions such as: Are markets moral? It reminds me of the mirror game I normally play with my media students and wonder in amazement: Who here is the mirror? Is it the media that has become the mirror reflecting the society or the society is the mirror reflecting what the media purports the society to be like? It is important to join, at this stage, the debate that profit is polarized along a spectrum, ranging from the pursuit of profit as the root of societal problems, to suggesting that profit is the only responsible measure of how to deploy resources and solve problems. The media claims that they simply provide what their audience would wish to hear/view/read. Could this be the contributive factor to divorce, incest and other subjects that were previously shunned and considered a taboo but are now glorified in the society? The surprising thing is that most of the stations that have high ratings are the same ones that air programs that promote unacceptable themes. Now, is this what the profit motive has rendered the media to become? Does it still qualify to be called the society’s watchdog? Or has it become a poor dog that greed has forced to wag its tale and greet the burglar with a wet kiss? That is left for you to decide.
In conclusion, it is no surprise that this essay has raised more questions than answers. As media practitioners, what ought to be our core ethical responsibilities as we seek profit? What would it profit us to gain all the profit and render the fabrics of our society tumbling down? What would it profit us to have all the money in the world and our young people resort to unbecoming behaviors that tears off the thin but golden fabric that once held our society together? What will happen to our society if girls turn to their fathers; boys to their mothers for sexual satisfaction simply because the media glorifies it? Yes, in practical terms, economic transformation requires invigorated markets that generate substantial profits. Nevertheless, what are the implications of the morality of profit to the cause of a journalist assigned to be a society watchdog in the midst of fierce claws of poverty?