What is happening in the video?
The video podcast ‘Al Dura – What really happened?’ broadcasted by FR2 Television Network shows a man and a teenage boy taking refuge behind a tank amidst flying bullets. The video shows two victims being fired at and succumbing to death as the bullets run through their bodies. This is very disturbing for the public to watch on national television such as the FR2 Television Network.
Players in the video
The two players in the podcast ‘Al Dura – What really happened?’ are the FR2 Television Network who showed the raw video clip and the Palestinian government. Concerns have been raised regarding the validity of the said cold deaths of the two Palestinians in the video clip. First, the video is short and apparently just a small portion of the original version (HonestReportingVideo, 2008). In addition, the video was played on the FR2 Television Network which is a national television without verifying its validity.
The players’ loyalty
As the clip alludes, the victims were killed in cold blood by the Israeli troops (HonestReportingVideo, 2008). Public display of the deaths by the FR2 Television Network stirred fear and distress among the citizens. Showing the clip on national television was quite irresponsible of the FR2 Television Network media because that had far-reaching ramifications on the citizens. It was after the video was shown that the public went rampant rioting hence causing unnecessary commotion all over the country. The media should be responsible and uphold media ethics to avoid such incidences.
Media players’ values
The media has been used in the past as a tool to foster propaganda and false information either intentionally or unintentionally. Some media houses are simply under immense pressure to work round the clock and therefore may lack the time to verify the information they get. This gives freelance media an opportunity to create and prepare act scenes. The FR2 Television Network media, therefore, can be seen to have abandoned their responsibilities in fueling violence among citizens by showing such disturbing videos on national television.
The FR2 Television Network media should always be on the forefront to promote peace and practice discretion on such matters. The video presents a very emotive and sad event that had the potential of creating unimaginable violence in the country. Under all circumstances, the FR2 Television Network media is supposed to protect the audience from accessing such disturbing information for the sake of peace. After the FR2 Television Network showed the video, violence broke out in the entire city as the angered public reacted in response to the violent emotional pictures of a father and a son cornered by bullets.
Ethics with regard to the action on the video
Generally, ethics involved what is morally acceptable or unacceptable. For an action to be of moral worth, such an action is expected to achieve admirable consequences and the doing agent has the feeling of positive accomplishment that confirms restraint. Unfortunately, FR2 Television Network’s video report was against this ethical measurement standard.
Specifically, conformity to an individual’s duty which forms part of moral worthiness is accomplished through developing an intrinsic sagacity of duty to respect and uphold societal norm on morality and social behavior. By showing this raw motion picture with excessive violent and emotive content, FR2 Television Network did not practice the aspect of sui generis which should limit media reporting to its own values in consideration of the norms of that particular society (Ward, 2012).
In practically, moral worthiness of an action should operate on the periphery of personal conviction, rather than being influenced by secondary factors. In order to classify an action as of moral worthiness, the motive should be self generated without coercion or external motivation to prove a point. Reflectively, the FR2 Television Network’s reporting of the raw video in the Islamic and very sensitive Palestine nation was unethical since it had the potential of inspiring hatred and politically inspired retaliation against Israel before confirming the facts (Ward, 2012).
Among the aspired ideals in the action vs. sanction, media ethics model should include the need for an individual or media institution to strive to develop good culture by fostering a strong alignment on the monitored path of achieving its goal of ethical reporting. The action vs. sanction utilitarianism defines permissible, obligatory, forbidden, and supererogatory aspects that appeal to respecting the fourfold distinction that distinguishes moral assessment in reporting (Ward, 2012).
The action by the FR2 Television Network is not ethical in the media profession since it is an unfair representation of information. The media is expected by law to take a neutral stand and spread their news in total fairness (Ward, 2012). Covering an emotive event and showing it in public causes tension and accumulates anger among the citizens, which is quite detrimental to political stability especially in the war-torn region of Palestine. It actually contravenes media ethics and amounts to fear and intimidation. The media should not be used to create tension among citizens hence causing chaos as was the case following the FR2 Television Network broadcast of this video.
References
HonestReportingVideo. (2008). Al Dura – What Really Happened? Web.
Ward, S.J.A. (2012). Digital Media Ethics. Web.