1
Introduction: Contexts for Ethical Decision-Making

Ethics is not practiced in a vacuum. Choosing how to act occurs in particular contexts that exert various kinds of pressure on those making choices. So we will begin this book with attention to the various aspects of society and culture that affect the ethical choices made within them. Although we are presenting these as separate entities, it will become clear in the reading that they are so intertwined that it is difficult to speak of them separately. The value of doing so is to highlight them as important considerations. Once our initial analysis is complete, we will be able to show how various ethical perspectives relate to them, and then provide comments on how ethical decisions might reasonably be made within complex contexts.

Each of the following characteristics of societies and cultures forms a part of the overall context of moral choice. This differs not only from society to society, but from individual to individual. Some people in a society make choices based in large measure on religious commitments. Others are driven by the perceived demands of media technology or professions, and still others by ideological commitments. To fully understand the choices made, then, it is necessary to give some thought to how each of the following contexts may impact on them. We do not mean that ethics is relative, but that it is situational. People of goodwill may, within a given socio-cultural context, come to different decisions. Are all decisions equally ethical? We would say "no," but to evaluate the ethics of choice it is useful to understand the context within which choices are made. Then we will have the basis for conversation as to whether a decision can be defended on ethical grounds.

Does the "Global Village" Imply a Global Media Ethics?

The first hurdle to overcome when thinking about global media ethics is the belief that a global village exists. It doesn't. There are markers of its existence, to be sure, but they are misleading, especially for those who see them from a Western perspective. Since the nineteenth century, the so-called century of progress, Western pundits and the popular media have touted the role of new communications technologies in "shrinking" the world, annihilating time and space, and allowing for universal connectivity for the world's peoples. The world wars of the twentieth century did little to dampen the enthusiasm, for global connection and expectations rose to new heights with the arrival of satellite communication, global media networks, and real-time reports from far-flung regions via, first, satellite telephony and then video feeds. The arrival and rapid spread of the internet continued the trend. The final burst of expectation (so far) was unleashed by the development of mobile smartphones using broadband systems and wireless capability. It seemed that all the barriers that had prevented global universal communication had been overcome by technological progress.

It is not difficult to find claims that the global village has arrived. The International Monetary Fund trumpeted its arrival in September 2012 (Mahbubani, 2012, p. 1). Kishore Mahbubani claimed the milestone that justified this claim was that teledensity had reached the point that people had "become interconnected at a level never seen before in history," and that such technology (mobile telephones and the internet) had generated global convergence that, along with education, had improved human lives (Ibid.).

The problem with such claims is that they ignore more than they reveal. There is little doubt that connectivity among people is more widely distributed, and used in greater measure, than ever before. In 2014 the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) estimated that there were 6.9 billion mobile-cellular subscriptions around the world, nearly equal to the total population of the planet. However, somewhat fewer than three billion people had access to the internet, with access in developing countries reaching only 32% (ITU, 2014). The main reason for the difference is the much lower access to mobile broadband internet services in the developing world where wired infrastructure is not available.

Related to this difference in access to technology is the problem with seeing all connections as equally capable of accessing content. For instance, although the teledensity in the continent of Africa has increased several times over in the past decade, much of this development has provided only the barest connection to people. In Ivory Coast, for instance, 3G+ mobile coverage in 2014 was limited to 10 urban areas, and those that were connected to these systems, although they could access the internet, could see YouTube content at only 240p, the site's minimum resolution, while the more highly developed infrastructures in other countries allowed for 1040p HD (high-definition) connections. Rural areas of Ivory Coast were still without any broadband coverage at all, limiting use of mobile telephones to voice and SMS (text). On many of the islands in the Pacific, including those that are part of the Philippines and Indonesia, the only television available is through satellite delivery, and then only when generators are used to provide the power for connection. In mountainous areas, such as Nepal, the same situation applies and even radio is problematic since the most prevalent system employed is frequency modulation (VHF/FM), which uses only line of sight signals that are easily blocked by the terrain. The absence of a power grid also makes people dependent on expensive batteries that can only be replaced by trekking often long distances into towns on treacherous footpaths. Such circumstances make talk of a global village more of a fantasy than a reality.

Besides such access issues, many other obstacles continue to frustrate efforts to think of the world as a global village. People who have the good fortune to see films or television programs made in other countries, for instance, rarely see the reality of people's lives. Television does not thrive on careful documentaries of the lives of ordinary people living ordinary lives. Typically, actors portray others and, in so doing, interpret their scripts according to preconceptions that may have no firm foundation in the ordinary social, cultural, or economic lives of those they purport to represent. Many programs, regardless of source, are formulaic indigenized versions of programs that have attracted audiences in other countries. Often they become caricatures of the original, because the premise of the formula was culture-bound and those in the knock-off have altered their personas to qualify for the program. These two realities are "thin," barely scratching the surface of authentic portrayal. Even "thicker" programs, such as carefully crafted documentary approaches, are the perceptions of single filmmakers of "the other"; few to none are actually produced by those indigenous to the community portrayed.

So, despite the growth of global telephony, wired and wireless internet services, and widespread distribution of cultural products, the claim of a global village is actually a chimera - at best less than half the world's population could be said to be within range of this ideal. But despite the lack of a single media environment - a truly global village - there are still good reasons to think of ethics in a global perspective. Increasingly citizen reporters, bloggers, tweeters, and YouTube video producers seek global audiences. From #BringBackOurGirls to propaganda and recruitment videos produced by ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria),1 media producers - amateur and professional - are appealing both to political establishments and to the global public sphere. The same is true of those who parody terrorists in the Middle East in their own viral videos, some using music videos or Lego figures (Zahriyeh, 2015).

The Political-Economic Context of Global Media Ethics

Although there are various political and economic relationships that bind countries together through international conventions and organizations, free trade agreements, trade pacts, and technological connections via fiber optic undersea cables and satellites, such relationships are only operable so long as the countries so bound find them to be in their own best interests. They are all subject to the sovereignty claims of the signatories. All international conventions must be ratified by individual countries to have authority within them. Countries may take reservations when signing to indicate their intention not to be bound by certain aspects of them. Trade pacts can be abrogated, alliances broken, connections shut off at borders. They can also simply be broken when considered inconvenient. There is no universal method of enforcing such agreements or connections.

Political economy is concerned with the moral or ethical results of political and economic practices. Since these practices differ from one country to another, the contests that exist between efforts to reveal (practiced by media practitioners) and those to conceal or control, also differ. Several different political and economic configurations within countries affect both the context for ethical decisions and the fragmentation of the "global village." Many countries have constitutional, regulatory, or philosophical commitments to free expression, although actual compliance with them is problematic. For instance, questions were raised in the United States as a result of the Obama administration's efforts...