Chapter 3 in the text does a very good job of covering the legal implications of media writing, but barely touches on the ethical implications.
Messages communicated through the electronic mass media are, by definition, mediated. This means they have been "filtered" and in virtually every case influenced by the medium employed. In his 1964 landmark study, Understanding Media, Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase "the medium is the message," which is a dramatic way of calling attention to this phenomenon.
Research has shown that children will believe anything they read on a Web page, even when it is deliberately fabricated to seem ridiculous within their still-forming frame of reference. Countless studies have shown that viewers of all ages give more credence to information conveyed by television when compared with most other media, including print and electronic.
Today among more sophisticated viewers, we are beginning to see a backlash. Viewers who use Photoshop or who watch documentaries on motion picture special effects know how images can be manipulated and are actually generalizing to television news and visual information on the Web. Some are treating this content with greater suspicion than that mediated by radio or print.
Probably the most problematic ethical problem presented to media writers and producers deals with context. Listeners and viewers often make connections between elements that were never intended to be connected. A TV station once aired a story on illegal operations at unspecified pharmacies, but used B-roll footage that could be associated with a specific pharmacy (if the viewer were a customer there). This was not only unethical, but exposed the station to legal liability as well.
While serving for a year as Executive Producer for KU's cable program, Camera One, I only had complaints from the audience and University administration about one story. I had seen the package before it aired and had to view it 3 more times to even figure out what the viewers had found objectionable. The story focused on an informal "pep club" for the KU basketball team and profiled the group's founder. In the course of a 4 minute package, but not immediately contiguous, were two facts about this student:
1. He worked as a bartender at a local club.Somehow in some people's minds these items merged and they thought he was serving alcohol to minors in the apartment complex.
2. He lived in a Kutztown apartment complex catering to students.
This was a public relations problem for KU-TV and the University, but to this day I don't think any producer could have reasonably expected the audience to "decode" the message from that package in that way.
Legal Implications.
As the text clearly points out, broadcast, and to a certain extent cable, are regulated primarily by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FCC has historically tried to avoid regulation of program content (including commercials) and most regulations in this area have originated with Congress. The current members of the Commission, however, seem very willing to hold broadcasters accountable for program content, so I suspect broadcast copywriters are being much more careful of their facts, and are reading regulations much more carefully than would have been the case just a few months ago.
The FTC has historically been the agency that monitored the content of commercials to prevent inaccuracy or outright deception. The FTC is not limited to regulating broadcast and cable, but is charged with regulating all advertising.
The FTC insists that products be demonstrated in a realistic manner. To be fair to Volvo, the infamous television commercial which showed a monster truck destroying lesser vehicles and leaving the Volvo intact was said to be a re-enactment of an actual demonstration conducted at a monster truck show. The TV producer admitted to making some modifications to both the Volvo and some of the other cars, but said he just wanted to help things along to be sure of getting the desired effect in one take. The FTC was not convinced.
When testimonials are given by actors standing in for real users of the product, we often key this information (sometimes in very small lettering) over the video. So far this has been deemed acceptable by the FTC, but it can certainly confuse viewers.
In radio, disclaimers or "truth in lending" statements that are required by law are frequently processed so that the words are very fast and spaces between words are compressed. This is another practice that is pretty questionable ethically, but has been allowed by the FTC.
Contrary to the information in the text, competitive advertising is actually fairly rare because numerous research studies have shown that at least half of the listeners/viewers think the spot is for the competing product.
Political advertising and contests pose special problems and some stations require all related copy to be reviewed by the Legal Department. If that is not the station policy, copywriters should work closely with the Programming Department, which probably has policy manuals to help guide you through the complexities.
The text makes very clear the pitfalls of stereotyping and also the attractions for copywriters who have to cram a lot of information into a very little time. Ultimately it comes back to the ability to put yourself into that mythical recliner and see or hear your material from the point of view of the intended target audience. If you can do that, you will (usually) be able to predict what will offend and what will motivate.
As a sidebar, Taco Bell eventually abandoned the Chihuahua not because he was a stereotype, but because he was too cute. Research showed that people loved the "spokesdog," but he was not effective at getting them to visit a Taco Bell.
