Which of the numerous journalism ethics did the viral video or its creator violate ? Same applies to the media house that awarded the girl for being one of the biggest news makers of the year . I believe a proper context should be situated for a better understanding and not troll the girl for not knowing or doing better.I believe we can all agree that the media does not belong to or controlled by a set group of people anymore – i.e. monopoly . Technology has shifted the focus and that makes it easier for an individual to become a media institution . Far from the newsroom politics that determine which content goes out and which is suppressed . No need for any high tech gadgets to exert any form of influence as exemplified by the subjectivity of various media houses in the country and beyond. Mainstream media has lost its foothold on content creation and distribution.
One of the main arguments that opponents of the award make is” The media house endorsed vulgarity and immorality ” which is inimical to our cultural heritage . Here I must say without equivocation that the “Rashida” content did not go viral because it was exciting but for the social aspect of that phenomenon . Every once in a while, phenomenon arises without anyone triggering it.
Perhaps social scientists would like to take this up and give us in-depth details about this . The girl never expected her video to go viral . What she did is something many people secretly do after being jilted . I mean some of the things she said are things you wouldn’t normally hear people say out loud; but they will say it in their minds – the secret place where we hide our innermost fears and frustrations.
The fact that a media house picked it for its audience does not mean they did anything wrong professionally or endorsed immorality . A good journalist or media house scouts for content that is able to attract larger audiences. That brings to fore social media and its ability to promote a content viral . Strategy goes into play with every bit of information that is shared by a media house or citizen journos .
A legitimate argument could be the media failed in their gatekeeping role. Here I believe media houses that broadcasted the content on their respective channels should have edited certain vulgar portions to safeguard or protect minors from consuming those “unsafe” information or better warned viewers of the content about to be shown.
Then again, if we are going to talk about other minors blindly copying what she has done in the hope of achieving fame then the media house cannot be blamed .
Let me explain this in my own way. A lot goes into understanding human behavior, or the dynamics that characterizes certain behavior patterns especially under peculiar influences. The fundamental attribution error captures my point by stating that people negatively judge other people’s behavior without recourse to the situation that triggered that behavior. We are all guilty of this. We shouldn’t blame the girl without understanding why.
That is not withstanding the social responsibility bit or perhaps due diligence should’ve been exercised by purveyors of the said vulgar video but let’s not crucify the girl for inadvertently making a viral content. Recall the kpa kpa kpa man and the parallels we can draw from this.
My main problem with this issue is the moral absolutists. They crucify and condemn almost everything that doesn’t match up to their supposed standards. ” Be saved or be damned” is their catchphrase .
It’s not as if nothing good can come out of this girl ? Look… something good is already happening. She’s already got movie roles and other gigs coming her way . Can we for once appreciate something good that doesn’t have to conform to societal standards. Kindly allow the girl to breathe in peace.