YouTube, TMZ, Reality TV, Oh my! An Examination of "Need to Know" Media vs. "Want to Know" Media
- Stephanie Dal Porto
- Oct 1, 2020
- 5 min read
Author's Note: This post reflects the concepts and ideas learned in Chapter 5 from "Media Ethics: Issues and Cases" by Philip Patterson, Lee Wilkins, and Chad Painter. It is used for educational purposes.
CHAPTER 5 – Looking back on my interaction(s) with others during my childhood, my young adult years, and now, my adult years, I begin to notice how changes in how I define privacy and what information others have the privilege of knowing about me… And I’m not the only one that thinks that way. After speaking with my friends in college who feel as though everyone around them just has to know everything about them, I began to wonder about the media society we have become. I questioned: What are the things we have a "right" to know about others? A "need" to know about others? And finally, "want" to know about others?
Now take a step back and think about your time as a child. Were you overly concerned with what others thought about you or the world? No! Of course not! You were busy enjoying time with your friends in first grade - smiling over the silliest things and crying about the most pathetic. But you grew older. And by the time you were a young adult - a high schooler - you were consumed by the new and exciting world of YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, reality TV, etc. - wondering about everyone's life. You questioned what they were doing, what they were eating, and what they did on the weekend. All the things you wanted to know.
I often think about times when friends have mentioned to me that they “...need to know what’s gonna happen to Kim on the next episode of Keeping Up with the Kardashians!” I often consider the choice of wording my friend uses - “need”. The “need” to know what is happening to someone else in their life. Does this invade privacy? Is it ethical, overall, to begin to blur the lines between the “want to know” life and the “need to know” life? What ethical principle can apply to this type of situation? Is it ethical to consider a curiosity (a “want to know”), something that we “need to know”?
In a sense, it is understandable why our generation began to shift or blur both types of knowledge. The “need to know,” which provides people with information that will allow them to functionally live their lives in society, regardless of political beliefs, strikes at the concept that there must - somewhere along the lines - be some sort of ethical case demanded to make known the information that others wish to keep private. However, with today’s world circulating reality TV, lifestyle shows, TMZ, E! News, and so on, it is plausible to consider the concept in the previous sentences that mention the information that others wish to keep private. The key term in this sentence, “wish”, proves itself to be quite contradictory for those, like the Kardashians, who willingly engage, or wish, to show their private lives off to the world. This, in turn, makes it easier for viewers of the TV show to say “I need to know what will happen on next week’s episode," because reality TV show stars, like the Kardashians, willingly gave up their private life - wishing to be displayed to the public. This further blurs the line between "need to know" and want to know" information.
Some may see this blur as non-existent or not key when it comes to journalism. However, while digital influences in the media (specifically on social media and reality TV) and news sources like CNN, Fox News, and NYT seem to be at polar opposites, the reality is that their level of newsworthiness for their respective viewers/audience now makes the content they produce to be a general “need to know” information. The moment that reality TV viewers begin to only see the content they watch as a “need to know” media, the same way viewers of CNN or Fox News see their content, is the moment we forget that the private information in others' lives is actually something that should be recognized as a "want to know" rather than a "need to know."
Additionally, consider the principle behind Utilitarianism, which values the well-being of the community over that of individuals. One who is an avid believer of Utilitarianism would have society question if this blurring of the lines could pose a threat to the greater good. This question can apply to all aspects of pop-culture news… Do we “need to know” it? However, from the blurring that we have seen so far, does it make it fair to still consider invading people's lives on social media or reality TV even if they give us permission/wish for us to see personal parts of their lives, still ethical? A Utilitarianist would go on to say that as long as there is no harm to the larger common good and community, this poses as no threat. But, the reality is that the real harm (of believing we "need to know" what is going on in someone else's life) is becoming a norm. In this situation, a Utilitarianism would say that if the information isn't going to help the greater good of the community at large, then it is not ethical to invade in others' lives - even if they give us some sort of permission, for it spreads the idea that it is something that we need to know to properly function in society (which is not true).
Reflecting upon the ideas mentioned, the overarching question is: Is the blurring of the line somehow benefit the greater good’s perception of “need to know” content/news that benefits society to function? Even considering things like Netflix, with endless documentaries that depict people who wish to break the privacy barrier and let us into their life, this question becomes seemingly more difficult to answer.
In a world without social media, reality TV – one that is now very difficult to imagine – we wouldn't have to take into consideration how we label the news we think we deserve or want to know. However, when facing a technologically progressing with an over invasiveness for privacy, some questions I will leave to part you with include: Will the fine line between the “want to know” and “need to know” will ever regress? Additionally, is it reasonable or even realistic to think like this?
Considering the ethical decision-making behind the types of content we receive, where we receive it, or even how we receive it in today’s society is often overlooked. However, when we step back and remind ourselves of the concrete differences between the “want to know” content and the “need to know'' content - we unknowingly slip over the fact that society faces ethical consequences when it comes to understanding the “need” for news that helps or benefits the greatest number of people for the greatest good, forgetting that they can intertwine with Utilitarianism values.
Have you wondered the same? Do you see privacy in a new way? Did you ever stop and wonder how social media has possibly changed your perspective on “need” to know the things going on around you? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below! I’d love to hear them.
Comments