As the media is our primary source of news and information, we expect it to be trustworthy. Torn between sensationalism (tough competition) and disguising commercials as content (for profit), it is obvious that media ethics is an issue which few take seriously.

The Fourth Estate
At one time referred to as The Fourth Estate, media was expected to counter-balance the powers of the ruling class, the judiciary and the people. And it was supposed to achieve this objective by reporting news & events fairly.

Soon, it became standard procedure to "sell" empty blocks to product marketers to advertise their wares. (Ensuring maximum viewership of news would also ensure maximum viewership of ads. Thus the "fourth estate" sailed smoothly for many decades.)

P.R.
A couple of decades ago, were born "P.R." agents - whose sole job was to "insert" content of their client's choice as a part of the media content.

This trade (if it may be so called) came into its own during the financial market boom period. Unscrupulous businessmen combined with equally unscrupulous journalists to delude the small investor into investing in IPOs, usually with a little liaison help from "P.R." agents.

Soon, some smart media owners decided to keep the "fees" being earned by the journalist-"P.R" agent nexus - and started to officially publish promotional material disguised as content.

Newsworthy
Then came the phase of fierce competition - especially in the electronic medium. TV news broadcasters, in their attempt to get "scoops" started creating them. This ended up in creating headlines out of events which were not newsworthy. Sensationalism became the order of the day.

Poor Processes
Lack of diligent processes went hand in hand with sensationalism. A natural outcome of "sensationalism" - after all how would unworthy content pass through if there existed a "diligence" filter?

Consolidation Media Ownership
On a parallel level, media ownership was being consolidated into single groups, sometimes across the nation and even across continents. This give rise to the possibility of editorial biases across continents. (Example: pro George Bush II or against George Bush II.)

Conflict of Interests
On the same level as Martha Stewart's biased advice to purchase stocks (based on personal profit motives), there are an increasing number of cases of respected media commentators who have promoted a cause for personal benefit. (Example: Well-known columnist & talk-show host Armstrong Williams accepted tax-payers money from the Govt. in return for regularly making favourable comments on the Bush administration policy.)

Diminishing Credibility
It seems no longer important for a media organisation to have clearly enunciated principles and values, combined with strong ethical decision-making skills so as to serve their audiences and the public interest. To put it simply, credibility is falling rapidly.

Yet there is hope. After all, ethical media content is also a strong differentiator from the competition. And will ensure viewers' trust and eyeballs.