In July 2024, Queen Masalanabo Modjadji VII, the Balobedu royal family and the Balobedu Royal Council approached Pretoria High Court in a bid to stop MultiChoice from airing Queen Modjadji Series. The Balobedu Royal Council claimed they were not consulted by Multichoice and did not consent to the airing of the series. Multichoice however claims that they consulted with some tribal leaders and other key stakeholders. Was Multichoice ethical in its production process and airing of the series?which two meta-ethics are applicable in this case study?

Question

In July 2024, Queen Masalanabo Modjadji VII, the Balobedu royal family and the Balobedu Royal Council approached Pretoria High Court in a bid to stop MultiChoice from airing Queen Modjadji Series. The Balobedu Royal Council claimed they were not consulted by Multichoice  and did not consent to the airing of the series. Multichoice however claims that they consulted with some tribal leaders and other key stakeholders. Was Multichoice ethical in its production process and airing of the series?which two meta-ethics are applicable in this case study?

GPT-4o mini · Answer

To evaluate the ethical considerations of MultiChoice's production process and airing of the "Queen Modjadji Series," we need to consider the conflict between the operational decisions made by the company and the claims of the Balobedu Royal Council regarding consultation and consent.

Was MultiChoice Ethical?

Lack of Comprehensive Consultation: If Multichoice proceeded with the production without adequately consulting all relevant stakeholders (including the Balobedu Royal Council), this raises ethical concerns regarding respect for cultural representation and the rights of the community depicted in the series. Ethical media production typically emphasizes the importance of consent and involvement from the communities being portrayed, especially when dealing with cultural narratives.
Claim of Consultation: On the other hand, if MultiChoice genuinely consulted with tribal leaders and other stakeholders, then their approach might align with ethical media practices. However, if the consulted individuals did not hold the authority or legitimacy to represent the broader community's interests, then the consultation could still be viewed as insufficient or misleading.

Given these points, it's difficult to definitively state that MultiChoice was ethical without clear evidence of who was consulted, the nature of those consultations, and the legitimacy of the authority of the consulted stakeholders to represent the Balobedu people.

Applicable Meta-Ethics:

Cultural Relativism: This perspective holds that moral codes and ethical standards are culturally bound and should be understood within their cultural contexts. In this case, the standards of ethical behavior regarding storytelling and representation can vary significantly across cultures. The Balobedu people may have cultural norms about consent and representation that Multichoice either overlooked or misinterpreted. Thus, a discussion of cultural relativism would focus on understanding the Balobedu community’s perspective and rights over their cultural narratives.
Deontology: This ethical framework focuses on adherence to rules, duties, and obligations. From a deontological perspective, Multichoice has an obligation to seek informed consent from the relevant stakeholders when producing media that represents specific cultural and historical figures. If they failed to meet these obligations, then their actions could be seen as unethical, regardless of the outcomes or benefits of the series.

In conclusion, the ethical standing of MultiChoice's production process hinges on the depth and breadth of their consultations with the Balobedu community. Cultural relativism and deontology provide useful lenses through which to analyze the ethical implications of their actions.