For the most part, media moderators like the Federal Communications Commission or Association of Composers, Authors and Publishers have learned to consort with mass media and come to a 'happy medium' between completely immoral and over-censored extremes. After all, when the industry does not listen at least in part to the demands of its audiences, through ratings, boycotts, etc. the media itself can suffer.
But how far is too far? Should informing the public about a war in another country include photographs of dead people? One group of people may favor such images, arguing that truth may be blunt, but it is the media's duty to be utterly honest. Others might counter that honesty is possible without disrespecting the deceased in question and subsequently bringing further pain to his or her loved ones.
So while a little slant is unavoidable, some media have a tendency toward lying, cheating and other immoral forms of behavior to present a story. Some believe that as long as the end result is not terrible, the means do not matter. Others believe that it is the media's responsibility to try and remain as objective as possible at all times to allow an audience to make its own judgments.
The
Effects of Mass Media
Some scholars describe the effects of mass media like the effect of dropping a pebble into a still pool of water. It begins in the center with the media communicators themselves, moving out in larger and larger rings through laws and codes, gatekeepers (such as a general editor of a newspaper), the actual media, media regulators, filters, the audiences and then moving on to have effects on society. The amount of feedback from the public and the extent to while media amplify, hype and distort stories determines the speed with which these 'ripples' move and the potency of their effect on society.
Link here
for information on different ideas of media morality.
Link here for information on the public opinion of media morality.