Do Ethical Theories Help Journalists do Their Job - Essay Example

?Do ethical theories help journalists do their job? With ethical theory defined as an organised body of thought that explains what are the right/goodand wrong/bad thoughts and practices (Williams 2006, p. 72) makes it not only very useful but necessary to journalists in doing their job, because it helps them discern the best course of action they should take in situations that put them in a dilemma. As such, ethical theories become more relevant especially in this age when things that society values seem to contradict each other. For example, society clamours for truthful information but truthful information may be harmful to peace and order (Gilbert, 1992, p. 101). In the conduct of their profession, journalists are practically confronted with various ethical dilemmas that it would be better for them to be armed with ethical theories than not. Furthermore, ethical theory becomes more important to journalists given the impact they can create to their readership (public opinion) and the society (public values) as a whole – which according to Iggers (1998, p. 15) makes journalism ethics unique – especially in this era of corporate journalism wherein the interest of capital often clashes with that of the public, putting in jeopardy journalism’s long-held principles as defined by the Society of Professional Journalists (1973): “Seek truth and report it; minimize harm; act independently; and be accountable” (Friend & Singer 2007, p. xix; Boeyink & Sandra 2010, p. 17; Black & Roberts 2011, p. 51). Hanlin (1992, p. 28) is perfectly understandable to say that “many critics might agree with the suggestion that any man rich enough to buy a newspaper should not be allowed to own one.” This statement simply illustrates how the situation and the organisation in which journalists perform their profession today make journalism ethically challenging. It is easy to criticise journalists in fulfilling their profession. But the very condition in which journalists perform their profession oftentimes puts them in situations that test their ethical principles. For example, while journalists are committed to reporting the truth – which is believed to be the core of journalism – finding the truth, especially the dangerous ones, is actually something not easy to achieve in legal and even ethical ways. So, what course of action should journalists take if the only way to find the truth is either by stealing the information or by using deceptive strategies? (Jackson 1992, p. 69) Would it be unethical to go into stealing, lying and deceiving in the name of truth? But what would happen with journalism if it defaults in finding out and reporting the truth? The answer to this question will surely vary depending on the ethical theory that journalists hold onto. For example, one may find the task to bring out the truth by any means more important than observing the law. Anyway, it is often argued that not all that is legal is ethical and not all that is ethical may be legal. It may also be argued that the end justify the means. Added to this ethical dilemma is the issue of confidentiality in journalism. The News Manual defines the centrality of confidentiality of sources in the ethics of journalism on the basis of trust. Meaning, journalists may divulge information given in confidence, but must protect the identity of their sources not unless the sources permit journalists to name them. Any breach on this agreement might jeopardize the whole profession, because in the future sources may no longer give sensitive information in confidence. (Ingram & Henshall, 2008) In relation to acquiring information through illegal means, journalists can deny it by opting to invoke this confidentiality clause. But to resort to such trick only worsens the ethical dilemma because aside from lying, this clause that is meant to protect sources is maliciously used. Though the confidentiality clause can be misused by journalists to get away with the law, this same clause can also put journalists into an extremely difficult situation. In instances when a journalist is being compelled by the law to identify his/her source, either way he/she is violating ethical principles – If the journalist chooses to uphold the confidentiality clause, he/she is obstructing justice; if he/she chooses to abide by the law, he/she is betraying the trust of a confidential source, which may set a dangerous precedent. To this dilemma, journalism ethics requires journalists to uphold the confidentiality clause, no matter what happens. Only the confidential source has the right to decide to be divulged or not. Another way for journalists not to be trapped into this ethical dilemma is for them to inform the source of their limitation in protecting their source’s identity, to give the source the choice to proceed or to withdraw from giving information. The point here is to protect the trust and confidence of sources on journalists, because this profession greatly rely on people for information. (Ingram & Henshall, 2008) Another controversial issue that oftentimes put journalists in a dilemma is the issue of privacy. Such issue is most applicable to public figures who depend largely on publicity to make their acts known to their constituents, but whose private lives are also most interesting to the public. Not unless what has been reported about their private life does not tarnish their reputation, no one actually reacts. For example, reporting on Kate Middleton’s pregnancy did not attract any complain from the royal couple neither from the Queen (Clarke 2011; Misener & Krupnick 2011; Lake 2012); but news regarding Prince Andrew’s shady dealings and close relationship with the convicted paedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein drew fury from the royal couple’s advisers (Alberici 2011). In short, respect for privacy is somewhat determined by the kind of story that is being revealed to the public. So, the question would be, should journalists practice restrain in reporting the private lives of public figures? But what if their private life has a great implication in the conduct of their public office? When is a public figure’s life public and private? Most oftentimes this dilemma is addressed by invoking the greater good. Belsey (1992) argued that in a democracy, public figures entrusted with power over the people are accountable and liable to the public and thus must be scrutinized. So, who actually has the right to privacy? In the first place, one cannot claim something that is not his/hers. (59) Looking at these dilemmas, which actually are only few among the many dilemmas journalists confront everyday only illustrates how ethically sensitive journalism is. Clearly, journalists need ethical theories, not only occasionally but every day, because journalism is an everyday ethical decision making: What to write? Which to write? How to write? Should all facts be presented to readers even if doing so would put innocent lives and well-being at risk? Should there be a limit in the presentation of truth? What defines responsible journalism? These ethical questions seem infinite and they become more complex as the world globalizes. One good movie depicting ethical challenge that journalists confront is “The Insider” (to expose or not to expose a certain tobacco company’s unethical practice), wherein the law protects corporate interests (confidentiality agreement) rather than the public (the addictive effect of nicotine to smokers) and that exposing the truth could jeopardise the whole news network (the news network could be sued if it exposes the truth because it will violate the confidentiality agreement). But unlike laws, which simply dictates minimum standards of conduct (Foreman 2010, p. 19) journalism ethics call for higher moral values. And to be able to act on higher moral ground, one ought to have courage and determinism to do so, as what Al Pacino (journalist) did in the movie. In this case, ethical theory helped journalists not simply to discern what is right, but more importantly, it gave them the courage and determinism to do what is right. By doing so, it also transcended the network from a profit-oriented business organization to a service-oriented one and transformed the profession from a simply competitive job to a noble one. In the end, what saved the network from the crisis is the courage to stand by with the truth. This ethical decision gave the network its shining moment and gave meaning to the job. Ethical theories do not only help and guide journalists come up with well-thought of decisions; much more these give meaning to their job. Thus not only are their professional integrity and the integrity of their profession protected, but their job becomes more inspiring. Though these ethical theories do not define exactly what is right and wrong, they provide journalists necessary guidelines by which they can determine the best course of action. In short, ethical theories serve as journalists’ moral compass to which direction they should proceed when they are at crossroads. There are four classic ethical theories from which journalists commonly derive their course of actions, which Foreman (2010) identified as rule-based/duty-based thinking, ends-based thinking, Golden Rule, and Golden Mean. Rule-based or duty-based thinking is more known in philosophy as deontology. This ethical theory gives no room for excuses and exceptions and takes no heed of the consequence when matter of ethical conduct is concerned. Meaning, whatever it takes, the person ought to do the right thing anytime, anywhere, and to anybody. As in justice, a deontologist is blinded with the truth. So even if truth hurts; even if the person to be hurt is someone important; and even if the time and place of exposing the truth could create far greater problems do not matter at all, because the sole responsibility of a deontologists is to bring out the truth. (Foreman 2010, pp. 27-28) Thus for deontologist, the end cannot justify the means (Moore & Murray 2008, p. 121); the means should always be right to make the end right. For example, stealing will always be wrong even if it is done for far greater purpose, as in saving someone’s life. Nothing can make stealing right. In the same way that a deontologist journalist will not approve lying to a source just to get his/her full cooperation to give the information so vital for the news story. Journalists perceive the integrity of their story as their primordial moral obligation (Moore & Murray 2008, p. 121) and from a deontologist journalist’s ethical perspective the integrity of any news story covers the whole process of gathering information to getting out the information. So deceiving your source just to get the facts will tarnish the integrity of the news story because it is taken out of deception and deception is wrong. Furthermore, it could even jeopardise the journalist’s reputation once the veracity of the story is challenged. Hence the sole recourse for the deontologist journalist is to persuade the source to cooperate, because through the well-informed cooperation of the source, the journalist is assured that the source would stand by the information provided, anytime someone challenges the veracity of the story. Essentially so, deontological ethical theory simply says that everything should be done in truth because with truth you cannot be blackmailed. Meaning, nothing can backlash to you if you tow the right way in getting your news story. Therefore, you ought to always do the right thing not only because it is your moral obligation but also because it is your safety blanket. However, given the compelling nature of journalism, this ethical theory would seem very hard to observe because the complicating problem here is time. If a journalist gets sensitive information by going through all the hassles of legal impediments, it may happen that the information becomes obsolete before it could have been legally accessed. This exaggeration is meant to impress the importance of time in journalism. If for lawyers and judges, “justice delayed is justice denied” (Nims, 1956, p. 613); for journalists, a delayed news story is no longer news but history. In investigative journalism, deontology might render journalism futile, because in real life, investigative journalists commonly use deception as a strategy to find out the truth. Such is the view of ends-based thinking or consequentialism or utilitarianism or teleology. This ethical theory explains that the end justifies the means when the greater good is served. Meaning, in an ethical dilemma, decision has to be weighed critically through cost-benefit analysis. And what makes the decision morally right is serving the greater good. (Foreman 2010, pp. 28; Moore & Murray 2008, p. 120) Therefore, if for a deontologist stealing and lying is absolutely wrong, for a teleologist, these two wrong deeds could be right if these are the only ways by which to serve a greater cause. For example, what would be a greater sin: to steal or to let someone die; to deceive or to deny the public a story they rightfully deserve to know? From a teleologist point of view the latter choices are the greater cause. So, a teleologist journalist finds nothing wrong from stealing highly classified information which he/she believes would bring to light a crime that is being whitewashed because powerful people are involved. This act from the point of view of a teleologist journalist is not only giving justice to the victim but more so exposing the rottenness of the justice system. The mere fact that the journalist has acted in the spirit of higher moral values made his/her act of stealing the information right and commendable. Going back to the movie “The Insider,” teleological ethics helps the journalist discern that defying the norms of the news agency and violating the confidentiality agreement would be better than leaving the public uninformed on the unethical practice of the tobacco industry that is putting the health of smokers at risk without them knowing it. The problem in this ethical theory is the determination of the greater good. From whose point of view should greater good be determined? Does greater good pertain to the number of people that would benefit from the act or to the nature of the cause that is being upheld? If applied in the confidential source, which would be greater between the the journalist’s duty as a good citizen of the land and the journalist’s duty to his/her profession profession. Journalism ethics chooses profession (Ingram & Henshall, 2008). Does this mean journalists have greater duty towards their source than their motherland or fellow citizens? Is not sticking with your confidential source also mean protecting your self-interest? Is this ethical? Another ethical theory that commonly guides most people in their actions is Confucius’ Golden Rule, which dictum states: Do not do unto others what you do not want others do to you. Meaning, if you do not want your rights to be violated by others you have to do the same. Treat others the way you want them to treat you. For example, any information, especially personally scandalous ones, concerning public figures is always news. Most of the time, it is best selling news story that you see them in front pages and in headlines over other more relevant news stories of the day. Worse to attract more readers, the story is presented more salaciously to the point of ridiculing the subject of the news story. But a journalist guided by Golden Rule would avoid writing a story that would make people the public’s laughing stock or a subject of scorn, because the journalist would not like the same thing to happen to him/her. Hence the Golden Rule helps journalists to check and curb their possible abuses of other’s rights in the conduct of their profession, because this ethical theory ‘stresses love, not self-interest, as the moral based of conduct’; Foreman (2010, p. 30) explains. In other words, learn to put yourself on others shoes for you to know how it is to be grilled by the public. By doing so, you might be able to better see what is more important – your desire to sell a news story even if it would harm people or to restrain yourself from divulging such scandals which only satisfy your purse and the public’s hunger for gossip. Lastly, there is Aristotle’s Golden Mean, which can be useful in situations which offer extreme positions, that any which way leads to unpleasant result. To avoid falling into this trap, the Golden Mean helps one to find a middle ground or a moderate solution. (Foreman 2010, pp. 30) This ethical theory is commonly practised in broadcast media for stories that are too gruesome to be broadcasted yet too important to be withheld from the public eye. In this case, journalists fulfil their reporting task while mindful of minimising or avoiding possible harm to people (Plaisance 2009, p. 105). The network usually airs a warning about the content of the news and asks for parental guidance for minor viewers; or sometimes they blur the part of the photo that could be offending to viewers’ sense of decency. In this way, public’s moral judgment as to whether or not to view the news is also encouraged. Thus the weight of the decision making is halved between the news network and the viewing public. For the anonymity of witnesses who are caught in the camera or news source whose identity has to be protected yet has to be presented, the usual practise following this golden mean is to present the source with his/her face hidden. Therefore, this ethical theory helps journalists do their job but at the same time making them sensitive to the needs of other stakeholders: the viewer/reader, the subjects of the story, the industry, and others. Clearly so, ethical theories help journalists be on their toes in performing their profession ethically, especially so that they are always put in an ethical dilemma. These ethical theories also help journalist put into practice their code of ethics. But more than these, ethical theories compel journalists to treat their jobs not only as an employment or a competition, but as a moral obligation to defend the truth in order to help transform the world. Reference List Alberici, E. 2011, Plans to keep Prince Andrew away from royal couple, ABC News, viewed 15 February 2012, . Belsey, A. 1992, ‘Privacy, publicity and politics’, in Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media, eds A. Belsey & R. Chadwick, Routledge, London, pp. 58-68. Black, J. & Roberts, C. 2011, Doing Ethics in Media: Theories and Practical Applications, Routledge, Oxon, OX. Boeyink, D. E. & Borden, S. L. 2010, Making Hard Choices in Journalism Ethics: Cases and Practices, Routledge, New York, NY. Clarke, S. 2011, ‘New report claims Britain’s Kate Middleton is pregnant’, ABC News, viewed 15 February 2012, . Friend, C. & Singer, J. B. 2007, Journalism Ethics: Traditions and Transitions, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY. Gene, F. 2010, The ethical journalist: making responsible decisions in the pursuit of news, John Wiley & Sons, UK. Gilbert, P. 1992, ‘The oxygen of publicity: Terrorism and reporting restrictions’, in Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media, eds A. Belsey & R. Chadwick, Routledge, London, pp. 101-112. Hanlin, B. 1992, ‘Owners, editors and journalists’, in Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media, eds A. Belsey & R. Chadwick, Routledge, London, pp. 25-36. Iggers, J. 1998, Good news, Bad news: journalism ethics and the public interest, Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Ingram, D. & Henshall, P. (2008). Chapter 20: Sources and confidentiality. The News Manual: A professional resource for journalists and the media. Viewed 17 May 2012 . Jackson, J. 1992, ‘Honesty in investigative journalism’, in Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media, eds A. Belsey & R. Chadwick, Routledge, London, pp. 69-82. Lake, F. 2012, ‘Kate Middleton is pregnant!’ Weekly World News. viewed 15 February 2012 . Misener, J. & Krupnick, E. 2011, ‘Kate Middleton pregnant, says in Touch Weekly: report (photos)’, The Huffington Post, viewed 15 February 2012, . Moore, R. L. & Murray, M. D. 2008, Media law and ethics, 3rd edn., Taylor & Francis Group, Oxon, OX. Nims, H. D. (1956). Backlogs: Justice denied. ABA Journal, 42 (7), 613-616. Plaisance, P. L. 2009, Media ethics: key principles for responsible practice, SAGE Publications, London. Williams, B. A. O. 2006, Ethics and the limits of philosophy, Routledge, Abingdon, OX. Read More