Ethics in News and Mass Media - Essay Example

Ethics in News and Mass Media Ethics has to do with duty -- duty to self and/or duty to others. It is primarily individual or personal even when it relates to obligations and duties to others. The quality of human life has to do with both solitude and sociability. We do right or wrong by ourselves in that part of our lives lived inwardly or introvertedly and also in that part of our lives where we are reacting and responding to other persons. This duality of individual and social morality is implicit in the very concept of ethics. When we enter the area of journalistic ethics, we pass into a swampland of philosophical speculation where eerie mists of judgment hang low over a boggy terrain. In spite of the unsure footing and poor visibility, there is no reason not to make the journey. In fact, it is a journey well worth taking for it brings the matter of morality to the individual person; it forces the journalist, among others, to consider his basic principles, his values, and his obligations to himself and to others. It forces him to decide for himself how he will live, how he will conduct his journalistic affairs, how he will think of himself and of others, how he will think, act and react to the people and issues surrounding him. Tuchman (1978) maintains news is constructed social reality, and audience perception of news is dependent on how journalists frame it. It follows that Americans' understanding of other cultures and countries is significantly influenced by the way international news is framed. The journalist collects facts, reports them objectively, and the newspaper presents them fairly and without bias in language which is designed to be unambiguous, undistorting and agreeable to readers. This professional ethos is common to all the news media, press, radio and television and it is certainly what the journalist claims in any general statement on the matter (Fowler, 1991). A concern for ethics is important. The journalist who has this concern obviously cares about good or right actions; such a concern indicates an attitude which embraces both freedom and personal responsibility. It indicates also that the journalist desires to discover norms for action that will serve him as guiding principles or specific directives in achieving the kind of life which he thinks most meaningful and satisfying. Ethical concern is important also for it forces the journalist to commitment, to thoughtful decision among alternatives. What characterizes most journalists today is a lack of commitment and consistency, a lack of a coherent life plan. Before any journalist chooses any particular ethics he must decide whether or not to be ethical: this is the first and most important choice facing him. It has always been difficult to discuss ethics; law is much easier, for what is legal is a matter of law. What is ethical transcends law, for many actions are legal, but not ethical. And there are no "ethical codebooks" to consult in order to settle ethical disputes. Ethics is primarily personal; law is primarily social. Even though the area of journalistic ethics is swampy and firm footing is difficult, as was mentioned earlier, there are solid spots which the person may use in his trek across the difficult landscape of life. The journalist who is concerned with ethics -- with the quality of his actions -- is, of course, one who wishes to be virtuous. Just what a virtuous person, is, however, is somewhat circular and gets us back to the question: What is a moral or ethical person However, the nature of virtue is not really so relative or vague if we have any respect for the great thinkers of history; there has been considerable commonality of meaning among philosophers generally, even though "virtue" has been conceptualized in terms containing considerable semantic noise. Journalists are not powerful in every situation, or in every story. But they are in many, as are the corporations that pay them. Teaching journalism ethics-just like the ethics instruction in law or in medicine- needs to accept that journalists, like lawyers and doctors, enter into the ethics arena as powerful, or potentially powerful, actors (Wilkins, 2005). The virtuous journalist is one who has respect for, and tries to live by, the cardinal. First is wisdom, which gives "direction" to the moral life and is the rational, intellectual base for any system of ethics. Second, there is courage, which keeps one constantly pursuing his goal, the goal which wisdom has helped him set for himself. Courage is needed to help the journalist resist the many temptations which would lead him away from the path which wisdom shows. The third virtue is temperance, the virtue that demands reasonable moderation or a blending of the domination of reason with other tendencies of human nature. It is this virtue, giving harmony and proportion to moral life, which helps us avoid fanaticism in pursuit of any goal. And, last, there is justice, distinguished from the other cardinal virtues in that it refers more specifically to man's social relations. Justice involves considering a man's "deservingness"; each man must be considered, but this does not mean that each man has to be treated like every other. The desire to search out and present the truth does, indeed, seem to be one of the moral foundations of libertarian journalism. Most journalists think of truth as they do of objectivity -- as temporary, splintered and incomplete. Accuracy, fairness, balance, comprehensiveness are generally related to objectivity by the journalist -- and, therefore, have to do with truth. Naturally, the main problem with such truth is that it must be considered in context with editorial determinism. Some editors might say that what they print is their own business and not the province of philosophers. They would be right, in the sense that a free press is guaranteed by the Constitution, and that professional customs in the United States have evolved for handling these ethical questions. Yet there are philosophical and even theological bases for the rights of newspapers to operate as they do, and publishers ignore these at their peril. Society has given newsmen wide latitude for their operations and decision, but what society grants, society can take away. The number of totalitarian countries in this century should be a reminder that presses freedom is not automatic. The grant of freedom to editors to purvey the news necessary to a democratic society carries the implied demand that they will print the news. When the press suppresses or distorts the news, it jeopardizes its claim to freedom. The unwritten expectation of American citizens is that the papers will give "all the news that's fit to print." This is the ethical imperative under which editor's work. Truth is the word that summarizes many journalistic ideals. But what, philosophy has always asked, is truth The working newspaperman knows well enough what truth means in his situation and doesn't worry too much about Truth. He checks the truth of small details but also the truth of the big picture, so far as he can discover and portray it. One important facet of truth therefore is accuracy. Newsrooms rightly make a fetish of accuracy about names and addresses. But reporters must be at least as careful about accurate quotation, or about the accuracy of the impression which results from the way facts are put together. The reporter should keep himself out of the story, and the editors should see that he does. The conventional wisdom of the profession dictates that editorializing will be confined to editorial pages, yet editorializing barbs in stories are always slipping by copydesks. The authors know two or three reporters who produce "stories" that are really editorials, and their editors, with sloppy ethics, by -line them and print them in the news pages. The editor's job is to see that copy is accurate and free of editorial bias, whether it comes from a cub or a Washington or foreign correspondent of a famous press service. Intertwined with accuracy and the objective search for it is the concept of fairness. Human limitations may prevent a paper's being really accurate and really objective, but readers know whether the editors try to be fair. They treat everybody alike. Ideally, they are as gentle with the poor unknown as with the big shot, with the hated political party or enemy nation as with their own faction or country. Accuracy and fairness are often threatened by pressures on the editor. Pressures from government he understands and can combat. But many critics feel editors are less successful in combating pressure from advertisers. The threat of unequal or unfair treatment is thus often seen as one of special favors to advertisers or establishment figures; so publishers and editors may underscore their pledge to print "without fear or favor" by publishing unfavorable news of themselves. The ideals of accuracy, objectivity, and fairness are all contained in the larger ideal of truth. But are these really phony ideals, used to delude, as hypocrites use flag and motherhood Some hard-bitten cynics among newspaper editors would doubtless say "yes," and their shoddy papers reveal what happens when principle crumbles. Yet even the most ethical editors tend to be pragmatic about high journalistic principle. Pragmatism is an American philosophy that holds that the best way is the way that works best. Americans are idealistic, but they are also practical. So our editors do not usually mount white chargers. They conform. The realistic goal for the ethical newsman is to compromise as little as possible, for being pragmatic is not the same as being venal or cowardly. The best editors aim high and therefore hit higher than those who aim low. Pressure for the press to be socially responsible, in line with this theory, is real and recent. In one form the concept of social responsibility is familiar to all working newsmen. Chambers of Commerce, city officials, businessmen, and professionals may all argue to leave out, or at least "modify," some stories so they will not hurt the community. One graduate student came back from interning on a Midwest paper, for example, to say that it published no news which might be considered harmful to the community. Editors nurtured on libertarian ideas tend to see all proposals for outside checks as revival of Star Chambers and censors. In this decade libertarian press theory clearly has the edge from tradition, but the concept of social responsibility remains in conflict with it. The authors do not insist on a choice. Nor is America likely soon to make a clear decision between the theories, any more than it has chosen between those other similarly disputed abstractions "free enterprise" and "the welfare state." As the nation appears to be settling for a mix of "capitalism" and "socialism," it may settle too for a mixed theory of the press, with maximum liberty and responsibility for all. Despite an increasing concern with media ethics there are many who remain skeptical about the very idea. Most normative research presumes that the media ought to be ethical in their professional conduct, thus concentrating on journalistic codes, guidelines, and ideals of media responsibility. But before we pursue such an avenue of enquiry we must at least entertain and critically assess arguments that suggest that the entire aim of media ethics is fundamentally mistaken. It is important to see how and why these arguments are flawed if we are to convince those who presume that journalism and the media remain outside the demands of commonsense morality that they are wrong. The point is that the very notion of media ethics appears paradoxical: the very phrase itself seems to constitute an oxymoron. Given such attitudes, it is hardly surprising that the news media are perceived to be predominately interested only in crisis stories, sordid events, sleazy allegations, and the secular iconography of the rich and famous in order to boost readership or ratings. Media and Ethics Everyday we are in the practice of looking to make sense of the world. To see is a process of observing and recognizing the world around us. To look is actively make meaning of that world. The images we encounter every day span the social realms of popular culture, advertising, information exchange, commerce, criminal justice and art. They are produced and experienced through a variety of media. One could argue that all of these media are imaging technologies (Sturken, 2001). And it is basically through this means (media) that we are actually able to view the world around and make judgments about it. The news press and media have a variety of functions to fulfill: from investigating domestic, corporate, and political scandals to relaying news about significant events elsewhere in the world. Of course, many journalists and media institutions may presume that ethics can bear no significant relation to the realization of these goals. But it does not follow that the demand that journalists and the news media should be ethical is misplaced. Indeed, on face value at least, we have good reason to believe that such a self-understanding must be mistaken. The modern technological media as social institutions arc mbddd in, but enable reflexivity about, the time-in of everyday life. They arc institutions-to-think-with (Bruhn, 2002). Important aspects of media systems are assumed to be "natural" or in some cases are so familiar that they are not perceived at all. Because it denaturalizes a media system that is so familiar to us, comparison forces us to conceptualize more clearly what aspects of that system actually require explanation (Hallin, 2004). What is the point of news and investigative journalism Presumably it is to investigate and report on significant events in the world, including the exposure of corrupt, deceitful, illegal goings on by corporations, politicians, organized crime, or the rich and famous. It is by virtue of this function that we tend to talk of the news media in terms of the fourth estate: as constituting a public check and balance on those in positions of power and influence in our society. Given that the news media's function, at least in part, is to seek out and expose wrongdoing as such, it had better not be guilty of the very same sins it exposes in others if it is to avoid the charge of hypocrisy. That is, journalists have a moral duty to report faithfully and expose wrongdoing. Hence journalists and the news media must themselves consistently aim to respect the very same ethical standards of behavior that they demand others should adhere to or strive for. In recent times, we have witnessed a dramatic proliferation in the number of journalism courses, communications studies, and public initiatives concerned with journalism and the news media. However, the attention paid to ethical issues tends toward the pragmatic and is typically framed in response to particular press scandals, worries raised by certain pressure groups, or perceived government interference. The problem is that such responses necessarily involve certain normative commitments that often remain unexamined. Hence philosophical reflection, at least potentially, has a significant role to play in the field of media ethics. Philosophers, minimally, may hope to explicate and critically assess the commitments involved. Furthermore, in the light of various scandals, there is an increasing wish on the part of the media to examine and reevaluate their ethical, social, and political values. Hence a philosophical approach to media ethics is broadly concerned with what good media practice amounts to and whether it is as it should be. As a matter of principle, a philosophical approach to media ethics can hope, at the very least, to deepen our understanding in this way. Yet the skeptical challenge, for which there are distinct motivations, should not be underestimated. There are some interesting and often highly persuasive considerations that tend to suggest that any such enquiry is doomed to failure. Although they come in a variety of guises, there are two basic ideas that motivate the skeptical challenge. On the one hand, there is the notion that ethical sensitivity may be incompatible, in certain cases at least, with carrying out a journalist's job professionally. On the other hand, there is the thought that ethical theory or ideals are necessarily inapplicable in relation to journalistic practice. That is, the kind of news interest taken by journalists in current events or tragedies, and the means they must use to get at and relay the stories, may themselves be intrinsically immoral. Thus, as a matter of principle, journalistic professionalism and ethical responsibility may be incompatible. Journalists, news editors and mass media xcutivs are not powerful in every situation, or in every story. But they are in many, as are the corporations that pay them. Teaching journalism ethics is just like the ethics instruction in law or in medicine, which nds to accept that journalists, like lawyers and doctors, enter into the ethics arena as powerful, or potentially powerful, actors. Reference: Wilkins, Coleman, 2005 - The Moral Media, LEA publishers Bruhn Jensen, Klaus (red) (2002) A Handbook of Media and Communication Research, Routhledge, London. Tuchman, Gaye (1978): Making News: a Study in the Construction of Reality, New York; Free Press Fowler, Roger (1991) Language in the News, London; Routhledge, p1. Hallin, Mancini, 2004, Comparing Media Systems, Cambridge university press, p2. Carter, Branston & Allan (1998) News, Gender and Power, Routledge, London, Falkheimer, Sturken, Marita och Cartwright, Lisa (2001): Practices of looking - an introduction to visual-culture, Oxford University Press, p 12-13. Read More