The previous section, Approaches to Ethics,
explained ethics in general. This section uses those general ideas
to explain the nature and aims of a special part of ethics -- journalism
ethics.
Staking the papers as they come off the folder
in El Salvador. Photo by Sean Hawkey
Applied journalism ethics
Journalism ethics is a species of applied (professional)
ethics. It is the application and evaluation of the principles and
norms that guide journalism practice, with special attention to the
most important problems in the field. Journalism ethics contains both
applied analysis and theory. In the analysis of specific cases, journalism
ethics may appeal to theoretical matters, such as the nature of ethical
assertion.
Beyond journalism: Ultimately, the basis for journalism ethics transcends
journalism -- its principles are justified by reference to broader
social and political principles. For example, the journalistic function
of acting as watchdog on government is justified, ultimately, by a
commitment to liberal democracy.
Ethical
sphere in journalism Ethical questions are not reducible to questions of etiquette,
prudence, financial gain or law. Similarly, questions about journalism
ethics are not reducible to questions about what is commonly done
(etiquette), prudence (what is in the journalist’s self-interest?),
financial gain (what enhances profits?) or law. Nor are ethical
values reducible to “craft” values, such as the aesthetic
quality of an image, or how well a story is written.
A question about journalism conduct is ethical only if it evaluates
the conduct in light of the fundamental ethical principles of journalism.
These are the principles that express journalism’s most important
social functions. Journalism ethics depends on one’s conception
of the public functions of journalism as a professional practice,
and the principles and standards that promote those aims.
A
question in journalism is “ethical” if it asks the
following questions:
• Is the action consistent with journalism’s public
purpose, which is based on some view of the good for citizens
and society?
• Does it violate or enhance the principles that express
this public role?
Three sources of “duties” in journalism Why do journalists have special duties?
1. General
ethical duties: Like any person or citizen, journalists should conduct
themselves in accord with general ethical principles such as being
truthful, keeping promises, avoiding harm and serving the public
good. However, these principles receive specific interpretations
in reporting and editing.
2. Journalism’s social role: Like all professionals, journalists
use their skills to fulfill a social role(s) and to meet public
expectations. The role is sometimes understood as arising from a
social contract between journalism and society. In many Western
countries, journalists are granted a constitutionally protected
freedom to promote social goods, such as a diversity of views and
a comprehensive analysis of events.
3. Impact and
influence: Even if journalism lacked a special social role, journalists
would incur ethical responsibilities due to their impact on the
individuals and groups they report on, and on the society they serve.
The
aims of journalism ethics •
Understanding: Deepen our understanding of journalism’s ethical
functions and its principles.
• Ethical reasoning: Improve the ethical reasoning of journalists.
• Reforming: Re-define existing standards and construct new
ones.
• Promoting: Promote ethical behaviour and decision-making
in news media.
• Discussion: Promote public discussion of journalism ethics
“Micro”
and “macro” ethics
Journalism ethics
can be divided roughly into two levels:
1. Micro level: What an individual journalist
should do in a particular situation; or the problems that surround
a specific type of story. Micro issues include whether a journalist
should use a hidden camera in a specific situation, or whether the
failure to attribute an idea is plagiarism.
2. Macro level:
What the news media in general should do, given their role in society.
Macro issues include diversity of media content and ownership, and
freedom of the press.
A
traditional model of journalism ethics
The many principles, standards and values that surround the discussion
of journalism can be confusing. One way to organize these ideas
is to start with the “traditional ethical model” of
journalism in North America, a model that goes back to the emergence
of the modern, professional journalist at the end of the 1800s.
(See History of Journalism
Ethics)
A
traditional definition of an ethical journalist is, "An
impartial communicator of important news and views to the public
and from the impartial perspective of the public; using responsible
and accurate methods of newsgathering, for the sake of a self-governing
citizenship."
Some of the main functions that come under
this aim are:
• Inform the public on important events so as to allow self-government
• Act as a watchdog on abuses of power, both private and public
• Provide an open forum for the expression and critical discussion
of issues, viewpoints and values.
Using the code of the Society of Professional Journalists in the United
States, we can divide the principles that support these functions
into two categories:
1.
Pro-active principles and standards that direct
journalists (or news media) to actively seek out and investigate
truths, in an independent manner.
2.
Restraining principles and standards that direct
the journalists to use that freedom responsibly, by avoiding unnecessary
harm and by being accountable.
Pro-active
principles include:
• Seeking
the truth -- Journalists should pursue and investigate important
truths within the constraints of daily journalism. Standards that
fall under this principle include accuracy, balance and diversity,
completeness and context, proportionality, fairness and objectivity.
• independently
-- Journalists should seek and report the truth without fear or
favour. They serve the public as a whole, not factions or special
interests. Standards that fall under these principles include the
avoidance of conflicts of interest, independence from other institutions,
refusal of special favours and the courage to criticize the powerful.
• Minimizing
harm -- Journalists, in seeking truth independently, should avoid
causing unnecessary harm to the subjects and sources of their stories,
such as children and victims of violence or tragedy. It is impossible
for any professional to avoid doing any harm. The duty is to reduce
harm in the carrying out of one’s legitimate professional
duties, such as not violating someone’s privacy without reason.
•
Being accountable -- Journalists should be able to explain and justify
their actions and their stories, especially where stories are controversial
or have negative impact on individuals or groups. Accountability
means articulating the standards that guide one’s journalism,
and providing the means through which the public can question and
complain.
Relationship of the four principles: In
any complex situation, journalists will have to balance two or more
of these four principles. Where serious public truths are at stake,
pro-active principles trump restraining principles. For example,
the privacy of a politician may be violated to investigate a serious
abuse of power.
Problem areas
in journalism Typical ethical problems encountered in journalism
include:
• Accuracy and verification: How much evidence is required to
publish a story? How much verification is possible in war zones?
• Context: Have journalists provided important context for the
facts? How much context is necessary for complex stories on science,
health and technology?
• Deception and fabrication: Should journalists misrepresent
themselves or use recording technology such as hidden cameras? Should
literary journalists “invent” dialogue or composite characters?
• Graphic images and sensationalism: When should journalists
publish graphic or gruesome images? When do images become guilty of
sensationalism or exploitation? When is coverage not proportional
to the importance of the story?
• Illegal acts: Should a journalist ever break the law to get
a story?
• Sources and confidentiality: Should journalists promise confidentiality
to sources? Should journalists refuse to reveal their sources to police
or the courts? When should journalists go “off the record”?
• Special, sensitive situations: How should journalists cover
hostage-takings, suicide attempts and other events where media coverage
could exacerbate the problem, or lead to deadly consequences?
New
areas of concern
The global communication
revolution has changed radically the media environment and introduced
new ethical problems. Some major factors are:
1. Proliferation
of news media
• Increasing competition among media providers
• Pressure to find “content” to supply new programs
and on-line sites
• Many ‘media’ converge on the story of the day
-- wall-to-wall coverage
2. Changes in
news media audiences
• Fragmentation of audiences: Smaller demographics; niche
media
• Stronger demand for fresh news, live hits: less “appointment”
news
• Audiences increasingly demand access to whatever photos
or information is available, before traditional verification is
completed
• Impatient, “remote control” audiences
• Audiences demand “interactivity” -- the chance
to research their own stories, and question the mainstream news
media
3. Convergence of news media
• News organizations attempt to “re-assemble”
audiences across media platforms
• Multi-media newsrooms: journalists work in several media
• Global news corporations through acquisition and merger
4. Increased
importance of business values
• News as one part of profit-driven corporations
These factors
can have both positive and negative impact on journalism.
Some
positive effects are:
•
Citizens have more access to different media; greater interactivity
• Reduced “gatekeeping” powers of major news organizations
• New story-telling methods through multi-media
• Convergence can bring together many resources to probe an
issue
Some
negative effects are:
1. A “journalism
of assertion”
• More opinionated reporting to attract audiences; less verification;
less objectivity; more sensationalism and increased stress on conflict
2. Pressure
to lower ethical standards
• “Dumbing down” and simplifying content; less
serious context, or analysis
• Editorial resources spent on entertainment and celebrity
news
3. Complaints
about intrusive, ubiquitous media; information glut
4. Convergence
and business values
• Concerns about diversity of views in mainstream media
•
Power
of global media corporations
•
Priority
of economic imperatives over ethical duties
•
Possible
conflicts of interest
•
Lack of
journalistic independence
5. Confusion
about who is a journalist, and what standards are relevant
• Rise of new media and on-line journalism questions the traditional
standards of objectivity, verification and pre-publication editorial
control. It questions the need for professionalism and special education
for journalists. See new
media ethics section.
Ethical
reasoning in journalism An important assumption of teaching journalism
ethics is that ethical reasoning is a skill that can be developed
and improved through study and practice. In approaches to ethics,
a variety of approaches to reasoning about any ethical issue are
referenced.
In this section, I present my own model of how to reason ethically
in journalism. Ethical reasoning in journalism is something one
“does” -- applying one’s principles and standards
to concrete cases, in light of the fundamental functions of journalism.
My model is consistent with these general models, and other journalistic
models of ethical reasoning. My model is streamlined so as to be
useful and understandable to journalists and non-ethicists. Consider
it a starting point for developing your own model.
Four
stages of ethical reasoning:
1. Awareness
that an ethical problem exists: situation characterized by uncertainty;
lack of clarity; conflicting views on what should be done.
2. Analysis
of the case: Identify the ethical issue(s). Identify the conflicting
values and most relevant facts.
3. Evaluation
and considered judgment:
• Identify ethically permissible options: check for consequences,
duties/rights, impact on one’s character and profession.
• Choose action after carefully balancing choices and weighing
reasons. Construct a reasoned, principled, ethical justification.
Be ready to explain one’s decision.
4. Take action
and review one’s decision later: Learning from feedback to
one’s actions is crucial to ethical development. Where appropriate,
revise one’s principles.
Each of these
four stages can be analyzed into a series of steps. Take, for example,
the stage of analysis (stage 2). There are two steps in every analysis:
Step 1: What
are the ethical issues?
• Identify the ethical values: distinguish ethical issues
from commercial or legal issues, or self-interest.
• Consult your code of ethics for relevant principles and
standards
• Estimate the likely consequences of various actions: Who
will benefit or be harmed? Are any rights, duties or loyalties are
involved (e.g. loyalty to source)?
• Consider the impact an action will have on one’s character
or profession
• Can we minimize any unnecessary harm
• Can we
explain and justify our actions to the public?
• Identify any conflicts between principle and values
Step 2:
What are the relevant facts for ethics?
• Testing for facts: Are all important facts known? What facts don’t
we know?
• Do we need to verify anything? How reliable are the sources
of “facts”?
• Be consistent; think analogically: How is this case like
other cases? How have I acted in the past? What is our newsroom
policy? Would I expect another professional to act this way?
Once the analysis
is completed, identify a number of options that appear to be ethically
permissible -- not obviously wrong. Often, each option will have
both positive and negative consequences. The task is to identify
the best option, given one’s principles. What action comes
closest to fulfilling our professional principles?
Good
questions to ask yourself:
•
What is the journalistic purpose or news value of this story?
• What are my motivations in doing this story?
• How does this decision fit my overall journalism values
-- am I being consistent?
• Role-reversal as a check on fairness: How would I
feel if this was written about me?
• Can I live with this? Does it affect my integrity?
• How would I defend this?
