Blog Entry #1: 18 October 2012

For my first blog entry I draw on themes covered over the first two weeks and give my thoughts on the ethical philosophies we have touched on so far.

Codes of ethical conduct for the press exist to protect both the journalists in their quest for freedom of information, and to protect the public, in terms of privacy and unjust representation. With ethics being so subjective, press codes of ethics are essential, however, to have the press set their own codes of conduct can be seen as a conflict of interests. Many of these codes also seem based on previous ethical ‘failures’ – e.g. unethical reporting of suicide and child abuse – making the codes more like a list of previous press injustices rather than a comprehensive guide. Furthermore, if these codes are not law, how are they enforced and what are the consequences if they are broken? These answers remain unclear. Frost states “Ethics is a way of studying morality which allows decisions to be made when individuals face specific cases of moral dilemma” (2011: 8). This idea of decisions being made in cases of dilemma, rather than an overarching set of ethics acting as guiding principles (in best cases preventing dilemmas arising), is very relevant to problems facing the press today.

The history of freedom of information has traditionally favoured the protection of journalists as ‘guardians’ of truth. There has been a shift in recent times however, as exemplified by the Leveson Inquiry, to protecting the public from the press – a dramatic change in the role and reputation of the press within society. The Press Council of Ireland states “The freedom to publish is vital to the right of the people to be informed. This freedom includes the right of a newspaper to publish what it considers to be news” (2012). However, for the press to define the public’s ‘right to know’ or ‘what is news’ is not a simple task. Public interest is skewed and evolved by information presented by the press, as exemplified by hunger for gossip and scandal caused by the British press relentlessly feeding this information to the public. Furthermore, whilst the saying ‘Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story’ is a cliché and stereotype, it does raise questions about the subconscious pressure on journalists to create stories that sell newspapers [whilst protect advertisers], especially in times of economic downturn.

So how to ensure journalism makes judgements on ethical grounds? To follow a Kantian moral theory of placing moral weight on the action rather than only the outcome may be beneficial, especially with how journalists obtain information, preventing unethical methods such as phone-tapping or spying. I believe ensuring ethical behaviour lies with how we define ethical grounds and the wide societal moral theory we promote. Most language used in the press code of ethics takes an emotivism stance on morals: the idea of ‘doing the right thing’ and of individuals intrinsically knowing wrong and right. MacIntyre’s argument that morality today is based on irrelevant principles and that our current moral language is manipulative is relevant here (1980). It’s problematic to assign moral responsibility to individuals, rather than society as a whole. A more helpful language of ethical grounds for the press is objectivism – “a set of guiding principles holding true for all” (Frost, 2011:36). Rather than a ‘code of ethics’ solely for the press, a wider societal code of ethics that the press also abides to would be a more effective means of ensuring ethical journalism.

Image: Source