User:WanyunS/sandbox

Introduction

Media ethics is a subdivision of the applied ethics appreciating the media ethical principles and standards. The proposal focuses on media and ethics. Technologically advanced media including those that are internet-facilitated have diffused into and reshaped almost all aspects of contemporary existence. These media have evoked both familiar and new ethical concerns requiring media and communication studies as well as the expertise of philosophical ethics (Ward, 2012). These ethical issues extend from more specialized issues, like Internet regulation, cross-cultural ethics, internet research ethics, advertising ethics, journalistic ethics, and digital journalism ethics to more broadly issues related to identity formation, copyrights, cyber bullying, freedom of expression, defamation, commercialization, and cultural norms. This proposed paper will explore this topic further.

Ethics in journalism is one branch of media ethics with issues related to this branch including news manipulation, truth and values, privacy issues, conflicts with the law, and the importance of tastes and public interest (Christians et al., 2015). Due to the many issues associated with journalism and media, it is imperative to understand their effects and ways to which these issues can be mitigated to enhance the effectiveness of the media systems. There are five core principles that every media or even a journalist must uphold. These principles as described by Harcup (2015) include ensuring truth and accuracy, being human by not doing harm, being accountable, independence, and finally, fairness and impartiality. All these principles described how a journalist should carry on their roles and responsibilities.

Media Ethics

Journalists are often faced with ethical dilemmas. This forces them to make the difficult choice between doing what is right and performing the duties of their job (Detenber and Rosenthal, 2014). This concept is further complicated by the fact that ethical dilemmas are seldom black and white. There is always an air of subjectivity surrounding any type of ethical dilemma. As such, journalists often have to make decisions that fall somewhere along the continuum of what is ethical or not. They are often forced to deal with situations where there is no clear-cut answer and at times there may not be a frame of reference for them to use to make the ‘correct’ decision.

Based on the fact that journalists are likely to face ethical dilemmas on a somewhat routine basis, it is imperative that they have the knowledge they need to make sound decisions. Individuals make ethical decisions based on a variety of different factors. Much of an individual’s ethical ideology is based on social conventions and their intellectual development. Research has also shown that education and age also have an impact on ethical ideology (Detenber and Rosenthal, 2014). As such, it is imperative that journalists undergo extensive training when it comes to ethics because even if they grew up in a culture that didn’t necessarily follow the ethics associated with journalism, they can be taught how to adhere to those ethical standards. Then, when they are faced with an ethical dilemma, they are more likely to remember back to what they learned about, which will provide them with a frame of reference in terms of making an ethical decision.

Most of the ideas surrounding ethics in journalism come from the Society of Professional Journalism’s (SPJ) Code of Ethics. The code of ethics consists of four distinct directives. These include being accountable, acting independently, minimizing harm, and seeking truth and reporting on it (Detenber and Rosenthal, 2014). While membership into the SPJ is mostly made up of American journalists, the principles within this code can be applied on a global scale. In fact, the principles in the SPJ’s code of ethics matches up quite well with the principles of Ward’s (2005) global journalism ethics. Ward’s principles include paying attention to the human condition, being able to justify potential consequences, and being credible. Ward’s principles and the principles of the SPJ match up in the sense that credibility is related to acting independently and seeking out the truth. Additionally, justifying consequences is related to being accountable and the focus on humanity is related to the emphasis on minimizing harm (Detenber and Rosenthal, 2014).

Ethical dilemmas often occur in the course of a journalist attempting to fulfill the duties of their job. One source of an ethical dilemma that often comes up is the practice of gathering news. While gathering news is an essential aspect of a journalist’s job, the process of collecting the necessary information to complete a story is not always easy. The needed information may not be accessible through strictly ethical means. This may lead a journalist to employ news gathering tactics that may appear to be unethical. Some of these tactics include using hidden recording devices, concealing the fact that they are a journalist, revealing the identity of a protected source, and using classified documents that they do not have authorization to use (Detenber and Rosenthal, 2014). While these tactics may seem unethical, there are times where they may be acceptable to use because the value of the information to the public is higher than the cost of using potentially unethical methods of information gathering. Thus, the ends of providing valuable information to the public justify the means of using potentially unethical collection methods.

Existing codes of ethics in the realm of journalism don’t really do enough to address the issues of invasion of privacy and deception (Whitehouse, 2010). As such, the decision to use potentially unethical tactics is largely left up to journalists and editors. As mentioned previously, adherence to a code of ethics has been shown to be correlated to education. As such, it would make sense to think that an increase in education would lead to a decrease in a journalist’s willingness to use potentially unethical news gathering methods. However, this has not proven to be the case. This is the result of the fact that justifications for using such methods are typically based on context. A study by Hood and Deopere (2002) found that the tendency to evaluate behavior based on context increases with level of education. Thus, it makes sense that those who are highly educated would be more likely to use ethically questionable news gathering methods because they would also be more likely to evaluate whether they should use those methods based on context.

New Media

The media landscape has changed with the advent of new technology. Part of this change has come about because of the ability for citizens to act as journalists. The ability for citizens to participate in journalism has also changed the nature of media ethics. Ward (2010) argues that new technology has led to what he calls ‘open ethics’ instead of the traditional ‘closed ethics.’

Ward (2010) describes closed ethics as consisting of “guidelines that primarily intended for a relative small group of people, and places substantial limits on meaningful nonmember participation in discussing, critiquing, and changing the guidelines” (277). Essentially, closed ethics was the standard in western journalism. Journalists had control over ethical guidelines and citizens had limited recourse in terms of making any type of reform to said guidelines. A closed ethics system is intended to be used by professionals. From a journalistic standpoint, the principles and code of ethics mentioned previously in this essay would fall under the category of a closed ethics system because they are designed to specifically target potential issues within the field of journalism.

A closed ethics system also restricts who can participate in conversations regarding ethics. These conversations are restricted to professionals in the sense that citizens are not really able to participate in any meaningful way. In this context, meaningful participation is described as the ability for participants to be taken seriously and to have significant influence over the ethics process. There is a tendency for professionals to make citizens feel as if they are being included, when in fact their concerns are being mostly ignored.

In contrast, an open ethics system has guidelines that are designed for a larger group of people. It does not place such strict limits on nonmembers and enables nonmembers to have more control over changes to content. An open ethics system also encourages participation in the sense that it is not just available to professionals, but to citizens as well (Ward, 2010).

Media and journalistic ethics are closed by nature because they are designed to promote objectivity and autonomy. As such, they are supposed to be free of outside influence, including from social groups, politicians, and corporations. While the media is designed to serve the public, it also has a responsibility to ensure that the media is not controlled by the public. Journalists are taught to maintain their independence, separate news from opinion, remain objective, and to put the public first (Ward, 2010). For the most part, journalists have been supportive of this closed system because they feel like their autonomy may be reduced if the public has too much control. There is also the view that the general public simply doesn’t have enough knowledge about ethics and journalism in general to be able to discuss ethical issues.

But new media has ushered in an era of a more open ethics system whether journalists wanted it or not. Personal blogs and social media have made it possible for citizens to engage in journalism. It is no longer a matter of simply waiting for mainstream media to provide news because citizens on the ground have access to just as much information if not more so and can get their message out to the public much quicker. However, this has led to a lot of issues from an ethical standpoint because there is often no one to vet the information that is being placed online. While the transition to an open ethics system is positive in many regards, there are still issues in terms of citizens not adhering to the journalistic guidelines. Because they are not members of the journalist field, they are not bound by such guidelines.

Conclusion

In conclusion, ethics plays an important role in media because it helps journalists maintain standards that keeps media objective and credible. The advent of new technology has made this more important than ever because the role of ethics has changed. Citizens are increasingly able to participate in journalism and post news related information to the Internet without needing to have the information pass through an editor to be vetted first. While this has led to information reaching more people at a faster pace, it has also led to a decline in accuracy and reliability. But this change to the role of ethics has not diminished its importance, but rather made it more important than ever for journalists to adhere to ethical guidelines in an effort to ensure that the information they are providing to the public remains ethical.

Christians, C. G., Fackler, M., Richardson, K., Kreshel, P., & Woods, R. H. (2015). Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning. Routledge.

Detenber, B. & Rosenthal, S. (2014). Changing Views on Media Ethics and Societal Functions among Students in Singapore. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 29, 108-125.

Harcup, T. (2015). Journalism: principles and practice. Sage.

Hood, A. & Deopere, D. (2002). The relationship of cognitive development to age, when education and intelligence are controlled for. Journal of Adult Development, 9(3), 229     234.

Ward, S. (2005). Philosophical foundations for global journalism ethics. Journal of Mass Media    Ethics, 20(1), 3-21.

Ward, S. & Wasserman, H. (2010). Toward an Open Ethics: Implications of New Media Platforms for Global Ethics Discourse. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 25, 275-292.

Ward, S. J. (2012). Digital media ethics. Center for Journalism Ethics. Retrieved March 7, 2017, from https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/resources/digital-media-ethics/

Whitehouse, G. (2010). Newsgathering and privacy: Expanding ethics codes to reflect change in the digital media age. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 25(4), 310-327.