Ethics, Morals and Journalism

Why do we need journalists in the first place (let alone ethical ones)?

Because democracy depends on the free flow of accurate, trustworthy info. Under democratic theory, an informed citizenry is necessary for a strong society.

"The primary purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing" (Kovach and Rosenstiel, The Elements of Journalism).

Because information is power, and we tend to think shared power is safer and more beneficial to society than concentrated power.

Journalists are in the business of redistributing power, a role that makes them powerful.

Ethics is a commitment to not abusing that power, to using freedom responsibly ... often a delicate and difficult balance. There is always a tension between freedom and responsibility.

Those two ideas or ideals -- freedom and responsibility -- both have a long heritage in philosophical thought, stretching back to the ancient Greek and Chinese sages and continuing as a recurring theme throughout history (as we will see).

Much of the Journalism Ethics book is devoted to exploring the dynamic between them, as well as their connections with concepts about individuals and society. In particular, Merrill focuses on two perspectives:

* The "libertarian" perspective, which is basically a version of Enlightenment-era liberalism. It puts relatively greater emphasis on the rational individual and on personal freedom or liberty.

This perspective historically has dominated U.S journalism (and, for that matter, American culture in general).

* The "communitarian" perspective, which places relatively greater emphasis on social connections or community, as well as on the responsibilities we have to one another.

In journalism, this perspective was most clearly articulated by the Hutchins Commission on Freedom of the Press in the 1940s, which stressed the media's "social responsibility." The more recent civic journalism movement has built on these ideas.

(The Internet, by the way, extends the debate in new directions. Do you think it gives more weight to freedom or responsibility?)

Another way to look at this is to consider rights and responsibilities.

* Laws give us rights (as in, say, the "Bill of Rights").

* Ethics gives us responsibilities. Ethics are inherently social -- they involve our actions in relation to others.

Why journalism ethics? Because, again, of our belief (beleaguered though it may be) in the importance of a free press ... and of the need for it to be responsible, as well.

There are two forms of restraint on the powerful media:

* External restraints: Laws and rules imposed from the outside, primarily by government.

In this country, we seek to minimize external restraints.

* Internal restraints: Ethics imposed from the inside, primarily by individual journalists and by the profession at large.

Because we minimize external restraints, we perceive a need to maximize internal ones.

Isn't this really about morals?

Not exactly.

* Morals are rooted in cultural customs, which lead to laws. Laws are forms of external (governmental, religious and so on) control.

* Ethics are rooted in character, which grows out of individual choices and decisions. It takes practice to be an ethical person, as Aristotle will remind us next week.

The topic of morals brings us to theories of moral development, which you are reading about this week in Media Ethics. These theories address the question: How do we learn to become ethical?

The theories fall into two broad groups:

The rights-based perspective, which says that moral development ...

* Occurs within the individual.
* Parallels intellectual development.
* Occurs in universal, unvarying and hierarchical stages.
* Comes about through conflict.

The care-based perspective, which says that ethics is about developing a sense of "we," not "I."

Proponents agree with the first two points above. But they disagree with the second two. Instead, they say:

* Stages are not universal nor unvarying.
* Moral growth is rooted in community and connection, not in conflict.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

You're a diligent DI reporter. One day, while checking the police logs, you see a report that a UI sophomore who lives in Burge filed a sexual assault charge last night. She thinks her date slipped her a "roofie," then raped her.

The police confirm they are investigating but have made no arrests. They will not give you info about any possible suspects.

You go over to Burge and start asking around. The woman who filed the report isn't home. But someone on her floor tells you the woman's date was named "Dave."

While there, you bump into (J-School alumnus) Mike McWilliams from the Press-Citizen. He saw the police log, too. He says he's about to file a story about roofies and their local prevalence and impact.

* What issues and factors are relevant?

* Who are the stakeholders in this story?
* What alternatives do you have?
* DECISION TIME: What do you do?