In the Journalism
Ethics chapter for this week, Merrill expands on his discussion of
the inherent conflict between freedom and responsibility -- for individuals,
for society and for the media.
He suggests
that the notion of responsibility, especially as articulated by the
communitarians, is becoming more widely accepted than
the notion of freedom as exemplified by Enlightenment thinkers.
"The
philosophical emphasis is first on ethics or media responsibility
to society, second on positive freedom (the freedom to act positively),
and last on negative freedom (freedom from extra-media coercion)"
(Merrill, p. 99).
Think
of positive freedom as "freedom
to" (to do
something good). Think of negative freedom as
"freedom from" (from external restraint
or control).
The
Enlightenment thinkers mostly emphasized negative freedom. Merrill
says the more contemporary trend is toward positive freedom. |
To
help illustrate the contrast in philosophies, Merrill uses (among
others) two exemplars: the ancient Chinese sage Confucius and
the 17th century British political philosopher John Locke.
* Confucius:
Although he lived 2,500 years ago, Confucius' ideas were
very much in line with those of contemporary communitarians.
He
emphasized the need for social harmony and for the individual
to adapt to whatever will benefit the group.
His
notion of freedom is positive: People should have the freedom
to act responsibly, to choose a socially beneficial good.
Journalists, for instance, should do what is best for their
organization and for society as a whole.
Stability,
dignity and the value of the social unit take precedence
over the individual. |
* Locke:
According to this central thinker of the early Enlightenment,
freedom is a natural law or natural right. There is no
"divine right
of kings";
rather,
everyone
in
society
should
be free and equal.
The
exercise of reason serves to limit freedom. Rational people
voluntarily give up some freedom -- but they should not be
forced by external authority to do so.
Freedom
can be abridged only when it might interfere with the freedom
of someone
else. Locke stressed what is called "negative freedom,"
or freedom from outside control. To
act ethically is to act self-consciously. Another way to say
this is that to be moral is to be rational. We
must each give serious individual thought to what is right
and good,
using
both biblical guidelines and our own ability to discover appropriate
moral law through the exercise of reason.
(Not
for nothing is the Enlightenment also known as the "Age of
Reason"!) |
|
|
Let's
shift gears and start looking at how you might practically apply the
ethical philosophies we've been talking about
so far.
We'll look
at approaches to ethical decision-making suggested by four relatively
contemporary ethicists this week. First up is
Deni Elliott,
a Harvard alumna who is
currently the Poynter-Jamison Professor of Journalism Ethics and Press
Policy (a mouthful!) at the University of South Florida. Elliott suggests that when facing an ethical choice, you ask yourself
this series of questions (in this order):
1) What
are the morally relevant factors?
* Will
the specific action that you are considering cause an evil?
|
* Does
the type of action that you are considering
generally cause an evil?
|
If
"no" to both questions, there's no ethical problem here.
If
"yes"
to either question, keep going through all the rest. |
| 2) Is
a greater evil being prevented or punished? |
3) Are
you (the journalist) in a unique position to
prevent or punish evil?
|
4) If
you take the action you are considering, would you be allowing
yourself to be an exception to a rule you'd want everyone else
to follow?
|
| 5) Would
a rational, uninvolved person appreciate your reason for causing
harm?
(And can you clearly articulate that reason?) |
If you answer
"yes" to questions 2, 3 and 5 and you answer "no"
to question 4 --
go for the story!
Otherwise
... there is likely another, more desirable alternative. |
Sissela Bok, a ethicist and philosopher now retired from Harvard University,
suggests that you go through a series of steps, asking yourself the
related questions at each step, when facing an ethical choice.
Each
step will broaden your view of the situation and the options available
to
you.
Step
One: Consult your conscience.
Related
question: How do I feel about this? |
Step
Two:
Seek expert advice for alternatives.
Related question:
What are my alternatives? |
Step
Three: Conduct a public ethical dialogue with all
of the parties involved (stakeholders).
Related
question: How will my action affect others? |
|
John Rawls is another 20th century Harvard philosopher.
(He died in 2002). He was most concerned with the notion of justice.
Rawls is
associated with something called "the veil of ignorance." He has you
ask one basic question:
What
action will be the most fair or just?
To
determine what will be most fair, you must step (figuratively)
behind this veil of ignorance.
Think
of it as a curtain behind which all people are equal. There
are no social distinctions, particularly none of class or power. |
Making
ethical choices from behind the veil will lead to two desirable
consequences:
* You
will make choices that will maximize personal
liberty.
|
* You
will seek to protect the weakest party ... who could turn
out to be you when you step from behind the veil.
|
|
|
The
Potter Box (named for another 20th century guy from
-- you guessed it! -- Harvard named Ralph Potter) is another good
ethical decision-making tool.
It is probably
the
mostly widely used of any of these approaches.
The Potter
Box also asks that you step through a series of steps,
four in all. You begin in the top left corner of the box and proceed
counter-clockwise
to values, principles and loyalties.
1.
Define the situation.
1a. What do you know? What are the facts? 1b.
What don't you know?
1c.
What options do you have?
1d.
What will the likely consequences be of the action we are considering? |
4.
Examine (potentially conflicting) loyalties.
Loyalties
can be at several levels, including loyalty to:
*
An abstract idea (such as truth).
*
Professional norms.
*
Your employer or organization.
*
Yourself and those close to you.
*
Your sources and others directly affected by your stories.
*
And, of course, to citizens in general.
|
2.
Identify your values.
|
3.
Outline relevant philosophical principles. |
After you have gotten to step four and thoroughly examined all your
loyalties, it's time to make a decision ... then, ideally, to go back
through the process with the decision plugged in.
|
Now,
a detour to briefly summarize some key ideas so far from The Elements
of Journalism.
The
introduction and Chapter 1 say (among other things) that journalists
almost universally see themselves as serving the public
by providing necessary information -- the information
people need to be free and self-governing.
Yet
many journalists see “the public” mainly as recipients
of this precious information -- a passive, undifferentiated and
largely ignorant mass audience.
In
fact, “the public” is
far more complex. The authors suggest an “interlocking
public,” with three broad levels of personal engagement on any given
issue:
* The involved
public has
a personal stake in the issue being written about and
a strong understanding of it.
|
| * The interested
public has
no direct role in the issue but is affected by it and
responds to it. |
* The
uninterested public pays little attention
to the issue and lets others
frame discussion of it.
|
Serving
this multi-faceted public well is a difficult civic responsibility,
made even more difficult by:
* Technology that
divorces community from geographic, political or civic boundaries.
|
| * Globalization. |
* “Conglomeration,” or
media corporatization.
|
|
In
Chapter 3, the authors emphasize that journalism’s first loyalty is to citizens.
* Citizens
are not “customers.”
|
* And
journalists are not advertisers or marketers.
They
do not sell content
to customers. Instead, they build a relationship with
citizens in their community, based
on judgment, authority, courage and professionalism.
Or
at least they should. |
| * If
the business side of a media organization is working at
cross-purposes to this goal of serving citizens, journalism
is vulnerable to being compromised, even corrupted. |
* The
authors provide a series of requirements for preventing
this corruption, starting with media owners committed
to the notion of serving citizens rather than customers
(or shareholders).
Nice
thought. |
* Importantly,
they emphasize that journalists must find a way to convincingly
re-establish their allegiance to citizens, starting by
clearly stating and explaining their core values.
This
isn’t easy, and people are not necessarily going
to believe what the journalists or their employers profess.
Once
lost, trust is
very, very hard to regain in any relationship. |
|
|