Ethics in Journalism

Ethics is a multi-faceted concept which is difficult to attach with an empirical definition. James Fieser (2001:1) says that ethics involves “systematising, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behaviour.” Ethics expert Edward Spence (2008a:3) defined ethics as ‘a set of prescriptive rules, principles, values and virtues of character that inform and guide interpersonal and intrapersonal conduct: that is the conduct of people toward each other and the conduct of people toward themselves.”

Business ethics experts Petrick and Quinn (1997:42 cited by Breit) see ethics as “the systematic attempt to make sense of the individual, group, organisation, professional, social, market and global moral experience in such a way as to determine the desirable, prioritised ends that are worth pursuing, the right rules, and obligations that ought to govern human conduct, the virtuous intentions and character traits that deserve development in life and act accordingly.
They conclude that “ethics is the study of individual and collective moral awareness, judgement, character and conduct”.

Grassian (1992:3, cited by Breit) on the other hand, defines ethics as the study of “right conduct, moral character, obligation and responsibility, social justice and the nature of the good life.”

These descriptions of ethics all point to the idea of ethics as a decision making process aimed at making the right choices. Central to this is identifying and prioritising your personal responsibilities, professional responsibilities and responsibility to the wider community, requiring an understanding of stakeholder interests.

The 1947 report from the Commission on Freedom of the Press, popularly known as the Hutchins Commission Report, focused attention on the press’ role in promoting the public good. This influential report highlighted the media’s responsibilities over its freedoms, which ultimately led to greater industry and organisational emphasis on codes of ethics and codes of practice, education and public criticism (Richards, 2005: 8-14, cited by Breit, 2007).
“According to this theory, the responsibilities of the press (and by extension broadcast news media) were to be emphasised over its freedoms, and the press was to be considered subject to moral and ethical restrictions. Among its obligations were
• Servicing the political system by providing information and debate on public
affairs
• Enlightening the public so as to make it capable of self government; and
• Safeguarding the rights of the individual by serving as a watchdog on
government

Social responsibility theory has several weaknesses, most notably that responsibility and ethics, although related, are not the same thing. Responsibility and accountability contribute to and encourage ethical behaviour, however ethics is broader than either concept. Ethics affect how people see right and wrong, good and bad, what is responsible and the effectiveness of accountability.

Journalism is regulated by laws which define how professional communicators should act in certain situations. However ethics is separate from law in many ways, and ethical responsibilities goes beyond legal obligations. Ethics is painted in shades of grey as opposed to the black and white of the law. Sometimes what is ethically right may clash with what is legally right (Spence, 2008), for example if a media release containing extremely pressing information concerning the safety of the public was sent out with a 48 hour embargo to allow the organisation to attempt to rectify the situation, it may be ethical to ignore the embargo for public interest’s sake.

Ethics is an ambiguous field, and people have varying personal ethics and ideals based on a range of factors, from their socialisation to their professional experience. One of the tools that assists journalists in making ethical decisions is the Journalists’ code of ethics.

Codes of ethics perform many functions, including defining the profession, creating a community of users, advancing moral understanding, developing virtuous professionals, developing professional identity, promoting professional autonomy and outlining ethical obligations.

The MEAA code of ethics acts as the primary regulatory mechanism for journalists, and defines the ideal functioning of journalism, referring to the public’s right to information, democracy, freedom of expression and public responsibility. It also refers to journalistic ideals of pursuing truth, honesty, fairness, independence, and respect for the rights of others, defining what journalists can do and outlining public expectations of journalists. Breaches of the code may incur a warning, a reprimand, a fine of up to $1000, a suspension of a year or expulsion from the union (Conley and Lamble, 2006). The Australian Press Council is journalism’s other governing body, and it oversees the ethics of print media, dealing with complaints. They have no power to penalise unethical journalism in a legal avenue, but may enforce retractions or adjudications. Publishers usually print these adjudications to preserve their reputation. Television and radio are self regulatory through codes of practice and answer to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (Conley and Lamble, 2006).

These are some of the ethical issues that face journalists:
 Need for objectivity
 Balance and lack of bias
 Editorial independence
 Public interest vs privacy
 Chequebook journalism/Cash for comment
 Conflicts of interest
 Undercover reporting
 Intrusion of entertainment values
 Fairness and honesty in acquiring information
 Respecting the anonymity of sources

And the list goes on. As there is such a breadth of ethical issues facing journalists, I will focus my discussion on the issue of whether it is a journalist's role to publish material that is 'in the public interest' or material that is 'interesting to the public'? with reference to privacy, which follows on from last week’s presentation.


Reporting what is in the public interest, that is, what they need to know for their safety and that which is pertinent for the maintenance of a democratic society is one of the main functions of journalism. However, reporting information that the public would like to know, for entertainment or interest, as opposed to what they need to know, can be the basis for unethical practice, particularly when it intrudes on privacy.

In Australia, there is currently no legal right to privacy (Parliament of Australia). Despite mention of protection of privacy by Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 which states “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks on his honour or reputation. Everyone has the right to protection of the law against such interference or attacks”, there is very little the public can do about invasions of privacy. This is particularly apparent in a contemporary climate with the presence of surveillance, easier access to confidential information, and an intrusive mass media. While it is not covered by law, it is generally considered to be ethical to afford people a reasonable level of privacy. This idea is supported by Andrew Belsey, who suggests that “it is ethics, not law that should protect privacy” (Belsey, 1992). Alfino and Mayes also discuss the nature of privacy, describing it as a moral right not protected by law. This principle of respect for privacy is one which the media takes into consideration when dealing with stories of a personal or private nature.


Archard (1998) assumes that each individual has a strong interest in his/her privacy and that any breach of a person’s privacy must be shown to be justified by the display of good reasons for the breach. That is, it must be in the PUBLIC INTEREST
Such good reasons must meet the proviso that making public something that is private should not merely serve a valued end, but be the only thing that does and can serve that end. Example: revealing a cabinet minister’s sexual peccadilloes can effectively display his unsuitability for high office, but if drawing attention to his public acts does as good a job of discrediting him than disclosure of private affairs is gratuitous.
Archard takes for granted a background presumption in favour of the freedom of the press to report what it deems appropriate. The relevant freedom is one to publish what the press deems to be sufficiently attested facts. The argument being that making all known pertinent facts available to the public serves a valued political purpose. Democracy is able to function properly if citizens are better able to make sound judgements as a result of all facts being made available to them.

A person’s privacy may be breached if the information disclosed serves a proven public interest. A code of press practice may outline such instances, eg: detecting or exposing a crime. Showing public officials to be corrupt, grossly inefficient, negligent or dishonest is certainly in the public interest, provided these failings bear directly on their performance of public duties. Questions of sexual morality are much harder to justify in terms of public interest. In some cases what may be decisive in discrediting a politician is that his sexual behaviour is illegal, Milton Orkopolous is a good example of this, which Kim will elaborate on in her discussion.


There is a difficult line for the media between publicity and privacy. This should be governed by ethics rather than law. A democratic society requires freedom of information and freedom of expression, and this gives the press the vital role of relaying information to the public to inform them as democratic citizens. Emphasis on the positive role of the press in promoting a fairer society by attacking bigotry, discrimination and hypocrisy and by combating political corruption should be explored.
Sources

Alfino, M, and Mayes, G, R, (2003). "Reconstructing the right to privacy." Social Theory and Practice 29.1 (Jan 2003): Pg: 1-19

Archard, D (1998). “Privacy, the public interest, and a prurient public”, in Kieran, M (ed) Media Ethics, (Routeledge 1998), Pg: 82-96

Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997). “What is ‘Public Interest’?” [Transcript], Media Report 13 February 1997


Belsey, A (1992). “Privacy, Publicity and Politics”, in Belsey, A and Chadwick, R, Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media, (Routeledge 1998), Pg: 77-91

Breit, R (2007). Law and Ethics for Professional Communicators. Victoria: LexisNexis Butterworths, 1st edn.

Conley, D & Lamble, S (2006). The Daily Miracle, 3rd Edn, Melbourne, Oxford University Press.

Gardner, H, Csikszentmihalyi, M, & Damon, W (2001). ‘Good Work in Journalism Today’ in Good Work: When Excellence and Ethics Meet, Basic Books, New York, Pg: 179-206.

Media Alliance (2008). “Media Alliance Code of Ethics”, Retrieved September 18 2009 from Alliance Online website: http://www.alliance.org.au/code-of-ethics.html

Spence, E.H. & Quinn, A. (2008). “Information Ethics as a Guide for New Media”, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 23(4), Pg: 264-279.