Lecture 1:     Ethical responsibilities

Why be ethical?

- In any communications profession, unethical decisions and selfish behavior can result in horrible consequences that are very, very public.

Ethical standards people can reasonably expect of the media, the things that protect its credibility:

1.  Objectivity: Absence of an obvious agenda
2.  Accuracy: being trustworthy with facts, figures, details.
3.  Fairness and Balance. Providing equal coverage to all points of view, even extreme ones, so people can draw their own conclusions. (Opposite of criticism or editorial writing, which represent the writer's personal opinion.)

• Every conscience is unique; what may outrage some might not bother others
• Experts' opinions are always biased
• Holding a public discussion between antagonistic parties is fraught with extremism and overheated emotion

 Aristotle's philosophy of the golden mean. Main drawbacks:

• Too simplistic when dealing with complicated situations that deal with many variables; also doesn't work for either-or situations.

Kant's categorical imperative. Main drawbacks:

• Consequences are not as important as the ethical act itself. That can lead to a hide-bound approach in an era when ethics need to adapt intelligently to wildly different situations.

• An "end justifies the means" mentality. "It was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it."

Six types of duties govern ethical choices. The most important development he introduced was the idea that different ethical priorities can and do co-exist, and it's possible to reason out a solution when two or more competing ethical choices present themselves by deciding which of the ethical guidelines is the most important in a given situation.

The communitarians believe strongly in the rights of the community, arguing that appropriate individual decisions may not be in the best interests of the community. Drawback: it is much harder to calculate what's in the best interests of a diverse community than what's in the best interests of an individual.

Newspapers come up against ethical dilemmas daily. Most can be broken down into the following categories:

1. Gatekeeping role. How much does the public need to know, and how prominently should it be played? Is Gary Condit's affair with a flight attendant front page news or inside? What about your local member of the legislature if he's having an affair with a secretary he hired who can't type? What's legitimate news and what's merely sensationalism?
2. Privacy. When does an individual's right to privacy overrule the people's right to know?
3. Protecting people, eg. Sources who may be endangered by revealing their identity. That practice runs contrary to a cherished rule of credibility: always names your sources.
4. Protecting government secrets. The New York Times was asked by President Kennedy to hold for one day a story that broke the Cuban Missile Crisis so he could address the nation on TV. It granted his wish, but not without much internal debate.
5. Offensive material. Where is the line between newsworthiness and offensiveness? A man is brutally beaten by the police and it's caught on camera. When is that kind of thing worth showing? (Rodney King)

Orange County Register guidelines for ethical decision-making:

1.  What's at stake?
2. Who stands to win, who stands to lose if a story is published? What do they win/lose?
3.  What's the easiest solution? (Abandoning the story is not a solution.)
4. What's the best solution, if any?
5. Are there other solutions? How are they inferior to the best solution?