The Handbook of Global Communication and Media Ethics by Robert S. Fortner & P. Mark Fackler

Author:Robert S. Fortner & P. Mark Fackler
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Wiley
Published: 2011-03-10T05:00:00+00:00

Between these two positions are a multitude of other approaches. We might put them on a continuum as shown in Figure 26.1.

This is by no means a perfect representation of ethical perspectives. Kohlberg and Colby (1987) and Noddings (2003) both would argue that ethics develops within people who are a society and would thus likely fit between Bok and Rawls. Bok (1999) argues that society cannot afford to accept untruths for their own sakes. Mill (1978) takes the position that it is the greatest good for the greatest number that must be the clincher when choices must be made. Rawls (1971) suggests that only when social, political and economic positions are put aside can anyone decide what the right course of action is. Kant demands that the categorical imperative be paramount in choice. So from the left to the right of this chart is a movement from innate, or emotional, morality (postmodernistic ethics) toward greater and greater application of rationality, a movement toward negotiated rules, then inviolable principles, determined by rationality or essential qualities (often based in religious traditions).

Is being human the same thing, then, as being moral? We all know enough about the atrocities visited upon both individuals and groups of people (think of Rwanda, Congo, Cambodia, Kosovo, Ukraine, Nazi Germany, etc.) to answer this question in the negative. There is nothing intrinsically moral about human beings. They may have a predilection (or merely a desire) to somehow make the “right” choice, but this begs the question – what is the source of that predilection? Perhaps it evolved as people discovered that working together made hunting easier or community life safer. Perhaps truth-telling became a norm because people found the consequences of lying potentially too horrible to contemplate. This would be the default position of those who will not accept the idea of a created order in which the expectations of the creator are hardwired into humanity. In either case, though, the exceptions to moral (or right) behavior are legion.

Given that reality, and the fact that none of us can be sure whether morality is hardwired, evolved, or developed within society, it is problematic to assume that any particular individual will act rightly, or even more to the point, altruistically, or as Daniel Bell (1976) puts it, with civitas. In many respects, however, this is the expectation that society has of journalists. The very notion of objectivity is premised on the fact that journalists will report news by putting their own personal biases (including moral biases) to the side. They will not be influenced by personal commitments, but examine and report facts independently of pressure, without subjective interpretation, and in a manner that is fair to all parties. In a real sense, without certainty as to moral standards or extant moral behaviors shared broadly across a society, the expectations of such reporting are ludicrous. Ethical codes written for professional societies of journalists, editors, publishers, and so on, all assume a rational perspective – they should be followed because they

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.