JOUR1111 Lecture 8

Let’s be honest, journalists are certainly not renowned for upholding a high standard of ethics. It’s not uncommon to hear people complaining about invasion of privacy and misleading stories. However, there are numerous codes of ethics which are meant to control the behaviour of journalists (MEAA), advertisers (AANA) and public relations (PRIA). Yet, codes of ethics are only as strong as the sanctions behind it and the willingness of the ‘code keepers’ to uphold it.

There are times when journalists feel as though they can justify invading people’s privacy and this brings us to the concept of public interest.
Does the public need to know?
Does the story directly impact the public?
Is it in the national interest or does it impact national security?

Ethics has always been a hazy area as all people have different standards of what is “good” or “right”, not to mention that there are a range of different ethics theories that each dictate what is ethically correct.

Firstly, deontology refers to doing the right thing ethically by following the rules. However, just because it is within the rules of the organisation you work for it doesn’t necessarily mean that you are doing the right thing at a personal level. For example, the lecturer told us of how she had to get an interview of the parents whose child had recently passed away. There was a flock of media hanging around like vultures in the family’s front yard, all of which following their duty and reporting on a story that was within the public interest. Yet, while deontological ethics say it was right, was it truly the right thing to do to pester a family grieving over the loss of their child?

Consequentialism is an ethics theory that is all about the outcomes. The end justifies the means and so by providing a story that is in the public interest it will result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people and so it doesn’t matter how we got there. And finally, there is virtue which is more to do with personal standards of what is right or wrong. This is also reflected from cultural and social standards which play a significant role in people’s behaviour.

I imagine journalists are frequently confronted by ethical dilemmas as it certainly seems to be a risk in the profession. The question is what wins out in the end; their job, ambition and the story or their own personal belief system? Or is there a way to balance both (I hope so)?