Media Ethics: An Overview
Published by Emil Abraham,
It is expected from a journalist that he does his job honestly and objectively along with the protection of the sources and loyalty with the employer. These factors create dilemma at times. Hence, it is important to understand all aspects of ethical issues.
"Facts are sacred, comments are free. Facts must not be tampered with; News must be reported with complete objectivity, without any distortion. A journalist should not mix news with views and must be careful enough to clearly distinguish between the two" – as said by the editor of the Manchester Guardian (Shamsi, 2005: P-49). Refusal of moral values in community life as in individual is the source of the corruption on a mounting scale among sections of politicians, public servants in the civil and defense services even the judiciary and others. The dominance of utilization and eroticism in the mass media especially electronic media is a part of this syndrome. Mahatma Gandhi was in favor of guiding children in the humanist morals which are common to all religions at their best. As the eminent Gandhian Shri Shambhu Dutta who has worked with Gandhi says that everyone is in the rat race or a strange competition at the cost of so many things that only time will tell, but lack of kindness and humanity in all strata of life is directly related to the lack of morality and ethics in media. When asked about the way left out to come out of this situation or to bring ethical issues in journalism, Shri Dutta replies immediately, off course Mahatma Gandhi. He throws light on the fact that Gandhian ethics of journalism set high standard to the entire journalist.
Objective process of social-economic and media development, intensifying competition within the press and from the other new media and other kinds of economical and political pressures have introduced serious problems. Higher level of manipulations of news, analysis and public affairs information to suit the owners financial and political interests; prejudice and propaganda masquerading as professional journalism; the down warding and devaluing of editorial functions in some cases; creeping corruption are deeply worrying tendencies. His journalism was fearless and without any external pressure as Gandhi said, "a person who follows the path of dharma does not feel helpless" (Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol.56: P-183).
It is in this context that it would be appropriate to give consideration to the concept of ethics and what we mean by ethics and its nature. Another term for ethics is moral philosophy and the two are usually used as synonyms. The latter term, is used more in Britain. While ‘ethics’ has a Greek origin, ‘moral’ has a Latin origin. Ethics is not similar as morals, and is not even a set of morals. It is said that ‘the object of ethics, by its own account, is to determine true propositions regarding righteous or vicious conduct.
Morals or a set of morals can be derived from the propositions discovered by moral philosophy that is how morals and moral philosophy, however conceptually different, are often taken together in common parlance. Morality can be taught of intuition by good and wise people, without explicit philosophical analysis, but these intuitions themselves can be based on the implicit reasoning. Philosophical analysis, explicit or implicit, is necessary in any discussion of what is moral and what is not, or what is good and what is not. It includes ethics along with sciences. Since ethics emerges in society and has much to do with social relations, it could very well be considered, as a social science.
However the majority of writers on ethics are satisfied with treating it as a branch of philosophy. Well, philosophy itself can be considered a science that of logical investigation into abstract issues concerning all sciences, arts and experiences an ultimate science. Not many philosophers, however, would agree that science, generally understood as an investigation into the natural world, might prove or disprove, or evaluate moral concepts. While there can be an ethical evaluation of science and technology, yet it is for ethics to evaluate moral concepts and principles.
It should be noticed that ethics in the profession are only guideline, which are necessary in the process of information dissemination. These ethics relate to language use, and means adopted in securing information for ensuring objectivity and fairness in presenting facts to the public. Collection and dissemination of information is the duty of the press. Because, the press as a mass communication channel operates in a public sphere for the benefit of the readers, the actions of the press are expected to be above ground. The public scrutinizes the actions of the press on all occasions and expects the press to reflect values and ethics of the profession. In the process of collection and dissemination of information, the press adopts different means to obtain information and occasionally suppresses news from the public because of extraneous reasons. The press is, therefore, expected to have certain norms and ethics in the collection and dissemination. Former Press Council of India Chairman P.B. Sawant noted that the code of ethics all over the world emphasizes the following:
(a) Honesty and fairness, (b) reply to critical opinions, (c) objectivity in reporting, (d) prohibition to receive gifts, (e) respect for privacy, (f) distinction between fact and opinion, (g) not to inflame hatred, (h) not to use dishonest means to obtain information, and (i) general standards of decency and taste. (Sawant,P.B: 22,2)
Nevertheless, Sonnenberg reported a study done in thirty one countries on the ethical code, and it was found that journalist adhered to fifty seven principles and ten principles were found to be common in all these countries. These ten principles are: truthfulness, honesty, accuracy of information, correction of errors, prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race/ ethnicity/ religion etc., respect for privacy, prohibition to accept bribes or any benefits, fair means in information collection, prohibition to allow any outsider to have influence on the journalistic work, prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex/class etc., freedom of speech, expression, comment, criticism, professional secrecy (Sonnenberg, U, 2004). Though these codes specifically mention that public accountability and privacy of the individual seem to be important, the media violate them fully, asking for absolute freedom to discharge its duties. Thus, in several countries, certain elements of free press are synchronized such as press freedom, freedom of expression, privacy, libel1/slander2, defamation, right to reply, access to public information, discrimination, pre-condemnation and court proceedings, responsibility of the publication, censorship, source protection and minors.
Ethics is not just a matter of subjective opinion. Their proposals are not specific to particular individuals but apply equally to all. They have a degree of generalization that can make it a systematic area of study, regardless of whether once prefers to call it a science or a branch of philosophy. There is a remarkable similarity amid ethics and economics, though economics is considered to be more definitely a science. The comparison arises not so much because both deal with values, since the way they look at values is difference. The similarity arises further, because both deal with the problems of choice and development. It is observed, ‘Ethics deals with the problem of choosing between different domains of life, and assumes there is real choice between different kinds, or else there is no such things as ethics’.
Ethics deals with the choice, not only between what is good and what is bad, but also between different principles or moral values or ends, because there can be several moral ends that sometimes conflict with each other. Freedom of choice is extremely important for moral decisions. Ethics becomes significant only in the context of choice. For example, merely not stealing by itself does not make anyone ethical.
However, when the individual knows that under the circumstances faced there is no possibility of being caught, and yet he does not steal, only then is he ethical. We could add that ethics is concerned not only with choice, but also with survival in this mundane world and development of both individual and communities. It is mainly concerned with moral and social development. Both ethics and economics can overlap each other when it comes to the issues related to human development. Thus, both economic choices and economic development are subject to ethical evaluation too, and not just in terms of rates of growth and efficiency. Ethics refers to the quality of the value judgments we make on matters big and small. So it may be natural to conclude that someone perceived to have chosen the "wrong" course of action has acted badly. But we must remember that the focus of ethics remains on the deliberative process rather than on the final decision (Plaisance, 2008: P-22).
The first step in ethics is to be very clear about what we mean by good and bad. It is also the major question, the answer to which constitutes a most important part of ethics. The main object of Ethics as a systematic science is to give correct reasons for thinking that this or that is good. What is good is an age-old question. What is just or good is determined by the interests of the strong and the ruling, to guard their power, prestige, and property. Thus, the question of what is good is inseparably linked with the question of good for whom.
Ethics can also be taken as ‘doggy ethics’, in the sense that we call a dog good when it is obedient and ‘well behaved’. It is not in the interest of common people to follow such ethics, but they do stabilize themselves and security for their members. However it cannot be denied that rigidities can produce injustice in customs, laws, and even in moral codes, which, for example, authenticated social evils like untouchability, slavery, and blasphemy laws. Although to say that all ethics is of this type would be extreme cynicism. Definitely there is more to ethics than mere loyalty and obedience. In contrast to facts mentioned above. Gandhi would think that justice is the main weapon of the exploited and the deprived. It is justice which gives them the motive, power, and moral courage to fight against injustice. Exploiters on the other hand would have to try hard for some validation of their wrong-doing.
From Gandhian perspective: ‘for everybody who is powerless, justice and truth is the most important weapon in the fight for his freedom and growth’. The relevant point here is that Gandhi would brush aside the question of ‘good for whom’, as he would regard morality is good for all, the rich and the poor, young and old, and it should be sought for its own sake as an end in itself. When it is so pursued, it results in happiness and well-being of all. Without morality, society cannot just survive, including the weak. Morality involves mutual obligations and the necessity to ensure that it is conducive to the happiness of all sections of the society. Society would simply break down in to disorder and chaos without a common or universal concept of what is good for all. Such a situation is dangerous particularly for the weak. For Gandhi morality and truth was something as to the passionate love of the pure lover for his beloved (Santhanam, 1967: P-38).
Morality and ethics emerged because both the strong and the weak, individually and collectively, benefit out of it. The concept of what is good’, when used in a non- ethical sense, should not be confused with good’ used in an ethical context. The question arises, ‘Good for what?’ We can refer to a good knife, which cuts well, or a good farmer who knows and practices cultivation wisely. Generally, though not always, in such non- ethical context, good is required not for its own sake but as an instrument or means, while a important characteristics of morality is that it is sought for its own sake though it may serve the purpose of enhancing the happiness and well-being of the society. However, aesthetic contexts also may refer to ‘good’ as an end in itself, such as when we refer to Sachin Tendulkar as a very good batsman, as his batting is enjoyed for its own sake, like good music. Even principles can be an aesthetic experience sought for its own sake, both being spiritual experiences. It however leaves open the question of defining what is morally good.
It is observed that ‘we call something "good" when we desire it and "bad" when we have an aversion from it’. However it was hastening to include that our use of the term is more stable than our desires. That is, even if for the instant we may not desire a thing, we may call it ‘good’ if it is desirable otherwise. Likewise, not one or two persons but many should be able to agree on the desirability of what is good. ‘Good’ is therefore not a mere individual view, but more a social or collective view. That is why, ‘there can be better in a world where the desires of difficult individuals be: Act so as to produce harmonious rather than discordant desires’. Significantly, ‘if harmonious desires are what we should seek, love is better than hate’. Desire for knowledge is in accordance with similar desire by others, while a desire for, say, large landed estates can be satisfied by only a few, depriving many others. Desire for power over others is likewise a source of conflict. Desires for activities, which are innovative rather than possessive, add to goodness in the world.
What is ‘good’ and what is ‘right’ may have a considerable overlap, but ‘good’ and ‘right’ are not exactly synonyms. The term ‘right’ is often used in the sense of what is proper and correct, both in moral and non-moral contexts. In moral contexts, it usually conveys the sense of what is just or fair. Justice is one of the principles of morality, but not an exclusive moral principle. The term ‘right’ may also be used when there are conflicting moral principles, raising a moral dilemma. When a preference is made for one of them as related to the situation faced, the selected principles are taken as the right or correct one. The term ‘right’ has thus a reasonably relative flavour, even as the term ‘good’ has an absolute sense. The good precedes the right, and the question of what is right cannot be decided in a moral vacuum without any notion of what is good.
The Enlightenment philosopher, Immanuel Kant has made a very significant contribution to the question of what is ethical. He wrote a path breaking book, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, published first in 1785, which sets out his approach to principles, apart from other books on philosophy, very briefly and simply put, the morality of action, according to him, is not based on its consequences but on the purpose of doing one’s business sincerely, for instance, is certainly commendable, but what makes it moral is if the reason is doing so is for the sake of sincerity and end in itself, rather than merely as it is the best policy to attract and stay is business and make more profits in the long run. An action, if is to be considered as moral, is not something in response to our self-centered desires or inclinations, however done as duty for its own sake. In following our desires or inclinations, we are not free persons, and only a free or autonomous person can be able of moral action. But what is this duty? How is it made known to us? It is not somewhat given by others, but is derived from our own free will. It is arrived at by our analytical power, as Practical Reason, logic applied to moral questions. While humans are capable of this way of thinking as rational beings, all humanity is to be treated with due respect and dignity. No person is to be used as a mere object, a mere instrument to satisfy our own ends, but as an end in itself. It emphasis on giving due respect to all humans, all humanity, consequently gave rise to the notion of human rights.
Gandhi while deciding what is good or bad said that he relied to a great extent on listening to the ‘inner Voice’ or conscience. Quite a few philosophers do not agree with this system, because they believe that conscience can vary from person to person, but ethics has uniformity and universality, as observed above and it is not a matter solely of individual view, For instance, Hitler’s conscience. (Assuming he had one) acted very differently from Gandhi’s reply to such criticism is that every person whether a saint or a criminal, has an Inner Voice", but some suppress it and make it feeble. They let their insensitivity and selfishness surpass the Inner Voice. Although even a criminal would know in his hearth that what he is doing is immoral, and he may possibly rationalize it in some way to relieve or stifle his conscience. Though, an innate decision of what is good or bad in an individual’s mind is a result of social acculturation. Even as a child, a person imbibes some ideals taught by or observed from its parents or from social environment. This is at least one of the essential reasons for the need to spread education extensively, including moral education.
While judging what is good or bad, the Gandhian approach can be said to consist of three criteria: purpose, means, and consequences. This approach is more ample. This may not inevitably be an original idea of Gandhi, and he has himself approved different sources of his inspiration and thought, but the approach has a usual Gandhian flavor. A person could find that his deeds has gone wrong and brought about unforeseen and unwanted consequences. Although if his intention was pure, and there was no negligence or carelessness on his part, his action may not be considered as immoral. Immoral means do not fail in bringing about unwanted consequences. Ultimately, the goodness of an action or decision is to be judged by consequences, particularly on others, at least consequences as expected on the basis of reasonable, impartial thinking, being cautious about wishful thinking. Gandhi said that we commonly call "wrong" or inappropriate actions "unethical", doing so can obscure the fact that ethics is about how grapple with the difficult gray areas (Plaisance, 2008: P-22).
Gandhi made it clear that morality is not guided only by the reason of liberal egotism or prudence. In fact, he was critical of modern civilization on the view that it reduces morality to enlightened selfishness. Ethics, for him, was more positive and nobler, and was encouraged by mutual consideration empathy and love, and not by self- interest. As morality is not simply intended self-interest, it transcends dry reasoning and becomes spiritual in nature, in Gandhi’s viewpoints. An ethical person is more than logical; she or he is spiritual too. Not that Gandhi would push apart self-interest from morality overall, but pursuing self-interest had to have a moral base. For example, seeking freedom for India from the British rule was not a question of mere self-interest for India, it was moral too. Colonialism18 violated the principle of equality of human beings, and deprived a large number of people of their solemnity, freedom, and even economic well being. To rise beside it was more than self-interest; it was a moral responsibility.
1 Defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures
2 Defamation in some transient form like spoken words, gestures, malicious, and false statement or report