In 1984 the code was expanded and revised in a manner that saw the code place much heavier emphasis ‘on privacy matters and areas of potential discrimination such as gender, race, sexual preference, religious belief, marital status and physical or mental disability’ (Hurst, John, White sally, Ethics and the Australian News Media, p.19). After a series of further revisions, an additional clause was added to the code in 1999, which states that ‘basic values often need interpretation and sometimes come into conflict. Ethical journalism requires conscientious decision-making in context. Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden’. Important questions that need to be addressed in relation to this new clause are why it was necessary to introduce the clause, and whether the clause weakens or strengthens the code of ethics.
Given the fact that Australia is one of few common law jurisdictions that does not exercise any explicit constitutional provisions for protecting the rights of citizens, it would appear that the code becomes an extremely important set of guidelines, as it is almost the only measure of protecting citizens against harmful information that may appear in the media, which is an extremely public forum.
In plain view the guidance clause obviously waters down points in the code.
Would appear to be consequentialist.
No single dominant value system in society. What is determined to be ‘proper’ or ‘right’ differs in time and is generational.
Often there are cases in which Journalists are unable to fulfill their important role as the people’s witness without breaking some points of the code.
‘The essential distinction between matters of public interest – or those matters the public need to know in order to exercise their rights and duties as citizens – and matters of simple public curiosity must be remembered when trying to reach a sound ethical decision’((Hurst, John, White sally, Ethics and the Australian News Media, p.16)
‘Very occasionally, it is permissible to withhold – for a time – information that could damage national security or endanger the lives or threaten the liberty, security and rights of individuals’(Hurst, John, White sally, Ethics and the Australian News Media, p.17).
‘It is in the public interest to show things as they are. But paradoxically there is a powerful argument that it may also be in the public interest to conceal some realities if they are grossly offensive to prevailing standards of morality and taste or are likely to encourage grossly destructive and damaging actions against individuals’ (Hurst, John, White sally, Ethics and the Australian News Media, p.18).
‘While the media should not sanitise the dreadful realities of war, famine, violence or disaster, they should not make a habit of recording these horrors in intimate detail’(Hurst, John, White sally, Ethics and the Australian News Media, p.18).
If the code is violated the penalty is simply a fine or expulsion form the union.
The penalties for breaching the code are rarely imposed
Nowhere is the conflict between the professional values of journalists and the values of ordinary people more apparent than in press coverage of families grieving for victims of accidents or crimes.
Code of Conduct requires journalists to make inquiries and publish material with “sympathy and discretion”. Editors argue that such inquiries are in the interests of accuracy and may be welcomed by relatives but the voluntary code fails to address the problems posed by sensational journalism and its lack of compassion and empathy for grieving families.
The journalist has a two-fold duty to inform the public of this criminal act and also take due regard of the victim's safety.
Do you run the photos that document the horror in a respectful yet tragically personal way - or sanitise your front-page?
omission is simply a way of obscuring truth -- whether intentional or unintentional.
it is a matter of context, relevance and judgment.
sometimes necessary to inform people and help people understand a news event.
they're justified to convey the impact of the story.
must maintain a certain respect for those who died.
the death of Princess Diana which highlights the lengths to which journalists may go to get a story; others argue that it came to the fore as a result of the developments in the Hutton Tribunal regarding the death of David Kelly.
However, there still remain situations whenever journalists will need to follow their 'gut instincts' and make decisions that will affect the lives of others.
The "Golden Mean" or "The Principle of the Mean" is a middle-level principle that emerged at the earliest beginnings of Western philosophy. For example, modesty is a mean between shamelessness and bashfulness; generosity is a mean between stinginess and wastefulness. Aristotle denies that a precise equal distance from two extremes is intended but speaks of the "mean relative to us".
The golden mean would suggest that a journalist would have a social responsibility to advance a citizen's understanding and to investigate kidnappers and criminals.
Scholars state that Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) influenced eighteenth-century philosophy more than any other Western thinker. categorical imperative which implies that what is right for one is right for all.
To operate solely on a single guideline may force us to ignore the multiple obligations that we are faced with at every level of our existence-personal, familial, occupational and societal. It may be an imperative to publish known information, yet to protect someone's life when such protection is required must surely be a categorical imperative?
On the other hand, if the journalist was to suppress the information, s/he would be going against the Kantian view.
English philosopher Sir William David Ross identified six areas he believed all human beings would recognize, in one form or another, as being morally binding. Duties of fidelity-if you promise to perform some act or to abstain from some act, then you are obliged to perform or abstain from performing the act. This would include remaining faithful to contracts, explicit or implicit; and keeping promises.
Duties of justice-if a person merits a distribution of something and you can bring that distribution then you are obliged to distribute what is merited.
Duties of non-injury-if you are in a position to avoid hurting someone, then you are obliged to do so.
he has a duty of fidelity to his/her consumers by delivering news that is useful and interesting; s/he also has a duty of fidelity to the owners of the newspaper to generate profit from the stories. he also has further obligations which include a gratitude to the source. In this case it is the police.
Consideration of the subject's privacy may follow a duty of justice and non injury because perhaps the subject doesn't deserve to have his privacy invaded.
The Golden Mean would suggest that the journalist would have a social responsibility to advance citizen understanding and to investigate kidnappers and criminals by writing a compassionate story. Therefore, the journalist would not avoid the story, nor would s/he exploit the situation by writing in a sensationalist manner, but would write in an honest and compassionate manner.
The Categorical Imperative allows more freedom of expression but places the journalist under a primary obligation to protect the life of the victim. Nevertheless, the journalist would have a duty to be honest to his/her readers and to inform them of occurrences. Ross suggests that the journalist would have a duty of fidelity and justice to his/her employer and readers to expose the story, but there are issues of whether that fidelity extends to the victim's family
Reference list
Hurst, John, White sally, Ethics and the Australian News Media, p.14).
White,Sally, Reporting in Australia 1996, p.286).
