Journalism, Ethics and Society

David Berry

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN:
  9780754647805
• eBook ISBN:
  9781317110286
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

Journalism, Ethics and Society provides a comprehensive overview and critical analysis of debates within media ethics in relation to the purpose of news and journalism for society. It assesses how the meaning of news and journalism is central to a discourse in ethics and further evaluates the continuing role of liberalism in helping to define both theory and practice. Its timely and topical analysis focuses on two of the most central concepts within media ethics and journalistic practice: the US based Public Journalism 'movement' and European Union media policies. It provides new ways of thinking about media ethics and will be of interest to students and researchers working within the field of media, cultural studies and journalism, as well as scholars of philosophy.

Chapter 1
History and Context: News and Newspapers

Such is our hunger for news of all kinds, it would seem, that it is frequently described in terms of a physical or pathological ‘need’. (Basner 2000, p. 271)

News

Newspapers developed initially as extensions of other forms of communication, such as verbal exchanges and were indeed necessities to fulfil appetites for news; perhaps the only real difference that emerged with the development of newspapers and journalism as a social practice was specialization and power. From an early period humans have exhibited an extraordinary interest in news and although it is difficult to scientifically trace the history of news to its actual beginnings, we can nevertheless safely assume that one aspect of our being, what determines human kind and separates us from the animal world, is our appetite for news of events. One could argue that this appetite for news is an intrinsic part of our human nature, and irrespective of the form it has taken historically or in modern times, most receptions of news require trust in authenticity.

Understanding what constitutes news appears to be more complex today with an emphasis on global communication networks dominating lived experience. On one important level, news is intrinsically connected to journalist productivity; on another broader plain, news is everywhere. News in relation to mainstream press and media organizations dominates social landscapes, which requires an analysis of power, influence and the ability to shape our understanding of the world we inhabit. In this context news in relation to journalistic activity is a central concern to a discourse in media ethics because the focus is on how news is produced and for what purpose, and this is premised on the privileged position that journalists and news organizations occupy and their ability to distribute news across time and space.

Burns (2002, pp. 49–51) under the sub-heading ‘Defining News’ explains that: ‘The word “news” to describe the things journalists write about has been in use for at least 500 years, well before newspapers were around.’1 Although human interest in news underpins current journalistic activity, it has underpinned the activity of other non-journalistic mediators in the past, such as chroniclers of events and more commonly peoples travelling between places:

Human beings have always been curious about the world around them, and anxious to know about events that will have an impact on their lives. For most of human existence, this curiosity and anxiety were fulfilled by travellers’ tales and gossip …. Early forms of transmitting news began with word of mouth; news was limited to what someone told and retold …. (Hastings 2000)

Moreover, people have and continue to produce news relating to personal, working and family lives. This shared social system is referred to as ‘oral culture’ where a community of speakers, coordinate information by means of the spoken word. Stephens (2007, p. 17) calls this early form, ‘Oral news systems’ that had particular dynamics, and says that: ‘The roots of our own journalism lie in such methods’, but, residues of oral cultural continue to exist throughout the world. Historically, oral cultures used memory to solidify tradition, customs and spoken narrative, and without print, oral culture was pure; with the introduction of print, oral culture was diluted but not annihilated. Print may condition oral culture in the modern context; that is a probability.

In Ancient Greece oral culture produced an intense intellectualism demonstrated by the Socratic dialogue, which was based on memory and then memorizing learnt theory for future dialogue. The dialogue was based on one’s perception of lived experience of the concrete world; this was no metaphysical exercise. Insight, a central element of the dialogue, could be achieved but only through the explicit dialectical process of statement made and actual experience – this was a process of self-realization. The Socratic Dialogue was based on interpersonal (collective) understanding between participants by testing statements against one’s personal experience.

Even though the spoken word dominates oral culture, this doesn’t negate power in discourse and the ability to persuade. Rhetoric, the art of persuasion, was taught by Greek sophists to fee-paying students. Sophists argued that humans could be taught to better themselves by learning the art of persuasion. Aristotle expanded on the use of rhetoric, maintaining that rhetoric had practical uses in civic affairs using ethos, pathos and logos to demonstrate its persuasive power. The fact is the study of rhetoric (rhetorical analysis) continues today through communication theoreticians in the study of persuasion in mass communications and advertising (see Hornig-Priest 1996; Berger 2000). Sophists travelled from city to city taking news with them and distributing it amongst their pupils. Socrates, who was accused of being a sophist, would have used news from other parts as a key element of the dialogue, which would have conditioned the lived experience of participants. News was the staple diet of the Greek Agora (market place), which played an essential part of Greek democracy from around 600 BC; news in this sense was a major part of Greek politic and much later in the Roman Forum where handwritten sheets were posted daily adding to the spoken news during the Caesarian period (Stephens 2007).

Today, oral culture continues to survive in various degrees according to cultural contexts through memory, narrative and dialogue and much of what is past off as news amongst cultures in the oral tradition is based on traditional modes of mediation. Memory is an aspect of the human condition that writers such as Jésus Martín-Barbero firmly believe constitute an essential part of human nature, particularly the memory of popular culture that continues today in the form of residues from the past that dialectically interweave in modern times to form and shape new cultural forms. And in Latin America, at least, what partly constitutes the popular culture of the people is the interpersonal form of transmitting news of communities and local happenings within a context of fast trans-national communications.

Until the technological advances of the mid-nineteenth century onwards, news moved slowly, but today, with modern technology, as Barker (2000, p. 2) states, news is largely perceived as ‘information on recent events’. Barker also alludes to a narrower definition today with regard to content than was previously disposed in eighteenth-century England ‘when for some, all types of gossip, anecdote and fashionable, moral or religious discussion were deemed worthy of being termed “news”’. This historical perspective on what constituted news, and Barker’s rejection thereof, raises important concerns for contemporary forms of journalistic practice, particularly when we consider what it means to be a journalist and what journalism as a social practice is meant to be achieving. It is, after all, no coincidence that many academics accuse the tabloid press of ‘dumbing down’ culture because of the content, where political news is seen as having less value than gossip and entertainment. Tabloid editors for their part will argue that news is defined by public taste, which interestingly has historical roots, as have ethical concerns of what is preferred as news over and above the interests and tastes of the public as Black (1991, p. 42) demonstrates with regards to the English press and weeklies in particular during the eighteenth century:

There were clearly some serious disputes within newspaper managements over the issue of content. A recent study of Arthur Young and the Universal Magazine in 1762 has detected a tension between what the readers apparently wanted and the solemn, heavy pieces that Young thought they should be given, which ended with the purchase of the magazine by booksellers, and the lowering of its tone.

As Black further explains (ibid., p. 44), there were heated debates over content:

Clifton’s Medley attacked the style and content of Mist’s Weekly Journal. He accused it of being lewd … Referring to Mist’s ‘vast success among the lower class of readers’, the Medley claimed that it had promised never to appeal to Mist’s readers by printing puns, conundrums, and double entendres, and that it dealt with people of sense.

This informs us more about the ethics of ‘good’ news, according to Clifton, than it does about a clear definition of news; suffice to say that news at its vaguest is information about people and events. However, the emphasis on what apparently constituted proper or acceptable forms of news in history also informs us of how writers in media ethics currently perceive the social responsibilities of journalists today.

There have been claims that the word ‘news’ is an acronym formed from the letters North, East, West and South, although this isn’t convincing. The word ‘news’ is seen to represent the ‘new’, therefore the emphasis is upon ‘current events’ (Oxford English Dictionary 1989) with the additional ‘important, or recent interesting happenings’ tagged alongside. Who decides what is both important and interesting is very much a key part of the discussion on ethics because, as stated earlier, it invokes a discussion on responsible action. To complicate matters further, the word ‘new’ is an adjective and, in English at least, rarely do adjectives have plural forms as the word ‘news’ obviously implies.

Some writers believe news to be of the moment and thus time becomes an indication of whether something constitutes news and, in this context, whether it therefore reflects an act of journalism. Using an historical analogy Stephens (2007, p. 48) states: ‘Writing was for tortoises such as Thucydides; news is spread by hares’, adding that ‘Socrates, a contemporary of Thucydides, was capable of playing the hare’ because Socrates according to Stephens ‘wanted to be brought up to date on the current state of philosophy (a form of specialized news)’ (ibid.; my emphasis). Barker (2000, p. 2) has also argued that news is essentially characterized by ‘current events’ in relation ‘of interest to the public’, which apparently ‘forms the subject matter of public debate’, ideally perhaps and certainly not in all cases. However, although ‘current’ isn’t entirely inappropriate for defining news; perhaps the act of revealing for the first time is more appropriate. If the act of revealing constitutes news then time, in terms of the ‘new’ and or ‘current’ isn’t privileged. If, as an example, a three-year long investigation into historical Nazi war crimes reveals new evidence then surely this constitutes news, for what else is it? This may come as a surprise to some, but even historians are engaging in the production of news; the style of writing and approach to reference systems may differ, but revealing something hitherto unknown is an act of news.

The Oxford English Dictionary reminds us that news derives from the fifteenth century ‘newes, plural of newe … on the model of Old French noveles or Medieval Latin nova’ meaning ‘new things’. News that reflects the new is information being disclosed and revealed for the first time – hitherto unknown – a revelation; otherwise it’s old news, if I am permitted to use what is a contradictory term. Old news is news that has been previously disclosed and once had the value of news at a point in history – that value depletes over time making news (new) more valuable both in terms of merits of disclosure and status. News can have an historical and reflective dimension, and whether or not it is news from the deep past as opposed to the recent is irrelevant, for it is disclosure that is a defining moment of what constitutes news. Those that claim news can only be so if it is deemed to be interesting and important, as the Oxford English Dictionary states, can be said to adhere to a paternalistic model of defining news, for this assumes a social value bestowed upon society of which benefits are derived.

Similar to Barker above, Conboy (2004, pp. 6–7) also argues that news is distinct from ‘gossip’ and ‘rumour’, although Conboy’s account is hardly convincing because news is never thoroughly defined here and it is merely taken for granted that it has superior value to gossip and rumour:

Before the formalisation of communication in various forms of newsbooks and newsletters, at which point we can begin to identify certain characteristics of early journalism, all levels of society had been lubricated by the more informal exchange of information known as rumour and gossip.

This point is also documented in Mott (1962, pp. 8–9) stating in relation to the Massachusetts-based title The Present State of the New-English Affairs, 1689 that: ‘Its sub-head, “This is Published to Prevent False Reports”, is an acknowledgement that one of the great functions of the printing of news is to correct the inevitable abuses of rumour.’ This position contrasts with Emery’s (1972, pp. 2–3) account stating that news is a combination of gossip and information: ‘news was exchanged long before there was even the most primitive form of newspaper. One of the great attractions at the country fairs of the Middle Ages was the opportunity to exchange gossip and information.’ Emery continues: ‘News had a structural effect as part of that flow of information which reshaped Early Modern European societies’ (ibid., p. 8) and with reference to Habermas, the author alludes to the idea that reliability defines news, but in what way exactly? And how reliable is gossip? There are, however, some contradictions or points of tension because Emery also pays reference to ‘high quality news’ (ibid., p. 7), as distinct from what exactly?

Although it is true that people throughout history have been engaged in exchanging news either within localities or from far-flung places, the relationship between journalist and news is seen to be not only different, but one that is far more complex, and this is despite the fact that some newspapers provide highly contentious versions of news. Perhaps the most fundamental element that conditions something we may safely and trustworthily perceive as news is ‘truth’ that reflect facts of any case in hand. A truthful recording of events, however, makes no ethical judgements on what is interesting or important and is therefore neutrally defined. Any salacious, pernicious and harmful content can therefore be justified as news as long as it is based on truth and factual observation, so the normative axis becomes much greater when we deliberate over what constitutes news as well as deliberating on its truthfulness. This can deteriorate into subjective evaluations of what constitutes news based on personal taste and acceptance – one may say tabloids are ‘dumbing down’ culture, or on the other hand that they are wonderfully inventive!

For example, with respect to the introduction of the ‘yellow press’ in the US during the late nineteenth century, particularly Randolph Hearst’s ‘new journalism’ (Keeler et al. 2002, p. 48), a new ethical debate emerged on what constituted news. As the authors argue this was a debate on ethics concerning ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ or what is acceptable or not according to the values of different press people of that time. The yellow press published sensationalist stories, focusing on crime and sex amongst other matters, and was seen to belong to the culture of the people or what has been described as the ‘great unwashed’. This approach to news can be seen in all its glory in the UK today; the News of the World and The People are two amongst many examples. However, the content that was published in the yellow press forced members of the elite to pass comment and judgement on standards, definitions of news and the meaning of journalism:

Higher classes were critical of newspapers for pandering to and perpetuating working class values, presenting trivial and tasteless news, lowering moral standards …. In addition, journalists should be well educated and of high moral integrity. (ibid., p. 49)

Whether they truly represented working-class values is open to debate and seems a gross generalization and stereotype, but the point has been made; there were differences over what constituted news in relation to personal judgements and moral positions. This debate continues today and with respect to the US, Keeler et al. (2002) state that what constitutes news in the contemporary US is governed within a much broader and often dubious framework: ‘A great deal of “news” is being derived from “reality” programs, call-in talk shows, and news greatly tailored to narrow audiences in an increasingly fragmented media environment’ (ibid., p. 53); in other words, anything goes. In the UK the Daily Star, Sun and Daily Mirror often publish accounts of soap operas that is passed off as news. This condition reflects the ideas set forth in Umberto Eco’s (1998) work Faith in Fakes: Travels in Hyperreality where the reproduction of fictional accounts brings forth events that produce far more gratification than the real. In this context the realities of everyday life are exhumed from their actual social conditions and the fake is passed off as the real. In ethical terms the point of critique rests upon the departure or the negation of news practice that bases itself on factual accounting. The films of UK director Ken Loach (social realism) have far more basis in reality, irrespective of whether the films are produced from a value-judgement on society. Eco had argued that fabricated reality was sold to the public as being better than the real. Whether it is reality game shows in the US or tabloids in the UK, what isn’t being sold is news, but rather it is a simulation or an invented world. This isn’t perhaps so shocking when we consider Eco’s work on Disney, for the latter attempted to reproduce the real through ideologically generated strategies, but in the context of newspapers, with the apparent emphasis on news, it not only becomes more shocking, but certainly raises the debate over ethics on what constitutes news and on what constitutes a newspaper, which are after all organs of news – or at least that is the theory.

The assumption that real news is to be discovered outside the cosy, manufactured confines of reality television or even reality newspapers is an argument for distinguishing between what can be satisfactorily referred to as news and non-news. For instance, Mott (1962, p. 788) under the sub-heading ‘What’s the news?’ argues that it is something created by a trustworthy and serious newspaper, and provides a list of newsworthy events that have shaped historical events. Mott also argues that it is the approach to events that helps define ‘The News and its Status’ which is the chapter heading (ibid.), and the approach is principally defined as a method, which is at the heart of understanding journalism that structures news; for Mott the required method that creates news is objectivity:

DESPITE INCREASED EMPHASIS UPON INTERPRETATION, THE NEWS itself – the objective news facts as nearly as an honest and skilful reporter can ascertain and record them – continued to be the fundamental business of American journalism. It is as difficult to generalize about newspapers as it is to make sweeping statements about human nature; there are unscrupulous papers which distort the news, as well as highminded journalists who suffer in the cause of truth, and prejudiced observers can make a case for either distrust of the press or faith in it by choosing suitable examples. But in 260 years of American journalism, newspapers have, in general, been read chiefly for the news; and in general, they have furnished the news to their readers faithfully. (ibid.)

This emphasis on objective news differs significantly from the idea that news can be used to agitate and subvert as a revolutionary tool to propagate change: ‘A contemporary historian of the Revolution, William Gordon, assumed that “In establishing American independe...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Dedication
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Introduction
• 1 History and Context: News and Newspapers
• 2 Journalism
• 3 The Liberal Theory of the Press: Spirit of Liberalism and Residual Meanings in the Present
• 4 Media Ethics and Society: Journalism and Responsibilities
• 5 Truth and Objectivity
• Bibliography
• Index