Online research in philosophy

This article identifies principles for global journalism ethics in speeches and essays by the early 20th century journalist and founder of the first American journalism school, Walter Williams. Williams is not known as a media ethicist, nor is he a prominent figure in ongoing scholarly work on global journalism ethics. However, his nascent ethical principles offer an important foreshadowing of current discussions on how journalism ethics might work in a global context. The global perspective he brought to journalism was formulated at a critical period in the development of American journalism and codes of ethics. Tracing the evolution of global journalism ethics is important because the search for universal ethical principles in journalism has intensified today. That is because “media technologies are increasingly and dramatically global. Our work in media ethics should be commensurate with them” (Christians, 2005, p. 3). A century ahead of current attempts to develop principles for global journalism ethics, Williams was confronted with pluralism and globalization, just as he and other key figures in American journalism's history were shaping journalism into a profession and an academic discipline. While Williams discussed such principles as global responsibility and awareness of difference, he also contended that a specifically Christian, American, pastoral model should set the global standard. This paradoxical, unwieldy stance is discussed in the context of the Progressive Era. Implications for current scholarship on global journalism ethics are explored.

Raw (pragmatic) and potential (theoretical) power is seen as the key to press freedom in various global settings. Because the locus of power determines the locus of freedom, the authors suggest a model to understand where the raw and potential power resides within a matrix consisting of the State, the Media Elite, the Journalists, or the People. Numerous questions concerning accountability and ethics are raised concerning the practical application of a model that purports to overcome cultural biases inherent in traditional theories of press and society.

Globalization has churned up in its wake a reevaluation of standards in numerous enterprises, including journalism. The search for a universal journalism ethic, however, has often ended with the attempt to import traditional and underlying Western "free press" values, such as objectivity and an adversarial platform, forged in Enlightenment philosophy. This belief of the universal portability of Western values is reflected in the mixed results of several professional initiatives in the early and mid-1990s designed to both install and instill a First Amendment-based free press system in the newly independent former states of the Soviet Union. Scholars admonish that modernization through globalization is not Westernization and warn of the futility of attempting to fit indigenous values into a procrustean bed of Western economic or political design. Multiple models of citizen-press-government relationships grow legitimately out of indigenous value systems and are endurable within the forces of globalization. This does not mean the search for a universal journalism ethic should be abandoned to the morass of cultural relativism, but rather that a new starting point should be found and new focal points enumerated. Globalization has produced several major paradigm shifts in world societies, not the least of which is increasing degrees of autonomy of both the individual and the citizenry to encourage a wider participation in both the governing and economic process. This suggests that a new focal point of journalism ethics should be empowerment-the degree to which a society's journalism is designed to empower the citizenry for its own betterment rather than the degree to which it creates a passive audience of consumerism. In this study, I advance an ethic of empowerment that can both reflect the changes of globalization and respect indigenous value systems. I also argue that a principal structural measurement of this global ethic should be the degree of autonomy the journalist enjoys, within legal, cultural, and professional limits.

The aim of this essay is to review the work of the Israel Press Council. The essay considers the history of the Press Council, analysing the way it has developed, its work, and how it reached its current status. It is argued that the existing situation is far from satisfactory, and that the media should advance more elaborate mechanisms of self-control, empowering the Press Council with greater authority and equipping it with substantive ability to sanction.

Problematic is probably the best way to describe journalism ethics in societies experiencing deep and rapid institutional change. Although it might be desirable to inculcate ethics in the early stages of press transition, reality suggests fundamental needs, including necessary materials and economic viability, come first. Using Romania as a case study, we interviewed news officials about ethical behavior as well as related issues. Clearly, concern with mere survival supersedes concern over ethics. If, as proposed here, press changes proceed in stages along the lines of a hierarchical order of needs, then we should be careful comparing ethical behavior across differing press systems and imposing our own standards.

The Fairness Doctrine violated a Constitutional provision for a free press and it failed to guarantee public access to publicly owned broadcast airwaves, as was its intent. The regulation was eliminated in 1987, restoring 1 important free press element to America's broadcast newsrooms. However, public access since deregulation has further deteriorated, while other standards of ethical journalism appear to have been abandoned for higher profits. These factors have renewed the call for re-regulation. This article presents an alternative model in the spirit of the Fairness Doctrine, ethical broadcast journalism, capitalism, and the preservation of the First Amendment.

The history of the National News Council's creation and demise demonstrates that there are well?grounded rationales in social vision between those who supported the concept of the NNC and those who believe its etablishment was ill?founded. This article suggests that the root of the NNC controversy lies in the differences between Madison and Jefferson's perspectives on the place of information in society. Madison and Jefferson's view on press freedom and responsibility may be as important to the debate about the NNC's status as the more frequently cited pragmatic considerations such as the Council's infrastructure or management. The philosophic issues raised here are ethical at base, and should be considered by critics contemplating vehicles for media accountability.

Accountability is viewed as a civilizing element in society, with professional accountability formalized in most cases as duties dating to the Greeks and Socrates; journalists must find their own way, without formal professional or government regulation or licensing. Three scholars look at the process in a line from the formal professional discipline to suggesting problems the journalism fraternity faces without regulation to suggesting serious internal ethics conferences as 1 solution to the problem.

The concept of media accountability is widely used but remains inadequately defined in the literature and often is restricted to a 1-dimensional interpretation. This study explores perceptions of accountability as manifestations of claims to responsibility, based on philosophical conceptions of the 2 terms, and suggests media accountability be more broadly understood as a dynamic of interaction between a given medium and the value sets of individuals or groups receiving media messages. The shape-shifting nature of the concept contributes to the volatility of debate surrounding conflicting notions of press freedom and responsibility.

It is remarkable how many journalists embrace the principles of public journalism but fail to recognize the importance of applying those principles to journalism itself. While the press stands ready to expand the opportunities for public debate by inviting everyone to participate, journalists typically exempt themselves by declining invitations others are expected to accept. I f indeed the press plays a vitally important role in creating and maintaining the conditions for selfgovernance, as journalists claim whenever they raise the banner of public journalism, the press needs to assume responsibility for-and invite commenta y on-the quality of its performance and the integrity of its practices. In short, the press needs to recognize itself as a distinctively public institution bound by the same standards of accountability expected of other public institutions.