Ethics Test 4

Accountability in Context People act differently when they know they're being watched and will be held accountable. *Syllabus explains your accountability for material, how that accountability will be measured, how grading reflects your level of accountability. May work both ways - at semester's end you're asked to rate your teachers anonymously. Consistent higher/lower ratings should affect how the course is taught in the future, may impact teacher's continued employment. Despite differences in who holds the p... in the relationship, these a... s... can motivate everyone to do the right thing. *For mass media, as in much of real life, accountability isn't so simple. Vital question in any consideration of accountability is: T... w... am I accountable? The answers are: To y... and to o... Accountability to Self First answer is easy: Must be accountable to yourself! Nature, nurture, education, lifetime of experiences have combined to create your s... of what you believe to be right/wrong. Part of any rational decision-making process includes knowing you must l... with y... both above the neck (ethics) and below (morality). Making a decision that falls within your ethical framework can be e... j...; but when that decision is at o... with your framework - result will be c... d... - the discomfort you feel when your b... don't match your a..., or when your brain has two c... t... *To regain that internal harmony, must (1) r... one of the thoughts, (2) j... (r...) your thoughts or actions. Can be difficult when it is a decision involving just self. Can be more complicated when you face an ethical question in the workplace, where you may have less autonomy. *Jiminy Cricket was wrong! Cannot always let your c... be your g...; term c... is what most people call what seems to spring spontaneously from depths of our human constitution to help us recognize a m... d..., and to excuse or accuse us about the decisions we make. Overtime, c... r... of unethical decisions may sear your c... to where you don't recognize the need to answer, What's your problem?, because you're unaware a problem exists! A seared c... or m... c... is a deficit of virtue, whereas un... g... is an excess of virtue of c...; usually percevied c... that draws complaints against media practitioners: -> Journalists who r... report on c... and t... may lose their sense of tact and inflict more pain on the victims they photograph or interview. -> Bloggers who fail to consider the other side may eventually become h..., ex... behavior for politicians or others they like while c... the same behaviors by their rivals. -> PR practitioners may feel guilt the first time they use a w... l... to s... the truth, but by the thousandth spin, they don't even notice how far their moral compass has strayed from true north as they enter the realm of o... lying. -> Advertising executives may 'g...' the products they sell, creating campaigns that highlight the environmentally friendly goods that are actually 'throwaway' products that do little to help nature. -> Entertainment workers who c... the l... to success may have been upset about how they were treated in their early jobs, whether it be unpaid internships or abuse by their managers, but when they reach the top, do not c... the system that mistreated them because it now b... them. -> SM practitioners may draw a... to selves with a clever comment about a celebrity's foibles, but find selves posting m... and m... things in hopes of staying in limelight. Accountability to Others *Once we move past the self-accountability, answer to question becomes more difficult (To whom am I accountable?) *Short answer is communicators are accountable to g..., f... p..., and p...; But what we mean by p... is fuzzy! Discussion of r...(assigned/contracted/assumed) can clear some, because accountability is part of being in a r... Consider accountability through prism of m... d... theories! *Defined categories of p...-c..., c..., and p...-c... Can be said using Kohlberg's cognitive-social approach to answering the question, To whom am I accountable?, that accountability in... 1) P...-c... levels of m... d... is about s...-in...! People here may feel accountable only to people who can r.../p... them (level 1) or people who can help them in their s...-in... (2). May apologize only when not apologizing will affect them p... - and that apology may not be heartfelt, but m... to e... Journalists may feel accountable to bosses who can fire/promote them, or to sources who can make/break a story. People in entertainment may feel accountable to bosses or more powerful people, such as well-known actors, to whom they can hitch their wagon. 2) C... levels of m... d... are about c... and f... r...! Many of rules involve accountability - especially when m... s... are violated. For mass communicators, juries decide accountability when considering cases of l..., in... of p..., c... violations, and similar issues. *The l... r... of p... communicators have changed as legislatures/courts have defined limits to c... speech and created ways to hold violators l... accountable for their actions. *Meanwhile, over-the-air b-casting rules require communicators should be s... r... and operate in p... in..., convenience, and necessity because the public gives b-casters access to scarce commodity that is the electromagnetic spectrum (FCC). *Most people live at this level, accountable to r... and r... m..., in part because the groups we belong to understand our justifications when we follow the r... *Mass comm operating here may feel accountable to the c... o... e... that guide their craft, and to f... p.... This might include ad practitioners who follow the FTC rules and AAF and BBB codes of ethics, so they can point to those r... when required to make an account of their actions. *The notion that mass communicators must serve the public is implicit in these r... and c..., but sometimes following the r... doesn't relieve media practitioners of accountability! The ad practitioner may craft ads that meet federal guidelines and letter of the code, yet are still ethically suspect and must justify on grounds other than saying ad 'meets federal guidelines.' Saying we met all a... l... doesn't make an action morally justifiable! *Why we need to move to higher levels of m... d... 3) P...-c... levels of m... d... are about accountability to g... s...! *Might require journalist to deceive, or filmmaker to show violence unflinchingly to reveal a greater truth. Those sorts of acts generally draw a great deal of attention and require high levels of accountability, just as MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail justified his decision to break racist laws he considered immoral. Can be tricky, as people operating at lower levels of MD do not always understand or accept why r... need to be b... *Communitarian and feminist ethicists also consider accountability as they generally assume higher levels of m... d... require higher levels of accountability in our r... with others and larger world. Christians describes examples of difficulties in tying together various levels of accountability to selves, people and groups with whom have affiliation, and society at large by introducing TV station manager who is also a church member, second-generation American, and parent. *Those r... may be in c... at times, but still that station manager (and rest of us) should operate with a sense of c... responsibility issuing from our h...! In fact, much of what we mean by enlarging the scope of our accountability entails that our duties as experts become so in... with our c... r... that our thinking and action are inseparably shaped by both our expertise and our basic humanness. Summarize: Higher level of m... d..., wider the collection of people and groups to which we feel a...! When we determine to whom are we loyal and to what values we cling, can decide to whom we owe accountability - and we recognize that SM, for better/worse, give others power to demand accountability from us. Box: What to do when told to do the wrong thing Many Nazis tried for war crimes after WW2 used what became known as 'Nuremberg defense' (I'm not guilty because I was following a superior's orders. Defense doesn't work in war crimes.) *Still, how might an 'I had no control' argument work when it comes to accountability in media? Likely you'll work for someone else, means may not always have power to make own ethical decisions - or just may have bad boss or work for problematic employer. When told to do something you believe is wrong, should: 1) Recognize the difference between l..., c..., m... decisions. Being asked or ordered to break laws, or being the subject of sexual harassment or another illegal action, can bring different levels of protections or problems. 2) T... before you s... u... Find virtuous spot between not s... u... about an egregious concern and complaining about every little thing, including matters of taste and style that are closer to non-moral issues with little consequence. 3) Be m... Use the 5 W's/H list to m... work through the situation. Understand facts and background. Be sure the order is coming from a legitimate source. Consider harm that could come from obedience and/or disobedience, consider test of publicity. 4) Find h... if need it. Especially for legal ?s. Be sure conversations about the dilemma are private. Consider consequences of gossip. 5) Use your organization's c... of c... Complaining on SM before talking with someone first will not help. Start with your direct supervisor by making sure you understand the request. This may help boss rethink request and show you're thinking about your boss' best interests, too. Saying this may look bad if it gets out can help, even though it's a low level of moral development. 6) Decide whether you need to e... to a h... a..., if you don't get anywhee with a direct supervisor. Know system in place to e... a concern, whether it be boss' boss, HR, hotline, etc. 7) Look for options beyond o... or d... Suggesting an alternative shows you're thinking clearly. 8) Be p... Have plan before starting a conversation. Try not to let emotions interfere. Don't make accusations. Asking Can you help me understand?, or saying This makes me feel uneasy, is better than sarcastic or accusatory remark. 9) D... your discussions. May not need them, but justifying your decision is easier if you keep notes in real time, legally recorded conversations, or had other witnesses. 10) Be ready to l... if you must. Don't threaten to quit if you are willing to do so. Don't expect people to be happy regardless of how the situation turns out.

Accountability in Context People act differently when they know they are being watched and will be held accountable. Syllabus explains your acc for the material, how that acc will be measured, and how grading reflects your level of acc. Acc may work both ways - at semester's end, you likely will be asked to rate your teacher anonymously. Consistently high or low ratings should affect how the course is taught in the future, and may impact your teacher's continued employment. Despite the differences in who holds power in the student-teacher relationship, these acc systems can motivate everyone to do the right thing. For mass media, as in much of real life, acc isn't so simple. The vital question in any consideration of acc is: To whom am I accountable? The answers: to yourself and others. Accountability to Self First answer is easy: You must be accountable to yourself. Nature, nurture, education, and your lifetime of experiences have combined to create your schema of what you believe to be right/wrong. Part of any rational decision-making process includes knowing you must live with yourself both above the neck (ethics) and below the neck (morality). Making a decision that falls within your ethical framework can be easily justified. But when that decision is at odds with your ethical framework, result will be cognitive dissonance - the discomfort that occurs when your beliefs don't match your actions, or when your brain has two competing thoughts. To regain that internal harmony of your thoughts, you must: (1) reject one of the thoughts, (2) justify (rationalize) your thoughts or actions. Can be difficult when it is a decision involving just yourself. Can be more complicated when you face an ethical ? in the workplace, where you may have less autonomy. Also worth noting that Disney's Jiminy Cricket was wrong - you cannot always let your conscience be your guide. The term conscience is what most people call what seems to spring spontaneously from the depths of our human constitution to help us recognize a moral dilemma, and to excuse or accuse us about the decisions we make. Over time, continuous rationalization of unethical decisions may sear your conscience to where you don't recognize the need to answer, What's your problem?, because you're unaware that a problem exists. A seared conscience - perhaps better known as moral callousness - is a deficit of virtue, whereas unneeded guilt is an excess of the virtue of conscience. Usually, perceived callousness that draws complaints a/g media practitioners: è Journalists who repeatedly report on crime and tragedy may lose their sense of tact and inflict more pain on the victims they photograph or interview. è Bloggers who fail to consider the other side may eventually become hypocritical, excusing behavior for politicians or others they like while criticizing the same behaviors by their rivals. è PR practitioners may feel guilt the first time they use a white lie to spin the truth, but by the thousandth spin, they don't even notice how far their moral compass has strayed from true north as they enter the realm of organized lying. è Advertising executives may 'greenwash' the products they sell, creating campaigns that highlight the environmentally friendly goods that are actually 'throwaway' products that do little to help nature. è Entertainment workers who climbed the ladder to success may have been upset about how they were treated in their early jobs, whether it be unpaid internships or abuse by their managers, but when they reach the top, do not change the system that mistreated them because it now benefits them. è SM practitioners may draw attention to selves with a clever comment about a celebrity's foibles, but find selves posting meaner and meaner things in hopes of staying in limelight. Box: What do wo when you are told to do the wrong thing Nazis at the risk of Godwin's Law, which says the longer an online conversation goes, more likely someone will refer to Hitler or Nazis. Many Nazis tried for war crimes after WW2 used what became known as 'Nuremberg defense' best described as I'm not guilty because I was just following a superior's orders. Defense doesn't work in war crimes.Still, how might a I had no control argument work when it comes to acc in media or other jobs? As media practitioners, likely you will work for someone else, and means you may not always have the power to make own ethical decisions - or you just may have a bad boss or work for a problematic employer.When you are told to do something you believe is wrong, you should: è Recognize the difference between legal, contractual, moral decisions. Being asked or ordered to break laws, or being the subject of sexual harassment or another illegal action, can bring different levels of protections or problems. è Think before you speak up.Find virtuous spot between not speaking up about an egregious concern and complaining about every little thing, including matters of taste and style that are closer to non-moral issues with little consequence. è Be methodical.Use the 5 W's/H list to methodically work through the situation. Understand facts and background. Be sure the order is coming from a legitimate source. Consider harm that could come from obedience and/or disobedience, consider test of publicity. è Find help if you need it. Especially for legal ?s. Be sure conversations about the dilemma are private. Consider consequences of gossip. è Use your org's chain of command. Complaining on SM before talking with someone first will not help. Start with your direct supervisor by making sure you understand the request. This may help boss rethink request and show you're thinking about your boss' best interests, too. Saying this may look bad if it gets out can help, even though it's a low level of moral development. è Decide whether you need to escalate to a higher authority, if you don't get anywhere with direct supervisor. Know system in place to escalate a concern, whether it be boss' boss, HR, hotline, etc. è Look for options beyond obey or disobey. Suggesting an alternative shows you're thinking clearly. è Be professional. Have plan before starting a conversation. Try not to let emotions interfere. Don't make accusations. Asking Can you help me understand?, or saying This makes me feel uneasy, is better than sarcastic or accusatory remark. è Document your discussions. May not need them, but justifying your decision is easier if you keep notes in real time, legally recorded conversations, or had other witnesses. è Recognize that the virtuous response may be between extremes of 'charging the hill' with quick/angry response, and giving in so others will assume you're the go-to-person when bosses need a bad thing done. è Be ready to leave if you must. Don't threaten to quit if you are willing to do so. Don't expect people to be happy regardless of how the situation turns out. Accountability to Others Once we move past self-acc, answer to the question becomes more difficult (To whom am I accountable?). Short answer is communicators are accountable to the gov, fellow practitioners, and public. But what we mean by public seems fuzzy. Discussion of relationships (assigned, contracted, assumed) can clear some of it, because acc is part of being in a relationship. Consider acc through prism of moral development theories. Even as theorists disagreed about the definitions, they defined categories of pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional levels of moral development. Can be said using Kohlberg's cognitive-social approach to answering the question, To whom I am accountable?, that accountability in: è Pre-conventional levels of moral development is about self-interest. People here may feel accountable only to people who can reward/punish them (level 1) or to people who can help them in their self-interests (level 2). May apologize only when not apologizing will affect them personally - and that apology may not be heartfelt, but a means to an end. Journalists may feel accountable to bosses who can fire/promote them, or to sources who can make/break a story. People in entertainment may feel accountable to bosses or more powerful people, such as well-known actors, to whom they can hitch their wagon. è Conventional levels of MD are about conformity and following rules. Many of the rules involve acc - especially when minimum standards are violated. For mass communicators, juries decide acc when considering cases of libel, invasion of privacy, copyright violations, and similar issues. The legal rights of persuasive communicators have changed as legislatures, regulators, courts have defined limits to commercial speech and created ways to hold violators legally accountable for their actions. Meanwhile, over-the-air b-casting rules require that communicators should be socially responsible and operate in the public interest, convenience and necessity because the public gives b-casters access to the scarce commodity that is the electromagnetic spectrum (FCC). Most people live at this level, accountable to rules and rule makers, in part because the groups we belong to understand our justifications when we follow the rules. Mass comm operating here may feel accountable to the COE that guide their craft, and to fellow practitioners. This might include ad practitioners who follow the FTC rules and AAF and BBB codes of ethics, so they can point to those rules when required to make an account of their actions. The notion that mass communicators must serve the public is implicit in these rules and codes, but sometimes following the rules doesn't relieve media practitioners of acc. The ad practitioner may craft ads that meet federal guidelines and letter of the code, yet are still ethically suspect and difficult to justify on grounds other than saying the ad 'meets federal guidelines.' Saying we met all applicable laws doesn't make an action morally justifiable. This is why ethicists hope people operate at higher levels of MD (moral development). è Post-conventional levels of MD are about acc to the greater society. Might require a journalist to deceive, or a filmmaker to show violence unflinchingly, in order to reveal a greater truth. Those sorts of acts generally draw a great deal of attention and require high level of acc, just as MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail in 1963 justified his decision to break racist laws he considered immoral. Can be tricky, as people operating at lower levels of MD do not always understand or accept why rules need to be broken.Communitarian and feminist ethicists also consider acc, as they generally assume that higher levels of MD require higher levels of acc in our relationships with others and larger world. Clifford Christians describes example of difficulties in tying together various levels of acc to ourselves, people and groups with whom we have affiliation, and society at large by introducing a TV station manager who also is a church member, second-gen American, parent. Those roles may be in competition at times, but still that station manager (and rest of us) should operate with a sense of collective responsibility issuing from our humanity. In fact, much of what we mean by enlarging the scope of our acc entails that our duties as experts become so intertwined with our communal relationships that our thinking and action are inseparably shaped by both our expertise and our basic humanness. Summarize: Higher level of MD, wider the collection of people and groups to which we feel accountable. Balancing that acc is a consideration as we sort our loyalties and values. When we determine to whom are we loyal and to what values we cling, can decide to whom we owe acc - and we recognize that SM, for better/worse, give others power to demand acc from us.

Justice-Focused Ethics Say you get to cut a cake for self and two siblings. Like some, might use the power you have by wielding the knife to cut a huge slice for self and leave slivers for siblings. But might cut it differently if you didn't know what piece you were going to get. *Scenario at heart of ethical approach by theorist John Rawls, offered alternative to both strict deontology and consequentialism. Comprehensive social and political theory uses s... c... (c...) view of justice, integrating ideas from Locke/Rousseau/Kant. Placed principle of justice and f... at heart of a s... c... for a democratic society. *Like Kant, wanted all people to be treated as e... in and of themselves, not as m... to someone's e...; Like Aristotle, wanted to know how people could find h.../e... *Described a 'p... for l...' conception of happiness. There is a plurality of l... p... open to each person, and what is important is that the p... be freely chosen by the person, and that the person be successful in realizing their goals. This view is subjective it recognizes the person as the a... c... of goals and a p... *But Rawls thought there ought to be an objective component to this l... p..., so in ideal world 'primary goods' or s... v... would be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any/all these is to everyone's a...; Primary goods include ri.../li..., po.../op..., in.../w..., h.../vi..., in.../im... *Saw democracy as a c... v..., a search for the good where all participants seek mutual (not selfish) advantage to flourish. Citizens cooperate when understand imporance of these primary goods, then work to distribute them f... and c... *However, goals of justice and f... are difficult to achieve because society consists of involuntary conditions (rich/poor, powerful/less). While might be nice to distribute primary goods equally, an unequal distribution may b... everyone (Affirmative Action, compensatory justice). Therefore, Rawls proposed society create its ideas about justice/f... from an or... po..., or starting point, a l... p... f... V... of I... Create this l... p... f..., created an intellectual exercise that asked s-holders to come together and seek solutions without selfishness (VOI). Parties come to discussion table from o... p... meaning they had no knowledge of specific positions in society. Not know race, gender, profession, place in society, class, etc. Without these biases or preconceptions or perceived differences in power, only way to make just decisions is on basis of g... k... available to all. *Called this position of id... ob..., extension of Kant's c... im..., only make universal decisions! Once behind the v..., principles of justice chosen so that: None disadvantaged/advantaged by outcome of natural chance or contigency of social circumstances. Since all similarly situated and able to design principles of favor in particular condition, principles of justice result of fair agreement or bargain. Ethical actions create s... c... that lead to two principles of justice 1. Each person has an equal right to the most extensive scheme of e... b... l... compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others. 2. S... and e... in... are to be arranged so that they are: (1) reasonably expected to be to everyone's a..., and (2) attached to positions and offices o... to a... The best possible solution, then, is the one that where even the worst position in society is as good as possible. By not knowing their position, people would develop notions of f... and justice to create system that would demand a... and r... for all s-holders. Until v... is removed at end of negotiations, not know whether among winners/losers. Would be unlikely to let majority or a power bloc increase its strength while a minority face more suffering, because might find selves in that minority once v... is removed! *Treat people as e... not m...; call this process re... eq... Inequalities may not disappear, but would be m... even as goal is to m... individual liberty. PRocess doesn't demand consensus! *Still r... e... expect principles of justice selected by s-holders in their o... p... to match most deeply held convictions about what is just. *V... is imaginary of course. Reverting to o... p... purely hypothetical situation, lead to certain conception of justice.

Justice-Focused Ethics Say you get to cut a cake for self and two siblings. If you're like some, might use the power you have by wielding the knife to cut a huge slice for self and leave smaller slivers for siblings. But might cut it differently if you didn't know what piece you were going to get. Sort of scenario is at heart of ethical approach from Harvard political theorist John Rawls, who offered alternative to both strict deontology and consequentialism. His comprehensive social and political theory uses a social contract (what philosophers call contractarian) view of justice, integrating ideas from Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. Rawls placed principles of justice and fairness at heart of a social contract for a democratic society. Like Kant, he wanted all people to be treated as ends in and of themselves, not merely as means to someone's ends. Like Aristotle, wanted to know how people could find happiness/eudaimonia. R described a 'plan for life' conception of happiness. There is a plurality of life plans open to each person, and what is important is that the plan be an integrated whole, freely chosen by the person, and that the person be successful in realizing his or her goals. This view is predominantly subjective in that it recognizes the person as the autonomous chooser of goals and a plan. But R thought there ought to be an objective component to this life plan, so in an ideal world 'primary goods' or social values would be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any, or all, of these values is to everyone's advantage. These primary goods include rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, income and wealth, health and vigor, and intelligence and imagination. R saw democracy as a cooperative venture, a search for the good where all participants seek mutual - not selfish - advantage in order to flourish. Citizens cooperate when they understand the importance of these primary goods, then work to distribute them fairly and consistently. However, the goals of justice and fairness are difficult to achieve because society consists of rich and poor, powerful and powerless, and numerous other involuntary conditions. In addition, while it might be nice if all these primary goods were distributed equally, an unequal distribution may actually benefit everyone (Affirmative action and compensatory justice might be examples if one took a longer view of justice). Therefore, R proposed that society create its ideas about justice and fairness from an original position, or starting point - a level playing field. Veil of Ignorance To create the level playing field, R created an intellectual exercise that asked s-holders to come together and seek solutions without selfishness - the veil of ignorance. Parties would come to the discussion table from the 'original position' meaning they would have no knowledge of their specific positions in society. A person would not know race, gender, profession, his place in society, his class position or social status ... his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like. Without these biases or preconceptions or perceived differences in power, the only way to make just decisions is on the basis of general knowledge that would be available to all. R called this position of 'ideal observation' an extension of Kant's categorical imperative, as we would only make decisions that are universal. Once behind this veil, principles of justice are chosen so that: No one is advantaged or disadvantaged by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances. Since all are similarly situated and one is able to design principles to favor his particular condition, the principles of justice are the result of a fair agreement or bargain. R's arguments is that ethical actions create social contracts that lead to two principles of justice: 1. Each person has an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others. 2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are: (1) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and (2) attached to positions and offices open to all. The best possible solution, then, is the one that where even the worst position in society is as good as possible. By not knowing their position, people would develop their notions of fairness and justice to create a system that would demand autonomy and rationality for all s-holders. Until the veil is removed at the end of the negotiations, they would not know whether they are among winners or losers. Would be unlikely to let the majority or a power bloc increase its strength while a minority or the disadvantaged face even more suffering, because they might find themselves in that minority once the veil is removed. They would treat people as ends and not as means. Called this process 'reflective equilibrium'. Inequalities may not disappear, but they would be minimized even as the goal is to maximize individual liberty. The process doesn't demand consensus. Indeed, would be surprising if all s-holders had identical moral imaginations and emerged with identical concepts of fairness. Still, reflective equilibrium (RE) would expect the principles of justice selected by s-holders in their original positions to match their most deeply held convictions about what is just. This veil is imaginary. R acknowledges that the reverting to the original position is a purely hypothetical situation so as to lead to a certain conception of justice.

Media Accountability S... continued e) O... While few in number, some orgs hire people to investigate p... c... and tell others about the good/bad of the operations. Usually t... o... who look into the org that is paying them. Some news orgs use term 'readers' representative, public editor' *Often hired for set length of time and essentially answer to n... o..., giving them in... in accounting for that org and in position to fulfill public accountability PR role at same time. As revenue falls and internet gives readers direct access to orgs, use continues to decline. But still provide more accountability than in other industries. f) N... C... One truth about accountability - as with any other ethics activity, it requires the accused take a r..., di... look at the issue. Knowing this is difficult to do, many efforts made to create t...-p... orgs that meet to consider complaints against media orgs, take and review evidence, and draw conclusions. *At least 60 nations have, including many in Europe, range from being very independent to another vehicle authoritarian govs use to keep journalists in check. *Efforts to create a n... n... c... in the US didn't get far in the 70s, national news orgs saw them as a d..., and p... l... on their F... A... freedoms. While some s... and l... c... deemed useful in keeping disagreements out of courts, last l... n... c... closed in 2014. g) E... C..., etc. Because mass media show work to the world, not unexpected for world to seek to respond with p.../c...; Accountability can require you respond to complaints about a single word in story - ad - screenplay; lack of certain types of characters; portrayal of people may be perceived as representing an entire group of people. *News orgs may print letters to editor or ultimately control the c... b... stories, but o... are invited to participate and hold the org accountable! Also, media often c... e... o...; 'a... media' criticize and praise mainstream media. *Newspapers may cover TV news; infrequently, TV covers newspapers. Reporters and critics praise and pan the entertainment industry. Trade publications and scholarly work also weigh in on media industries. Bloggers criticize everybody. When these o... do their jobs properly, media practitioners and orgs are called to account for their actions. *Other o... may include groups who demand accountability based on their n.../largely drawn in...; include different races, creeds, perspectives (Jewish Anti-Def. League, American- Arab Anti-Disc. League, Gay and Lesbian Alliance A/g Defam.). Include religious groups (Catholic League, American Family Association, Alternative Rel. Educational Network). Make general claims or have s... g... like No Notoriety, want journalists to limit publicity given to mass killers. So what to do when a group comes calling? Reflex may be to re... and take up our d...; there indeed may be times when complaints not made for p... mo...; An ethical mass communicator takes calls for accountability seriously, even from people/groups with obvious axes to grind. An occasional error is human, but multiple - systematic complaints should require us to think about our me.../mo...! Authors' advice in responding to calls is to begin with h...; Accountability in ways an act of h... - shows you don't think so h... of self to others, reveals to them you were thinking of them (among other s-holders we hope) when making decisions. Don't recommend, but struck by method of Mencken (famous journalist of 20th) replied to letters of complaints/praise with note: Dear sir/madame, you may be right. Box: How to complain Being in media means bing complained about. We've all complained about things. In that spirit, ideas about how best to complain about media... *First aimed at journalism but can be adopted to other media activities and could help train audiences/self. 1. Don't automatically as... m... We should never attribute malice which is adequately explained by stupidity. Let us not attribute to malice and cruelty what may be referred to less criminal motives. Do not p...-j... without better info. 2. Don't confuse o... with f... Consider differences between objective + subjective issues. Media orgs are more likely to fix factual errors than apologize for honest differences in opinion. 3. Be s... Media professionals create words and images, so be p... about what you find incorrect/troubling. Overarching comments on the work, or the person are less helpful. Media practitioners can defend selves by asking: Precisely, what words/visuals in the story/content are in question? 4. Work the ch... of c... Just as you don't want people talking behind your back, try to start with the person you believe is r... for the error. If still not satisfied, then take up to leader. 5. Give media a b... (sometimes) on te... stuff. Journalists simplify complex things for audiences. Persuaders seek the snappiest way to make their point. Entertainers face time and financial limits. That means media workers must take shortcuts. Keep media practitioners honest when they make big mistakes, but show some grace as they turn complex into simple. 6. Keep c... in mind. Not every story or press release will be straight up and down fair. Before complaining, consider one media message in c... of all messages on that issue. 7. Consider m... of those who would tell you to c... Politicians and others for their own gain tell you to c... about the media. Be suspicious when their c... aren't specific or propaganda-driven. Remember media are plural. 8. Keep it c... Treat people how you want to be treated. Vent before make contact, so focus is on the content and not conduct of the complainer. Practitioners may not have an obligation to respond to abusive complainers. 9. Use the applicable c... A good ethics c... helps public understand the standards that media workers believe best serves society. Most c... are aspirational, and we all fall short of our aspirations sometimes. Read the applicable c... to see what most right-thinking people would agree constitutes good media practice. Use code as basis for complaining. 10. Finally, revel in the ab... to c... Media practitioners who seek to be ethical and transparent will listen. Judge media orgs - and other institutions - by how they respond to fair criticism. Summary *How's your decision going to look? Important to think about the question as your decision is being made, trying to justify a decision a... the f... may be no more than an exercise in mo..., an attempt to find reasons to cover self. *Accountability is a moral necessity, because a... m... a... should take responsibility for their actions. Thinking about accountability requires a decision maker to have answered many of the previous questions listed, especially ones on conflicting loyalties and values! *Accountability particularly important to mass communicators because messages draw a great deal of attention and affect lives, feelings, fortunes of audiences. Many internal/external systems in place to help/force practitioners to be accountable to selves/others. G... may require minimal accountability, but systems seeking higher ethical accountability often v... for mass communicators.

Ombudsmen While few in number, some media orgs hire people to investigate public complaints and tell others about the good and bad of the operations. Ombudsmen usually are trusted outsiders who look into the org that is paying them. Some news orgs use term 'readers' representative' or 'public editor.' They often are hired for set length of time and essentially answer to no one, giving them independence in accounting for that org and in position to fulfill public acc and public relations role at same time. As revenue falls and internet gives readers direct access to news orgs, their use continues to decline. Still media ombudsmen provide more acc than in other industries; whoever heard of a Fortune 100 company hiring someone who doesn't report to senior management with the job of telling the world about the company's failures on a regular basis. News Councils One truth about accountability - as with any other ethics activity - is that it requires the accused take a rational, dispassionate look at the issue. Knowing this is difficult to do, many efforts have been made to create third-party organizations that meet to consider complaints against media orgs, take and review evidence, and draw conclusions. These examples of arbitration best known as news councils. At least 60 nations have, including many in Europe, and range from being very independent to being just another vehicle authoritarian govs use to keep journalists in check. Efforts to create a national news council in the US did not get far in the 70s, as national news orgs saw them as a distraction and a potential limit on their 1A freedoms. While some state and local councils were deemed useful in keeping disagreements out of court, the last local news council closed in 2014. External Critics, etc. Because mass media show their work to the world, it's not unexpected for the world to seek to respond with praise or criticism. Accountability can require that you respond to complaints about a single word in the story, ad or screenplay, the lack of certain types of characters, or the portrayal of people who may be perceived as representing an entire group of people. News orgs may print letters to the editor or ultimately control the online comment below stories, but outsiders are invited to participate and hold the org accountable. Also, media often cover each other; 'alternative' media criticize and praise mainstream media. Newspapers may cover TV news; infrequently, TV covers newspapers. Reporters cover and critics praise and pan the entertainment industry. Trade publications and scholarly work also weigh in on media industries. Bloggers criticize everybody. When these outsiders do their jobs properly, media practitioners and orgs are called to account for their actions. Other outsiders may include groups who demand acc based on their narrow or largely drawn interests. They are all across the political spectrum, from the conversative Accuracy in Media to the liberal Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. They include different races, creeds, perspectives, such as the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, American-Arab Anti-Disc. League, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. Include religious groups, such as the Catholic League, American Family Association, Alternative Religious Educational Network. Make general claims or have specific goals such as No Notoriety group that wants journalists to limit publicity given to mass killers. What to do when a group comes calling? The reflex may be to recoil and take up our defenses. And there indeed may be times when the complaints are not made for pure motives. An ethical mass communicator takes calls for acc seriously, even from people and groups with obvious axes to grind. An occasional error is human, but multiple, systematic complaints should require us to think about our methods and motives. Authors' advice in responding to calls for acc is to begin with humility. Accountability is in many ways an act of humility. It shows that you do not think so highly of yourself that you do not feel the obligation to explain yourself to others, and it reveals to them that you were thinking of them (among other s-holders, we hope) when making decisions. Don't recommend it, but struck by the acc method of Mencken, famous journalist of the early 20th, who often replied to letters of complaint or praise with a note that said: Dear sir or madame, you may be right. Box: How to complain, Being in media or anything else in life means being complained about. All complained about things. In that spirit, ideas about how best to complain about media. First aimed at journalism, adopted to other media activities and could help train audiences and self. 1. Don't automatically assume motive. Ranzor says we should never attribute malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. West: Let us not attribute to malice and cruelty what may be referred to less criminal motives. Do not pre-judge without better info. 2. Don't confuse opinion with fact. Consider differences between objective + subjective issues. Media orgs are more likely to fix factual errors than apologize for honest differences in opinion. 3. Be specific. Media professionals create words and images, so be precise about what you find incorrect/troubling. Provide evidence to support criticism. Overarching comments on the work, or the person, are less helpful. Media practitioners can defend selves by asking: Precisely, what words/visuals in the story/content are in question? 4. Work the chain of command. Just as you don't want people talking behind your back, try to start with the person you believe is responsible for the error. If still not satisfied, then take up to leader. 5. Give media a break (sometimes) on technical stuff. Journalists simplify complex things for audiences. Persuaders seek the snappiest way to make their point. Entertainers face time and financial limits. That means media workers must take shortcuts Keep media practitioners honest when they make big mistakes, but show some grace as they turn complex into simple. 6. Keep context in mind. Not every story or press release will be straight up and down fair. Before complaining, consider one media message in context of all messages on that issue. 7. Consider motives of those who would tell you to complain. Politicians and others for their own gain tell you to complain about the media. Be suspicious when their complaints aren't specific or propaganda-driven. Remember media are plural. 8. Keep it civil. If you follow these rules, then should be less likely to come off like a jerk. Treat people how you want to be treated. Vent before make contact, so focus is on the content and not conduct of the complainer. Practitioners may not have an obligation to respond to abusive complainers. 9. Use the applicable code. A good ethics code helps public understand the standards that media workers believe best serves society. With some exceptions, most codes are aspirational, and we all fall short of our aspirations sometimes. Read the applicable code to see what most right-thinking people would agree constitutes good media practice. Use code as basis for complaining. 10. Finally, revel in the ability to complain. Media practitioners who seek to be ethical and transparent will listen. Judge media orgs - and other institutions - by how they respond to fair criticism. Summary How's your decision going to look? Final chapter discusses importance of thinking about that question as decision is being made, because trying to justify a decision after the fact may be no more than exercise in moralizing, an attempt to find reasons to cover self. Accountability is a moral necessity, because autonomous moral agents should take responsibility for their actions. Thinking about acc requires a decision maker to have answered many of the previous ?s listed, especially ones related to conflicting loyalties and values. Acc is particularly important to mass communicators because their messages draw a great deal of attention and affect the lives, feelings, fortunes of audiences. Many internal and external systems in place to help (or force) practitioners to be accountable to selves and others. Govs may require minimal accountability, but systems seeking higher ethical acc are often voluntary for mass communicators.

3) W.D. Ross: Doing the Right and Good, M...-R... Deontology Consider nature of duties. What are some you have as student that other college students share? -Do my assignments. Go to class. Pay tuition. Get my money's worth from class. Absorb knowledge for knowledge's sake. Do my work honestly. Prepare for a career. Professors' duties? -Be prepared. Show up for every class. Engage students in learning. Treat students with respect. Conduct research to create new knowledge. Be lifelong learners. Do professional and community service. Examples of r...-related duties. Not u... obligations everyone is expected to meet. Deontologists interested in both r...related and u... duties. But to introduce basic notion of duty, sometimes easier to narrow our search, think in terms of particular and personal duties. *Intuition may tell you these lists - stated in positive - consist of things students/professors o... to do. If you agree that these duties are pertinent, can you r... o... each list? Which duty filters to the top of the list? Which duty ranks last? And what's the connection between obeying these duties and whatever happens to the various stakeholders? *What William David Ross does in answering: What does it mean to be a good person; What makes right acts right? Presented answers in terms of p... and s.../p... needs. Needs not unique to each individual, but shared. (Possible to fllow Ross and generate list for everyone and not just students/professors). Can use our in... and l... e... and extrpolate from h... n... a list of duties to conclude we need to do certain things, all else being equal. *Ross offered a simple list of p... f... duties, at first face. *C...s... duties/rules or conditional duties we should generally follow and fit well in pragmatic media ethics environment. But we'll see what happens when these duties c... with each other. *Ross works particularly well for those doing ethics in media, his approach neatly bridges c... and d... - a bridge introduced by Frankena's theory of obligation. Also, most media students might agree Ross has higher g... on practical r... than Kant, works better for mass comm than Gert's approach that seemed more focused on medical issues. "R..." is about Actions; "G..." is about Results *Ross is concerned about the connection between d... and c...! -> R... actions are d...-driven, undertaken after careful reflection and application of good intuition. -> G... is a c... question rooted in often unforseeable o... [Goal is g... actions] One writer noted Ross considered both d... and o... because c... is partly true but not whole truth and using r... to promote good is important but not our only r.... *A pluralist, maintaining there can be more than one way to define and choose what is r.../g...; if a person were omniscient (motivated by d... alone) there wouldn't be a gap between r... and g... because they would always have full knowledge necessary to recognize/bring about the g... *BUT because we cannot know all possible o..., not all r... actions lead to g... results. Decision rests with p... - p... we gain through intuition, experience, maturity should help recognize what's r... and g... in long run. What Makes Right Acts Right? Imagine you have a job interview at noon. You may not think of it this way, but you made a promise to be there at noon. Now imagine while driving on an otherwise abandoned road to the interview you see a 4-year-old child who appears to be alone on the side of the road. Might be able to do good if you stop to check on the child, but doing so will mean you miss the appointment. *Compare and contrast Ross with utilitarians. Utilitarians find it OK to break promise of beng on time if better consequences develop from alternative to stop and help. *Deontologist or rule utilitarian might say I should keep a promise all else being equal. Unfortunately, all else is seldom equal, so Ross makes us ponder the c... d... and o... *Teleologist may say should check on child and miss interview, because doing so brings better result. Ross, the deontologist, have us consider two moral duties: the duty to check on the child, duty to keep our promise. *But if these duties c... when life may be at stake, duty to help ranks higher than promise to be on time. *Deontologists would say more morally incumbent upon us to stop and help. In other words, both keeping our promise and stopping to help are p... f... d... - but because life is at stake, stopping to help is our A... D...! P... F... and A... Duties Kant advocated pure rules based on duties of perfect obligation to fulfill our promises, pay debts, tell truth, etc. Expected to follow no matter the c... *Ross on other hand asks us to consider both p... f... and a... duties, which are different from pure rules because c... play a role. This is somewhat similar to Kant's imperfect/perfect duties (p... f... = imperfect; a... = perfect). *C... in a given case help us decide which p... f... duties are m... in.../o... Make intuitive sense at first glance or on their face. These rules are general, deeply rooted, readily apparent. Several PF duties may be relevant in any situation, and may c... with each other! A... duties or duties proper emerge from s... s...! *Once we calculate which PF duties pertain to the situation, we determine which duty trumps the others and should be performed; which duty has become m... in... *Consider the abandoned child on the way to the job interview scenario: We have a moral duty to help. It is inherently right to k... p..., and it's inherently right to be b... We must decide which is the d... p... - which outweighs other PF duties to become the a... duty. *Also define su... behavior: acts good but not necessary. Over and above our actual duties. Example: Going out of way to be nice to someone with no expectation of a payoff. For journalists, call sources after a story is published, and ask if they thought they were treated fairly.

W.D. Ross Doing the Right and the Good, or Mixed-Rule Deontology Consider the nature of duties. What are some of the duties you have as a student, duties that college students share? Off the top of your head, may list: è Do my assignments. è Go to class. è Pay tuition. è Get my money's worth from class. è Absorb knowledge for knowledge's sake. è Do my work honestly. è Prepare for a career. Meanwhile, what are some of your professors' duties? è Be prepared. è Show up for every class. è Engage students in learning. è Treat students with respect. è Conduct research to create new knowledge. è Be lifelong learners. è Do professional and community service. These are examples of role-related duties. Not universal obligations everyone is expected to meet. Deontologists are interested in both role-related and universal duties. However, to introduce the basic notion of duty, it is sometimes easier to narrow our search, to think in terms of particular and personal duties. Your intuition may have told you these lists - stated in positive rather than negative terms - consist of things students and professors ought to do. There is no master list, passed down by a moral arbiter from on high, demanding these duties be fulfilled. If you agree that these duties are pertinent, can you rank order each list? Which duty filters to the top of the list? Which duty ranks last? And what's the connection between obeying these duties and whatever happens to the various stakeholders? Generally what British philosopher William David Ross did in answering: What does it mean to be a good person? And What makes right acts right? He presented his answers in terms of physiological and social/psychological needs. These needs are not unique to each individual, he said, but are shared. (Again while our lists for students and professors are role-related, it's possible to follow Ross and generate a list that would apply to everyone). We can use our intuition and life experiences, and extrapolate from human nature, a list of duties to conclude that we need to do certain things, all else being equal. Ross offered a simple list of prima facie duties, at first face. These are common sense duties/rules, or conditional duties that we should generally follow, and they fit well in the pragmatic media ethics environment. But as we shall see, he considers what happens when these duties conflict with each other. This book argues that Ross works particularly well for those doing ethics in media, as his approach neatly bridges consequentialism and deontology - a bridge introduced by William Frankena's theory of obligation. Also, most media students might agree that Ross has a higher grip on practical reality than K, and works better for mass comm than the sections of the Gert approach that seem more focused on medical issues. "Right" is about Actions, "Good" is about Results The title of his major book, The Right and the Good, shows that Ross is concerned about the connection between duty and consequence. è Right actions are duty driven, undertaken after careful reflection and application of good intuition. è Good is a consequentialist question 'rooted in' (often unforeseeable) outcomes. The goal is good actions. One writer noted Ross considered both duty and outcomes because consequentialism is partly true but not the whole truth; that the reason to promote good Is very important but not our only reason. Ross was a pluralist, maintaining there can be more than one way to define and to choose what is right and what is good. If a person were omniscient (and motivated by duty alone) there would be no gap between the right and the good, since such a being would aalways have the full knowledge necessary to recognize and to bring about the good. But because we cannot know all possible outcomes, not all right actions lead to good results. As he wrote with nod to Aristotle, the decision rests with perception. This suggests the perception we gain through intuition, experience, and maturity should help us recognize what's right and good in the long run. What Makes Right Acts Right? Imagine you have a job interview at noon. You may not think of it this way, but you made a promise to be there at noon. Now imagine while driving on an otherwise abandoned road to the interview you see a 4-year-old child who appears to be alone on the side of the road. Might be able to do good if you stop to check on the child, but doing so will mean you miss the appointment. Let's compare and contrast how Ross and utilitarians would have us act in such a situation. If you are an act utilitarian, you'd find it perfectly OK to break the promise of being on time if better consequences would develop from the alternative of stopping to help. A deontologist or rule utilitarian, however, might say all else being equal, I should keep a promise. Unfortunately, all else is seldom equal, so Ross makes us ponder the conflicting duties and obligations. The teleologist might say you should check on a child and miss the interview, because doing so brings a better result. Ross, the deontologist, would have us consider two moral duties: the duty to check on the child and the duty to keep our promise. But if these duties conflict when life may be at stake, the duty to help ranks higher than our promise to be on time. Deontologists would say it is more morally incumbent upon us to stop and help. In other words, both keeping our promise and stopping to help are prima facie duties - but because a life is at stake, stopping to help is our actual duty. Prima Facie and Actual Duties Kant advocated pure rules, based on "duties of perfect obligation" to fulfill our promises, pay our debts, tell the truth, etc. We are expected to follow these rules no matter the circumstances. Ross on the other and asks us to consider both prima facie and actual duties, which are different form K's pure rules because circumstances play a role. This is somewhat similar to K's imperfect and perfect duties, with prima facie = imperfect duty and actual = perfect. Ross said circumstances in a given case help us decide which prima facie duties are morally incumbent or obligatory. In other words, they make intuitive sense 'at first glance' or 'on their face.' R says these rules are general, deeply rooted, and readily apparent. Several PF (prima facie) duties may be relevant in any situation, and they may conflict with one another. Actual duties or duties proper, on the other hand, emerge from specific situations. Once we have calculated which PF duties pertain to the situation, we determine which duty trumps the others and should be performed; that is, which duty has become morally incumbent. Consider the perhaps abandoned child on the way to the job interview scenario: R would say that everything else being equal and there being no other moral considerations, we have a moral duty to help. It is inherently right to keep promises, and it's inherently right to be beneficent. We must decide which is the duty proper - which outweighs other PF duties to become the actual duty. (Always interesting to do brain games with this theory: What if our lunch appointment is very important, and there are several people with cell phones checking on the child?) Ross and others also defined supererogatory behavior: acts that are good but not necessary. Such acts are over and above our actual duties. Examples include going out of our way to be nice to someone with no expectation of a payoff. As an example, a supererogatory duty for journalists would be to call their sources after a story was published, and ask sources if they thought they were treated fairly.

Credibility and Accountability Beyond the moral imperative that requires people to be accountable to selves and others, mass communicators have a more p... reason to be accountable: credibility. Mass communicators (informers, persuaders, entertainers) are more likely to be successful when audiences b... messengers and their messages. *Term, to b..., with a lit that is plentiful, contradictory, confused. Related terms includ t..., r..., li...; Message recipients make ultimate decisions about credibility regardless of the m...'s t... or the m...'s m...! Bears repeating: credibility is what people t... about you, not what you r... a...; Unfortunately perception often becomes reality for mass communicators, so credibility deserves special attention. *Aristotle: Rhetoric introduced credibility through concepts of e..., p..., l... *E... depended on the personal character of the speaker *P... depended on putting the audience into certain frame of mind *L... considers the proof, or apparent proof, provided by words of speech itself. More directly... *E... provides insight into the creator of the message; L... considers the message; P... considers the audiences and their emotional reaction to the message/messenger. *Earliest research on mass media effects involved measuring b... of messages, because a message perceived as t... is more likely to be acted upon. Practitioners who provide info/commentary seek to be perceived as credible, to persuade audiences they're ethical + messages b...; Entertainment communicators seek a different sort of credibility - capable of telling p.../entertaining stories in ways perceived as ethical to public. Persuaders often seek credibility as m... to e... of reaching org's larger goal of promoting own positions as they persuade the public to buy their goods/believe in their cause. For journalists, credibility is an e... unto self. Where does accountability fit in? It ties into E... because research/common sense shows messengers who are accountable more likely to be perceived as t... and therefore credible. It ties into L... because messages that include info about the source of message and source of info inside the message more likely to be perceived as credible. *Being transparent can be counterproductive! Doesn't automatically mean you'll be more t..., especially at institutional level. Research shows greater transparency in journalistic message doesn't necessarily lead to higher credibility levels; may be because news messages already more transparent than other communication, or people already made up minds. *General semantics ?s of being 't...-b...' come to play - news consumers may assume a journalist may not cover a team fairly because the journalist attended the school/its rival. One example of h... m... e..., theory people with strong feelings on topic believe media are biased a/g this topic. *Another issue of transparency is it can become nothing more than a t..., as media orgs ultimately decide what they will r... to audiences! -Journalists decide what they'll show/not behind the scenes work. Some news transparency 'metajournalistic performance' that is strategically weaponized to stake claim to journalistic authority. -Persuaders in some orgs describe selves as transparent by r... some info - but closer look shows they don't reveal info its leaders use to make decisions, only enough to help public draw conclusions the org wants. -Entertainment media release behind the scenes videos that are mere promotions for the movie, no mention of creative differences or other strife on set. *People may trust g... and other institutions less as they become more transparent. The same may be true of some mass comm, as the veneer of objectivity has been replaced by opinionated talking heads on TV, as more coverage of the financial side of entertainment shows how profits are more important than art or truth telling, and PR practitioners find that revealing the true source of a message can backfire. Reminder: having credibility doesn't mean the same thing as having ethics! Transparency is necessary to have the acc required of ethical communicators, but transparency is not always sufficient to boost credibility and can be unethical if little more than s...-ce... and used as m... to an e...

Credibility and Accountability Beyond the moral imperative that requires people to be accountable to themselves and to others, mass communicators often have a more pragmatic reason to be accountable: credibility. Mass communicators - whether informers, persuaders, or entertainers - are more likely to be successful when audiences believe messengers and their messages. The term credibility comes from Latin, to believe, with a lit that is plentiful, contradictory, and confused. Related terms include trust, reliability, liking. Message recipients make ultimate decisions about credibility regardless of the message's truth or messenger's morality. It bears repeating: credibility is what people think about you, not what you really are. Unfortunately, perception often becomes reality for mass communicators, so credibility deserves special attention. Aristotle: Rhetoric introduced credibility through the concepts of ethos, pathos, and logos. Ethos depends on the personal character of the speaker. Pathos depends on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind. Logos considers the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself. Stated more directly, ethos provides an insight into the creator of a message; logos considers the message; pathos considers the audiences and their emotional reaction to a message or messenger. The earliest research on mass media effects involved measuring believability of messages, because a message perceived as true is more likely to be acted upon. Media practitioners who provide info and commentary seek to be perceived as credible, to persuade audiences that they are ethical and that their messages are believable. Entertainment communicators seek a different sort of credibility: they are capable of telling powerful or entertaining stories in ways perceived as ethical by the public. Persuaders often seek credibility as a means to the end of reaching their org's larger goal of promoting their own positions as they persuade the public to buy their goods or believe in their cause. For journalists, credibility is an end unto itself. Where does acc fit in? It ties into ethos, because research and common sense show that messengers who are accountable may be more likely to be perceived as trustworthy and therefore more credible. It also ties into logos, because messages that include info about the source of the message and the source of info inside the message are more likely to be perceived as credible. Having said this, being transparent can be counterproductive. It does not automatically mean you will be more trusted, especially at the institutional level. Research shows greater transparency in a journalistic message doesn't necessarily lead to higher credibility levels; this may be because news messages are already more transparent than other forms of comm, or because people already made up their minds. General semantics question of being 'time-bound' comes into play - news consumers, for example, may assume a journalist may not cover a team fairly because the journalist attended the school or its rival. This is one example of hostile media effect, the theory that people with strong feelings on a topic believe media are biased against that topic. Another issue is that transparency can become nothing more than a trick, as media orgs ultimately decide what they will reveal to audiences. Example: journalists (and other media practitioners) decide what they will show/not of the behind the scenes work. Perdomo and Rodrigues-Rouleau described some news transparency as metajournalistic performance that is strategically weaponized to stake a claim to journalistic authority. Persuaders in some orgs describe selves as transparent by revealing some info - but closer look shows they don't reveal info its leaders use to make decisions, but only enough to help public draw conclusions the org wants. Entertainment media release behind the scenes videos that are mere promotions for the movie, no mention of creative differences or other strife on set. People may trust gov and other institutions less as they become more transparent. NYT columnist Brooks says gov should sometimes be shrouded for same reason as middle-aged people should be clothed. The same may be true of some mass comm, as the veneer of objectivity has been replaced by opinionated talking heads on TV, as more coverage of the financial side of entertainment shows how profits are more important than art or truth telling, and PR practitioners find that revealing the true source of a message can backfire. Sometimes media fare, as has been said of law and sausage, is best not watched while being manufactured. Reminder: having credibility doesn't mean the same thing as having ethics! Transparency is necessary to have the acc required of ethical communicators, but transparency is not always sufficient to boost credibility and can be unethical if little more than self-celebratory and used as means to an end.

1) Immanuel Kant - The 'S...' Deontologist Lived a century before Mill; two before Gert and Ross. Some consider most influential philosopher since Aristotle. *The c... of our actions are irrelevant, instead focus on d.../r... inherent in acting morally. An action is right when it is in accordance with a r... that satisfies a principle he calls the c... im... or the 'm... l...' The Autonomous Use of Rules Different ways to understand and abide by rules. At one level, we obey a general rule when we have a basic u... of it and can apply it in a s... c... (apply multiplication tables to new problems once we understand how they work). *Go further, particularly in regard to moral rules. We're not moral unless we make a... use of ethical rules - we u..., take o... of, and op... upon those rules from a sense of s...-d...! Memorizing and merely following 10 Commandments doesn't make us moral; understanding them and a... them a... is altogether different. One is matter of accepting rules im... by a... and the other a matter of exercising 'p... r...' to generate and abide by s...-imposed rules. Morality of an action based on 1) A... reasoning - one has thought through the rule. 2) Acting from a sense of s...-duty. Maxims and Rules What happens when we ask ourselves, what are the fundamental rules I should follow at this time and place? Consider examples for practitioners. -> If I am a journalist, I should consider sources' motives before granting anonymity (a hat tip to the SPJ code). -> If I am a blogger, I should link to the sources I use in my posts (hat tip to the Cyber-joruanast.net code of ethics) -> If I am a PR practitioner, I should disclose any financial interest I may have in my client's organization (hat tip to PRSA code) Etc. First assume these are rules you choose to impose on y..., not because a gov law or part of COE. Now ask: Would all people, at all times be morally obligated to consider sources' motives or careful use of testimonials? No! *These are s..., r...-related duties that don't apply to all people at all times. *Turn around and say: When I am in circumstances like this, when I am gathering news, I will not deceive any sources... or When I am developing an ad campaign, I will not deceive my audiences. *Such rules, when stated thusly, are m.... Kant says all reasoned and considered actions involve m... Cannot force others to obey to our own rules, so shouldn't attempt to convert an idiosyncratic (individual) belief into a universal law. *Ethics don't come from forcing obedience, but creating rules that others will follow merely because each person if they thought about it would have reached the same conclusion (ipso facto correct). *Morality to Kant has its ultimate source in r...; moral rules not a... conventions or s... standards, but o... truths that have source in r... nature of human beings. Two main points on dealing with 'im...' (c...); one has to do with h... im..., the other with c... im... 1) H... im... Most of what people do in life based on HI, tell us what to do if we want to bring about certain c... such as h... *If (we want something), then (we do something). *We often act out of selfish desires, arise out of calculations about how we can get what we want. Some utilitarians say we do what's necessary to be happy. Example: Advertisers may say they have a duty to do what persuades folks to buy the product; social media practitioners may say they have a duty to draw attention and try to go viral. *Kant would say such things entail g... and b... actions - but have nothing to do with m... The maxims we employ to get the job done, reach happiness, may be p... and s... Could be considered candidates for moral rules, but are not moral rules of themselves. Cannot become moral rules unless they pass severe tests - must transcend merely p... and s... rules to reach status of o... rules of morality that hold for everyone and apply to all cases of same kind. *Must have u...! Willing to see our own rules adopted as maxims by everyone in similar situation to ours. Then these rules become c... im... 2) C... im... *U... maxims or ethical principles of behavior, outside our w.../d...; unconditional and allow no exceptions, fudging, or arguments of close enough will do. *Known and obeyed by all r... creatures who have inborn conscience and can exercise p... r...; exist with no consideration of c... Consider examples of role-related rules for media workers... *Have described how these can be expressed as maxims/HI pertaining to specific role: If I am an ad practitioner, I ought to only include testimonials from people who used the product or service. *On other hand, what about duty of doing your work HONESTLY? (Everyone ought to tell the truth). *Could we make a case for u... that duty, claiming everyone else would follow our rule if they had thought about it and understood the u... validity of it? C... im... have several components 1) We should 'act only on that m... that we can at the same time will to become a u... l...' 2) Always act so to treat humanity - self or others - as an e... and never as only a m...! Never exploit. Treat people as r... creatures and valuable entities in/of selves. People should have dignity! (Note that we can 'use' news sources as a 'm...' of getting a story, or 'use' an audience as a 'm...' of making money, just as we use the mail carrier as a m... of receiving our mail. But they deserve more than that; we must value their d...). This component of the CI is sometimes called the k... of e... To test the formulations, take a general act and u... it: -> Maxim: I ought to deceive these people to get a good news story. -> U... maxim: Everybody who is a journalist ought to deceive their sources now/whenever the occasion presents itself. *Now u... to all journalists + sources. Now consider how this might apply... What if the journalist finds herself the subject of a news story? Will she expect to be deceived? Not likely. She would have to consider deception from her own view, from her source's view, and from the view of a d... t... p... "D... t... p..." test demands total t... - fully and openly disclosing all variables in decision-making process. 3 levels to test: How does this apply by...? 1. Me to others? 2. Others to me? 3. Disinterested others to me? Must change our generalization if any of these answers are r... impossible or not u... applicable. Must be willing to u... our maxim, though on some other occasion it may work to our disadvantage. Have no good principles unless tested them on all three levels. *Similar examples of HI's: When I'm on deadline, I'll publish whatever info I have to finish my story, even if it means I have not had time to verify info that might hurt someone. *When I need to persuade someone, use whatever legal means at my disposal. Turn these into CI's: under the HI we can do either g... or b... acts. May be friendly to others because it's our natural habit or we want to sell them something. Such is not case under CI's: involve h... t... U... h... t... Right is right; must be pursued regardless of the o... or p... to do wrong, even if it results in bad c... *Tell the truth. Keep promises. Do not cheat or steal. Pursue benevolence. *These h... t... - our moral o... - are found not by reasoning process but through existence in our in... c... May be possible for conscience to lose its s..., and we can think of people who have done wrong thing so many times may not recognize act as wrong anymore. *Nothing as important in the world as the g... w... *If our m... is to do the right thing (even if inclined to do otherwise), it's morally good. Do we act out of respect for the moral order/o... to do the right thing? If we do the right thing, even if we don't want to, we're acting out of the c... im... *Christians: CI must be obeyed even to the sacrifice of every n... in... and s... a... standard. Ethics with a severe quality, but generally regarded as having greater m... p... than subjective approaches to ethics that are easily rationalized on basis of temporary moods. *Kant admits CI demand obedience and faithful practice. Rigid, hard to follow. *Despite r... and other shortcomings, many philosophers say his ethical theories are most substantive ever described: capture many intuitive beliefs about what is right (not to lie, treat people with dignity, act benevolently). Supply with test to determine our d... (c... im...) that is superior to g... posed by utilitarians and others. *Doing our duty requires more than m... drive that can do our moral t... on our behalf, direct criticism of Bentham-like utilitarianism.

Immanuel Kant The 'Strict' Deontologist German philosopher Kant lived a century before John Stuart Mill and two centuries before Bernard Gert and W.D. Ross. Some consider Kant the most influential philosopher since Aristotle; he certainly ranks among the more provocative. Work on ethics including Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals argued the consequences of our actions are irrelevant. Instead, he focused on the duties/rules inherent in acting morally. To Kant, an action is right when it is in accordance with a rule that satisfies a principle he calls the categorical imperative or the 'moral law.' The Autonomous Use of Rules There are rules, and then there are rules. And there are different ways to understand and abide by those rules. At one level, we obey a general rule or principle when we have a basic understanding of it and can apply it in a specific case. For instance, can apply multiplication tables to new problems once we understand how they work. Kant wants us to go further, particularly in regard to moral rules. He would say we're not moral unless we make autonomous use of ethical rules ... unless we understand, take ownership of, and operate upon those rules from a sense of self-duty. Memorizing and merely following the 10 Commandments doesn't make us moral or ethical. Understanding the 10 Commandments and applying them autonomously, however, is altogether different. One is a matter of accepting rules imposed upon us by authority, the other a matter of exercising what Kant called 'pure reason' to generate and abide by self-imposed rules. In short, Kant tells us that morality of an action is based on: 1. Autonomous reasoning - one has thought through the rule. 2. Acting from a sense of self-duty. Maxims and Rules Consider what happens when we ask ourselves, What are the fundamental rules I should follow at this time and place in my life? Consider examples of rules for media practitioners: è If I am a journalist, I should consider sources' motives before granting anonymity (a hat tip to the SPJ code). è If I am a blogger, I should link to the sources I use in my posts (hat tip to the Cyber-joruanast.net code of ethics) è If I am a PR practitioner, I should disclose any financial interest I may have in my client's organization (hat tip to PRSA code) è If I am an advertising practitioner, I should only include testimonials from people who actually used the product or service being advertised (hat tip to AAF code) è If I am an entertainment content creator, I should ensure that the sets and locations were filming occurs are safe for actors and other workers (hat tip to Sony Corporation code) è If I am a SM worker, I should respect the copyrights of others when posting or reposting material (hat tip to Advertising Council Australia SM code) Let's first assume these are rules you choose to impose upon yourself, and not just because they are a gov law or part of an ethics code. Now ask: Would you say that all people, at all times, are morally obligated to consider sources' motives or be careful about testimonials? No. These are situational, role-related duties that do not apply to all people at all times. In the media ethics environment, we can turn around the rule and say: When I am in circumstances like this, when I am gathering news, I will not deceive any sources... or When I am developing an ad campaign, I will not deceive my audiences. Such rules, when stated thusly, are maxims. Kant says all reasoned and considered actions involve maxims. We cannot force others to obey our own rules, so we shouldn't attempt to convert an idiosyncratic (individual or distinct) belief into a universal law. Ethics doesn't come from forcing obedience, but by creating rules that are ipso facto correct - that others will follow merely because each person, if he or she thought about it, would have reached the same right conclusion. Morality, for Kant, has its ultimate source in rationality. Moral rules are not arbitrary conventions or subjective standards, but objective truths that have their source in the rational nature of human beings. Kant argues two main points dealing with 'imperatives' (or 'commands'); one has to do with hypothetical imperatives, the other with categorical imperatives. Hypothetical Imperatives Most of what people do in life is based upon hypothetical imperatives, which tell us what to do if we want to bring about certain consequences - such as happiness. If (we want something), then (we do something). Kant says we often act out of selfish desires, which arise out of calculations about how we can get what we want. For instance, some utilitarians say we do what's necessary to be happy. Advertisers may say they have a duty to do what persuades folks to buy the product; social media practitioners may say they have a duty to draw attention and try to go viral, etc. Kant would suggest that such things entail good and bad actions - but they have nothing to do with morality. The maxims we employ to get the job done, reach happiness, etc. may be personal and subjective. They could be considered candidates for moral rules, but they are not in and of themselves moral rules. They cannot become moral rules unless they pass some severe tests. They must transcend merely personal and subjective rules to reach the status of objective rules of morality that hold for everyone and apply to all cases of the same kind. In other words, moral rules must have universalizability. Must be willing to see our rules adopted as maxims by everyone in a situation similar to ours. If this happens, these rules become categorical imperatives. Categorical Imperatives CI are universalized maxims or ethical principles of behavior, outside our wishes and desires. Such principles are unconditional and allow no exceptions, no fudging, no arguments about 'close enough will do.' They are known and obeyed by all rational creatures who have an inborn conscience and can exercise pure reason. They exist with no consideration of the consequences! Reconsider examples of role-related rules for media workers listed. Have described how these can be expressed as maxims or HI pertaining to your specific role: If I am an ad practitioner, I ought to only include testimonials from people who used the product or service. On the other hand, what about the duty of doing your work honestly? Could we not make a case for universalizing that duty, claiming everyone else would follow our rule if they had thought about it and understood the universal validity of it? (Would say: Everyone ought to always tell the truth.) In making that case, we are appealing to a CI. The CI has several components: 1. We should "act only on that maxim (principle) that we can at the same time will to become a universal law." 2. We should "always act so as to treat humanity - either yourself or others - as an end and never as only a means." We should never exploit. We must treat people - including ourselves - as rational creatures and valuable entities in and of themselves. People should not have a price, nor be used as mere commodities; they should have dignity (Note that we can 'use' news sources as a 'means' of getting a story, or 'use' an audience as a 'means' of making money, just as we use the mail carrier as a means of receiving our mail. But they deserve more than that; we must value their dignity) This component of the CI is sometimes called the kingdom of ends. To test the formulations, take a general act and universalize it. Take the maxim: I ought to deceive these people to get a good news story. Universalize that maxim, by saying something like: Everybody who is a journalist ought to deceive their sources now and whenever the occasion presents itself. Statement is now universalized to all journalists and all sources. But now consider how this might apply. What if the journalist finds herself the subject of a news story? Will she expect to be deceived? Not likely. She would have to consider deception from her own view, from her source's view, and from the view of a disinterested third party. The "DTP" test demands total transparency - fully and openly disclosing all variables in the decision-making process. As Plaisance says, fully exposing our motivations, aspirations, intents allow us as rational autonomous beings to assess each other's behavior. Test has three levels: How does this apply by...? 1. Me to others? 2. Others to me? 3. Disinterested others to others? We must change our generalization if any of the answers are rationally impossible or not universally applicable. Must be willing to universalize our maxim, even though on some other occasion it might work to our disadvantage! We have no good principles unless we've tested them on all three levels. Let's take similar examples of hypothetical imperatives: When I'm on deadline, I'll publish whatever info I have to finish my story, even if it means I have not had time to verify info that might hurt someone. When I need to persuade someone, I'll use whatever legal means are at my disposal. Turn these into CI's: under the HI, we can do either good or bad acts. We may be friendly to others either because it's our natural habit or because we want to sell them something. But such is not the case under CI's. CI's involve higher truths. Kant makes a case for universalized higher truths: Right is right; it must be pursued regardless of the occupation or the pressures to do wrong, and even if it results in bad consequences. Tell the truth. Keep promises. Do not cheat or steal. Pursue benevolence. These higher truths - our moral obligations - are found not by a reasoning process but through their existence in our inborn conscience. Unfortunately it may be possible for a conscience to lose its sensitivity, and we can think of people who have done the wrong thing so many times they may not recognize the act as wrong anymore. Kant says there's nothing as important in the world as the good will. If our motivation is to do the right thing (even if inclined to do otherwise), then it's morally good. Do we act out of respect for the moral order or an obligation to do the right thing? If we do the right thing , even if we don't want to do it, we're acting out of the CI. As Christians wrote, CI must be obeyed even to the sacrifice of every natural inclination and socially accepted standard. These are ethics with an austere (severe/strict) quality, but they are generally regarded as having greater motivating power than subjective approaches to ethics that are easily rationalized on the basis of temporary moods. Kant admits CI demand obedience and faithful practice. They are rigid and hard to follow. To the extent we're not pure and rational, K's strictness seems off-putting. Despite K's rigidity and other shortcomings to be mentioned, many philosophers say K's ethical theories are the most substantive ever described. They capture many of our intuitive beliefs about what is right (not to lie, treat people with dignity, act benevolently). Supply us with test to determine our duties (CI) that is superior to the generalizations posed by utilitarians and others. Kuusela noted doing our duty requires more than a mechanical drive that can do our moral thinking on our behalf, which is a direct criticism of Bentham-like utilitarian approaches to ethics.

3) W.D. Ross The Prima Facie Duties Seven acts described that are on their face the right thing to do. Tending to be our duty or responsibility. No order of importance. 1) N...-m...: Do not purposefully do h... even to selves, let alone rest of society, or we'll destroy community. It's not 'do not harm' but 'do not cause harm on purpose.' *In media, we minimize harm as we gather and report info that citizens need, although it may offend some. As we persuade or entertain, strike a balance between the needs and interests of receptive and non-receptive/vulnerable audiences. 2) F...: Keep all our explicit and implicit p..., and don't let people down who count on us. Some p... imposed on us, taken on as formal contracts, others assumed. When taking a job or doing a task, what p... have we made to selves/employers/public? What efforts are we making to keep those promises? 3) R...: Pay back debts to make up for p... w... *Journalists, bloggers, PR practitioners, advertisers, and others may publish retractions, corrective advertising, or clarifications of previously published releases. Ideally, one would not have made the error or caused the harm in the first place; that is, n...-m... precedes reparation. But we should be transparent and accountable when we make mistakes, and find a way to make up for it as best we can. 4) J...: Ensure an equitable d... of r..., p..., and other good insofar as within our power. D... on basis of merit and need, not tit for tat. People should be treated as e..., not as m... to e... *When doing journalism, take care to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. When making deals with sources, subjects, clients be fair-minded for all s-holders. Entertainment executives would consider diversity issues. All media practitioners - including info, persuasion, entertainment - should be sensitive to the needs of vulnerable pops and not pander to elites. 5) S...-im...: Im... own virtue, intelligence, skills. Try to be as professional as possible: know about the issues in our fields, be active in professional orgs, learn new skills, seek better ways to do our job. 6) G...: Be good to people who have been good to us. Treat our sources/subjects/clients/colleagues/audiences with the r... they deserve, try not to use any solely as m... to an e... 7) B...: Strive to make the world a b... p... Motivated to help others improve their lot in life. Not just doing a job; entrusted with power to help society s...-g..., to increase everyone's welfare insofar as we can. Not a perfect list. One scholar called obscure, confused, inconsistent. Others suggested additional duties such as respect for freedom, care, not being willing parasite on others. Another critic said list doesn't help people who want to know in advance which duty is m... im... than another. *No such r... fits the facts! Plain fact is sometimes one ought to keep one's promises even at overall cost to others, sometimes the cost of keeping one's promises means it would be better to break it for once. Just a feature of our m... p... Dancy: a neat and orderly world would help us rank our different PF duties once/for all. But they shouldn't be r... o... - a shapeless list of them. Left with no choice but to t... our way through them, relying on in... and l...! And in the process we don't abandon any of those principles/duties, merely put them in perspective. *Careful reading of Ross would suggest he would put n...-m... and p... k... at top of the heap, all else being equal they are the most important to fulfill. If W.D. Ross were sharing your office... *Insist you make ethical decisions by thinking about set of in... o... p... f... duties! If you're considering v... a law, ask yourself if you'd be willing to u... the v...: V... only the bad laws or customs you think everyone else in similar circumstances would be justified in v... *If you were to follow Ross' model, you'd... 1. Compile relevant facts and reasons for following a... a..., and do this with an open mind. 2. Ask which considerations have the most weight in p... f... sense. 3. Realize that if you are v... a p... f... duty when you follow through on a proposed action, you should justify that v... by appealing to other p... f... duties. *When doing the thinking, remind ethically conscientious people that the mo... s... the duty they are violating, the m... d... they must have on the other side of the equation. Mixed Duties in the Media Ethics Environment Media workers everyday determine how to r... o... and apply duties. May be wise to use COE to identify p... f... duties to be considered when making moral choices. -> PRSA describes 6 affirmative moral obligations for practitioners - advocacy, honesty, expertise, independence, loyalty, and fairness. But even at first glance, each is a p... f... duty and must be put in c... with others. Example: If practitioners expected to advocate for a client/cause and also expected to be honest, must they fully disclose everything they know about their client's strengths and weaknesses? Does advocacy trump honesty? And what about fairness? Can they be honest and fair and faithful advocates? Meanwhile how do counselors p... their duties to be both independent and loyal? Recall conflicting loyalties and duty to be an autonomous decision maker while recognizing moral rights of employer and other s-holders. *Same can be said for four principles of SPJ code - seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable and transparent. But sometimes you cannot seek truth without causing harm, and sometimes you may limit your independence depending upon to whom you believe you owe accountability. One part of the code says journalists should clearly identify sources, but the next part discusses anonymity. Both codes, like most others, provide no answers! Merely ask to be aware of the compelling duties/obligations. Doesn't do thinking for you. Applying Ross to Cases *Consider how to turn these p... f... duties into a... duties. Student journalist wants to seek out and report significant truths about communities, but they consider whether to mislead nurse. Student journalist has to r... these duties of n...-m..., f..., j..., s...-im..., and b... *Way out is how to p... these duties - suggest that an act is morally obligatory IFF there is a p... f... duty to perform the act and no other p... f... duty more incumbent than the p... f... duty to do the act. Deceiving the nurse violated the truth duty. Was the exposure of danger to students more m... in... than not deceiving the nurse? What is the d... p...? They recognized that reporting admin recklessness would create discomfort for some s-holders - putting SPJ duty 1 and 2 against e-other. And we know that journalists try to avoid COI or unnecessary deals with sources (duty No. 3); but how do they hold themselves accountable (4) if they use unnamed sources, or if their 'tipsters' might be harmed if their identities were revealed? *Different clash of duties in Case 2. Seem to have p... f... duty of offering film that is worth price of admission: f... to the consumer. Same should hold for the producer - neither should set out to rip audiences off - n...-m..., f... and perhaps j... But find self facing other duties: f... and g... to producer, without whim script will never become a movie. As debate on whether to convert tame PG into spicier PG-13 film, still market to children, duty of s...-im... enters equation: How do you p... these? Which p... f... duties rise to become the m... in... a... duties? Bottom Line on Ross Making such r...-vs.-r... decisions not no-brainers. Demand clear-headed, mature application of moral thinking. Demand heavy reliance on human faculty known as e... in..., form of mental maturity that's refined and honed throughout personal and professional lives. Stoker - media practitioners could use own e... and in... as cognitive landmarks to orient moral compass to terrain. Important to be retrospective and use e... - whether own or of others. *E... in... becomes sixth sense - with an improving in..., sense some things are wrong/right. Our e... in... that 'X' is PF right does not make 'X' right; rather, it is via e... in... that we come to know that 'X' is PF right. A r... may challenge, saying in... differs from person to person. Who determines which intuition is on target? Ross replies, personal differences in in... may be a matter of refinement (senses may be different from mine). Makes it impossbile to have 20/20 f... *Confounding and unknown variables and unknowns, cannot precisely predict outcome of our behaviors. But make best guesses, based on clearest thinking and refined in... *Moral uncertainty may bother people who seek clear and absolute decision-making processes, but others find real strength in Ross' approach. *Meyers: u... con...: Abstract p... f... duties are u..., and the a... d... are c...; accurately reflects how humans engage in human reasoning. Grasp u... moral truth at the a... level, but our moral decision making in actual cases is fraught with u... and ambiguity. If we are sincerely trying to make good decisions, if our motives are correct and we try to get as much relevant info as possible before acting, we are hardly blame-worthy if our 'r... a...' fails to produce a g... r... Summary Three philosophers argue for duty-based rather than strictly consequentialist ethics. *Kant: Notions of u... rules and persons as e... *Gert: List of moral rules to be applied to be applied with r... and im... *Ross: Use our in... to sort among competing p... f... duties, then act upon our a... duties that may or may not entail consequences. *All three promote rational thinking and all three have strengths/weaknesses. Believe basic nature of our behavior - our moral a... - is more significant than the nature of c...; each advocate freedom, respect, happiness for all including selves. Varying degrees each ask us to be morally mature, use clear-handed reasoning, rely upon our consciouses when making moral choices. All would advocate f...-l... our decision making - should have well formulated notions of right/wrong, good/bad, before entering daily moral wars. *Readers may discern slight tilt to Ross - perpetual moral tugs of war in media ethics environment suggest he provides a grip on reality. Daily choices often r...-vs.-r... choices that a m...-r... deontologist would help with. Using best judgments, drawing upon our in... and e..., keeping keen eye on goal line (Teleos) while obeying our m... d... (Deontos). *Many claim deontology is reasonable/workable principle. Others wonder how can we do right/wrong without considering c... of our actions, or whether we've ever considered whether we're being d... a...! Still others concede our in... tells us that right acts should be c... in terms of highest priority. Keeping a promise is right, but circumstances of higher ethical priority might cause us to break that promise. It is right not to hurt others, but many would not hesitate to cause harm while defending themselves or loved ones who are physically attached. It is right not to deceive, but if deceiving serves a more morally justifiable goal (protecting innocent from unnecessary or significant harm) it may be appropriate not to tell the truth. *Media COE offer little guidance for practitioners trying to think way through conflicting rules. How does a journalist always tell truth but minimize harm? How does a PR practitioner remain simultaneously loyal and impartial? How does an ad practitioner communicate honestly but never offensively? How do you know when your intuition is correct or flawed? In life, must choose. Unavoidably, some of those choices may lead us to v... even best-intentioned rules concerning right and wrong.

The PF Duties Previous scenario defined keeping a promise and helping someone as duties that are on their face the right thing to do. R identified 7 PF duties - acts that he described as tending to be our duty or responsibility. In no particular order of importance, and with comments about how they might be applied to the media ethics environment, they are: 1. Non-maleficence: Don't purposefully do harm - even to ourselves, let alone to the rest of society - or we'll destroy community. It's not 'do not harm' but 'do not cause harm on purpose.' In the media environment, we minimize harm as we gather and report info that citizens need, although it may offend some. As we persuade or entertain, strike a balance between the needs and interests of receptive and non-receptive/vulnerable audiences. 2. Fidelity: Keep all our explicit and implicit promises, and don't let people down who count on us. Some promises are imposed upon us, some are taken on as formal contracts, and others are assumed. When we take a job or do a task, what promises have we made to ourselves, our employers, our public, etc.? In the media environment, what have tacitly promised our audiences/colleagues/clients/sources/other s-holders? What efforts are we making to keep those promises? 3. Reparation: Pay back debts to make up for previous wrongs. Journalists, bloggers, PR practitioners, advertisers, and others may publish retractions, corrective advertising, or clarifications of previously published releases. Ideally, one would not have made the error or caused the harm in the first place; that is, non-maleficence precedes reparation. But we should be transparent and accountable when we make mistakes, and find a way to make up for it as best we can. 4. Justice: Ensure an equitable distribution of reward, pleasure, and other good insofar as it is within our power. Distribute it on the basis of merit and need, not tit for tat. People should be treated as ends, not as means to ends. When doing journalism, take care to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. When making deals with sources, subjects, clients be fair-minded for all s-holders. Entertainment executives would consider diversity issues. All media practitioners - including info, persuasion, entertainment - should be sensitive to the needs of vulnerable pops and not pander to elites. 5. Self-improvement: Improve our own virtue, intelligence, and skills. Should try to be as professional as possible: know about the issues in our fields, be active in professional organizations, learn new skills, and seek better ways to do our jobs. 6. Gratitude: Be good to people who have been good to us. Treat our sources/subjects/clients/colleagues/audiences with the respect they deserve, and try not to use any of them solely as means to an end. 7. Beneficence: Strive to make the world a better place. All of us, every day, should be motivated to help others improve their lot in life. Not just doing a job; we are entrusted with the power to help society self-govern, to increase everyone's welfare insofar as we can. Not a perfect list. One scholar called it obscure, confused, inconsistent. Others suggested additional duties such as respect for freedom, care, and not being a willing parasite on others and society. Another critics said list does not help people who want to know in advance which duty always is more important than another duty: But no such ranking fits the facts. The plain fact is that sometimes one ought to keep one's promises even at an overall cost to others, and sometimes the cost of keeping one's promises means that it would be better to break it, for once. R would say this sort of thing is just a feature of our moral predicament. X X X X X X X X Jonathan Dancy said a neat and orderly world would help us rank our different PF duties once and for all. But they shouldn't be rank ordered; just a shapeless list of them, which is no more than a list of the things that make a moral difference. We're left with no choice than having to think our way through them, relying on intuition and logic. And in the process we do not abandon any of those principles or duties; we merely put them in perspective. (Careful reading of R suggests he would put non-maleficence and promise keeping at top of heap, all else being equal they are the most important to fulfill). If W.D. Ross were sharing your office Insist you make ethical decisions by thinking about a set of intuitively obvious PF duties. If you are considering violating a law or custom, ask yourself if you would be willing to universalize the violation: Violate only the bad laws or customs that you think everyone else in similar circumstances would be justified in violating. When faced with an ethical dilemma, if you were to follow the model of R, you would: 1. Compile relevant facts and reasons for following alternative actions, and do this with an open mind. 2. Ask which considerations have the most weight in PF sense. 3. Realize that if you are violating a PF duty when you follow through on a proposed action, you should justify that violation by appealing to other PF duties. When doing the thinking, R would remind ethically conscientious people that the more significant the duty they are violating, the more duties they must have on the other side of the equation. Mixed Duties in the Media Ethics Environment Media workers every day must determine how to rank order and apply duties. It may be wise to use codes of ethics as way to identify PF duties to be considered when making moral choices. è PRSA COE describes 6 affirmative moral obligations for PR practitioners - advocacy, honesty, expertise, independence, loyalty, and fairness. The code describes each. But even at first glance, each is a PF duty and must be put in context with others. Example: If practitioners expected to advocate for a client/cause and also expected to be honest, must they fully disclose everything they know about their client's strengths and weaknesses? Does advocacy trump honesty? And what about fairness? Can they be honest and fair and faithful advocates? Meanwhile how do counselors prioritize their duties to be both independent and loyal? Recall conflicting loyalties and duty to be an autonomous decision maker while recognizing moral rights of employer and other s-holders in first ever case study. è Same can be said for four principles of SPJ code - seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable and transparent. But sometimes you cannot seek truth without causing harm, and sometimes you may limit your independence depending upon to whom you believe you owe accountability. One part of the code says journalists should clearly identify sources, but the next part discusses anonymity. Both codes, like most other COE, provides no answers. They merely ask practitioners to be aware of the compelling duties and obligations. It does not do their thinking for them. Applying Ross to Case Studies Consider how to turn these PF duties into actual duties. Student journalist wanted to seek out and report significant truths about their communities, but to do that they considered whether to mislead the nurse. In Rossian terms, the student journalist had to rank the duties of non-maleficence, fidelity, justice, self-improvement, and beneficence. R's way out of the problem of how to prioritize these duties is to suggest that an act is morally obligatory IFF there is a PF duty to perform that act and there is no other PF duty more incumbent than the PF duty to do the act. Rough moral terrain, it requires a good compass. Deceiving the nurse violated the truth duty. Was the exposure of danger to students more morally incumbent than not deceiving the nurse? What is the duty proper? They recognized that reporting admin recklessness would create discomfort for some s-holders - putting SPJ duty 1 and 2 against e-other. Already seen that there's a dilemma built into the decision concerning whether it is OK to deceive in order to tell the truth; that too is a truth vs. harm issue. And we know that journalists try to avoid COI or unnecessary deals with sources (duty No. 3); but how do they hold themselves accountable (4) if they use unnamed sources, or if their 'tipsters' might be harmed if their identities were revealed? A different clash of duties in Case 2. As a script writer, you would seem to have the PF duty of offering a film that is worth the price of admission: fidelity to the consumer. The same should hold true for the producer. Neither of you should set out to rip off your audiences: non-maleficence. In fact, both of you have an obligation to entertain without causing harm: non-maleficence, fidelity, and perhaps justice. But you find yourself facing other duties: fidelity and gratitude to your producer, without whom your script will never become a movie. As you debate whether to convert your tame PG into spicier PG-13 film, still market to children, the duty of self-improvement enters the equation. How do you prioritize these? Which PF duties become the morally incumbent actual duties? Bottom Line on Ross Making such right-vs-right ethics decisions not no-brainers. Demand clear-headed and mature application of moral thinking. Demand heavy reliance upon special human faculty known as ethical intuition, a form of 'mental maturity' that is refined and honed throughout personal and professional lives. Media ethicist Kevin Stoker said media practitioners could use their own experience and intuition as cognitive landmarks to orient their moral compass to the terrain. It's important to be retrospective and use experience - whether own, thoughtfully using experience of others. R says ethical intuition becomes sixth sense. Eventually with an improving intuition, sense some things are wrong and others are right. Our ethical intuition that 'X' is PF right do not make 'X' right; rather, it is via ethical intuition that we come to know that 'X' is PF right. Adds, so far as we know, humans are only species with singular faculties of experience and reason, and these alone are sources of knowledge, a sense of right and wrong. A relativist might challenge this by saying intuition differs from person to person, so who determines which intuition is on target and which isn't? R would reply personal differences in intuition may be a matter of refinement - your senses may be different from mine. An intuitionist theory makes it impossible to have 20/20 foresight. Because of the confounding and unknown variables and unknowns, we cannot precisely predict the outcome of our behaviors. But we make the best guesses, based on our clearest thinking and our refined intuition. While moral uncertainty bothers people who seek clear and absolute decision-making processes, others find real strength in the Rossian approach. Christopher Meyers praises R for providing a universalist contextualism: abstract PF duties are universal, and the actual duties are contextual. This M says, accurately reflects how humans engage in human reasoning. We grasp universal moral truth at the abstract level, but our moral decision making in actual cases is fraught with uncertainty and ambiguity. In addition, if we are sincerely trying to make good decisions, if our motives are correct and we try to get as much relevant info as possible before acting, we are hardly blame-worthy if our 'right action' fails to produce a good result. Summary 3 philosophers arguments in favor of duty-based rather than strictly consequentialist ethics. Immanuel Kant set stage with notions of universal rules and persons as ends. Bernard Gert provides us with list of moral rules to be applied with rationality and impartiality. W.D. Ross asks us to use our intuition to sort among competing PF duties, then act upon our actual duties that may/not entail consequences. All three promote rational thinking. All have strengths/weaknesses. Believe basic nature of our behavior - our moral actions - is more significant than the nature of the consequences. Each advocates freedom, respect, and happiness for all, including ourselves. To varying degrees each ask us to be morally mature, use clear-handed reasoning, rely upon our consciences when making moral choices. All would advocate 'front-loading' our decision making, as we should have well-formulated notions of right and wrong, good and bad, before enter daily moral wars. Readers may discern authors' slight tilt to Ross. Perpetual moral tugs-of-war in the media ethics environment suggest R provides us with a grip on reality worth attending to. The daily choices are often the r-vs-right choices that a mixed-rule deontologist can help us with. Using our best judgments, drawing upon our intuition and experience, can keep keen eye on the goal line (Teleos) while obeying our moral duties (Deontos). Many claim deontology is a reasonable and workable principle, it assures us of maintaining the moral order. Others wonder how we can do right/wrong without considering the consequences of our actions, or whether we've ever considered whether we're being dogmatic absolutists. Still others concede our intuition tells us that right acts should be categorized in terms of highest priority. Keeping a promise is right, but circumstances of higher ethical priority might cause us to break that promise. It is right not to hurt others, but many would not hesitate to cause harm while defending themselves or loved ones who are physically attached. It is right not to deceive, but if deceiving serves a more morally justifiable goal (protecting innocent from unnecessary or significant harm) it may be appropriate not to tell the truth. Book includes many moral duties for media. Media ethics codes tell practitioners to tell truth, minimize harm, be independent, be accountable, loyal, advertise honestly, honor promises, etc. Notice that codes offer little guidance for practitioners trying to think their way through conflicting rules. How does a journalist always tell truth but minimize harm? How does a PR practitioner remain simultaneously loyal and impartial? How does an ad practitioner communicate honestly but never offensively? How do you know when your intuition is correct or flawed? In life, must choose. Unavoidably, some of those choices may lead us to violate even best-intentioned rules concerning right and wrong.

Virtue Ethics Beyond Aristotle *Some take religious approach like Aquinas (virtues of prudence, temperance, courage, justice). Goodness and being the same. *More recent perspective from scholar Foot compared moral defects in people to defects in nature: Plant needs strong roots; human beings need courage and other virtues. *MacIntyre, a character-based individual and professional life leads to a virtuous community. Virtuous individuals become virtuous professionals, can help virtuous communities flourish. Lambeth argued this modern virtue theory should encourage journalists to establish and maintain their own standards of excellence. Once established, these professional standards should lead to improved civic life. Reasons For/Against Virtue Ethics *Some argue it is superior to other theories... 1) Offers a natural and attractive account of m... m... Do some things and avoid others because we are m... to do so, not because we're governed by rules imposed upon us or because trying to maximize certain outcomes. 2) Unlike approaches espousing the ideal of im..., virtue theory doubts whether all stakeholders have an e... c... on us Some virtues are p..., p..., p... (those focused on people we know well, have special relationship with, care for). Others are im..., g..., p... (focused on people as a whole, may not know but care about in abstract). 3) Modern virtue theory overcame Aristotle's s... and dominant m...-o... theories on advocacy, contracts, cost-benefit analysis. New application embraces f... considerations of intimacy and connectedness. *Limitations... 1) Virtue theory doesn't always tell us what t... d..., or what constitutes the 'm... r... a...' Merely describes what virtues should be brought to table. Because the focus is less on a... and more on c..., no easy way to determine a right a... from a wrong one. Ethicists though insist a virtuous character will result in virtuous a... 2) B... virtuous doesn't necessarily lead to d... the r... t... No simple one-to-one correlation where a right act always indicates a virtuous person and vice versa. A right act isn't necessarily done by a virtuous person. 3) Virtue theory doesn't p... the ideal c... t..., especially in some right-vs.-right dilemmas. Offers little help in knowing what to do when a c... occurs. Example - whether honesty is a higher virtue than loyalty. See such issues in COE, like PRSA statement: Practitioners should be faithful to those we represent, while honoring our obligation to serve the public. 4) Virtue theory doesn't provide a c... t... for every m... a... 5) Possible for thinking about virtue to make a person too s...-c..., so we must keep others in mind as we seek to live with virtue. 6) Some people confused by term g... m..., as if virtue were a math problem. 7) Good individual character is often overwhelmed by in... and s... p..., especially in absence of clear-cut ethical rules. The focus on the virtues of the professionals themselves seems to miss the importance and role of obligations to clients and publics. If Aristotle was sharing your office... 1. Act as a v... communicator or as a good person communicating well. 2. Ask what it means to be v... in the situation. Start with a thoughtfully chosen m... and argue what moral v... lies somewhere between the extreme options of ex... and de... 3. Rely upon fundamental v... you have in... as you make good choices. Would make these choices for their own sakes, not because you expect some reward and not because you owe somebody. Choices should have the quality of moral excellence in and of themselves. Should be c...-grounded and w...-enhanced, and should result in personal and professional competence. 4. Consider what you have learned from good r... m..., and conscientious testing. 5. When you've made decision, ask, Does this decision square up with that it means to me and my media practice to be v...? 6. Continue doing v... things so virtue becomes s... n... and ultimately defines w... and what y... a... Bottom Line on Virtue Virtue ethics provides another path into doing ethics, and becoming a virtuous person should be a goal for each of us. If we say 'I can't do that; it's just not the kind of person I am,' we are describing a habit of the heart, system of virtues. When we say it on deadline, without great deal of time for contemplation, it is a thoroughly integrated ethic, and not just a dogmatic and tenaciously held prejudice.

VE beyond Aristotle Thinking about VE (virtue ethics) has evolved since A. Some take religious approach, including Aquinas, whose Christian approach in 1200s focused on virtues of prudence, temperance, courage, justice. Goodness and being are really the same, he wrote. More recent perspective came from virtue scholar Philippa Foot, compared moral defects in people to defects in nature: A plant needs strong roots, and in the same sort of way human beings need courage and other virtues. Contemporary virtue theorists including Alasdair MacIntyre, argued a character-based individual and professional life should lead to a virtuous community. Virtuous individuals can become virtuous professionals, who can help virtuous communities flourish. Lambeth argued M's modern virtue theory should encourage journalists to establish and maintain their own standards of excellence. L said that once established, these professional standards should lead to improved civic life. Reasons for/against virtue ethics Some argue VE is superior to other moral theories because è Offers a natural and attractive account of moral motivation. Do some things and avoid others because we are motivated to do so, not because we are governed by rules imposed upon us or because we are trying to maximize certain outcomes. è Unlike approaches that espouse the ideal of impartiality, virtue theory doubts whether all s-holders have an = claim on us. Some virtues are partial, particular, private, such as those focused on people we know well, have a special relationship with, and care for. Other virtues are impartial, general, public, such as those focused on people as a whole, those we may not actually know but still care about in abstract. è Modern virtue theory has overcome A's sexism and dominant male-oriented theories on advocacy, contracts, and cost-benefit analysis. New applications embrace feminist considerations of intimacy and connectedness. On the other hand, limitations to VE include: è Virtue theory doesn't always tell us what to do, or what constitutes the 'morally right action.' Theory merely describes what virtues should be brought to the table. Bivins concerned that because the focus was less on actions and more on character, there is no easy way to determine a right action from a wrong one. Virtue ethicists insist a virtuous character will result in virtuous actions. è Being virtuous doesn't necessarily lead to doing the right thing. Lebacqz said there is no simple one-to-one correlation where a right act always indicates a virtuous person and vice versa. A right act is not necessarily done by a virtuous person. è Virtue theory doesn't prioritize the ideal character traits, especially in some right-vs.-right dilemmas. It offers little help in knowing what to do when a conflict occurs, for example, whether honesty is a higher virtue than loyalty, or compassion more virtuous than justice. See such issues in ethics codes, such as PRSA statement practitioners should be faithful to those we represent, while honoring our obligation to serve the public interest. è VT doesn't provide a character trait for every moral actions. è Possible for thinking about virtue to make a person too self-centered, so we must keep others in mind as seek to live with virtue. è Some people confused by term golden mean, as if virtue were a math problem. è Good individual character is often overwhelmed by institutional and situational pressures, especially in absence of clear-cut ethical rules. Arthur W. Page Center for PR Ethics could be talking about nearly all media practitioners when it notes: the focus on the virtues of the professionals themselves seems to miss the importance and role of obligations to clients and publics. If Aristotle were sharing your office... A and other virtue-focused ethicists would tell you to: 1. Act as a virtuous communicator or as a good person communicating well. 2. Ask what it means to be virtuous in the situation. Start with a thoughtfully chosen mean and argue what moral virtue lies somewhere between the extreme options of excess and deficiency. 3. Rely upon fundamental virtues you have internalized as you make good choices. Would make these choices for their own sakes, not because you expect some reward and not because you owe somebody. Choices should have the quality of moral excellence in and of themselves. Should be character-grounded and wisdom-enhanced, and should result in personal and professional competence. 4. Consider what you have learned from good role models, and conscientious - habitual -testing. 5. When you've made decision, ask, Does this decision square up with that it means to me and my media practice to be virtuous? 6. Continue doing virtuous things so virtue becomes second nature and ultimately defines who and what you are. Bottom Line on Virtue Virtue ethics provides another path into doing ethics, and becoming a virtuous person should be a goal for each of us. If we say 'I can't do that; it's just not the kind of person I am,' we are describing a habit of the heart, system of virtues. When we say it on deadline, without great deal of time for contemplation, it is a thoroughly integrated ethic, and not just a dogmatic and tenaciously held prejudice.

Care in the Media Media practices tend to reflect W..., l... theories of r... that can be applied in a v...-f... manner for information/persuasion/entertainment. 1) Journalists and other informers show care in how treat g... and t...-based communities they serve, special attention to people who are s... of news and news a... *Talk 'w...' their audience, not 't...' them. O... is an example of a standard that might emerge from deontological, utilitarian, virtues or rights theories. *Often think about 'n... j...' but is wrong to presume media j... about proximity/timeliness/conflict/impact are made in a non-moral, value-free environment. S... r... theory demands more from practitioners! Lit and recent COE say media workers should entail t... moral j..., consideration of n... of s..., and a commitment to im... the world. Articulate strong case for ethics of care. 2) Advocacy another problematic construct. A Western m... 'p... ethic' that downplays importance of int..., tr..., and care. Presumes a p... of views, instead of a c...; could be that advocacy demands of PR sometimes limit universal care ethics espoused by feminist theorists, leading to r... and m... groups of people remaining invisible to campaign planners and researchers. *Practitioners should redefine moral advocacy to encompass far more e... than found in f... relationship between client and advocate. Instead of c... PR that focuses more on m... standpoints with m...-based or... concerns (protect reputation, make money) as focus, care approach considers cross-cutting relationships between s-holders and client. Envision blend of traditional and feminist ethics when ask advocacy to include non-m..., extended l..., and a... 3) Entertainment media and advertisers who underwrite them also would do well to take feminist ethics more seriously. Despite new b-cast and online networks aimed solely at women, recent successes by sensitive producers and talent, much of work product still ob.../co.../tr... women. Tells them w... they are, h... they are to be seen by others, and w... they can achieve. Pictures not always pretty. *P... is one problem, but not only one. S..., commercial f..., popular m..., podcasts, videos, social media posts, websites, music. Extent that any media s... or d... any group, need to be called out. 4) Social media in some ways helps build community and caring for one another, when use platforms to share with e-other and sympathize/empathize with people whom we communicate. Gives voices to many who otherwise might not be heard in conventional media, whether it be political/social messages or persuasion campaigns or entertainment. *BUT doesn't boost community - whether problematic content or creating/sharing m... that divides - also come at cost. People who use tech to assault others, post m... im... like memes/unwanted sexual im..., fall short of ethics of care. *Use of SM doesn't denote revolutionary pursuit for women. Reward a co... and co... style of interaction underwritten by m...-centric culture, rather than genuine engagement based upon feminist ethic of sisterhood. If Gilligan were sharing your office... *Join with other feminist scholars in advocating an ethics of care. Challenge media notions of j..., ba..., ne... claiming these perspectives are promulgated by men and/or privileged people who have luxury of not taking a m... s...; people advocate a... over c..., s... over c... *Journalists who advocate o... and rely on n...-m... news v... are not as compassionate or sensitive as ought to be. Advertisers, PR counselors, special pleaders who talk 'a...' than talk 'w...' audiences/clients misusing power. Speaking in terms of connectedness, focus on both c... f... and c... a..., on care giving and care receiving, on conversation, on b... and m... r...; dissuade from sitting silently while injustice unfolds (rather display professional competence/comapssion by taking stand and not jamming position down anyone else's throat). *Caring is virtue that may deserve to be on same pedestal as virtue of justice (Feminist ethicists not agree!) *Aristotle, we learn to care by having it m... for us, by p... it, and by in... it. It is grounded in our sense of and commitment to hu... fl... *The least morally mature individuals are s..., thinking only of t...; the c... moral think of and care for o..., but in process may s... t... to o... needs; the most morally s... individuals care for t... as well as o..., both known and unknown. *In short, care is a way of k..., and it is particularly important for k...-seeking and k...-sharing professions. People who advocate for ethics of care would ask you to develop, know, and use your own 'v...' to consider the welfare of intimates and strangers alike, and to leave your campsite better than you found it.

Care in the Media Media practices and policies tend to reflect Western liberal theories of rights that can be applied in a values-free manner for info, persuasion, and entertainment. è Journalists and other informers show care in how they treat the geographic and topic-based communities that they serve, with special attention to the people who are the subjects of news and the news audience. They talk 'with' their audience, not 'to' them. Objectivity is a perfect example of a standard that might emerge from deontological, utilitarian, virtues, or rights theories. J often think about 'news judgment' but it is wrong to presume that media judgments about proximity, timeliness, conflict, impact, etc. are made in a non-moral, value-free environment. Social responsibility theory demands more of media practitioners. The lit and recent COE say media work should entail transparent moral judgments, a consideration of the needs of s-holders, and a commitment to improve the world. They articulate a strong case for ethics of care. è Advocacy is another problematic construct, according to feminist ethics. Advocacy is a western masculine 'power ethic' that downplays the importance of interdependence, trust, and care. It presumes a polarization of views, instead of a conversation. It could be that the advocacy demands of PR sometimes limit the universal care ethics espoused by feminist theorists, leading to radicalized and marginalized groups of men and women remaining invisible to campaign planners and researchers. Media practitioners should redefine moral advocacy to encompass far more empathy than found in the fiduciary relationship between client and advocate. Instead of crisis PR that focuses more on management standpoints with market-based organizational concerns as the focus (protecting reputation, profit) a care approach considers the cross-cutting relationships between s-holders and the client. We envision a blend of traditional and feminist ethics when we ask advocacy to include non-maleficence, extended loyalty, and accountability. è Entertainment media and advertisers who underwrite them also would do well to take feminist ethics more seriously. Despite new broadcast and online networks aimed solely at women, and recent successes by sensitive producers and talent, much of their work product still objectifies, commodifies, and trivializes women. It tells them who they are, how they are to be seen by others, and what they can achieve. The pictures are not always pretty. Pornography is one of the problems, but not the only one. Sitcoms, commercial films, popular magazines, podcasts, videos, social media posts, websites, music. To the extent that any media stereotype or demean any group, they need to be called out. è SM in some ways can help build community and caring for one another, when we use platforms to share with each other, and sympathize and empathize with people with whom we communicate. SM give voices to many who otherwise might not be heard in conventional media, whether it be political/social messages or persuasion campaigns or entertainment. But SM that do not boost community - whether the problematic content mentioned above, or creating or sharing misinformation that divides - also come at an ethical cost. People who use tech to assault others, or post manipulative images such as memes or unwanted sexual images, fall short of the ethics of care. One noted the use of SM does not denote a revolutionary pursuit for women. Platforms reward a combative and competitive style of interaction underwritten by male-centric culture, rather than genuine engagement based upon a feminist ethic of sisterhood. If Carol Gilligan were sharing your office... Gilligan would join with other feminist scholars in advocating an ethics of care. She would challenge media notions of justice, balance, and neutrality, claiming these perspectives are promulgated by men and/or privileged people who have the luxury of not taking a moral stance. These people advocate autonomy over community, separation over connectedness. She and colleagues might say journalists who advocate objectivity and rely on non-moral news values are not as compassionate or sensitive as they ought to be. Advertisers, PR counselors, and special pleaders who 'talk at' rather than 'talk with' audiences and clients would be accused of misusing their power. When she speaks in terms of connectedness, focus on both caring for and caring about, on care giving and care receiving, on conversation, on building and maintaining relationships. Dissuade you from sitting silently while injustice unfolds. Would rather you display professional competence and compassion by taking a stand - but not jam your position down anyone else's throat. Caring is a virtue that may deserve to be on same pedestal as virtue of justice. Feminist scholars disagree here! As Aristotle might have put it, we learn to care by having it modeled for us, by practicing it, and by internalizing it. It is grounded in our sense of and commitment to human flourishing. G noted the least morally mature individuals are selfish, thinking only of selves; the conventionally moral think of and care for others, but in process may sacrifice selves to others' needs; the most morally sophisticated individuals care for selves as well as others, both known and unknown.In short, care is a way of knowing, and it is particularly important for knowledge-seeking and knowledge-sharing professions. People who advocate for ethics of care would ask you to develop, know, and use your own 'voice' to consider the welfare of intimates and strangers alike, and to leave your campsite better than you found it.

1) Jeremy Bentham: The H... C... First philosopher to articulate theory of utilitarianism. Interests included structure of society/politics and reform. *Advocated system of rigorous, practical, rational, easily understood decision making, he believed many institutions muddled along with moralistic/amoral standards. *Moral judgments must be justified and best way to proceed was to use simple language. Put everyday notion of 'h...' front and center in his decision-making schema. *To calculate whether h... would trump un... in any given situation, created a h... c... of pleasures and pains, impartially and publicly calculated. *Goal not just to maximize one's individual h... but greatest h... of the greatest n..., while preventing unnecessary pain. H... on the h... c... measured along seven dimensions of reality: 1) I...: The more in... the pleasure/reward, more it is sought. 2) D...: The longer the benefit lasts, the more it is sought. 3) P...: The more clear-cut the pleasure utility, the more it is sought. 4) C...: The more c... we are of the results, the more it is sought. 5) Fe...: The more a utility/pleasure leads to something else beneficial, the better it is, and the more it is sought. (F... means fruitful, vs. something that is dead). 6) Pr...: All else being equal, take the near at hand over the remote or aloof. 7) E...: How widely do you apply the effects/conclusions? (To the greatest n...?) First six dimensions deal with in..., seventh considers s.... Thinking should be more than pleasure/pain. Can assess profit, convenience, advantage, benefit, payment of work, h... On the negative side, can assess evil, mischief, inconvenience, disadvantage, loss or un... *We should sum up all the values of all pleasures on one side and pains on other. Take account on number of people whose interests appear concerned, repeat the process with respect to each. Seeking utility requires open debate using mass media that is fair and not manipulative/-ed. *May seem bizarre to calculate h... o..., but we do this any time we draw a line down a piece of paper and list 'reasons for' on one side and against on other. *Despite its quaintness, has merit. Occurs in how journalists define news, PR person or advertiser decides on particular campaign, entertainer chooses among themes and story lines, videogrrapher what shots to take, SM whether to reply to a post. *Not enough (Bentham) to simply bring m... pleasure to people! Expect more - consider w... and l....-t... benefits of their product on society. *Limits... -Definitions of h... were s..., considering sensation of pleasure/pain over more important things. -Cannot be used with much se... Box: utility and news values Many in media use utility when making decisions - what lures widest audience, best balance of seeking truth and minimizing harm, can be funniest ad that doesn't offend too many people, etc. -Consider utilitarian nature of traditional news values: Seek and report things that include news values of impact/timeliness/proximity/prominence/oddity/conflict. Each value has utilitarian aspect; newsworthy things more likely to be important, affect many people close to home, include famous people, or just be strange. -This utilitarian calculus may explain why journalists report as they do. It shows why we have news about disasters, why issues seem two-sided with identifiable good and bad guys, why we report on the cats who get stuck in the trees rather than the ones who climb their way down, and why celebrities are news.

Jeremy Bentham: The Hedonic Calculus Bentham was the first philosopher to articulate a full-blown theory of utilitarianism. Interests included the structure of society and politics, and reform. Sought to improve prisons and democracy, and he considered birth control and animal cruelty long before others. Advocated a structure of rigorous, practical, rational, and easily understood decision making, because he believed that many institutions muddled along using moralistic (or amoral) standards. Bentham said moral judgments must be justified, and the best way to proceed was to use simple language. He put the everyday notion of 'happiness' front and center in his decision-making schema. To calculate whether happiness would trump unhappiness in any given situation, Bentham created a hedonic calculus of pleasures and pains, impartially and publicly calculated. Goal was not just to maximize that one individual's happiness, but the greatest happiness of the greatest number, while preventing unnecessary pain. Happiness on the hedonic calculus was measured along seven dimensions of reality 1) Intensity: The more intense the pleasure/reward, more it is sought. 2) Duration: The longer the benefit lasts, the more it is sought. 3) Purity: The more clear-cut the pleasure utility, the more it is sought. 4) Certainty: The more certain we are of the results, the more it is sought. 5) Fecundity: The more a utility/pleasure leads to something else beneficial, the better it is, and the more it is sought. (Fecundity means fruitful, vs. something that is dead). 6) Propinquity: All else being equal, take the near at hand over the remote or aloof. 7) Extent: How widely do you apply the effects/conclusions? (To the greatest number?) The first six of B's dimensions apply neatly to individuals; the seventh considers society. The thinking should be about more than pleasure and pain. On the plus side, the calculus can assess profit, convenience, advantage, benefit, payment for work, and happiness. On the negative side, it should assess evil, mischief, inconvenience, disadvantage, loss, or unhappiness. To perform the calculus, B said we should sum up all the values of all pleasures on the one side, and all the pains on the other. To take an account of the number of people whose interests appear to be concerned, repeat the process with respect to each. And he argued that seeking utility requires open debate using mass media that is fair and not manipulative or manipulated. It may seem bizarre to try to calculate happiness objectively, even though we do this when we draw a line down the middle of a paper and list 'reasons for' on one side and 'reasons against' on the other. Despite its quaintness, however, a hedonic calculus has some merit. Consider how these 7 categories can be applied to decision making in the media environment. A B-like calculus often occurs in how a journalist defines news, how a PR person or advertiser decides about a particular campaign, how an entertainer chooses among themes and story lines, how a videographer chooses what shots to take and how to display them, or when someone on SM decides how or whether to reply to someone else's post. Even J. Bentham would conclude that it is not enough to simply bring momentary pleasure to people. He would expect more from mass communicators. As he did with other institutional reforms, he would ask the media to consider the widespread and long-term benefits of their 'product' on others and society. But as we shall see, there are serious limits to B's approach. One critic noted his definitions of happiness were simplistic when considering the "sensation" of pleasure/pain over more important things. And "even his warmest admirers" have admitted that his calculus cannot be used with much seriousness. Box: Utility and News Values Many in media use utility when making decisions - what lures the widest audience, what is the best balance of seeking truth while minimizing harm, what can be the funniest ad that does not offend too many people, etc. One example would be considering the utilitarian nature of traditional news values: All else being equal, journalists seek out and report on things that include the news values of impact, timeliness, proximity, prominence, oddity, conflict. Each value has a utilitarian aspect; newsworthy things are more likely to be important, affect many people close to home, include famous people, or just be strange. This utilitarian calculus may explain why journalists report as they do. It shows why we have news about disasters, why issues seem two-sided with identifiable good and bad guys, why we report on the cats who get stuck in the trees rather than the ones who climb their way down, and why celebrities are news. Moreover, as many news orgs shrink, journalists may focus more on Bentham's values of certainty and propinquity in their reporting in their reporting. Instead of having or taking the time to pursue stories that could be important but also could dry holes, they pursue easier and faster stories that will definitely lead to something publishable.

Ethics of Care Until few decades ago, most Western ethics theorists assumed all moral agents were f..., eq... in..., mutually dis...; those theories flowed from people like Aristotle - said good women are characterized by obedience/silence/faithfulness, others suggested women were in... at m... r... Those theories emphasized supposedly m... values like autonomy, intellect, will, wariness, hierarchy, domination. Paid less mind to such 'f...' values as int..., c..., co..., sharing, emotion, trust, absence of hierarchy, nature, process, peace. *Those m... theories preoccupied with im... application of r... and c... in name of justice, following d... and morally acceptable a... that were applied im... and somewhat unfeelingly. *BUT these theories didn't represented lived experiences of women, or result of research from developmental psychologists/philosophers. *The 60s, pragmatic concerns over issues like reproductive rights, gender discrimination, pornography, plight of women in developing nations - required new thinking about ethical disource. Care ethics: Rel... approach to morality that values co..., e..., and e... - Care is a responsive ethic that takes into consideration not only n... of others, but their c... too. *Feminist ethics embodies experiences and r... in c..., and resolves differences by means of c... and e..., d... l...; eclectic in scope and practice. *Unlike other approaches that insist each person's moral perfection is h.../h... o... p..., the ethics of care say we remain at least partly responsible for the m... d... of e... p... we encounter. *Gilligan: While men rely upon moral r... - particularly on justice, fairness, equality - women more likely to abide by an ethics of care, r..., and maintaining c...; Noddings - maternal care was moral ideal (intimiate, c... f... relationship between mother and child, between people in specific or limited relationships). *Gilligan said women develop morally from s...-c... care -> s... care of others -> a u... sense of care. Other feminist theorists extend both perspectives, examining how people c... f... (be...) and c... a... (be...) individuals, institutions, causes, universe. *Important to remember care may not be altogether v... if extended only to some and not others. Caring about others because of what they can do for you is not u... care talked about at higher levels. *What began as reaction to male-dominated moral philosophy has blossomed across many academic disciplines (ten terms: ethics of care, feminine ethics, feminist ethics, female ethics, womanist ethics, dialogic female ethics, ethics of agape, feminist communitarian ethics, ethics of solidarity, and expressive-collaborative morality). *While field has expanded, some of p... have been r... *While justice may not be key consideration, scholars blended with notions of care and other virtues. Concerns once thought limited to women expanded to include men, children, institutions. *'S... in...' are seen increasingly as 'h... in...' from local workplace to developing nations. Feminist ethics articulating concerns over race, class, age. May be due to ethicists' increased sensitivity to disadvtanged people and institutions that discriminate against them. No coincidence women and children are disproportionately represented among the world's poor. *Raises empirical and pragmatic matter: as the world e... and the workplace more accurately m... world's g... mix, men/women are seen as equally capable of reflecting an ethics of care and/or justice. On various motivational scales, men who work in managerial/administrative jobs tend to score high in ..., while women who work at home tend to score high in ... *But men and women score similarly when e... and o... are taken into consideration. Therefore, the moral gender gap may be d... as theories of feminist ethics mature. The issues, values, and experiences are not easily defined as being exclusively male or female. Most values are not g... or c...-specific; enough variance exists to motivate a great deal of conversation, research, and policy decision making.

Ethics of Care Until a few decades ago, most Western ethics theorists generally assumed that all moral agents were "free, equal, independent, and mutually disinterested." Those theories flowed from people such as Aristotle, who said good women are characterized by obedience, silence, and faithfulness, and others who suggested women were inferior at moral reasoning. Those theories emphasized supposedly masculine values such as autonomy, intellect, will, wariness, hierarchy, and domination. They paid less mind to such supposedly feminine values as interdependence, community, connection, sharing, emotion, trust, absence of hierarchy, nature, process, and peace. Those (masculine) theories were preoccupied with impartial application of rules or contracts in the name of justice, and following duties and morally acceptable actions that were to be applied impartially and somewhat unfeelingly. But these theories did not represent the lived experience of many women, or the results of research and thinking by developmental psychologists and philosophers. The 1960s - as pragmatic concerns rose over issues such as reproductive rights, gender discrimination, pornography, and plight of women in developing nations - required new thinking about ethical discourse. Care ethics: A relational approach to morality that values context, emotion, and experience ... Care is a responsive ethic that takes into consideration not only the needs of others, but their circumstances as well. (Maurice Hamington) Feminist ethics embodies experiences and relationships in context, and resolves differences by means of caring and empathetic, deep listening. It is eclectic in scope and practice. Unlike other approaches that insist that 'each person's moral perfection is his or her own project,' the ethics of care says we remain at least partly responsible for the moral development of each person we encounter. Gilligan said that while men rely upon moral rules - particularly about justice, fairness, and equality - women are more likely to abide by an ethics of care, relationships, and maintaining community. Noddings said maternal caring was the moral ideal - an intimate 'care-for' relationship between mother and child and by extension between people in specific and limited relationships. Gilligan said women develop morally from self-centered care, to a sacrificial care of others, to a universal sense of care. Other feminist theorists extend both these perspectives, examining how people care for (beneficence) and care about (benevolence) individuals, institutions, causes, and the universe. Important to remember that care may not be altogether virtuous if extended only to some but not others. Caring about others only because of what they can do for you is not the universal care talked about at higher levels of care. What began as reaction to male-dominated moral philosophy has blossomed across many academic disciplines. Steiner mentions 10 terms describing those branches: ethics of care, feminine ethics, feminist ethics, female ethics, womanist ethics, dialogic female ethics, ethics of agape, feminist communitarian ethics, ethics of solidarity, and expressive-collaborative morality. While the field has expanded, some of its premises are being revised. While justice may not be the key consideration, scholars have blended it with notions of care and other virtues. Concerns once thought to be limited to women have expanded to include men, children, and institutions near and far. 'Special interests' are seen increasingly as 'human interests' - from the local workplace to developing nations. Feminist ethics are articulating concerns over race, class, and age. This may be due in part to ethicists' increased sensitivity to disadvantaged people and the institutions that discriminate against them. It is no coincidence that women and children are disproportionately overrepresented among the world's poor. This raises an empirical and pragmatic matter: as the world evolves and the workplace more accurately mirrors the world's gender mix, men and women are seen as equally capable of reflecting an ethics of care and/or justice. On various motivational scales, men who work in managerial or administrative jobs tend to score high in justice, while women who work at home tend to score high in care. But men and women score similarly when education and occupation are taken into consideration. Therefore, the moral gender gap may be diminishing as theories of feminist ethics mature. The issues, values, and experiences are not easily defined as being exclusively male or female. Most values are not gender- or culture-specific; enough variance exists to motivate a great deal of conversation, research, and policy decision making.

2) John Stuart Mill Philosophy improves when it stands on the shoulders of others. Bentham with Mill, father a friend of Bentham's. Build upon idea of utilitarianism by offering more nuanced set of insights for people facing moral dilemmas. *Start with guiding principle: Ethical decisions should seek the g... amount of h... or b... the g... n... of p..., while at same time, seek to h... the l... amount of p... BUT extends the framework in claiming when balancing the b... of one/many against the h... of one/many, people should recognize that some b... are b... than others and some h... are more p... than others! *Therefore measure is whether you are seeking the g... possible b... of g... over e..., whether you are distributing this g... as b... as possible. Question of the a... g... - b... for all the s-holders who might possibly be affected by the decision. And while considering the ag... b..., have us provide s... p... for individuals who might otherwise be sacrificed for good of whole. *Decisions should be made objectively and impartially, cannot give selves any s... p..., especially if they are s-holders in the case. *More to life than simple h... p..., so h... should be defined more broadly than Bentham's consideration of pleasure or pain in terms of their in... and d... Advocate higher-level pleasures (imagination, intellectual pursuits) qualitatively different from base-level pleasures. One of famous explanations better to be human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. *You probably can find something more fun to do right now than reading this, but that pleasure is only t... Mill would say the t... pain of learning his theory is worth the l...-t... p... of having an education. If Mill where sharing your office... 1) Compile a list of possible a... you might take (need a good sense of potential o... to do this thoroughly). 2) List the s... to be affected by this decision. 3) Decide the likely c... from each option, being attentive to the number of people likely to b... or be h... and the extent to which anyone's legal or moral rights would be violated. 4) Ask whether someone who might get h... actually d... to be h... 5) Impartially choose the c... that would seem to provide the most b... to the largest a... of p..., or the least h... to the smallest number of people. 6) Conclude whether some h... could be justified because it promotes the o... g... of the community or whether the community might be h... if you took no action. This justification process cuts across categories. One hand, seems Mill asks people to choose which act will maximize h... On other, implies people should follow r.../pr... to bring about best results. Many believe Mill falls into category of r... utilitarianism. Good degree of d... thinking! Categories of Utilitarianism: A... Utilitarianism vs. R... Utilitarianism Multiple variations of utility. Key difference in two is first focuses on the outcomes of the individual action in terms of overall h...; the second applies the utilitarian principle directly to evaluation of r... and then evaluates individual actions by seeing if they o.../d... those r... whose acceptance procudes the most utility. A... utilitarianism A person should use the principle of utility when considering what is right in specific cases. Other words, try to see which action will or is likely to produce the greatest b... of g... over e... in the universe. *ARE NO R...; everything is s... Invoked on a case-by-case basis, not necessarily connected to prior situations. *Provide more wiggle room, can be a problem for not considering the influence of ig..., p..., other contaminating values in decision making. Bentham would be described here. *For some, we hear the he... argument that an act is morally obligatory, not just permissible but r..., IFF it produces h... or pl..., and IFF it results in absence of p... *An act is morally obligatory IFF it products h...; produces more pl... than p...; produces greatest utility; case of tie, no other act produces greater utility than this act. R... utilitarianism *Close to being a d... theory, because it emphasizes the centrality of m... r... and often argues those r... should be universal! Move beyond the effects of a proposed action in a situation. *Insists we should generally, if not always, decide what to do by applying a 'useful r...' R... would be useful if applied to e..., such as telling the truth or keeping promises, instead of by asking what particular action will have the best c... in the situation in question. *Mill would fall here! Unlike strict d... however, adds we are always to determine our r... by asking which r... will promote the greatest g.../general w... for everyone. *Question no longer deals with which a... will have the greatest utility, but which r... Approach squares with practical decision making in everyday life for people working through dilemmas. Seems to fit fairly well with media ethics environment. Practitioners try to figure out ways to inform/entertain/persuade/influence society while keeping in mind the best interests of society as a whole. *An a... or r... may maximize the sum of g... in the world yet be unjust in how it di... the su... (Affirmative action may seem unjust to groups not in the minority; excess amounts of free speech may offend the sensitive; etc.). *So a less b... a... or r... that is more just may be preferable to it. This means we must talk about j... and the principle of utility - a double principle that tells us to: (1) produce the greatest possible b... of g... over e..., and (2) d... this as w... as possible.

John Stuart Mill: Building Upon Bentham Fortunately, like other pursuits, philosophy improves when it stands on the shoulders of others. In B's case, it came with John Stuart Mill, whose father was a friend of B. Mill built upon B's utilitarianism by offering a much more nuanced set of insights for people facing moral dilemmas. Mill started with B's guiding principle: Ethical decisions should seek the greatest amount of happiness or benefit the greatest number of people, while at the same time, they should seek to harm the least amount of people. But he extended B's framework in claiming that when balancing the benefit of one (or many) against the harm of one (or many), people should recognize that some benefits are better than others and some harms are more painful than others. Therefore, the measure is whether you are seeking the GREATEST possible balance of good over evil, and whether you are distributing this good as broadly as possible. It is a question of the aggregate good - benefits for all the stakeholders who might possibly be affected by the decision. And while considering the aggregate benefits, Mill would have us provide 'special protection for individuals who might otherwise be sacrificed for the good of the whole.' These decisions should be made objectively and impartially; decision makers cannot give themselves any special privileges, especially if they are stakeholders in the case at hand. Mill argued that there is more to life than simple hedonistic pleasures, so happiness should be defined more broadly than B's consideration of pleasure or pain in terms of their intensity and duration. Mill advocated higher-level pleasures - such as imagination, intellectual pursuits, and others - that are qualitatively different from base-level pleasures. One of his famous explanations was it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. Think of it like this: You probably can find something more fun to do right now than reading this, but that pleasure is only temporary. Mill would say the temporary pain of learning his theory is worth the long-term pleasure of having an education and being able to understand and apply good moral decision making. John Stuart Mill would tell you to test your decisions. You should: 1) Compile a list of possible actions you might take (need a good sense of potential outcomes to do this thoroughly). 2) List the stakeholders to be affected by this decision (PR and advertising practitioners would include their clients, co-workers, superiors, stockholders, public, and themselves in the equation. Entertainment workers would include co-workers in production or 'talent,' bosses, original sources of material, advertisers, distributors, audiences, stockholders, themselves in the equation). 3) Decide the likely consequences from each option, being attentive to the number of people likely to benefit or be harmed and the extent to which anyone's legal or moral rights would be violated. 4) Ask whether someone who might get harmed actually deserves to be harmed (After all, some folks who have done wrong or violated public trust should experience negative consequences). 5) Impartially choose the consequence that would seem to provide the most benefit to the largest aggregate of people, or the least harm to the smallest number of people. 6) Conclude whether some harm could be justified because it promotes the overall good of the community or whether the community might be harmed if you took no action. (Sometimes more harm is caused by 'burying' or ignoring an issue than by publicizing it. Copping out or choosing not to decide has consequences!) This justification process cuts across categories. On one hand, it seems Mill asks people to choose which act will maximize happiness. On the other hand, he implies that people should follow rules or principles to bring about the best results. Many philosophers say Mill tends to fall into the category of rule utilitarianism. Because despite his deserved reputation as a consequentialist, M's approach includes a good degree of deontological thinking. Categories of Utilitarianism Philosophers have proposed multiple variations of utility, but we'll focus on two: act and rule. Key difference is the first focuses on the outcome of the individual action in terms of overall happiness, while in the second rule utilitarians 'apply the utilitarian principle directly to the evaluation of rules and then evaluate individual actions by seeing if they obey/disobey those rules whose acceptance will produce the most utility.' Act Utilitarianism Act utilitarianism says a person should use the principle of utility when considering what is right in specific cases. In other words, we should try to see which specific action will - or is likely to - produce the greatest balance of good over evil in the universe. There are no rules; everything is situational. Act utility is invoked on a case-by-case basis, not necessarily connected to prior situations. This seems to provide lots of moral wiggle room, which can be a problem for not considering the influence of ignorance, prejudice, and other contaminating values in our decision making. Bentham's approach can be described as act utilitarianism. From some utilitarians, we hear the hedonistic argument that an act is morally obligatory - not just permissible, but required - if and only if (IFF) it produces happiness or pleasure, and IFF it results in the absence of pain. A better description of act utilitarianism is that an act is morally obligatory IFF it produces happiness; IFF it produces more pleasure than pain; IFF it produces the greatest utility; and in the case of a tie, IFF there is no other act that produces greater utility than the act. This gives rise to interesting questions, such as: At what cost do we maximize pleasure? How long does the pleasure need to be maintained? How can we calculate variables to figure out what the balance of plus/minus will be? Can we quantify pleasure and pain on a 'hedometer' or some other scale to measure happiness? Rule Utilitarianism Rule utilitarianism is close to being a deontological theory, because it emphasizes the centrality of moral rules and often argues that those rules should be universal. We move beyond what the effects of a proposed action will have in a situation. It insists we should generally, if not always, decide what do in particular situations by applying a 'useful rule.' This rule would be useful if applied to everyone, such as telling the truth and keeping promises, instead of by asking what particular action will have the best consequences in the situation in question. Mill's approach is rule utilitarianism. Unlike strict deontologists, however, it adds we are always to determine our rules by asking which rules will promote the greatest good or general welfare for everyone. The question no longer deals with which action will have the greatest utility, but which rule. For many philosophers, this approach squares with practical decision making in everyday life for people working through dilemmas. Rule utilitarianism seems to fit fairly well in media ethics environment, as media practitioners and institutions try to figure out ways to inform, entertain, educate, and influence society while keeping in mind the best interests of society as a whole. An action, practice, or rule may maximize the sum of good in the world yet be unjust in how it distributes the sum (Affirmative action may seem unjust to groups not in the minority; excess amounts of free speech may offend the sensitive; etc.). So a less beneficent action, practice, or rule that is more just may be preferable to it. This means we must talk about justice and the principle of utility - a double principle that tells us to: (1) produce the greatest possible balance of good over evil, and (2) distribute this as widely as possible.

Justice as Fairness in Media Many media ethicists found Rawlsian justice as fairness model to have moral appeal. Theories of moral development and values, news media experiments with public/civic journalism, media COE for fairness - balance - diversity - compassion - respect for privacy. 1) Most media COE at home with Rawls. Justice is 16th word in SPJ code and highlighted as o... p... of journalism. *Ask journalists to be compassionate to people who are subjects of stories, especially sensitive to p... people and j..., victims of s... c..., sources of subjects in... and unable to give consent. Avoid catering to advertisers and others who seek favored treatments, give voice to voiceless. *Journalists employed modified version of the v... of ig... when making decisions especially about p..., d..., how to comfort the a... or a... the comfortable. Whether in newsroom meeting or by selves, bring number of voices to table including imagined voices of story's s-holders. Who will benefit, and who will suffer? How much benefit and how much suffering from this story/campaign? Is everyone's voice being heard? Is anyone getting favored treatment? How would I feel if I were the target of this story? Would I deserve it? Thinking about justice should convince them that p... their s... (or sometimes even m...) is less important than a higher l... of delivering lower-case 't' t... to citizens. 2) Appeals to justice and fairness also found in some PR and ad codes - but with subtly different spin. PRSA asks members to be faithful to those they r..., while honoring p... in... and respecting all opinions and support right of free expression. *AMA draws from Rawls most directly - marketers should foster trust in marketing system, embrace ethical values of f..., r..., t..., and ci... - acknowledge social obligations to s-holders that come with increased marketing and economic power, balance justly need of b... and interest of s... *If we relied solely on those codes for insight into media commitments to justice, may assume all media on same page. But the reality doesn't mesh with theoretical. *PR and advertising about a..., which implies o... p... is to choose a side and remain loyal to it, communicating messages for clients' o... g... for m... b...; recall Rawl's o... p..., all of the mutually disinterested moral persons driven by justice and ability to develop and pursue a conception of what is good for e... and not for just s... *P... not u... ties Rawl's theory to PR, practitioners view task as helping clients insert their positions into marketplace (Martinson) - allowing the s...-r... process to protect greater common good and p... in... *When PR, ad, marketing groups focus on c... s... r... don't refer to justice, though they should. *Typically operate from a f... m..., means not playing on completely democratic p... f...; bringing Rawls to table bring persuasive communicators to consider how they can honor vows of loyalty to those they r... and honoring obligations of p... in... *Shift from a... to t...-w... s... to truly in..., needs and interests of consumders, customers, all members of public borne in mind. Discussions not merely center on making a profit, successfully persuading others, moving product, or delivering eyes to ads. Considerations remain, but all s-holders seated at table! 3) Entertainment industry is about p... - who can make media, how it can affect audiences. Rawlsian approach consider p... d... on both sides of camera (hiring decisions to work contracts to what content is released to public). *Entertainment industry history of using/misusing people, because of differences in p... and knowledge between companies, workers, audiences. *Musicians and others who sign bad deals, company takes advantage of musician's naivety about industry, desire for work to be heard. Just as many stories about in... e... who take advantage of p... to abuse underlings. More on how media products (shows, books, movies, music) take advantage of their audiences. Do this by creating products that create s-types and demean individuals/groups. *A justice approach would say this needs to stop! 4) Social media practitioners in some ways created equal in marketplace, use same platforms and compete for same attention. Ability of anyone to use SM to call attention to issues of un... leveled the p... f... (MeToo and other online movements). *Other hand, some voices remain l... than others due to number of followers or ability to buy online audience. Must take care not to abuse their p...! Do not punch down at people below. *Other concerns: Tying of SM to m..., particularly when politicians and others use user profiles and posts to aim different info to different audiences. The v... of ig... approach assumes we have equal information about situations when making decisions, a fundamental issue for platforms that create in... b... that lead to competing realities and a lack of shared knowledge. If Rawls were sharing your office... *Insist you and cohorts wear a v... of ig... as you grapple with dilemmas. Go about making decision as normal, self-interested, egoistic person you are; but when making decisions you must put aside own id... and make decision by momentarily adopting viewpoints/interests of others involved (stakeholders). Should... 1. Make a list of all people who will be a... by the d... (audience, sources, subjects, clients, co-workers, superiors, stockholders, selves) 2. Consider what c... o... e... might say about notions of f... and justice. 3. Put self behind a v... of ig... Give up your id... and assume the id... of the other people affected by your decision. 4. Assume a d... taking place among the v... p..., with none of the participants knowing for sure what their ultimate id... will be until the v... of ig... are removed. 5. Make the optimal decision, whereby: a) Everyone has m... in... l... as long as others' freedoms are not interfered with. This is more important than: b) In... in s... and e... will be considered so the l...-a... parties will benefit, and in... are attached to offices and positions o... to a... under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. Bottom Line on Justice-Focused Ethics Rawls shifted political philosophers from strictly utilitarian model of how democratic institutions ought to function. *Proposed sophisticated and nuanced challenge for just and fair society founded on ra... con... that protects w... m... of society! *Lightning rod for criticism... Some critics fault for being too liberal, presuming ordinary persons has m... s... that extended to ends of universe and have pa... s... to most d... creatures in that universe. *Others disagree with how Rawls connects j... and m...; connections between focus on b... s... in... and the focus on p... co... and ch... *Others think v... of ig... has little pragmatic function (childlike innocence about ways of the world). *Parafit: Sought to advance Rawls and others with his triple theory, considering consequences, duty, justice. An act is wrong IFF/when such acts are disallowed by some principle that is: 1. One of the principles whose being u... laws would make things go b..., 2. One of the only principles whose being u... laws everyone could ra... w..., and, 3. A principle that no one could r... r.... The first point is about utility. The second considers Kantian-based duty. Third focuses on s... c... and justice, assuming the action to be taken is one that people, regardless of their place in life, would agree upon. *In short, Rawls' approach seems important but may seem id..., and the exercise of wearing the v... of ig... on deadline seems fanciful.

Justice as Fairness in Media Many media ethicists have found Rawlsian justice as fairness model to have enormous moral appeal. Book alludes to model when discussing theories of moral development and values, news media experiments with public or civic journalism, and media COE calling for fairness, balance, diversity, compassion, respect for privacy. è Most news media COE seem at home with Rawls. Justice is 16th word in SPJ ethics code and highlighted as an overarching purpose of journalism. SPJ asks j to examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others, to support the open exchange of views, and to invite dialogue with the public. It tells j to be compassionate to people we are the subjects of stories, and to be especially sensitive to private people and juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources of subjects who are inexperienced and unable to give consent. It reminds j to avoid catering to advertisers and others who seek favored treatment, but instead give voice to voiceless. J often employ a modified version of the veil of ignorance when making decisions, especially about privacy/deception/how to comfort the afflicted or afflict the comfortable. Whether in newsroom meeting or by selves, will bring a number of voices to table including the imagined voices of their story's s-holders. Ask such ?s as: Who will benefit, and who will suffer? How much benefit and how much suffering will this story or campaign produce? Is everyone's voice being heard? Is anyone getting favored treatment? How would I feel if I were the target of this story? Would I deserve it? Thinking about justice should convince them that pleasing their sources (or sometimes even managers) is less important than a higher loyalty of delivering lower-case 't' truth to citizens. è Appeals to justice and fairness also found in some of the PR and ad codes - but sometimes with subtly different spin. PRSA asks its members to be faithful to those we represent, while honoring public interest, and to respect all opinions and support the right of free expression. American Marketing Association draws most directly from R when it tells marketers to foster trust in the marketing system, to embrace ethical values of fairness, respect, transparency, and citizenship, to acknowledge the social obligations to s-holders that come with increased marketing and economic power, and to balance justly the needs of the buyer with interests of seller.If we relied solely on these codes for insights into media commitments to justice and fairness, we would probably conclude that all media are on the same page. However, the reality may not mesh with the theoretical. PR and advertising are about advocacy, which implies that the 'original position' of advocates is to choose a side and remain loyal to it, communicating messages for their clients' own gain for mutual benefit. Recall in R's original position, all of the mutually disinterested moral persons are driven by justice and ability to develop and pursue a conception of what is good for everyone and not just for selves. Martinson maintained that pluralism - but not universalism - ties R's theory to PR, because practitioners view task as helping clients insert their positions into the m-place; allowing the self-righting process to protect the greater common good and public interest. When PR, ad, and marketing groups focus on 'corporate social responsibility' they don't necessarily refer to justice - even though they should. Typically operate from a fiduciary model, which means they are not playing on a completely democratic playing field. Bringing R to the table would bring persuasive communicators to consider how they can honor their vows of loyalty to those they represent, while honoring their obligations to the public interest. The decision-making model will shift from asymmetrical to two-way symmetrical to truly interactive, as the needs and interests of consumers, customers, and all members of the public are borne in mind. Discussions not merely center on making a profit, successfully persuading others, moving product, or delivering eyeballs to advertisers. Those considerations remain on the table, but all the s-holders are seated at the table. è Entertainment industry is about power - who can make media, and how that media can affect audiences. A Rawlsian approach would consider power dynamics on both sides of the camera, from hiring decisions to work contracts to what content is released to the public.The entertainment industry has a history of using and misusing people, often because of the differences in power and knowledge between the companies, their workers, and their audiences. There are decades of stories about musicians and others who sign bad deals, the company takes advantage of the musician's naiveté about the industry an desire for their work to be heard. Just as many stories of industry elite - studio heads, actors, producers, musicians - who take advantage of their power to abuse their underlings. And we could write much more on media products (books, movies, TV shows, podcasts) that take advantage of their audiences. Do this by creating media products that create stereotypes and demean individuals and groups of people. A justice approach would say this has to stop. Entertainment practitioners seeking higher justice and building a better society would follow steps in list at end of section when making decisions and hiring, casting, content, distribution. è SM practitioners, in some ways, are created = in the m-place in that they use the same platforms and compete for the same attention as everyone else. The ability of anyone to use SM to call attention to issues of unfairness has leveled the playing field, as the #MeToo Movement and other online movements have shown. On other hand, some voices remain louder than others because of number of followers they have or ability to buy an online audience. Must take care to not abuse their power. Do not punch down at people below them.There are other concerns. Tying of SM to marketing, particularly when politicians and others use user profiles and posts to aim different info to different audiences. The veil of ignorance approach assumes we have = information about situations when making decisions, and this is a fundamental issue for SM platforms that create info bubbles that lead to competing realities and a lack of shared knowledge and understanding. Media practitioners who seek to use the power of SM to reach audiences should keep this in mind. If John Rawls were sharing your office... Rawls would insist you and cohorts wear a veil of ignorance as you grapple with your ethical dilemmas. You can go about making your decisions as the normal, self-interested, egoistic persons you are. The only catch is in making the decision you each must put aside your own identity and make the decision by momentarily adopting the viewpoints and interests of others who are involved - all the s-holders. You should... 1. Make a list of all people who will be affected by the decision - including audience, sources, subjects, clients, co-workers, superiors, stockholders, selves, etc. 2. Consider what COE might say about notions of fairness and justice. 3. Put self behind a veil of ignorance. Give up your identity and assume the identities in turn of the other people affected by your decision. 4. Assume a discussion taking place among the various players, with none of the participants knowing for sure what their ultimate identities will be until the veils of ignorance are removed. 5. Make the optimal decision, whereby: a) Everyone has maximum individual liberty as long as others' freedoms are not interfered with. This is more important than: b) Inequalities in society and economics will be considered so the least-advantaged parties will benefit, and inequalities are attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. At the very least, all participants in the exercise should have had their senses of empathy tweaked. Bottom Line on Justice-Focused Ethics Rawls shifted political philosophers away from strictly utilitarian model of how democratic institutions ought to function. He proposed sophisticated and nuanced challenge for just and fair society founded on rational consensus that protects the weakest members of society. R has been a lightning rod for criticism. Some critics fault him for being too liberal, for presuming that ordinary persons have moral sensitivities that extend to ends of universe and they have particular sensitivities to the most disadvantaged creatures in that universe. Others disagree with how R connects justice and morality, or his connection between the 'focus on basic social institutions and the focus on persons' conduct and character'. Others think the veil of ignorance has little pragmatic application - NYT obituary quoted critic who said R had a childlike innocence about the ways of the world.Theorist Derek Parfit sought to advance R and others with his Triple Theory, which considers consequences, duty, and justice. In What Matters Most books, said: An act is wrong IFF or just when such acts are disallowed by some principle that is: 1. One of the principles whose being universal laws would make things go best, 2. One of the only principles whose being universal laws everyone could rationally will, and, 3. A principle that no one could reasonably reject. The first point is about utility. The second considers Kantian-based duty. Third focuses on social contract and justice, assuming the action to be taken is one that people, regardless of their place in life, would agree upon.In short, R approach seems important but may seem idealistic, and the exercise of wearing the veil of ignorance on deadline seems fanciful. Still approach deserves consideration among media practitioners who seek to play fair, seek justice, and treat ethically everyone who could be affected by their decisions.

The Sixth Question, How's your decision going to look? State your c...; throughout the process, consider what friends and people you respect think about your decision making. Not just the d..., but the p...! *Work is not done once you made a decision and take action. Communicator's product tends to be p..., unlike work of other occupations. Decisions affect lives, feelings, fortunes of many s-holders. Nearly anyone has the moral authority and technology to hold mass communicators a..., because every member of audience and media is a s-holder. *Dealing with a..., t..., and c...: many internal and external systems that help media practitioners be a... to selves and others. *Expect introspective decision makers to consider s-holders who can hold them to an a... *Ethical justification much more than p... h... r.../m... once all decisions have been made and actions been taken. Not c... c...; ethical justification should be f...-l..., thought about well in advance of deadline. If problem is well articulated, choices about loyalties and values and principles made rationally + openly, decision maker gone long way down path of a...; even most articulate moral justifications and transparent performance will fail to satisfy some, but media practitioners who holds selves truly a... should be able to sleep at night. Accountability, Transparency, Credibility *Bad news practitioners: public generally doesn't trust you! Journalists: 28% of Americans say have high standards of honesty/ethics, little more than third of people in free nations worldwide saying trust news. Between complaints on c..., m... about the job, p... and others who attack journalism for own gain (No one delights in bearer of bad news). *Numbers worse for other media types: Only 10% of Americans think ad practitioners have high standards of honesty/ethics. Belief unchanged since 70s, ranking ad practitioners down with car salespeople and members of Congress (and lobbyists, a PR function!). *Only 12% of PR practitioners, mostly because think practitioners are 'paid to in... people' (they are). Meanwhile, many see bloggers are narrow-minded score settlers who cannot get real media jobs. *Assume people in entertainment are ones depicted as willing to l..., c..., s... for any opportunity. *See SM posters as internet tough guys who snipe at people and things they don't understand, with words wouldn't say if targets were in same room. *If contemplating media career primarily because you want to be loved/understood by public, reconsider motivation. *However, this bad news should cause you little concern if you recognize what others t... about you isn't necessarily a gauge of how ethical you r... a...; Doing ethics is about s..., not im...; people who are less morally developed may not understand your decision. Others may feel betrayed you chose different loyalty that placed them lower than others, or a different value from what they may have chosen, or a duty-based approach that didn't concern itself with consequences that affected them. *On other hand, truism that 'if both sides are mad at you, must be doing something right' may not be true at all! Making ethical decisions requires decision makers be able to d... their decisions in t..., l..., e... sound ways! *Decisions need to pass Bok's t... of p... - which says you should discuss planned course of action with r... people who may/may not be direct s-holders. Doing this challenges p... b..., e... and ig..., and allows shifting of perspectives crucial to moral choice. *Especially true in mass media, a peculiar enterprise in which products/actions s... to be s... (and j...) by a...; old saying journalists print their mistakes and doctors bury theirs (true for other communicators too). *True test of character what you do when no one is watching (Wooden), but also true when e... is w...! Making good decisions - knowing you will be c... regardless of what you do and that only a few people will understand your decision - also a true test of character. *How's your decision going to look? requires decision makers to reflect not only on e... j... of their decisions, but to consider to w... (and to w... e...) they may be a...; in doing so, well-advised to behave with t... and pay some attention to c...! A...: Argues we have the moral obligation to e... ourselves and our decisions to s... T...: Assumes we should be as o... as pr... about o..., our m..., and our d...-m... p... C: Extent to which individuals t... other individuals, groups, institutions Concepts related and understood to be connected in internet age. A... more easily called for by others, t.... seen as way to replace 'o...' in some media enterprises, and c... has become more complicated. *Example: SPJ updated 'Be a...' key value to include 'and t...' in 2014. However these concepts may not be as related as think. *Some of the issues are aimed at in...; others better focused on in... as small as individual newsrooms and large as entire m... c... (b-cast news, advertising, Hollywood). Finally, some of these issues projected to the 'media' term unfortunately lumps all media workers into single entity that public is so quick to blame. While can ultimately be responsible only for your actions, may be useful to consider some issues in p... t..., even if play small role in large orgs/industries. *EACH OF THE FIRST FIVE QUESTIONS contribute to how decision makers answer this final question. This final question is important to consider when recognizing that you face a moral dilemma, and then answering questions related to rules, loyalties, values, and philosophic principles. Without satisfactory answers to those ?s, trying to justify your decisions to others (and self) can be a painful, humiliating experience. With satisfactory answers, can be more confident when making the call, ready to answer in... and e... c... who inevitably ask you for an a...

The Sixth Question, How's your decision going to look? State your conclusion. Throughout the process, consider what your friends and people you respect will think about your decision making - not just the decision, but the process. The work is not done once you have made a decision and take action. A communicator's product tends to be public, unlike the work of many other occupations and professions. Decisions can affect the lives, feelings, fortunes of many s-holders. Nearly anyone has the moral authority - and tech - to hold mass communicators accountable, because every member of the audience and the media industries is a s-holder. Dealing with accountability, transparency, and credibility. It describes many internal and external systems that help media practitioners be accountable to selves and to others. Topics are significant when answering the sixth and final ? of the '5 W's and H' questions we believe should be asked when doing ethics. The question, How's your decision going to look?, expects introspective decision makers to consider the s-holders who can hold them to an accounting. Ethical justification is much more than post hoc rationalizing or moralizing once all the decisions have been made and actions have been taken. Not crisis communication. Ethical justification should be front-loaded, thought about well in advance of deadline. If the problem has been well articulated and the choices about loyalties and values and principles are made rationally and openly, the decision makers have gone a long way down the path of accountability. Even the most articulate moral justifications and transparent performance will fail to satisfy some s-holders, but media practitioners who hold selves truly accountable should be able to sleep more comfortably at end of the day. Accountability, Transparency, and Credibility Bad news, media practitioners: the public generally doesn't trust you. For journalists, 28% of Americans say you have high standards of honesty and ethics, and little more than a third of people in free nations worldwide say they have an overall trust in news. Between complaints about coverage, misunderstandings about the job, and politicians and others who attack journalism for their own gain, the guard from Sophocles' Antigone was on to something when he said no one 'delights in the bearer of bad news.' The numbers are worse for other media types. Only 10% of Americans think ad practitioners have high standards of ethics and honesty. Belief is virtually unchanged since 70s, ranking ad practitioners down with car salespeople and members of Congress - and lobbyists, which is a PR function. Only 12% of Americans trust PR practitioners, mostly because they think practitioners are 'paid to influence people' - which is precisely what they do. Meanwhile, many see bloggers as narrow-minded score settlers who cannot get real media jobs. Assume people in the entertainment industry are the ones depicted in the wonderfully named Hello, He Lied, many of whom are willing to 'lie, cheat, and steal for any opportunity.' And they see SM posters as internet tough guys who snipe at people and at things they don't understand, with words they wouldn't say if their targets were in the same room. If you're contemplating a media career primarily because you want to be loved (or understood) by the public, may need to reconsider your motivation. Reason for the phrase 'kill the messenger.'However, this bad news should cause you little concern if you recognize that what others think about you is not necessarily a gauge of how ethical you actually are. Doing ethics is about substance, not image. People who are less morally developed may not understand your decision. Others may feel betrayed because you chose a different loyalty that placed them lower than others, or a different value from what they may have chosen, or a duty-based approach that didn't concern itself with consequences that affected them. They may be upset early, but understand over time. Or if work for an org, they may confuse you with the person who made the decision. On the other hand, truism that 'if both sides are mad at you, you must be doing something right' may not be true at all. Making ethical decisions requires that decision makers be able to defend their decisions in truthful, logical, and ethically sound ways. Decisions need to pass Bok's 'test of publicity', which says you should discuss your planned choice of action with rational people who may or may not be direct s-holders. Doing this challenges private bias, errors and ignorance, and allows the shifting of perspectives crucial to moral choice. This is especially true in mass media, a peculiar enterprise in which our products/actions are supposed to be seen (and judged) by audiences. The old saying that journalists print their mistakes; doctors bury theirs is true for other communicators too. John Wooden said true test of character is what you do when no one is watching, but it also is true that character is what you are when everyone is watching. Making good decisions - knowing that you will be criticized regardless of what you do, and that only a few people may understand your decision - is also a true test of character. The sixth and final of the '5 W's and H' questions - How's your decision going to look? - requires decision makers to reflect not only on the ethical justifications of their decisions, but also to consider to whom (and to what extent) they may be accountable. In doing so, they are well advised to behave with transparency and pay some attention to their credibility. Accountability: Argues we have the moral obligation to explain ourselves and our decision to stakeholders. Transparency: Assumes we should be as open as practicable about ourselves, our motives, and our decision-making processes. Credibility: The extent to which individuals trust other individuals, groups, and institutions. Concepts related, and increasingly understood to be connected in internet age. Accountability is more easily called for by others, transparency is seen as a way to replace 'objectivity' in some media enterprises, and credibility has become more complicated. Example: SPJ updated its Be Accountable key value to include 'and transparent' in 2014. Other ways, however, some of these concepts may not be as related as you think. Some of the issues are aimed at individuals. Others are better focused on institutions as small as individual newsrooms or ad firms, or as large as entire media categories such as broadcast news, advertising, or 'Hollywood.' Finally, some of these issues are projected to the 'media,' a term that unfortunately lumps all media workers into a single entity that the public is so quick to blame. While you can ultimately be responsible only for your own actions, it may be useful to consider some of the issues in personal terms, even if you play a small role in large orgs and industries. EACH OF THE FIRST FIVE QUESTIONS contribute to how decision makers answer this final question. This final question is important to consider when recognizing that you face a moral dilemma, and then answering questions related to rules, loyalties, values, and philosophic principles. Without satisfactory answers to those ?s, trying to justify your decisions to others (and self) can be a painful, humiliating experience. With satisfactory answers, can be more confident when making the call, ready to answer internal and external critics who inevitably ask you for an accounting.

Moral Reciprocity and Golden Rule *If any theory is principle of u... e..., it would be the Golden Rule and its call for moral reciprocity. *Golden Rule developed over thousands of years in many formulations, cited by nearly all r... co..., p... cu..., and p... sy...; calls for altruism, appreciation, autonomy, benevolence, caring, compassion, cooperation, dignity, empathy, gratitude, justice, love, moral reasoning, non-maleficence, rationality, respect for others, self-respect, and tolerance. *M... r... for one's n... - by extension e... and e... within the in... web of ex... - c... a... moral philosophies! *It alludes to utility but is not limited to a cost-benefit analysis. It alludes to moral duties but does not focus specifically on them. It is neither a formulaic theory of justice nor a virtue, per se. *R... (moral r...) is not necessarily a moral or ethical enterprise, in some ways considered in context of lower levels of m... d... (Simply a t...-for-t... or n...-m... exchange of l... for l... - like eye for an eye; dinner invitation for dinner invitation; money for goods). However, sometimes mentioned in same breath as ethics, especially if conversation is on j..., gr..., fr... *MR (moral reciprocity) may appear to belong with feminist ethics of care, but since it predates that theory by several millennia and covers more philosophic turf, it deserves its own category in the ethics lexicon. *Gensler said Golden Rule doesn't r... ethical p..., but calls to be c... and f... in how we treat people. Call for c... requires our a... toward others match our d... were the situation reversed. Means must develop k... and m... im... to know how our action will affect others - and im... selves receiving the action. "It tests our moral co... If we violate the GR, then we're violating the spirit of fairness and concern that lie at the heart of morality." *Critics of Golden Rule say it is im..., not always helpful g... to a..., may sek people to do ir... things. Can see how narrow reading of principle might result in harm, if 'other' happens to be a masochist. Critics wonder how it can be applied to competitive worlds of business/sports, where victory is goal that comes at expense of others. *Question whether principle truly can be applied to people outside our own understanding about different cultures/ethnicities/races/nations, etc. Meanwhile cynics read as whoever has the golden rule makes the rule (do unto others before they do unto you). *Critics aside, principles of r... as explored have p... f... value for human r... and cultural p..., if every participant of the dialogue is willing to apply it in way full of empathy and as sign of respect to the other. *Many changes may result if mass media practitioners and consumers paid close attention when GR theorist whispered in ear. Expanded empathy and other components of r... r... have potential for enhancing media ethics environment. Box: Golden Rule Fallacies Gensler, we make mistakes with Golden Rule when... -> Assume that we all have the same l..., d..., and n... -> Think it is wrong to n... a... a... what others want. An act that another person may dislike may well be the best for them, even if they do not understand (And that goes for us, too). -> Do not think about t... p... When taking an action, s-holders include more than you and the person most directly affected by the action. -> Try to apply it too q... Historical Quotations about reciprocity and Golden Rule: The GR and other ideas about reciprocity have been a part of many philosophies and religions over the millennia. General insights into historical, religious, philosophic dialogue. -Akimel O'odham (North American indigenous people from SW, Pina). -Aristotle -Bahá'í faith -Brahmanism -Buddhism -Christianity -Samuel Clarke: theologian/philosopher, Rule of equity -Confucianism -The Dalai Lama -Epictetus: Greek stoic philosopher. -Alan Gerwith: philosopher -Hinduism -Islam -Isocrates -Jainism -Judaism -John Stuart Mill -Plato -Shinto -Sikhism -Socrates -Sufism -Taoism -Unitarian Universalism -Zoroastrianism Summary Crib sheet of handful of perspectives and few of people who developed them. Number of principles that should have value for peple attempting to understand media ethics environment. P... are guides that challenge us to work out things for o...! *P... can be a general guide to action without telling us e... what to d... in each set of cirumstances. Requires j..., which in turn requires c..., moral s... and d..., and to look to precise p... for exact direction is to surrender both a... and r... for one's own j... and decisions! *Examining philosophical assertions made should be obvious each has merit and each weaknesses (if tempted to apply them to every ethical dilemma). One size doesn't fit all! Why we present them as t... answers to the question, What do philosophers say?

Moral Reciprocity and Golden Rule If any theory is a principle of universal ethics, it would be the Golden Rule and its call for moral reciprocity. The GR has developed over thousands of years in many formulations and is cited by nearly all religious communities, political cultures, and philosophic systems. It calls for altruism, appreciation, autonomy, benevolence, caring, compassion, cooperation, dignity, empathy, gratitude, justice, love, moral reasoning, non-maleficence, rationality, respect for others, self-respect, and tolerance. Mutual respect for one's neighbor - and by extension everyone and everything within the interdependent web of existence - cuts across moral philosophies. It alludes to utility but is not limited to a cost-benefit analysis. It alludes to moral duties but does not focus specifically on them. It is neither a formulaic theory of justice nor a virtue, per se. Reciprocity is not necessarily a moral or ethical enterprise, and in some ways can be considered in context of lower levels of moral development. It may simply be a tit-for-tat or non-moral exchange of like for like - such as an eye for an eye, a dinner invitation for a dinner invitation, money for goods. However, reciprocity and ethics are sometimes mentioned in the same breath, especially if conversation is about justice, gratitude, and friendship. Some ethicists are not comfortable tying reciprocity to Golden Rule, so we use the term 'moral reciprocity.' MR (moral reciprocity) may appear to belong with feminist ethic of care, but since it predates that theory by several millennia and covers more philosophic turf, it deserves its own category in the ethics lexicon. Philosopher Harry Gensler said the GR doesn't replace ethical principles, but calls to us to be consistent and fair in how we treat people. The GR's call for consistency requires that our actions toward others match our desires were the situation reversed. That means we must develop the knowledge and moral imagination to know how our action will affect others - and to imagine ourselves receiving that action. "It tests our moral coherence. If we violate the GR, then we're violating the spirit of fairness and concern that lie at the heart of morality." Critics of the GR say the rule is imprecise, not always helpful as guide to action, may ask people to do irrational things. As you look at next box that concerns GR, can see how a narrow reading of the principle might result in harm, if the 'other' happens to be a masochist. Critics wonder how it can be applied to the competitive worlds of business and sports, where victory is a goal that comes at the expense of others. They ? whether the principle truly can be applied to people who are outside one's own understanding about different cultures, ethnicities, races, nations, and more. Meanwhile, cynics read it as 'Do unto others before they do unto you,' or 'Whoever has the golden rule makes the rule.' Critics notwithstanding, principles of reciprocity as explored through the GR have prima facie value for human rights and cultural pluralism, if every participant of the dialogue is willing to apply it in a way full of empathy as a sign of respect for the other. Many changes might result if mass media practitioners - and media consumers - paid close attention when a GR theorist whispered in their ears. At several points, we have tried to make the case that expanded empathy and other components of reciprocal relationships have potential for enhancing the media ethics environment. Box: The Golden Rule fallacies Harry Gensler says we make mistakes with the GR when we: è Assume that we all have the same likes, dislikes, and needs è Think it is wrong to never act against what others want. An act that another person may dislike may well be the best for them, even if they do not understand (And that goes for us, too). è Do not think about third parties. When taking an action, s-holders include more than you and the person most directly affected by the action. è Try to apply it too quickly. Historical Quotations about reciprocity and the Golden Rule The GR and other ideas about reciprocity have been a part of many philosophies and religions over the millennia. What follows is list from many sources, not all of which use same translations. Take this not as final word on subject, but general insights into historical, religious, philosophic dialogue. Know multiple references to this principle may come from each source, but only giving one per source. è Akimel O'odham: Do not wrong or hate your neighbor. For it is not he who you wrong, but yourself. (North American indigenous people from SW, Pina). è Aristotle: To the ? how we should behave to friends, he answered, As we should wish them to behave to us. è Bahá'í faith: And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbor that which thou choosest for thyself. è Brahmanism: This is the sum of Dharma (duty): Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you. è Buddhism: Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. è Christianity: Do to others as you would have them do to you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. è Samuel Clarke: theologian/philosopher, Rule of equity: Whatever I judge reasonable or unreasonable that another should do for me; that, by the same judgment, I declare reasonable or unreasonable, that I in the like case should do for him. è Confucianism: Tse-kung asked, is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life? Confucius replied, It is the word shu - reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire. è The Dalai Lama: Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people's suffering. On these lines every religion had more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal. è Epictetus: Greek stoic philosopher. What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others. è Alan Gerwith: philosopher, Do unto others as you have a right that they do unto you. è Hinduism: This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. è Islam: None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself. è Isocrates: Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others. è Jainism: Just as sorrow or pain is not desirable to you, so it is to all which breathe, exist, live or have any essence of life. To you and all, it is undesirable, and painful, and repugnant. è Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowmen. This is the entire Law: all the rest is commentary. è John Stuart Mill: To do as one would be done by and to love one's neighbor as one's self, constitute the ideal of perfection of utilitarian monarchy. è Plato: May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me. è Shinto: Be charitable to all beings, love is the representative of God. è Sikhism: No one is my enemy, none a stranger and everyone is my friend. è Socrates: Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you. è Sufism: The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven't the will to gladden someone's heart, then at least be aware lest you hurt someone's heart, for on our path, no sin exists but this. è Taoism: Regard your neighbor's gain as your gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss. è Unitarian Universalism: We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part. è Zoroastrianism: That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself. Summary: Brief excursion is a crib sheet of a handful of perspectives and a few of the people who developed them. This clustering of theories is somewhat idiosyncratic. We make no claim this excursion would be acceptable to all philosophers, but we hope it is helpful and we have not done a disservice to the good thinkers who have dedicated their lives to each of the subtopics. Outlined a number of principles that should have value for people attempting to understand the media ethics environment. As Marcus Singer argued, principles are guides that challenge us to work out things for ourselves. A principle can be a general guide to action without telling us exactly what to do in each set of circumstances. This requires judgment, which in turn requires character, moral sense, and discernment, and to look to precise principles for exact direction is to surrender both autonomy and responsibility for one's own judgments and decisions. Examining the philosophical assertions made throughout chapters 11-13, should be obvious that each has merit worthy of consideration. However, each has potential weaknesses if we are tempted to apply them to every ethical dilemma. One size doesn't fit all. That is why we present these chapters as tentative answers (not fixed) to the question, What do philosophers say? Compare own personal principles with those of the philosophers - not just so you know what kind of philosopher to call yourself, but so you can more carefully articulate and apply your own philosophy.

3) William Frankena - Theory of O... *An a... or r... may maximize the sum of g... in the world yet be unjust in how it di... the su... (Affirmative action may seem unjust to groups not in the minority; excess amounts of free speech may offend the sensitive; etc.). *So a less b... a... or r... that is more just may be preferable to it. This means we must talk about j... and the principle of utility - a double principle that tells us to: (1) produce the greatest possible b... of g... over e..., and (2) d... this as w... as possible. 'Pure utilitarianism may not be the right ethical approach in the media ethics environment. Consider replacing it with the theory of o..., which recognizes a principle of j... to guide the d... of g... and e... - a d... independent of any principle about balancing g... over e... *Mixed-rule or mixed d...-t... theory. We have no moral obligation to do anything that doesn't, directly or indirectly, connect with what makes somebody's life good/bad, better/worse. Guiding question behind his theory can be read by James: 'Take any demand, however slight, which any creature, however weak, may make. Ought it not, for its own sole sake, to be satisfied? If not, prove why not.' *All of this leads to principles of b... and j... Modified basic utilitarianism by including a principle of b...: Holds we ought to do the act/follow the rule that will/probably will bring about greatest possible b... of g... over e... in the universe. Adds this principle is based on another one more basic: Ought to do g... or avoid doing h... *Bottom line of this principle of b... is we are expected to do g... and not e..., and not just want to or will to do so. Foundation of the principle of b... has four obligations 1) One ought not to i... evil or harm (what is bad). 2) One ought to p... evil or harm. 3) One ought to r... evil. 4) One ought to d... or p... good. *Obligations go in order! All things equal, but with focus on j...: Add 'to or for anyone' becomes altruism and concern about others. Conclusion Theories of consequentialism controversial. Single-minded focus can result in obsession with bringing greatest b... to me and not anybody else. S...-in... could count as consequentialism, but morally questionable. Particularly problematic when over-simplified as merely doing the g... g... for the g... n...; more than that. Demands careful consideration of values, s-holders, principles of justice and beneficence, higher-level notions of happiness. *In practice, consequentialism may expect too much - be c... and make judgments based on intended c... Can we call an action 'right' because something good followed? Does good motivation count, even if the results are bad? What if it were a case of moral luck, when there is a good outcome regardless of the decision? Who can ever know all the short-term and long-term impacts of any of our actions? We can try to do a sophisticated cost-benefit analysis; experience teaches us what seems to work and what doesn't. But we lack 20/20 f..., which means consequentialism may not suffice. *Fundamental ethical consideration under fire: Clifford Christians even mature version of utilitarianism doesn't require broad philosophical foundation or theological justification. Don't consider decision maker's m... or c... t... or m... o... *In some cases reliable guide, but not adequate in most crucial issues at present (distributive justice, diversity in pop culture, violence in TV, truth-telling, digital manipulation, COI). *We face the anomaly that the ethical system most entrenched in the media industry is not ideally suited for resolving the mot persistent headaches. *But experience should count for something. Consequences as f... f... - cannot always be right in every case but in some we can predict results that might matter ethically. *Take lessons learned and apply them to next set of decisions, next products.

William Frankena: Theory of Obligation 'Pure' utilitarianism may not be the right ethical approach in the media ethics environment. Instead, consider replacing it with Frankena's theory of obligation, which recognizes a principle of justice to guide the distribution of good and evil - a distribution independent of any principle about balancing good over evil. Essentially a mixed-rule, or mixed deontological-teleological theory. F says we have no moral obligation to do anything that does not, directly or indirectly, connect with what makes somebody's life good or bad, better or worse. The guiding question behind F's theory of obligation can be read into the provocative question raised by William James: 'Take any demand, however slight, which any creature, however weak, may make. Ought it not, for its own sole sake, to be satisfied? If not, prove why not.' All of this leads to principles of beneficence and justice. F modified basic utilitarianism by including a principle of beneficence. It holds we ought to do the act, or follow the practice or rule, that will or probably will bring about the greatest possible balance of good over evil in the universe. Frankena adds that this principle, of course, is based on another one that is more basic: We ought to do good or avoid doing harm. The bottom line of this consequentialistic principle of beneficence is we are expected to do good and not evil, and not just to want or will to do so. According to F, the foundation of the principle of beneficence contains four obligations: 1) One ought not to inflict evil or harm (what is bad). 2) One ought to prevent evil or harm. 3) One ought to remove evil. 4) One ought to do or promote good. These obligations go in order, all things being equal but with a focus on justice. If you add '... to or for anyone' at the end of each of these, becomes about altruism and your concern about others. Conclusion Should not be surprising the theories of consequentialism and utility are controversial. In theory and practice, single-minded focus could result in obsession with bringing about greatest benefit to me, and the heck with everybody else. 'I always try to serve the greatest number. The greatest number is No. 1!' Self-interest could count as a teleological or consequentialistic perspective, but morally questionable. Utilitarianism is particularly problematic when over-simplified as merely 'doing the greatest good for the greatest number.' Much more than that as Bentham, Mill, Frankena, and others have explained. Demands careful consideration of values, stakeholders, principles of justice and beneficence, and higher-level notions of happiness. In practice, consequentialism may expect too much of us. Seems to ask decision makers to be clairvoyant, able to make judgments based on intended consequences. Can we call an action 'right' because something good followed? Does good motivation count, even if the results are bad? What if it were a case of moral luck, when there is a good outcome regardless of the decision? If two people in the same situation make the same ethical decision but with different results, should one be praised and the other condemned if the only difference were factors beyond their control? Who can ever know all the short-term and long-term impacts of any of our actions or choices? We can try to do a sophisticated cost-benefit analysis; experience teaches us what seems to work and what doesn't. But we lack 20/20 foresight, which means a strictly consequentialistic theory may not suffice. Also, the fundamental ethical implication of c'ism also has come under fire. Media ethicist Clifford Christians says even a mature version of utilitarianism doesn't require any broader philosophical foundation or theological justification. C'ism and u'ism fall short of the mark by not considering the decision maker's motives or character traits or moral obligations, and by focusing on the individual rather than the wider community... In some media situations, consequences are a reliable guide. But in many of the most crucial issues we face at present, utility is not adequate - for understanding distributive justice, diversity in pop culture, violence in TV and cinema, truth telling, digital manipulation, conflict of interest, and so forth. We face the anomaly that the ethical system most entrenched in the media industry is not ideally suited for resolving the mot persistent headaches. On the other hand, experience and a lifetime of decision making should count for something. One defined 'consequences' as 'future facts. This suggests we cannot be always right in every case' but in some cases we can predict results that might matter ethically. Media professionals recognize this when they get satisfactory results from producing a particular kind of entertainment product, or an advertising or PR campaign, or a print design, or a website, or a series of news stories. They take the lessons learned and apply them to the next set of decisions, the next media products. Sometimes they are surprised when something that worked once doesn't work again. But each episode provides a learning experience. An open-minded, diligent professional who tries to improve the general welfare of readers, viewers, listeners, and consumers by doing the right thing, with the right motivations, cannot be considered morally bankrupt. For reasons already mentioned (commercial and institutional nature of the media and pragmatism of its practitioners), sophisticated application of utilitarianism still makes a good deal of sense in the media ethics environment.

Defining Accountability The world derives from 'to r... together.' *The idea of r... can be powerful, as it conjures image of standing alone to explain irrevocable action in front of judging audience. Judge may be own conscience, but more likely a j... that includes any number of s... who demand an explanation. Defining those s... and extent to which you owe them loyalty or a... - central to Step 3 (Who wins, loses). *Term accountable might make you think of accountancy, task of setting financial standards - measuring business' value and adherence to those standards - communicating the results. Comparison is useful, financial and ethical accounting both require c...-e..., b...-l... approaches. *Philosophers great deal to say about ethical accountability. Aristotle said people are morally responsible for an act if they had choice whether to a... and whether they k... what they were doing (excuses ig... to a degree, like some outcome-based thinkers wonders whether holding people accountable is worth it if it doesn't c... their b...) *Kant assumes people are r... and have freedom of c...; makes them morally responsible - belief shared by most duty-focused philosophers. Jonas environmental argument human race can't survive unless accountable to one another. *Rawl's veil of ignorance, consider accountability for justice. No community without accountability (EOC). *While philosophical debate over moral responsibility is confusing, assumes people should be held accountable for actions (especially mass communicators, who willingly chose the craft). M... d... people consider accountability as they make decisions; lack of s... j... suggests decision may be morally suspect. But j... may be reasonable (even if most stakeholders don't fully agree with it). Term accountability has close ties to concepts of... 1) A...-g..., the act of providing excuses and justifications for actions. May be a moral necessity after lapses of unanticipated behavior, could be argued mass communicators, like others in media spotlight, often must g... an a... even/especially when they make good decisions. Term suggests it occurs after decision is made and action taken, though problematic when it is merely p... h... r... *While may have to g... your a... a... the action, important to consider what a... you will g... long b... the decision is made and a... is required! Should be a front-end process, not a cover your back thing that begins only after others demand an explanation (c... c...) 2) B..., deciding whether people deserve censure for their actions. While many people in/out of media want to blame media for messages they don't like, important to remember we should only be held accountable for what we do. Reminding people who blame media you're only responsible for your in... a... in your in... m... - not p... media - can help. 3) R..., term often blurred with accountability and one with legal implications. Concepts of s... r... and accountability tied in mass comm; First Amendment grants freedom to press without mentioning any r... that practitioners have to selves/others. Commission on Freedom of the Press (Hutchins) argued freedom and r... go hand in hand: Moral right will be conditioned on acceptance of this a... *Many news orgs saw commission's report as attack on freedom. While accountability may best happen in m-place as peple reject irresponsible speakers, may not be happening in age of cable/Internet as people accept or reject media that may s... their b...; some support unethical media for this reason. *Term r... also has legal implications, including acknowledging r... for a mistake. Law and ehtics different but in... at accountability. Plenty of corporations pay fines without admitting guilt and apologize without making selves fully accountable. *Wells Fargo, 1. after paying $100M fine for creating ghost accounts for clients and doing other wrong things, ran PR/ad campaigns to tell the public it was making things right but in court documents didn't officially admit misconduct. Lawyers representing media orgs may tell their clients not to apologize because it could be used a/g them in a media malpractice lawsuit. In some states, however, quick apology to a libel victim will free the plaintiff from paying punitive damage in a lawsuit. Ethics go beyond minimum standards of law, so is a concept that should begin well before a gov agency's fine, or verdict of a courtroom jury or the verdict of public opinions. Dynamics of Accountability May appear it is as simple as saying I'm sorry when you mess up or gratifying as justifying an action that is difficult yet ethically correct. *May be that simple with decisions made by individuals (or nearly). Not that simple in much of mass media, because the organizational structure of many modern media orgs makes it difficult to find the s... p... to hold accountable. Even more difficult given mass media rely on o... ranging from news sources to clients who hire us and also have varying levels of accountability. *While it would be good for r... and a... to correlate, easy to blame others so people cannot determine who is to blame when something goes wrong. Can easily pass buck and blame others for decisions over which we had minimal input/control. *Accountability isn't a b... y.../n... construct. Plaisance: Much more f... and complicated, calling it a d... of in... between a media messenger and the v... s... of peple or groups who receive the messages. *Concept of accountability begins with agreements about the e... s... to which a media practitioner or an entire industry should be held. Example: While a journalist may be held accountable and sanctioned for weaving fictional details into a news story, a situation comedy script writer is expected to write fiction. Often confuses both the media practitioner and the public. Asking a dozen movie producers what is 'right' might lead to a dozen answers; asking a dozen journalists what is right might give you nearly as many answers. When we can't agree on our s..., how can we expect the public to understand our s... or to have c... s... of their own? Much of this is about p... and p... d...; when it comes to holding media orgs accountable, consider the p... of: 1) G... s... in which media operate. Example: While media are accountable to the monarchy in a typical authoritarian society, media accountability is less clear in a libertarian society. Laws relating to media help define some level of accountability, but fall short in an ethical sense. 2) P... and o... seeking to hold media practitioners accountable. Those with the power can demand that those over whom the power is held give an account. Internally, may be a boss requiring a worker to explain a sin of commission or omission. It could be a single worker or staff standing up to management for what they believe is right. Externally, could be a powerful advertiser, politician, or interest group whose complaints can hurt the media org's prestige or pocketbook. How the media org responds to an accountability request may depend upon how the org views the power of the requestor. 3) M... o... itself. Communicators may feel varying needs to be accountable in order to gain or keep power. Example: PR practitioner may not feel the need to be accountable to PR practitioners with competing messages, or groups the practitioner doesn't see as s-holders or seeks to develop a two-way symmetrical relationship with. However, that practitioner likely feels primarily accountable to the client playing the bills. Another example is entertainers who fall short of ethical standards but acknowledge that failing out of genuine contriteness, or at least in hopes of keeping their careers alive.

Accountability: Defining It The word accountability derives from Latin, to reckon together. That idea of reckoning can be powerful, as it conjures the image of standing alone to explain your irrevocable action in front of a judging audience. Judge may be your own conscience. More likely, judge may be a jury that includes any number of s-holders who demand an explanation. Defining those s-holders - and the extent to which you owe them loyalty or accountability - is central to Who wins, who loses, question.That term accountable might make you think of accountancy, the task of setting financial standards, measuring a business' value and adherence to those standards, and communicating the results. The comparison is useful for ethics, because financial and ethical accounting both require clear-eyed, bottom-line approaches.Philosophers have great deal to say about ethical accountability. Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle said people are morally responsible for an act if they had the choice of whether to act and whether they knew what they were doing. (He excuses ignorance to a degree, and like some outcome-based thinkers wonder whether holding people accountable is worthwhile if it doesn't change their behavior.) Kant, on the other hand, assumes people are basically rational and have freedom of choice. This makes them morally responsible - a belief shared by most duty-focused philosophers. Hans Jonas makes environmental argument that the human race cannot survive unless we are accountable to one another. Someone wearing Rawls's veil of ignorance would consider accountability for justice and other considerations. And we can have no community without accountability. While the philosophical debate over moral responsibility can be confusing, book assumes people (especially mass communicators, who willingly chose the craft) should be held accountable for their actions. Morally developed people consider accountability as they make decisions; a lack of sound justification suggests that the decision can be morally suspect. But justification may be reasonable - even if most s-holders do not fully agree with it. Term accountability has close ties to concepts: 1. Account-giving, or the act of providing excuses and justifications for actions. While this may be a moral necessity after lapses of unanticipated or untoward behavior, it could be argued that mass communicators, like others in the media spotlight, often must give an account even (especially) when they make good decisions. The term suggests that such an account-giving occurs after the decision is made and the action taken, although that is problematic when it is merely post hoc moralizing. 2. While you may have to give your account after the action is taken, it is important to consider what account you will give long before the decision is made and account is required. Accountability should be a front-end process, not a cover-your-back thing that begins only after others demand an explanation and becomes an act of crisis comm. 3. Blameworthiness, or deciding whether people deserve censure for their actions. While many people in and out of media want to blame the media for messages they don't like, it's important to remember we should only be held accountable for what we do. Reminding people who blame them media that you are only responsible for your individual actions in your individual medium - not the plural media - can help you sleep nights. 4. Responsibility, a term often blurred with accountability and one with legal implications. Concepts of social responsibility and accountability inexorably tied in mass comm. The First Amendment grants freedom to the press without mentioning any responsibility that media practitioners have to selves and others. Commission on Freedom of the Press better known as Hutchins Commission, argued freedom and responsibility go hand in hand: Its moral right will be conditioned on its acceptance of this accountability. Many news orgs saw the commission's report as an attack upon their freedom. While accountability (acc) may best happen in the m-place as people reject irresponsible speakers, this may not be happening in the age of cable and internet as people accept/reject media that support their beliefs. In fact, some people support unethical media for just that reason. 5. The term responsibility also has legal implications, including acknowledging responsibility for a mistake. Law and ethics are different but often intersect at acc. Plenty of corporations pay fines without admitting guilt and apologize without making selves publicly accountable. Winship + Robbennolt noted Wells Fargo, after paying $100M fine for creating ghost accounts for clients and doing other wrong things, ran PR and ad campaigns to tell the public it was making things right but in court documents didn't officially admit misconduct. Lawyers representing media orgs may tell their clients not to apologize because it could be used a/g them in a media malpractice lawsuit. In some states, however, quick apology to a libel victim will free the plaintiff from paying punitive damage in a lawsuit. (May still be responsible for paying other damages.) Ethics go beyond minimum standards of law, so acc is a concept that should begin well before a gov agency's fine, or verdict of a courtroom jury or the verdict of public opinions. The Dynamics of Accountability May appear accountability (acc) is as simple as saying I'm sorry when you mess up, or as gratifying as justifying an action that is difficult yet ethically correct. It may be nearly hat simple with decisions made by individuals. It isn't that simple in much of mass media, because the organizational structure of many modern media orgs makes it difficult to find the single person to hold accountable. Even more difficult given that mass media rely on outsiders ranging from news sources to the clients who hire us and also have varying levels of acc. While it would be good for responsibility and acc to correlate, it is easy to blame others so people can't determine who is to blame when something goes wrong. We can easily pass the buck and blame others for decisions over which we have had minimal input or control. Acc is not a binary 'yes/no' construct. Plaisance described it as much more fluid and complicated, calling it a dynamic of interaction b/t a media messenger and the value sets of the people or groups who receive those messages. The concept of acc begins with agreements about the ethical standards to which a media practitioner or an entire industry should be held. Example: while a journalist may be held accountable and sanctioned for weaving fictional details into a news story, a situation comedy script writer is expected to write fiction. Often confuses both the media practitioner and the public. Asking a dozen movie producers what is 'right' might lead to a dozen answers; asking a dozen journalists what is right might give you nearly as many answers. When we can't agree on our standards, how can we expect the public to understand our standards or to have consistent standards of their own? Much of this is about power and power dynamics. When it comes to holding media orgs accountable, consider the power of the: è Gov structure in which media operate. Example: while media are accountable to the monarchy in a typical authoritarian society, media acc is less clear in a libertarian society. Laws relating to media help define some level of acc, but fall short in an ethical sense. Take this issue later when talking about the role law plays in media acc systems. è People and orgs seeking to hold media practitioners accountable. Those with the power can demand that those over whom the power is held give an account, explain, or justify selves and acts. Internally, may be a boss requiring a worker to explain a sin of commission or omission. It could be a single worker or staff standing up to management for what they believe is right. Externally, could be a powerful advertiser, politician, or interest group whose complaints can hurt the media org's prestige or pocketbook. How the media org responds to an acc request may depend upon how the org views the power of the requestor. è Media org itself. Communicators may feel varying needs to be accountable in order to gain or keep power. Example: PR practitioner may not feel the need to be accountable to PR practitioners with competing messages, or groups the practitioner doesn't see as s-holders or seeks to develop a two-way symmetrical relationship with. However, that practitioner likely feels primarily accountable to the client playing the bills. Another example is entertainers who fall short of ethical standards but acknowledge that failing out of genuine contriteness, or at least in hopes of keeping their careers alive.

Media Accountability S... *Journalists print their mistakes; doctors bury theirs. Mass communicators say as if they get the fuzzy end of lollipop, but doctors have it worse (make life-or-death decisions). Most medical doctors hold morbidity and mortality conferences - discuss among selves mistakes that hurt their patients. These difficult decisions help doctors learn from mistakes and save lives. -Some worry the frank discussions may lead to more malpractice lawsuits (liability concern for mass communicators too), but may not be the case in medicine. -Others concerned apologizing may lead to medical (media) malpractice lawsuits because apologies assuem responsibility for actions, but may be overblown. Saying sorry not only ethically sound but may be right legal tactic too. *Borden: Freedom granted to media exactly why they should be accountable. Part of argument is hope that journalism (and other forms of mass media) viewed as a p..., which somes with s... c... that assumes professionals will hold selves accountable to act in s... interests. *While mass media's p...ism remains debatable, clear mass communicators don't have a... s... as formal as s... in more-established professions. A variety of a... s... Bertrand: Dozens of types for journalism, which he categorized as text-based, individuals/groups, processes. Three types of a... s...: 1) I...: M... o... control this type: corrections, reporters who cover media, i...house critics, ethics audits, audience surveys, COE, whistleblowers, and internal memos. 2) E...: People and orgs o... the o... are at work through alternative media, trade publications, media-related websites, higher education, required ethics codes, research, consumer groups, gov. 3) C...: C... that includes letters to the editor or other audience feedback, ombudsmen, press councils, panels of media users, training. a) G... S... *G... courts and rules provide only a... s... that all parts of a society share. M... s... - laws about l..., sl..., in... of p..., c..., c... p..., etc. - curb the most e... of abuses of speech. *Other media-focused laws balance free speech against other concerns, such as defense or trial-related rights. American law offers sliding scale of s... pr..., with p... and n...-based s... receiving most freedom followed by a... s...; C... s... ranks lower on continuum, as evidenced by state/federal rules against untruths, overstatements, misleading speech. At bottom is ob... s..., which receives little p... *Courts and g... hold mass communicators responsible for most eg... v... of ethics, which are described and penalties proscribed by law. Law is concerned with what we c.../c... do; ethics concerned with what we s.../s... do; Can act unethically while acting legally, so other a... s... needed to deal with actions that are legal yet wrong. *Also can act ethically while breaking law, among problems in relying on law to force media accountability! *Authoritarian nations use law to chill, harass, punish media whose messages run counter to authority's dictates. Some nations make defendants bear burden of proof in libel cases, and cost of defending self can make media run scared and chill free speech. In the US and other nations, law may not be the best way to seek accountability from media because the judicial system is slow, expensive, intimidating. Bertrand proponent of the next 3 types of acc systems, n... ways to aid media accountability. b) C...-Based Accountability Most discussed category of accountability involve c... o... e...; Addition to teaching neophytes the standards of craft, c... often sway court of public opinion, where peers/outsiders who perceive ethical violations by practitioners can use c... as way to demand accountability. *Almost always in... im... s..., or at least accepted when communicator freely chooses to join a trade group (SPJ, PRSA, AAF). Most c... mention accountability, even as they also call for in...; While freedom and external accountability seem contradictory, two concepts are related. Practitioners who don't act in... may be accountable for allowing selves to lose in...; Journalist who curries favor to gain advertising may be accountable to readers for failing to be fair and in... - Workers in persuasion-related jobs who don't stop clients from making unsubstantiated claims for fear of losing the account also may feel accountability beyond the law. Key issue involving c... o... e... is the rep... of accountability. Organizational c... o... e... like individual newspaper's c... may be better perceived as l... document, workers who break c... standards could be repimanded/fired. Pale comparison to doctors and lawyers who could have licenses stripped if they break ethical standards. *As a practical matter in media ethics environment, c... offer little accountability because they are un...; SPJ (87) removed clause from code - Journalists should actively censure and try to prevent violations of c..., 1A lawyer said made c... more constitutionally acceptable but destroyed c...'s PR benefits. *PRSA code seems stricter in accountability, members asked to sign statement acknowledging could be kicked out of PRSA for legal misconduct or breaking c... rule. *Even still a PR practitioner who does (anyone in media) can still work as a professional communicator; 1A allows no b... to e...; While shame of being admonished by peers is real, practical effect is tiny! c) E... R... and In... S... Entertainment industry r... s... example of message transparency. Such s... can be used for accountability, especially when v... r... s... are challenged for being incomplete/faulty. Politicians for decades pressured film industry to put ratings over depictions of tobacco use in film. MPAA r... s... is voluntary, but filmmakers who do not use it often encounter difficulties in m.../d... film through normal channels. *TV industry holds self accountable through 'st... and pr...' d... at major networks. These de... review all non-news broadcast matters (entertainment, sports, commercials) for compliance to legal, policy, factual, community st...; D... holds their own communicators accountable, before material is broadcast for legal/ethical reasons. Ranges from making sure scripted shows don't break FCC decency guidelines to reviewing advertising. Super Bowl and political ads often at center of reviews. *SM sites focus for current ?s on in... and e... st...; Sites make money by selling ads around content produced by users. Face levels of scrutiny as balance financial, social, ethical interests. SM sites want to attract audiences and keep coming back often and long periods of time to tailor ads - aren't always transparent about tracking, ad-serving processes. *Want people on their sites, but know m... is more likely to be shared than a... info. Want to limit ob... w... info and will sanction or ban repeat offenders, but risk blowback when the topic is p... Want freedom for selves and for users, but know that m... user content will anger users and regulators, whether the m... is too much or not enough. Want co... a... to moderate content because it's the cheapest way to process billions of posts each day, but those a... are imperfect and subject to criticism from all sides. d) C... and A... Another vehicle for accountability is c... columns, journalists publicly acknowledge errors of fact or lesser extent in taste, tone, reporting standards. Can be useful because seek to m... mi..., limit p... da... in lawsuits, serve as PR reminder to audiences news org is serious about a...; But journalists correct only small portion of actual mistakes, people who are subjects of stories find many more errors than are corrected. *Other types of c... include a... that come when company/individual manages to offend public, often with SM post or corporate misdeed. PR often sees this in 'c... c...' and whether and how to a... becomes part of equation! A... because it is a r... expected in society, we ac... our mistake, show s... for others (even if we won't accept r...), and accept r... *A... can go to individuals or small groups, or to all society. Sincere a... can be effective, but not always! Factors include s... of the failing, the r... before the a..., perception whether it's s.../transparently ta..., whether words accompanied by a...; In many cases, necessary and ethical to move beyond words to restore trust - even at expense of jobs and reputation of individuals/institutions. Box: Apologies for ignoring important people, realities *NYT, Ida B. Wells wrote boldly on lynchings and racism in South the most famous Black woman in U.S. in her lifetime. Unfortunately, written in 2018, part of Overlooked, continuing series of belated obituaries of important people of their time who didn't receive an obituary because of vast majority chronicled being lives of white men. *87 years after she died, life dogged by prejudice, disease infecting Americans from coast to coast. Effort among some by long-existing media orgs to acknowledge and make up for decades of ignoring, twisting coverage related to race + gender issues.

Media Accountability Systems Adage: Journalists print their mistakes; doctors bury theirs. Mass communicators say it as if they get the fuzzy end of that lollipop, but doctors have it worse because many literally make life-and-death decisions. Most medical doctors hold M&Ms - morbidity and mortality conferences - where doctors discuss among themselves the mistakes that hurt their patients. Research shows these difficult discussions help doctors learn from mistakes and save lives. While some worry that the frank discussions can lead to more malpractice lawsuits (a liability concern also held by many mass communicators), it may not be the case in medicine. Others are concerned that apologizing also can lead to medical (or media) malpractice lawsuits because apologies assume responsibility for actions, but those worries may be overblown. Indeed, saying you are sorry is not only ethically sound but may be right legal tactic too. Borden says freedom granted to media is precisely why media should be accountable. Part of her argument is hope that journalism (and perhaps other forms of mass media) will be viewed as a profession, which comes with societal contracts that assume professionals will hold selves accountable in order to act in society's interests. While mass media's professionalism remains debatable, clear that mass communicators don't have acc systems as formal as systems in more-established professions. Also, find selves at intersection of complaints about their work, and as they report on the complaints of others. A variety of acc systems. Late media ethicist Bertrand identified dozens of types of acc systems for journalism, which he categorized as text-based, individuals/groups, and processes. Noted 3 types: 1. Internal: Media orgs control this type, including corrections, reporters who cover media, inhouse critics, ethics audits, audience surveys, COE, whistleblowers, and internal memos. 2. External: People and orgs outside the org are at work through alternative media, trade publications, media-related websites, higher education, required ethics codes, research, consumer groups, gov. 3. Cooperative: A combination that includes letters to the editor or other audience feedback, ombudsmen, press councils, panels of media users, training. Government Systems Gov courts and rules provide only acc systems that all parts of a society share. The minimum standards - laws about libel, slander, invasion of privacy, copyright, child porn, others - curb the most excessive abuses of speech. Other media-focused laws balance free speech a/g other concerns, such as defense or trial-related rights. American law offers a sliding scale of speech protection, with political and news-based speech receiving most freedom, followed by artistic speech. Commercial speech ranks lower on continuum, as evidenced by state and federal rules a/g untruths, overstatements, and misleading speech. At bottom is obscene speech, which receives little protection. Courts and govs hold mass communicators responsible for the most egregious violations of ethics, which are described and penalties proscribed by law. Law is concerned with what we can/cannot do; ethics is concerned with what we should/should not do. Can act unethically while acting legally, so other acc systems are needed to deal with actions that are legal yet wrong. But we also can act ethically while breaking the law, which is among problems in relying on law to force media accountability. Authoritarian nations use law to chill, harass, punish media whose messages run counter to authority's dictates. Some nations make defendants bear burden of proof in libel cases, and cost of defending self can make media run scared and chill free speech. In the US and other nations, law may not be the best way to seek acc from media because the judicial system is slow, expensive, intimidating. Bertrand proponent of the next 3 types of acc systems, nongovernmental ways to aid media accountability. Code-Based Accountability Most-discussed category of acc involves COE. Addition to teaching neophytes the standards of their craft, codes often hold sway in the court of public opinion, where peers and outsiders who perceive ethical violations by practitioners can use codes as way to demand acc. COE are almost always internally imposed systems, or at least accepted when a communicator freely chooses to join a trade group such as SPJ, PRSA, or AAF. Most codes mention acc, even as they also carry calls for independence. While freedom and external acc seem contradictory, the two concepts are related. Mass media practitioners who don't act independently may be accountable for allowing themselves to lose independence. Example: journalist who curries favor to gain advertising may be accountable to readers for failing to be fair and independent. Workers in persuasion-related jobs who don't stop clients from making unsubstantiated claims for fear of losing the account also may feel acc beyond the law. The key issue involving COE is the repercussions of accountability. Organizational COE such as individual newspaper's code, may be better perceived as legal documents, and workers who break code standards could be reprimanded or fired. That is a pale comparison to doctors and lawyers, whose professional orgs can strip the licenses of practitioners they decide broke ethical standards. As a practical matter in the media ethics environment, however, codes offer little acc because they are generally unenforceable. SPJ in 1987 removed a clause from its code that said Journalists should actively censure and try to prevent violations of COE, which a First Amendment lawyer said made the code more constitutionally acceptable but destroyed most of the code's PR benefits. Not everyone was pleased. The former head of the group's ethics committee called SPJ an ethics wimp. PRSA's code seems stricter in its acc, with members asked to sign a statement acknowledging that they could be kicked out of the PRSA for legal misconduct or for breaking code rule. But even if that happens, a PR practitioner (like journalist or someone in nearly every other media job) could continue working as a professional communicator, because 1A allows no barrier to entry. While the shame of being admonished by peers may be real, the practical effect may be tiny. External Ratings and Internal Standards Entertainment industry ratings systems as an example of message transparency. Such systems can also be used for acc, especially when these voluntary ratings systems are challenged for being incomplete or faulty. Politicians and others for decades for example pressured the film industry for ratings to consider depictions of tobacco use in film. While the MPAA ratings system is voluntary, filmmakers who don't use it often encounter difficulties in marketing and distributing their films through normal channels. The TV industry holds itself accountable through 'standards and practices' department at major networks. These departments review all non-news broadcast matter, including entertainment, sports, and commercials, for compliance with legal, policy, factual, and community standards. Department holds their own communicators accountable, before material is broadcast for both legal and ethical reasons. The job ranges from making sure scripted shows don't break FCC decency guidelines to reviewing advertising. Super Bowl, as well as political ads, often at center of such reviews. Social media sites are focus for current ?s about internal and external standards. Those sites make money by selling ads around content produced by users, and they face ever-growing levels of scrutiny as they balance financial, social, ethical interests. Social media sites want to attract audiences and keep them coming back often and for long periods of time in order to tailor ads, but they aren't always transparent about their tracking and ad-serving processes. Want people on their sites, but know misinformation is more likely to be shared than accurate info. Want to limit obviously wrong info and will sanction or ban repeat offenders, but risk blowback when the topic is politics. Want freedom for selves and for users, but know that monitoring user content will anger users and regulators, whether the monitoring is too much or not enough. Want computer algorithms to moderate content because it's the cheapest way to process billions of posts each day, but those algorithms are imperfect and subject to criticism from all sides. Corrections and Apologies Another vehicle for acc is corrections columns, in which journalists publicly acknowledge errors of fact or to lesser extent lapses in taste, tone, or generally accepted reporting standards. Corrections columns (CC) can be useful because they seek to mitigate mistakes, can limit punitive damages in lawsuits, and serve as a PR reminder to audiences that the news org is serious about accuracy. But research shows that journalists correct only a small portion of actual mistakes, and people who are the subjects of news stories find many more errors than are ever corrected.Other types of corrections are the apologies that come when a company or individual manages to offend the public, often with a SM post or a corporate misdeed. PR often sees this in context of 'crisis communication' and whether and how to apologize becomes part of the equation. We apologize because it is a ritual expected in society, because we acknowledge our mistake, to show sympathy for others (even if we won't accept responsibility) and accept responsibility. Apologies can go to individuals or small groups, or to all of society. Research shows sincere apologies can be effective, but not always: factors include severity of the failing, the relationships before the apology, the perception whether it's sincere or too transparently tactical, and whether the words are accompanied by actions. In many cases, necessary and ethical to move beyond words in order to restore trust - even at expense of jobs and reptation of individuals and institutions. Box: Apologies for ignoring important people and realities The NYT said journalist Ida B. Wells, who wrote boldly about lynchings and racism in the South, was the most famous Black woman in the United States in her lifetime. Unfortunately, the Times wrote than in 2018, as part of Overlooked a continuing series of belated obituaries of important people of their time who did not receive a Times obituary because the vast majority chronicled the lives of men, mostly white ones. The paper published her obit 87 years after she died, calling her life dogged by prejudice, a disease infecting Americas from coast to coast. The effort among some by long-existing media orgs to acknowledge and make up for decades of ignoring or twisting coverage related to race and gender issues.

*Media tend to be c... because they are c... e... (want good o..., often of c... nature). *Focus on d... c...: -> M... -> S... -> A... -> M... -> Im... (public service) *Decisions so you earn one or more of these items (c...) U... *Favorite view of consequentialists! -Take action that b... the m... or h... the f.... (Bentham) -OR... the greatest b... of g... over e... (Mill) John Stuart Mill (1806-73) building upon Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). Morality is not a n... c... - think bigger! Example: *If we were to call morality a strictly n... analysis of winners/losers, in the earlier example of a pipe line explosion (we're the PR representatives of the gas company), we would keep quiet because this choice provides the greater number of w... than l... (despite these fewer victims dying). *However, to Mill, the c... of death is as evil as it gets! (Greatest b... of g... over e...) So speak up, not keep quiet! *Mill: Not all h... are created e... (death being at the top of the list), neither are all b... *Therefore, morality is not a n... c...! Flaws of Utilitarianism *Can consequences be p... a...? *Tendency to prioritize consequences for s... rather than for o... *Is morality really a c...-b... a...? Even if we go beyond just the n... (g... over e...). Don't think so! Example: Slavery - If we did a c...-b... a... strictly, maybe it's OK (economy of the South depended on it, so there would be more winners than losers). Maybe it doesn't look so bad, but YES WE KNOW IT'S WRONG. *Cannot make morality a c...-b... a... strictly! "Certainly problematic if theory is trotted out to justify s... in... by saying so long as m... b... from practice, tough noogies." This is a big problem! Final Thoughts *Despite flaws, thoughtful application of u... still reasonable. "Because of c... and in... nature of media and p... of its practitioners, a sophisticated application of u... still makes a good deal of sense in the media ethics environment."

*Media tend to be consequentialistic because they are commercial enterprises (want good outcomes, often of commercial nature). *Focus on desirable consequences: -> Money -> Subscribers -> Attention -> Metric -> Impact (public service) *Decisions so you earn one or more of these items (consequences) Utilitarianism *Favorite view of consequentialists! -Take action that benefits the most or harms the fewest. (Bentham) -OR... the greatest balance of good over evil. (Mill) John Stuart Mill (1806-73) building upon Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). Morality is not a numerical count - think bigger! Example: *If we were to call morality a strictly numerical analysis of winners/losers, in the earlier example of a pipe line explosion (we're the PR representatives of the gas company), we would keep quiet because this choice provides the greater number of winners than losers (despite these fewer victims dying). *However, to Mill, the consequence of death is as evil as it gets! (Greatest balance of good over evil) So speak up, not keep quiet! *Mill: Not all harms are created equal (death being at the top of the list), neither are all benefits. *Therefore, morality is not a numerical calculation! Flaws of Utilitarianism *Can consequences be predicted accurately? *Tendency to prioritize consequences for self rather than for others. *Is morality really a cost-benefit analysis? Even if we go beyond just the numerical (good over evil). Don't think so! Example: Slavery - If we did a cost-benefit analysis strictly, maybe it's OK (economy of the South depended on it, so there would be more winners than losers). Maybe it doesn't look so bad, but YES WE KNOW IT'S WRONG. *Cannot make morality a cost-benefit analysis strictly! "Certainly problematic if theory is trotted out to justify social injustices by saying so long as majority benefit from practice, tough noogies." This is a big problem! Final Thoughts *Despite flaws, thoughtful application of utilitarianism still reasonable. "Because of commercial and institutional nature of media and pragmatism of its practitioners, a sophisticated application of utilitarianism still makes a good deal of sense in the media ethics environment."

Deontology *Resolve moral dilemmas by focusing on a..., not on consequences! *What a... are right or wrong? *What a... do we have a d... or o... to take? *O... can be u... or r...-s... *Placing a role (r...-s... o...) over a u... o... can be harmful. *U... = Should always do it (in personal or in professional life - maybe not always as we saw in our lying to the hospital - it may be OK if we can justify it through our model). Applies to all aspects of your life! *R...-s... = A moral o... to act in a certain way in your professional life only. Example of putting a r...-s... moral o... over a u... moral o... (This can be harmful!): *If you're the president of a company, may have a role-specific obligation to have a successful company and make money (obligation to your employees and their families). *However, this r...-s... duty can be taken too far if it leads you to sell bad products. Placing your r...-s... o... above a u... o... Another example: *Russian soldier with a r...-s... o... to defend self, fellow soldiers, and win the war for your country. *BUT placing your r...-s... o... ahead of your u... o... if you're tying peoples' hands, turtoring, and executing them. *They think what they're doing is morally justified because they are soldiers, but if they look their universal obligations, it is immoral! Placing r...-s... o... over u... o... Some proper, universal obligations (in professional or personal life, do all of these!) W.D. Ross (1877-1931) *Do not h... *Keep p... *P... d... *Ensure j... *Seek s...-im... *R... others *H... others Some proper, universal obligations (Do not do these! Do not let your role-specific obligations let you violate one of these universal obligations!) Bernard Gert (1934-2011) *Cause d... or p... *Cause loss of a... *Cause loss of f... *Cause loss of p... *Break p... *C... *D... *B... the l... Some proper, universal obligations Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) C... I... - o... (everyone agrees on), moral r... that must always be followed regardless of c...! *Don't e... people *Treat people with d... *Tell the t... *Keep p... *Don't c... or s... *Practice b... - These are to never be c..., Kant argues.

Deontology *Resolve moral dilemmas by focusing on actions, not on consequences! *What actions are right or wrong? *What actions do we have a duty or obligation to take? *Obligations can be universal or role-specific *Placing a role (role-specific obligation) over a universal obligation can be harmful. *Universal = Should always do it (in personal or in professional life - maybe not always as we saw in our lying to the hospital - it may be OK if we can justify it through our model). Applies to all aspects of your life! *Role-specific = A moral obligation to act in a certain way in your professional life only. Example of putting a role-specific moral obligation over a universal moral obligation (This can be harmful!): *If you're the president of a company, may have a role-specific obligation to have a successful company and make money (obligation to your employees and their families). *However, this role-specific duty can be taken too far if it leads you to sell bad products. Placing your role-specific obligation above a universal obligation. Another example: *Russian soldier with a role-specific obligation to defend self, fellow soldiers, and win the war for your country. *BUT placing your role-specific obligation ahead of your universal obligation if you're tying peoples' hands, turtoring, and executing them. *They think what they're doing is morally justified because they are soldiers, but if they look their universal obligations, it is immoral! Placing role-specific obligation over universal obligation. Some proper, universal obligations (in professional or personal life, do all of these!) W.D. Ross (1877-1931) *Do not harm *Keep promises *Pay debts *Ensure justice *Seek self-improvement *Respect others *Help others Some proper, universal obligations (Do not do these! Do not let your role-specific obligations let you violate one of these universal obligations!) Bernard Gert (1934-2011) *Cause death or pain *Cause loss of ability *Cause loss of freedom *Cause loss of pleasure *Break promises *Cheat *Deceive *Break the law Some proper, universal obligations Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) Categorical imperative - objective (everyone agrees on), moral rules that must always be followed regardless of consequences. *Don't exploit people *Treat people with dignity *Tell the truth *Keep promises *Don't cheat or steal *Practice benevolence - These are to never be compromised, Kant argues.

Deontology and Moral R... *Fundamental 'l...' or 'r...' about human morality exist and should be followed. What matters is we should be able to use our o... r... to understand and accept these d..., which movie us from having rules imposed on us to reaching a... 'moral a...' *Take deontological approach and follow our duties, worrying little about c... *Three major deontologists help us: a) Immanuel Kant, the s... deontologist, would have us make a... and u... decisions that have little to do with c... b) W.D. Ross, sometimes known as the s... or m...-r... deontologist, would have us carefully sort through c... duties with an eye on their c..., and choose the most defensible answer. c) Bernard Gert, bridge these two perspectives. Duty and obligation of media practitioners, asking: To whom do I o... something? Or what ought we do, all things considered? M... and e... are downplayed. *Although modern media institutions tend toward c... moral reasoning, deontology has merits. Plenty of examples of deontological reasoning in media COE and instances when practitioners face public accountability, though often tempered by concern about consequences of their choices. From Teleology to Deontology Teleological theories deal with consequences of acts. Act itself may be less important than the consequences of the act! Great deal of concern on m... and e...; Teleo- meaning g... or a... and logos meaning logic... *The l... a... of our g... and a... No surprise to find teleological arguments based on concepts of good/bad, desirable/undesirable, better than, best, greatest good. Mill and Bentham teleologists because an act of morality to them is a function of its consequences. *Deontological theories concentrate on the m... or in... behind the acts. 'Deontos' d.../o..., the l... a... of our d... and o... *Work out notions of general or role-related d... and o...; Employ terms above and fundamental notions of right and wrong. *Kant - influenced later thinkers (thinking in the 1700s), even if his argument is too stifling for most media-focused decisions. Other approaches may work better for media jobs. Box: One duty-based code *United States Military Academy's Honor Code - A cadet will not lie, cheat or steal, nor tolerate those who do. *Soldiers must trust one another because the cost of dishonesty is measured in human lives. Code has the force of law at West Point, code violations lead to expulsions. *Have the o... to report lying, cheating, stealing to proper authority (and could get in trouble if not). Assumes you don't worry about the c...; would not matter because you did your d...

Deontology and Moral Rules Previous chapter concluded by noting the limits of consequentialist-focused ethics, even as consequences often matter - especially for media practitioners whose work impacts individuals and society. Philosophers here take a different approach, arguing that fundamental 'laws' or 'rules' about human morality exist and should be followed. (Are these laws handed down by Higher Power or derived from humanity? For you to decide.) What matters is we should be able to use our own reasoning to understand and accept these duties, which moves us from having rules imposed on us to reaching autonomous 'moral agency.' We take a deontologicalapproach and follow our duties, worrying a little less (or none at all) about consequences. Three major deontologists help us explore this territory: Immanuel Kant, Bernard Gert, W.D. Ross. Kant, the strict deontologist, would have us make absolutist and universalized decisions that have little to do with consequences. Ross, sometimes known as a 'soft' or mixed-rule deontologist, would have us carefully sort through several conflicting duties, with an eye on their consequences, and choose the most defensible answer. Gert's version of moral rules bridges the two perspectives. By revisiting the two earlier case studies we will begin raising questions about media practitioners' notions of duty and obligation. We will find them asking 'to whom do we owe something?' or 'what ought we do, all things considered?' Terms such as right and wrong, good and bad, become part of the discourse. Means and ends are downplayed. Previous chapter noted modern media institutions and practitioners tend toward consequentialistic moral reasoning. Chapter considers why duty-based thought process has merit, but why it is challenging to the 24/7, competitive, bottom line-oriented media. When we consider media codes of ethics and instances when practitioners face public accountability, we find plenty of examples of deontological reasoning, although often tempered by concern about the consequences of their choices. From Teleology to Deontology Teleological theories deal with the consequences of acts. Mill, Bentham, and others say the act itself may be less important than the consequences of the act. There is great deal of concern about means and ends. From the Greek, we get terms 'teleo' meaning goals or aims and 'logos' meaning logic; hence, teleology is the logical analysis of our goals and aims. With this in mind, no surprise to find teleological arguments based on such concepts as good, bad, desirable, undesirable, better than, best, the greatest good, etc. Looked at in another way, Mill and Bentham are teleologists because, to them, an act of morality is a function of its consequences. Deontological theories on the other hand concentrate on the motives or intentions behind the acts. From the Greek word 'deontos' refers to duty or obligation, meaning deontology is the logical analysis of our duties and obligations. Kant, Gert, Ross and others devoted their intellectual lives to working out these notions of general or role-related duties and obligations. Deontological discussions employ these terms, along with fundamental notions of right or wrong. *Kant - thinking in the 1700s heavily influenced later thinkers, even as we argue his approach may be too stifling for most media-focused decisions. Then move to approaches that may work better in media jobs. Box: One Duty-Based Code United States Military Academy's honor code. 'A cadet will not lie, cheat or steal, nor tolerate those who do.' Its roots begin with the Academy's founding in 1802, with the understanding that soldiers must trust one another because the cost of dishonesty is measured in human lives. Codified after WW2 and has been updated. Been applied many times over the decades on individuals and groups - including, cadets on the Honor Committee. Code has the force of law at West Point, code violations may lead to expulsion. Supporting documents define terms such as lying, cheating, stealing, toleration. Definition of a duty-based code! If you saw your best friend lie/cheat/steal, you have the obligation to report it to proper authorities (might be in trouble if you do not). Code assumes you'd not worry about consequences, even if it meant best friend was expelled and hated you for the rest of your life. Duty-based approach says you would not care about that hate directed at you or any other consequences, because you did your duty. Assumes you freely accepted the code when you decided to go there.

Universal obligations for media *NOTE: These can c... with each other! (Seen this with values that c..., same problem in Step 5). *Tell truth *Minimize harm *Be independent *Be accountable *Advertise honestly *Honor promises *Safeguard privacy *Be impartial *Be accurate *Maintain confidences *Be loyal (self too) *Avoid conflicts of interest *Avoid being offensive *Show good taste *Be sensitive *Seek diversity *Be courageous *Expose wrongdoing *Be responsible advocates *Substantiate claims Resolving c... obligations Ross: 1) Identify your obligations 2) Pick the h... p... by 'e... in...' *Same as p... c... values (see Step 4) *Ross believes we have an in... sense of what is most ethical to do. Kant: -Must follow c... im... (never compromise on c... im...)! -But offers no way to resolve c... im... (FLAW). Final Thoughts *Ross is a 's...' deontologist (sees room for universal moral obligations being c...). *Kant is a s... deontologist (there is NO situation or context that can be justified to v... a c... im...). *Kant: Tell the truth - would never let the student journalist deceive the hospital admittance desk regardless of if it could save lives. Do not EVER lie. *M... deontology and consequentialism (as Ross endorses) makes sense for the m... *Follow c... but know your d.../o...! One more idea: If a consequentialist, deontologist, or blend the two -> these help you figure h... you will go through your dilemma BUT YOU STILL HAVE T... S... to your dilemma and have to make a c... o... y... o...! *You run through the justification model and have to make a c...! These schools do not c... for you! May look at the dilemma differently because of the school you choose, but you still have the c... to make.

Universal obligations for media *NOTE: These can conflict with each other! (Seen this with values that conflict, same problem in Step 5). *Tell truth *Minimize harm *Be independent *Be accountable *Advertise honestly *Honor promises *Safeguard privacy *Be impartial *Be accurate *Maintain confidences *Be loyal (self too) *Avoid conflicts of interest *Avoid being offensive *Show good taste *Be sensitive *Seek diversity *Be courageous *Expose wrongdoing *Be responsible advocates *Substantiate claims Resolving conflicting obligations Ross: 1) Identify your obligations 2) Pick the highest priority by 'ethical intuition' *Same as prioritizing competing values (see Step 4) *Ross believes we have an intuitive sense of what is most ethical to do. Kant: -Must follow categorical imperatives (never compromise on categorical imperatives)! -But offers no way to resolve conflicting imperatives (FLAW). Final Thoughts *Ross is a 'soft' deontologist (sees room for universal moral obligations being compromised). *Kant is a strict deontologist (there is NO situation or context that can be justified to violate a categorical imperative). *Kant: Tell the truth - would never let the student journalist deceive the hospital admittance desk regardless of if it could save lives. Do not EVER lie. *Mixing deontology and consequentialism (as Ross endorses) makes sense for the media. *Follow consequences but know your duties/obligations! One more idea: If a consequentialist, deontologist, or blend the two -> these help you figure how you will go through your dilemma BUT YOU STILL HAVE TWO SIDES to your dilemma and have to make a choice on your own! *You run through the justification model and have to make a choice! These schools do not choose for you! May look at the dilemma differently because of the school you choose, but you still have the choice to make.

Transparency and Accountability When we 'give an account' about a decision we've made, reveal something about o..., m..., and our d... m... p...; being transparent. *Definitions of transparency include capable of being s... t... and without guile or c...; o...; f...; c...; Oliver's definition of communication-related transparency: Letting the t... be available for others to see if they so choose and as active d... of information in a p... context - has long been concept in fields that range from political science to international finance. *In finance, example, system of buying would collapse without trust and accountability, so rules designed to make transactions as transparent as possible! True in mass comm too. *Plaisance: Transparency refers to more than merely letting people see what the speaker's r... m... is; refers also to the o... of the p... by whch m... are made and the m... of the messenger! Means communicators treat audiences as e... unto selves, not m... to e... of persuasion. *Kant: Plaisance concluded transparency, or truthful forthrightness defines what it means to live an ethical life. Called it a first-order media ethics value because transparency respects everyone's r..., wo..., and d...; true transparency will limit power plays and advance a pa... de... by holding pe... and a... in check. *Likely to trust those who show o... and accountability - assuming we agree with their j...; People operating at higher levels of moral development may appreciate reasonable j... and high levels of transparency even if disagree with decision. Useful way to show transparency in media is by using David Berlo's MODEL OF COMMUNICATION!!! *Describes how a s... sends a m... over a c... to a r... and receives feedback. Again, some of these notions are focused on in...level, as we consider how a particular m... or o... is transparent. Other notions aimed at in... d... m..., inside or outside a media org. 1) The s... of a message is where transparency begins! Mass communicators cannot be accountable to audiences without revealing t... and their m...; This suggests ethical failings occur when... -> Journalists fail to report real or potential c... o... i... -> PR practitioners use 'A...' and 's... p...' campaigns. Jansen said PR violates fundamental norms of democratic discourse by c... self from public, who generally know when they are seeing advertising but are less likely to recognize PR. -> Admakers create s... ads so the audience may not r... it is being m... to, or they try to fool consumers with sales pitches delivered in e... designed to look like official g... f... -> Entertainers use h... c... to capture footage, or create 'r...' shows that are reality in name only. -> SM accounts use computer bots to send m... that recipients think come from h... Message recipients and people used by mass comm in creating messages usually deserve to know the s... and m... of the me... S... transparency also raises questioons of a... f... before, during, and after the message - if they don't know the s... or its m..., how can they effectively respond? For journalists, means letting audiences comment on stories, or asking people to help find potential sources during course of reporting. For PR, may begin with two-way symmetrical practices with publics identified by PR, but it moves into considerations of s-holders who may be powerless yet are affected by the campaign. For advertisers, means knowing the true seller. 2) M... transparency begins by considering the r... for the m...; Typical m... mix informing, persuading, entertaining - but the audience deserves to know which of these three is the true aim. *Returns to discussion of truth, suggests potential ethical problems tied to stealth advertising, persuasive communiation disguised as objective news reports, or b-casters whose news reports highlight their own entertainment shows without mentioning the connection. M... transparency for: -> Journalists and bloggers means that the audience understands the extent to which the writer can vouch for the info used, sources of the info, justification for using anonymous sources, and whether the audience knows extent which raw video was edited or changed. -> Persuaders means the audience knows the content is created for that purpose (to persuade). As content created by PR is increasingly used by news orgs as the number of reporters declines, it is becoming an increasingly more 'caveat emptor' world where audiences must recognize for selves that the content they consume is designed to persuade/sell to them. -> Entertainers means that movie makers and content producers tell audiences where reality ends and fiction begins, a line that can blur in 'based on a true story' content. -> SM workers means audiences know whether they are being sold a message, including whether the sender originated the message, is citing another source, or taking from someone else. A separate sort of m... transparency involves how content is d... to potential audiences. *News stories with possible objectionable content may be topped with an editor's note or warning on content. *Recording Industry Association of america - Parental Advisory: Explicit Content label on its fare. *Streaming sites warning about explicit lyrics, app stores warning buyers apps could contain content inappropriate to children. MPAA most famous org for its voluntary ratings system, but b-cast TV and video gaming industry also include ratings. *All these companies and trade groups say they provide service to a parents/others as voluntary act of accountability. But MPAA isn't totally transparent as a messenger - doesn't always provide specifics on how it rates individual movies, and doesn't name reviewers (for threats/bribes). 3) C... transparency suggests some ways to d... m... can be more transparent than others because they allow more f... *Internet's rise of 'chat room' and open comment sections on news, elsewhere gives mass communicators many options in transparency. Transparent communicators make it easy for audience to talk back to messenger/each other. Question is what lines (if any) to draw letting the audience criticize the messengers, require audience members to identify selves, send messages that are racist, sexist, crude, based on rumor, etc.? *News orgs allowed audience members to comment on news stories and other content, peak in mid-2010s, but on decline since. Some orgs found audience misbehavior - d... p... - lets trolls undermine goodwill and tempted media workers to respond in like. 4) R... transparency is focused on the a... m... un... of t... *Just as mass communicators should be accountable for their messages/methods, a... m... have some accountable to understanding selves, ability to handle dissonant media messages, how aware they're of their own belief sets, level of media literacy. *When a... m... understand selves and how media work, can be more reasonable, active, formidable in demanding accountability. Also helps when both senders + receivers of messages know selves, and let others know their reasoning for feedback. Good feedback helps everyone understand concerns and is done in the public interest; bad feedback often comes with ulterior motive. Box: Questionable form of feedback is v... s... *Not everyone will be happy with you no matter what. Some may use SM to take you to task. Others may seek to cancel you by withstanding support from you. Others complain your criticism of others may be in effort to cancel that person. Could argue on ethics of publicly complaining about someone without trying to speak first in private, clear critics use their platforms to criticize media orgs and other institutions for well-meaning but controversial decisions. *Sometimes may question a critic's motives! *Some criticism is valid; using the public sphere is a central function of public moral discourse. Other critics may be v... s..., an act of bad faith because critics has no motive except trying to lo... go... in the e... of ot... A form of moral grandstanding - saying can be wrong when critics are h..., piling onto others' complaints, harsher than the speech they're criticizing, look for problems when none, show out-of-proportion levels of anger, suggest pepole who aren't upset 'morally lacking.'

Transparency and Accountability When we 'give an account' about a decision we've made, we reveal something about selves, our motives, and our decision-making process. We are being transparent. Definitions of transparency include capable of being seen through and without guile or concealment; open; frank; candid. Oliver's definition of communication-related transparency - letting the truth be available for others to see if they so choose and as active disclosure of info in a public context - has long been concept in fields that range from political science to international finance. In finance, example, system of buying would collapse without trust and acc, so rules are designed to make transactions as transparent as possible. True in mass comm too. Plaisance reminded us that transparency refers to more than merely letting people see what the speaker's real message is; it refers also to the openness of the process by which messages are made, and the motivations of the messenger. Means communicators treat audiences as ends unto selves, not means to end of persuasion. Paraphrasing Kant, Plaisance concluded that transparency, or truthful forthrightness defines what it means to live an ethical life. He called it a first-order media ethics value because transparency respects everyone's rationality, worth, and dignity. True transparency will limit power plays and advance a participatory democracy by holding persuasion and advocacy in check. Likely to trust those who show openness and acc - assuming we agree with their justifications. People operating at higher levels of MD may appreciate reasonable justifications and high levels of transparency, even if disagree with decision. Useful way to show transparency attributes in media is by using David Berlo's model of communication, which describes how a source sends a message over a channel to a receiver and receives feedback. Again, some of these notions are focused on institutional level, as we consider how a particular medium or org is transparent. Other notions are aimed at the individual decision maker, inside or outside a media org. The source of a message is where transparency begins. Mass communicators cannot be accountable to audiences without revealing selves and their motives. This suggests ethical failings when: è Journalists fail to report real or potential COI. è PR practitioners use 'Astroturf' and 'sock puppet' campaigns. Curry Jansen said PR violates fundamental norms of democratic discourse by concealing self from public, who generally know when they are seeing advertising but are less likely to recognize PR. è Admakers create stealth ads so the audience may not realize it is being marketed to, or they try to fool consumers with sales pitches delivered in envelopes designed to look like official gov forms. è Entertainers use hidden cameras to capture footage, or create 'reality' shows that are reality in name only. è SM accounts use computer bots to send messages that recipients think come from humans. X X X X X X X X X Message recipients and people used by mass comm in creating messages, usually deserve to know the source and motivations of the messenger. Source transparency also raises ? of audience feedback before, during, and after the message - if they don't know the source or its motive, how can they effectively respond? For journalists, means letting audiences comment on stories, or asking people to help find potential sources during course of reporting. For PR, may begin with two-way symmetrical practices with publics identified by PR, but it moves into considerations of s-holders who may be powerless yet are affected by the campaign. For advertisers, means knowing the true seller. Message transparency begins by considering the reason for the message. Typical messages mix informing, persuading, entertaining - but the audience deserves to know which of those three is the true aim. This returns to discussion of truth, and suggests potential ethical problems tied to stealth advertising, persuasive comm disguised as objective news reports, or b-casters whose news reports highlights their own entertainment shows without mentioning the connection.Message transparency for: è Journalists and bloggers means that the audience understands the extent to which the writer can vouch for the info used, the sources of the info, the justification for using anonymous sources, and whether the audience knows extent to which raw video was edited or otherwise changed. è Persuaders means the audience knows the content is created for that purpose (to persuade). As content created by PR practitioners is increasingly used by news orgs as the number of reporters declines, it is becoming an increasingly more caveat emptor world where audiences must recognize for selves that the content they consume is designed to persuade or sell to them. è Entertainers means that movie makers and other content producers tell audiences where reality ends and fiction begins, a line that can blur in based on a true story content. è SM workers means audiences know whether they are being sold a message, including whether the sender originated the message, is citing another source, or taking from someone else. A separate sort of message transparency involves how content is described to potential audiences. News stories with possibly objectionable content, example, may be topped with an editor's note or warning about the content. Recording Industry Association of America, under pressure from outsiders asks members to put a Parental Advisory: Explicit Content label on its fare. Streaming sites warn about explicit lyrics, and app stores warn buyers that apps could contain content inappropriate for children. Motion Picture Association of America perhaps most famous org for its voluntary ratings system, but b-cast TV industry and video gaming industry also include ratings. All these companies and trade groups say they provide service to parents and others as a voluntary act of acc. But MPAA is not totally transparent as a messenger - it doesn't always provide specifics about how it rates individual movies, and doesn't name reviewers for fear of threats/bribes. Channel transparency suggests some ways to deliver messages can be more transparent than others because allow more feedback. The internet's rise of the 'chat room,' and open comment sections on news and elsewhere gives mass communicators many options in transparency. Transparent communicators make it easy for the audience to talk back to the messenger and each other. The question for communicators is what lines, if any, to draw letting the audience criticize the messenger, to require audience members to identify themselves, and to send messages that are racist/sexist/crude/wildly off topic/based on rumor and not fact, etc. News orgs and others allowed audience members to comment on news stories and other content, hitting peak in mid-2010s but on the decline since then. Some orgs found audience misbehavior - a term called dark participation - lets trolls undermine goodwill and tempted media workers to respond in kind. Receiver transparency is focused on the audience members' understanding of themselves. Just as mass communicators should be accountable for their messages and methods, audience members have some acc to understanding selves, ability to handle dissonant media messages, how aware they are of their own belief sets, and level of media literacy. When audience members understand selves and how media work, then they can be more reasonable, active, and formidable in demanding acc. Also helps when both senders + receivers of messages know selves, and let others know, their reasoning for feedback. Good feedback helps everyone understand concerns and is done in the public interest; bad feedback often comes with an ulterior motive. Box: Questionable form of feedback is virtue signaling No matter what you do, not everyone will be happy with you. Some may take to SM to take you to task. Others may seek to cancel you by withstanding support from you. Others may complain your criticism of others may be an effort to cancel that person. While you could argue about ethics of publicly complaining about someone without first trying to speak privately, clear that critics use their platforms to criticize media orgs and other institutions for well-meaning but often controversial decisions. Sometimes may ? a critic's motives. Some criticism may be valid, one philosopher says using the public sphere is a central function of public moral discourse. Other critics may be virtue signaling, an act of bad faith because the critic has no motive except trying to look good in the eyes of others. Critics call it a form of moral grandstanding, saying it can be wrong when the critics are hypocritical, piling on to others' complaints, are harsher than the act of speech they're criticizing, look for problems when there are none, show out-of-proportion levels of anger, or suggest people who aren't as upset are morally lacking.

Virtue Ethics Aristotle and adherents argue not enough to just d... e..., we ought to b... e... *Normal to think about ethical issues not only in terms of b..., but in terms of appropriate f..., a... responses, and w... of b...! Urge person to b... a certain way, not just to d... something. *Starting point is: What kind of person a... w..., what kind of person do we w... to b...? Answer in dilemma must go beyond what is the right thing to do. Instead consider which act has the most in... in terms of the k... of p... I w... to b... *Observe moral heroes and r... m... for learning/inspiration, seek to become r... m... selves. *Difference between b... and d... is philosophically significant. Actions tell the world about us: what we believe, value, think is good/bad. Those actions emerge from deeply held c... t...: v... *V... are traits of character/personhood that help one live up to or live out principles of ethical system. Frankena defined v... as a disposition/habit/quality/trait of the person/soul which an individual either has or seeks to have. *May include accountable, benevolent, charitable, compassionate, conscientious, courageous, empathetic, fair, honest, honorable, just, loyal, moderate, a peacemaker, perseverant, self-controlled, temperate, thoughtful, trustworthy, transparent, understanding of bias in self/others, wise, etc. *Not a complete list, some traits more obvious than others. Some may be more important for media practitioners than others. V... ethicists uncomfortable with moral systems governed by rules that prescribe our duties or what we must do to maximize payoffs. Instead v... motivate us to b... our b... s..., develop life-long c... t... that lead us to make good decisions under all sorts of conditions. Look at our great m... h... and make good decisions, and over time, gain practical knowledge (ph...) that leads to v... and v... decisions. We flourish (e...) and are good citizens - not because following any moral rules or doing cost-benefit analysis. *Unlike deontology/teleology that are action or rule governed and focused on 'd...', v... ethics focuses on b... *Sometimes called ARETAIC ethics (excellence or v...). Ideally, v... ethics springs from true goodness. Good without being prompted to be good. *Goodness becomes h... that is an e... to itself. "To have a v... of kindness, it is not enough to always act kindly. One must act kindly to b... kind (Rather than getting something in return)" *Moral virtue, Aristotle wrote, lies somewhere between e... of de... and ex... Generosity is mean between stinginess and unrestrained giving. Aristotle described number of things we experience: fear, confidence, desire, anger, pity, generally any pleasure. Said we may experience these de... or ex..., but not necessarily properly: But to experience all this at the right time, toward the right objects, toward the right people, for the right reason, and in the right manner - is the median and best course, course that is a mark of v... *Finding this middle course isn't something everyone can do - why good conduct is rare and noble. Difficult to do. Not enough to do the right thing - even for the right reason, also important to do it with the right a... and have the right a... and dispositions even when no action is possible. *Moral v... not merely a matter of observing the mean, but having an aptitude for choosing the mean. Ideal m... lead us to the mean, while poor m... lead to extremes. The ethical life was impossible without good c... t... and moral h... that emerge from good upbringing and exposure to m... h...; not perfect himself (women couldn't be fully developed people of v...). *Others have advanced his thinking including some feminists. Of course we all can be influenced by r... m..., otherwise work to become v... ourselves. Box: Traits of morally excellent media practitioners What should you look for in a moral hero? It's up to you, but research shows morally excellent practitioners share some common traits. *Plaisance, study of 2 dozen practitioners noted for high ethical standards and quality of work. People more likely than others to be extroverted, agreeable, conscientious, open. *Less likely to be neurotic. *Tended to be absolutists who believe we should follow universal moral rules. Reached post-conventional levels of moral development. *Also tended to work at places that sought to be caring for all stakeholders. *Moral heroes often ordinary people. *Common traits include knowing about the world around them by listening and doing, showing compassion, networking, knowing about past heroes and learning from their own mentors, and ability to make personal sacrifice. Important to have role models to look up to and seek advice from, whether it be our work life or life in general. Important to be clear-eyed about them, none of us are perfect. Box: Beyond the 'golden mean' May have the v... approach to ethics as 'G... M...' or middle between extremes of ex... and de... Beware of taking this term too literally. V... path is not always middle ground. Can be a mistake to think of the midpoint as being along a two-sided continuum. *V... come at right place among multiple dimensions. *V... of curiosity along a 2-D scale can be seen as G... M... between indifference and gluttony. *But curiosity also can be problematic: when it has the wrong motive, wrong occasion, wrong means, or aimed at wrong object. Finally remember a mean is different for different people. A knowledgeable person avoids ex... and de..., and seeks and adopts that mean - the mean that is not of the thing but relative to us!

Virtue Ethics Aristotle and adherents of modern VE argue it is not enough just to 'do ethics'. Say we ought to 'be' ethical. It is normal to think about ethical issues not only in terms of right behavior, but also in terms of appropriate feelings, attitudinal responses, and ways of being. Urge person to be a certain way, not just to do something. Starting point of VE is: What kind of persons are we, and what kind of persons do we wish to become? Lebacqz said answer in an ethical dilemma must go beyond what is the right thing to do. Instead consider which act 'has most integrity in terms of the kind of person I want to become.' Observe moral heroes and role models for learning and inspiration, seek to become role models ourselves. Difference between being and doing is philosophically and semantically significant. Actions tell the world about us: what we believe, we value, we think is good and bad. Those actions emerge from deeply held character traits: virtues. Virtues are traits of character or personhood that help one live up to or live out principles of an ethical system. Frankena defined a virtue as disposition, habit, quality, trait of the person or soul which an individual either has or seeks to have. Definitions more precise than those of many other philosophers, struggle over degree which virtues are character traits, dispositions, habits, skills, or innate faculties. List may include (greatly paraphrasing): Accountable, benevolent, charitable, compassionate, conscientious, courageous, empathetic, fair, honest, honorable, just, loyal, moderate, a peacemaker, perseverant, self-controlled, temperate, thoughtful, trustworthy, transparent, understanding of bias in self/others, wise, etc. Not a complete list, some traits more obvious than others. Some of these may be more important for media practitioners than others. Virtue ethicists uncomfortable with moral systems governed by rules that prescribe our duties (deontology) or what we must do to maximize payoffs (consequentialism). Instead virtues motivate us to be our best selves, develop life-long character traits that lead us to make good decisions under all sorts of conditions. Look at our moral heroes and make good decisions, and over time, we gain practical knowledge (phronesis) that lead to virtues and virtuous decisions. We flourish (eudaimonia) and are good citizens - not because we're following any particular moral rules or because we're doing a cost-benefit analysis. Unlike deontological and teleological ethics that are action-governed/rule-governed and focused on 'doing,' VE emphasizes 'being.' Virtue-based systems sometimes called 'aretaic ethics' (arête, excellence or virtue). Ideally, VE springs from true goodness. We are good without being prompted to be good. We recognize when we are tempted to do wrong. Goodness becomes habit that is an end unto itself. "To have a virtue of kindness, for example, it is not enough to always act kindly. One must act kindly to be kind (Rather than getting something in return)" Moral virtue, A wrote, lies somewhere between extremes of deficiency and excess. For instance, courage is the mean somewhere (not precise midpoint) between cowardice and foolhardiness; generosity is mean somewhere between stinginess and unrestrained giving. A described number of things we experience: fear, confidence, desire, anger, pity, generally any pleasure. Said we may experience these deficiently or excessively, but not necessarily properly: But to experience all this at the right time, toward the right objects, toward the right people, for the right reason, and in the right manner - is the median and best course, course that is a mark of virtue. A also said finding this middle course is not something everyone can do, which is why 'good conduct is rare, praiseworthy, noble.' Being excellent is difficult! It is not enough to do the right thing - even to do the right thing for the right reason; it is also important to do it with the right attitude and to have the right attitude and dispositions even when no action is possible. Moral virtue is not merely a matter of observing the mean, but having an aptitude for choosing the mean. Ideal motives lead us toward the mean, while poor motives lead toward extremes A believed that the ethical life was impossible without good character traits and moral habits that emerged from a good upbringing and exposure to moral heroes. But he was not perfect: he did not think women or others could become fully developed people of virtue. Fortunately, others have advanced his thinking over millennia including some feminists, and of course we all can be influenced by role models and otherwise work to become virtuous ourselves. Box: Traits of morally excellent media practitioners What should you look for in a moral hero? Short answer is it's up to you, research shows though morally excellent media practitioners share some common traits. Patrick Plaisance, Virtue in Media: The Moral Psychology of Excellence in News and PR, study of 2 dozen practitioners noted for both high ethical standards and quality of work. People more likely than others to be extroverted, agreeable, conscientious, open. Less likely to be neurotic. Tended to be absolutists who believe we should follow universal moral rules. Reached post-conventional levels of moral development. Also tended to work at places that sought to be caring for all stakeholders. These are the kind of people you might look for in a mentor! May think of heroes as famous people, but research shows moral heroes often ordinary people. Common traits include knowing about the world around them by listening and doing, showing compassion, networking (know few people do things solely by themselves), knowing about past heroes and learning from their own mentors, and ability to make personal sacrifice. Important to have role models to look up to and seek advice from, whether it be our work life or life in general. Also good for us to become someone's positive role model. Also important to be clear-eyed about them, none of us are perfect. Box: Beyond the 'golden mean' May have the virtue approach to ethics as 'Golden Mean' or middle between extremes of excess and deficiency. Beware of taking this term too literally. Folly to think of virtue as some sort of mathematical midpoint between those extremes. Virtuous path is not always middle ground. Can be a mistake to think of the midpoint as being along a two-sided continuum. Virtues come at right place among multiple dimensions. Virtue of curiosity, example, along a 2-D scale can be seen as Golden Mean between indifference and gluttony. But curiosity also can be problematic: when it has the wrong motive (trying to impress others), during wrong occasion (when more different ?s or matters are more important), has the wrong means (such as guesswork or harmful research), or is aimed at wrong object (celebrity gossip). Finally remember a mean is different for different people. A wrote that a knowledgeable person avoids excess and deficiency, and seeks and adopts that mean - the mean that is not of the thing but relative to us!

*What do philosophers say? Answers presented so far have included philosophers who say we should maximize benefits or follow a sense of duty. These approaches are popular but not the only way to make morally sound decisions. An Overview of All Five Principles If asked to identify your ethical principles... 1. I believe in doing whatever brings the b... r... for the m... p... 2. I believe that r... is r... and w... is w..., and I should always do my m... d... 3. I believe in doing what my m... h... and my own v... c... motivate me to do. 4. I believe the p... f... should be l..., and that everyone should be treated f... 5. I believe you should seek to c... about everyone, and hope they c... about me. *Final three principles, how they emerge from principles of utility and duty. Additional considerations of v..., j..., and c... 1. Utility and Consequentialism (Utilitarianism) *I believe in doing whatever brings the b... r... for the m... p... *Concerned with doing greatest aggregate of good for greatest number, least harm to fewest. Demands our choices lead to greatest possible balance of good over evil, distribute this as broadly as possible. Emphasize utility, practicality, end results (Utilitarianism). 2. Duty and Moral Rules (Deontology) *I believe that r... is r... and w... is w..., and I should always do my m... d... *Assertion to absolutism/unconditional moral obligation. Many follow call to duty and appreciate consistency and universalism (if right today, right tomorrow; right for me, obligatory for everybody). Rule-based or deontological approach, have their own moral rules that lead to right/wrong actions, even as some flavors of deontology consider effects of decisions. 3. V... and c... *I believe in doing what my m... h... and my own v... c... motivate me to do. *Endorses mature application of good c..., v..., e..., and practical w... to make 'just' decisions. Entails mo..., te..., co..., and recognition of al... *Measure of success not whether a specific duty is obeyed or whether good consequences occur. Rather question is whether decision maker was properly m... *Assert truly ethical person should lead life of eq... and harmony. May sound like 'fair and balanced' news reporting as example, but note a 'fair and balanced' report does not occur at a m... m... p... between the two loudest news sources - idiots at both ends of the spectrum. Like other professional practices, fair and balanced work emerges spontaneously and clearly from conscientious virtues and good technical skills that have been learned from experience. Passed down from good r... m..., and then thoroughly in... that it appears to be s... n... *Critics say co... has merit sometimes, but not if means abandoning other valid philosophies that deserve supremacy. How can you ignore or downplay the consequences of your decisions or fundamental moral duties? And how do you decide which v... or c... t... are the most important? Such critics who tend to view ethics through lenses of either deontology or teleology may be uncomfortable with this v...-focused approach. 4. J... and f... *I believe the p... f... should be l..., and that everyone should be treated f... *Perspective focuses on notions of ri... and j... World filled with injustice demands s... to others - particularly downtrodden. Anyone with power to cause harm or adjust resource allocation should have heightened e... *In society where info and knowledge bring power, advocate of j... concerned about disparities between info rich and poor. Not just matter of duty/utility, not based strictly on intuition or v... - own perspective. Philosophers who focus on j... recognize only human nature to be s...-in..., sometimes we need to be challenged to put interests of others a/g our own. *Talks about a s... c... and di... j..., need to recognize inherent worth and dignity of everyone (selves too). Seek ways to compensate for past injustices while building j... and e... society. Suggest we give up power even, which is difficult for many and problematic in persuasion-focused enterprises. *Experienced media practitioners well served by having sense of 'o...', people unlike selves, whose stories ought to be told. Appreciating the o... can release creativity or moral outrage. General public interest is served if e... is used wisely. But media consumers can take only so many depressing news stories or appeals to better selves before suffer c... f... and tune out. A... is a media dysfunction, no matter how intentioned the practitioner. *Some critics call it loosey-goosey liberal claptrap. Say only natural and usually ethical to be s...-in... to survive in a competitive world. While media fare about j... issues may draw an audience, critics say that particular agenda has little staying power. *Might wonder where this principle fits in larger scheme of ethics. Sounds like an appeal to duty, utility, and virtues, and loving kindness. To some extent, is all of these. Its advocates claim it deserves own category. 5. C... and M... R... *I believe you should seek to c... about everyone, and hope they c... about me. *Combination of f... e... and G... R..., emphasizing r... for others and maintenance of r... r...; Terms of f... e... refer to everyone and everything we 'c... f...' and 'c... a...' *Have little trouble identifying who we c... f... (can reach out, touch, feel pain, intimate). Have in addition number of people we c... a..., more abstract sense. I c... f... my family; a... the homeless. *Key is to bridge gap, and c... f.../a... people, things, institutions near and far. Goal of FE is to sustain r... and c... through dialogue and sensitivity. *G... R... in all presumptions tells us sustaining those in... r... will require high degree of empathy. *C... and r... laudable concepts, worthy of application, but may be more id... than p... Doesn't mean they should be abandoned, but know limits. C... f... and a... others is important in media, play a role in many communities and the link that builds community. *Many news orgs serve a g... community, having community's name in their name. Others build sense of community that centers on t... that brings everyone together. Scholars argue we have a moral role in ethically building/supporting that community. *Real situations often involve complexities that make it impossible to apply these philosophers completely. Decision that 'does right' by one person may unavoidably 'do harm' to another. Throughout exploration of the media ethics environment, practically impossible, despite intentions, to gather and redistribute info/persuasion/entertainment without harming or offending SOMEONE. Unavoidably, we must make choices. Some choices will favor one person, institution, or interest over another. *Nature of media work may mean we 'c... a...' more things and people than we can 'c... f...' and u... e... is elusive. Something has to give.

Virtue, Justice, and Care As we consider the question of, What do philosophers say? the only answers presented so far have come from philosophers who say we should maximize benefits or follow a sense of duty. These approaches popular, but not only way to make morally sound decisions. Consider some reasonable alternatives. Philosophers disagree sharply abut moral principles and approaches to morality. An Overview of the Principles If asked to identify your ethical principles, you might assert that your lives and your decisions are guided by a variation of one of these principles, stated in general terms... è I believe in doing whatever brings about the best results for the most people. è I believe that right is right and wrong is wrong, and I should always do my moral duty. è I believe in doing what my moral heroes and my own virtuous character motivate me to do. è I believe the playing field should be level, and that everyone should be treated fairly. è I believe that you should seek to care about everyone, and hope they care about me. Which sound like the position you are most likely to stake out? Explore final three principles: show how they emerge from and reflect principles of utility and duty, and introduce additional considerations of virtue, justice, and care. Notes pros and cons of each, explains philosophers who helped articulate them. Utility + Consequentialism è I believe in doing whatever brings about the best results for the most people. Cliché summary of utilitarianism. Concerned with doing the greatest aggregate of good for the greatest number, and the least harm to the fewest. Demands our choices lead to greatest possible balance of good over evil, to distribute this as broadly as possible. Emphasize utility, practicality, end results. Duty + Moral Rules è I believe that right is right and wrong is wrong, and I should always do my moral duty. Assertion of absolutism/unconditional moral obligation. Many follow its call to duty and appreciate its consistency and universalism - if right today, right tomorrow; if it's obligatory for me to do, is for everybody. Outstanding philosophers and many conscientious individuals adhere to this rule-based or deontological approach. Have their own moral rules that lead to 'right/wrong' actions, even as some flavors of deontology also consider effects of their decisions. Virtue + Character è I believe in doing what my moral heroes and my own virtuous character motivate me to do. Endorses mature application of good character, virtues, empathy, and practical wisdom to make 'just' decisions. Also entails moderation, temperance, and compromise, as well as the recognition of alternatives. Measure of success not whether a specific duty was being obeyed, or whether good consequences occurred. Rather question is whether decision maker was properly motivated. People who claim this position assert a truly ethical person should lead a life of equilibrium and harmony. May sound like 'fair and balanced' news reporting as an example, but please note a 'fair and balanced' report does not occur at a mathematical middle point between the two loudest or most quotable news sources - quoting idiots at both ends of the spectrum. Like other professional practices, fair and balanced work emerges spontaneously and clearly from conscientious virtues and good technical skills that have been learned from experience. Passed down from good role models, and then thoroughly internalized that it appears to be second nature. Critics of this perspective would say that compromise has merit sometimes, but not if it means abandoning other valid philosophies that deserve supremacy. Might ask: How can you ignore or downplay even the consequences of your decisions or fundamental moral duties? And how do you decide which virtues or character traits are the most important? Such critics who tend to view ethics through lenses of either deontology or teleology may be uncomfortable with this virtue-focused approach. Justice and Fairness è I believe the playing field should be level, and that everyone should be treated fairly. This perspective focuses on notions of rights and justice. World filled with injustice demands sensitivity toward others - particularly to the downtrodden or disenfranchised. Anyone with power to cause harm or adjust how resources are allocated should have heightened empathy. In society where info and knowledge bring power, an advocate of justice is particularly concerned about disparities between info-rich and info-poor. Not just matter of duty or utility, it is not based strictly on intuition or virtues - a philosophical perspective all its own. Philosophers who focus on J recognize it's only human nature to be self-interested, sometimes we all need to be challenged to put the interests of others a/g our own. Talk to us about a social contract and distributive justice, about need to recognize inherent worth and dignity of everyone - including selves. Seek ways to compensate for past injustices while building just and equitable society. May suggest we give up power, which is difficult for many of us and especially problematic in persuasion-focused enterprises. Experienced media practitioners well served by having sense of the 'other', of people unlike selves, people whose stories ought to be told. Appreciating the other can release creative juices or engender moral outrage. General public interest will be served if such empathy is used wisely. However, media consumers can take only so many depressing news stories or appeals to their better selves before at some point suffer compassion fatigue and tune out/turn off. Apathy is a media dysfunction, no matter how well intentioned the practitioner. Some critics call it loosey-goosey liberal claptrap. Say only natural and usually ethical to be self-interested to survive in a competitive world. Note media practitioners rarely emerge from ranks of the underprivileged, and empathy for the huddled ones sounds artificial when coming from mouths of media elite - especially if media elite are white, upper-middle-class men. While media fare about justice issues may draw an audience, critics say that particular agenda has little staying power. Might wonder where this principle fits in larger scheme of ethics. Sounds like an appeal to duty, utility, and virtues, and loving kindness. To some extent, is all of these. Its advocates, however, claim it deserves own category. Care and Moral Reciprocity è I believe that you should seek to care about everyone, and hope they care about me. Basic and practical combination of feminist ethics and Golden Rule, emphasizing respect for others and maintenance of reciprocal relationships. Terms of FE (feminist ethics) refers to everyone and everything we 'care for' and 'care about.' May have little trouble identifying who or what we care for, because those things/people probably close by (can reach out and touch them, feel their pain, be intimate). We may have in addition number of people we care about, more abstract sense. I care FOR my family; ABOUT the homeless, disaster victims, people/animals hurt by reasons beyond their control. Some scholars say key is to bridge gap and care for and about people, things, institutions both near and far. FE tell us goal is to sustain relationships and community through dialogue and with sensitivity. Golden Rule (GR) in all its presumptions tells us that sustaining those interdependent relationships will require a high degree of empathy. Care + reciprocity laudable concepts and worthy of general application, but may be more idealistic than practical. Doesn't mean they should be abandoned, but recognize limitations. Caring for + about others is particularly important in media, play a role in many communities and also the link that builds community. Many news orgs and other communicators serve a geographic community, even having their community's name in their name. Others build sense of community that centers on topic that brings everyone together. As such scholars argue we have a moral role in ethically building and supporting that community. Real situations often involve complexities that make it impossible to apply these philosophers completely. Decision that 'does right' by one person may unavoidably 'do harm' to another. Only one ad agency wins a contract; not all news stories land on page 1; excellent SM posts may not be understood by all. And we see throughout exploration of the media ethics environment, practically impossible - despite best intentions - to gather and redistribute info/persuasion/entertainment without harming or offending SOMEONE. Unavoidably, we must make choices. Some choices will favor one person, one institution, or one interest over another. Nature of media work may mean we 'care about' more things and people than we can 'care for' and universal empathy is elusive. Something has to give.

5. C... and m... r... -Focus on c... f... o...! -R... r... (helping each other, The G... R... - Treat others the way you want to be treated) -Grew from ... f... -Carol Gilligan (1936-present) Women have greater sense of u... c... than men, why? 1) M... n... (by nature or nurture) 2) Years of o..., d... (They understand through empathy and identification, a lot of it comes from this!!!) In media, care principle calls for c... and a... (for people who are not cared about), NOT o... S... ... can MAGNIFY or DESTROY caring! -Especially for w... -"S... .... p... reward a c... and c... style of interaction underwritten by m...-centric culture, rather than genuine engagement based upon a feminist ethic of sisterhood." Macho men trying to outsmart and belittle other men (competitive); female sports writers online being belittled, objectified, insulted. Critics of care principle say -More i... than p... -Life has w... and l... Summary of our five moral principles! 1) Consequentialism: I believe in doing whatever brings about the b... r... for the m... p... 2) Deontology: I believe r... is r... and w... is w...; and I should always do my m... d... 3) Virtue and character: I believe in doing what my m... h... and my own v... c... motivate me to do. 4) Justice and fairness: I believe the p... f... should be l... and everyone should be treated f... 5) Care and moral reciprocity: I believe in c... a... everyone and I hope they c... a... me.

-Care and moral reciprocity -Caring for others! -Reciprocal relationships, The Golden Rule -1960s feminism -Universal care -Maternal nature -Years of oppression, disadvantage -Compassion and advocacy, not objectivity -SOCIAL MEDIA -Women -Social media platforms, combative and competitive, male-centric -Idealistic than practical -Life has winners and losers -Best results for the most people -Right is right and wrong is wrong; moral duty -Moral heroes and own virtuous character -Playing field should be level, fairly -Caring about, caring about

*Working through our model... Step No. 5: What do philosophers say? 1. Consequentialism AKA teleology (outcomes!) 2. Deontology (take correct moral actions, outcomes do not matter!) 3. V... 4. J... 5. C... V..., j..., and c... are three moral principles, not one! 3. V... and c... -Moral actions are whatever reflects best on y... as a p... of v... and in... -Concerned with m... than with means (deontology) or ends (consequentialism) Great self-satisfaction in b... good in and of itself. Examples of v... (m...): Be..., co..., em..., fa..., ho..., pa..., to..., tr... *Preference for c..., not e... A... can be v...! Aristotle, v... ethicist, (384-22 BCE) was WRONG about r... m..., e... (Aristotle argued virtuousness comes from upbringing - cannot be virtuous unless you have a virtuous upbringing, virtuous r... m... in life) "We may think of heroes as f... p..., but research shows that moral heroes are often o... p..." Critics of virtue principle say... -Hard to turn c... into a... -No p... of virtues, so cannot resolve c... between virtues - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4. J... and f... -All people deserve f... and j... -Concerned with v..., not m... (virtue), means (deontology), or ends (consequentialism) Use v... o... i... to make decisions! -Means examination with no s...-in... *John Rawls (1921-2002) Decision that brings greater j... and f... to the world Applicability to communications fields -Communicators need e... for others -E... guides journalists' s... c...! (Includes TV script writers, filmmakers, etc.) -J... principle fits LESS in a..., p... ... -C... s... r... DOES NOT EQUAL e... Critics of justice principle say -Favorite view of 'b... h... l...' -"C... f..." - How many times do you get asked to donate to this or that cause because there is suffering among people? Bombarded with causes everyday, we run out of the ability to care for everyone! Justice and journalism -... applicable! -"Thinking about justice should convince journalists that p... their s..., or sometimes even their m..., is less important than a higher l... of delivering t... to c..."

3. Virtue 4. Justice 5. Care 3. Virtue and character -You as a person of virtue and integrity -Motive -Being -Benevolence, courage, empathy, fairness, honesty, patience, tolerance, trustworthiness -Compromise, extremism -Anyone can be virtuous! Virtue, role models, environment -Role models -Famous people, ordinary people -Character into action -Prioritizing, conflicts -Justice and fairness -VALUES -Veil of ignorance -Self-interest -Empathy -Empathy, story choices -Advertising, public relations -Corporate social responsibility doesn't equal empathy -Bleeding heart liberals -Compassion fatigue -Highly applicable! -Pleasing their sources, managers, loyalty of delivering truth to citizens

Consequentialism and Utility Working through our model... -> Step No. 5: What do p... s...? *M... p... and p... can guide you in h... to resolve a moral dilemma. Consequentialism -AKA t... -Deciding moral resolutions based on the c... of each option (Option A, B, etc.) -What are the good and bad o.../im...? -Doing the right thing regardless of results is not what matters to consequentialists! (This is d...!) Consequentialism: E... justify the m... Deontology: M... justify the e... (Do not worry about c..., care about doing the right thing.) To crystallize the difference between these two principles... an example: *Explosion in chemistry laboratory leads to student being sent to hospital. Campus/student newspaper becomes aware - need to talk to the student in the hospital (allegations of wrongdoing swirling on malfunctioning equipment, professor giving wrong advice). *Reporter knew the hospital was not going to let them talk to the student (only relatives, family allowed). *Dilemma for the newspaper: Want to get the story, but to get it you have the option of telling the hospital admittance desk you're relatives of this student (A LIE), or not? *Choice to make: Look at what consequentialists or deontologists would decide. *Consequentialists: Lie to the hospital about who we are to get the interview? We're only caring about c...! *Good c...: Getting the story that does public service - show professor is incompetent or dangerous lab equipment *Bad c...: Hospital finds out, never able to get access to the hospital ever again. Sources not trusting us again. *Weigh wheter you feel justified to lying or not. Consequence vs. consequence (no talk about whether the act of lying is immoral or not). *Deontologists: Not considering the good or bad c... Focus on do we have the justification to tell an immoral lie? Committing an immoral act (weighing the same variables but for a different reason). *No story is worth lying vs. yes, the story is worth lying.

Consequentialism and Utility Working through our model... -> Step No. 5: What do philosophers say? *Moral philosophers and principles can guide you in how to resolve a moral dilemma. Consequentialism -AKA teleology -Deciding moral resolutions based on the consequences of each option (Option A, B, etc.) -What are the good and bad outcomes/impacts? -Doing the right thing regardless of results is not what matters to consequentialists! (This is deontology!) Consequentialism: Ends justify the means. Deontology: Means justify the ends. (Do not worry about consequences, care about doing the right thing.) To crystallize the difference between these two principles... an example: *Explosion in chemistry laboratory leads to student being sent to hospital. Campus/student newspaper becomes aware - need to talk to the student in the hospital (allegations of wrongdoing swirling on malfunctioning equipment, professor giving wrong advice). *Reporter knew the hospital was not going to let them talk to the student (only relatives, family allowed). *Dilemma for the newspaper: Want to get the story, but to get it you have the option of telling the hospital admittance desk you're relatives of this student (A LIE), or not? *Choice to make: Look at what consequentialists or deontologists would decide. *Consequentialists: Lie to the hospital about who we are to get the interview? We're only caring about consequences! *Good consequence: Getting the story that does public service - show professor is incompetent or dangerous lab equipment *Bad consequences: Hospital finds out, never able to get access to the hospital ever again. Sources not trusting us again. *Weigh wheter you feel justified to lying or not. Consequence vs. consequence (no talk about whether the act of lying is immoral or not). *Deontologists: Not considering the good or bad consequences. Focus on do we have the justification to tell an immoral lie? Committing an immoral act (weighing the same variables but for a different reason). *No story is worth lying vs. yes, the story is worth lying.

2) Bernard Gert: A Modern Approach to Moral Rules Gert borrowed many philosophical approaches to develop alternative approach to deontological ethics that has good deal of practical application. *Draws on d... of Kant, v... of Aristotle, s... c... of Hobbes, and others to develop complex theory. Focus on the importance of avoiding e..., and on r... and im... Believes the effects of e... deserve more attention because they are more significant than the effects of g... deeds. *Defines morality as an in... p... system that applies to all r... people. Everyone ought to r... understand and obey moral rules, ideals, virtues when seeking to lessen e... or harm. Also believes not always irrational to v... a moral rule. Moral r... embedded within broader moral s... By im... means rules make no refernece to person/group/place/time with regard to whom, when, where the rules should be obeyed. Means the rules place no restriction on those who are to o... them. Process demands intuition. *Moral rules are to be d..., not invented; do not depend upon anyone's w.../d...; such moral rules require us not to cause e... for anyone; do not require us to promote the g... g...! Notes while morality cannot provide unique answers to every moral ?, morality does limit range of m... a... o...; believes some moral disagreements never be r... to everyone's satisfaction (his list of moral rules though benefits all stakeholders). *Each rule should be obeyed by fully in..., im..., r... people - unless those same people can p... advocate v... them. Calls this process the m... a... *An action would be irrational IFF it increases peron's risk of being h... by an 'e...' on this list -> the person knows the r... -> the person committing the action doesn't have a good e... for their action. *May be OK to v... a rule IFF after careful analysis are convinced it would be OK for other people in similar situations to v... the rule. But both you and they would need to be r.../insightful, able to anticipate long-term c... of any rule breaking. Ten Moral Rules Described a n... l... approach to moral rules, based upon observing human nature and understanding that all humans have some fundamental rights. *First five are tied to not h... others, while the final five are tied to keeping t... It has a special focus on medical ethics but also can be applied to other human enterprises. 1. Do not cause d... (permanent loss of consciousness). 2. Do not cause p... (or other mental suffering). 3. Do not cause loss of a... (mental, physical, or volitional). 4. Do not cause loss of f... (to act or to be acted upon). 5. Do not cause loss of p... (or opportunities for pleasure). 6. Do not d... 7. Keep your p... 8. Do not c... 9. O... the law. 10. Do your d... (universal or particular/role-specific duties). *First 5 of 10 rules deal wth evils rational people try to avoid. Argues acts are evil IFF they significantly increase a person's chance of d..., p..., dis..., loss of f..., loss of p... Not occupation-specific prohibitions, but particularly relevant to medical profession. *Second 5 of 10 apply more directly to media environment: t... telling, p... keeping, h..., o... to law, and in general meeting e... of your trade. Ideas aren't new - while not stated as rules, certainly advocated in most COE and media criticism lit. Recognize problems arising when we violate a c... r... Example: A communicator who wants to live up to their obligations (No. 10). Promised to meet a deadline (No. 7), and don't want to do harm (No. 2 and perhaps 3, 4, 5). But the deadline is pressing in, and consider whether to cut corners (violating 8). May be tempted to plagiarize or violate copyright (violate 9). You won't cause any real harm by yielding to temptation. However, would you want your colleagues (or anyone else) to think they also could break these rules? Might the violation lead to more disruption in the media/societal environment? Could all s-holders - and any fully in..., r..., im... witnesses - tolerate violation of any of these rules? It is unlikely. You probably conclude that you are morally obligated to meet your deadline without cutting corners. You might ask your boss or client for an extension, and you may be more careful next time you accept an unrealistic deadline. *Other hand, review situation carefully... If you don't violate one of the rules (8 or 9), your boss might cause you severe pain and mental suffering (violating rules 2 and 3), or fire you (violating rules 4 and 5.). At that point, you must decide whether violating a moral rule is r..., and whether other s-holders and im... witnesses would justify doing so, and whether the boss' response is fair. If Gert were sharing your office... *Bear in mind list of 10 moral rules 1. Gather all the morally relevant info you can before making a moral evaluation about whether to v... any of the rules - among other questions, you might ask: -> What e... or h... are you likely to cause, avoid, or prevent? -> What are the desires and beliefs of the person toward whom the rule is being v...? -> What is the power relationship between you and the other person? -> What g... or b... are being promised by the violation? -> Why are you considering v... the rule? -> Are there any good a... to violating the rule? 2. Consider what would happen if other r... people in similar circumstances knew they could v... the same moral rule(s). Applying Gert to the Case Studies *Want to at least consider c... in two case studies (unlike Kant). *Case 1: Easy to see how violating 6 (do not d...) would forbid lying to nurse, because lie could lead to loss of ability/freedom (3 and 4) for the nurse, who wouldn't have ability to make good decisions when you deprive info to them. On other hand, Rule 10 'Do your d...' cold be used to argue journalists have the d... to seek important info that could help students (benefits outweigh the harms, so hospital's rules not important). *Finally, consider a... to lying, even if it means not being first to story. *Move to second question - what if other r... people knew they could break the rule? Trickier. Some journalists may argue are times when misleading a source might be justifiable, but even not all journalists might agree. *Case 2: Argue promoting the movie could harm underage children and parents who would have to be bad guys to kids who want to see movie. Also argue power relationship (powerful marketing vs. children) gives advantage. But could also argue the benefits of making money on movie, even if few young children see it and knowing that some may see regardless, would promote good for company and others. *Second question asks about what the p... would say - a question thornier if you had a child of own.

Bernard Gert A Modern Approach to Moral Rules Dartmouth philosophy professor and medical ethicist Bernard Gert borrowed from many philosophical approaches to develop an alternative approach to deontological ethics that has a good deal of practical application. He said others described his approach as 'Kant with consequences, as Mill with publicity, and as Ross with a theory.' He draws on the duty of Kant, the virtues of Aristotle, the social contract of Hobbes, and others in developing a complex theory with a good deal of practical application. In The Moral Rules, Gert focuses on the importance of avoiding evil, and on rationality and impartiality. He believes the effects of evil deserve more attention because they are more significant than the effects of good deeds. Defines morality as an informal public system that applies to all rational people. Everyone ought to rationally understand and obey moral rules, ideals, and virtues when seeking to lessen evil or harm. He also believes that it is not always irrational to violate a moral rule. Moral rules are embedded within the broader moral system and should be obeyed impartially. By impartialityhe means the rules make no reference to person, group, place, or time, with regard to whom, when, and where the rules should be obeyed. That means the rules place no restriction on those who are to obey them. The process demands intuition. G maintains that moral rules are discovered, not invented; they do not depend upon anyone's will or decision. Such moral rules require us not to cause evil for anyone; they do not require us to promote the general good. He notes while morality cannot provide unique answers to every moral ?, morality does limit the range of morally acceptable opinions. G believes that some moral disagreements will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, but his list of moral rules benefits all stakeholders. G says each rule should be obeyed by fully informed, impartial, rational people - unless those same people can publicly advocate violating them. He calls this process the moral attitude. An action would be irrational IFF it increases a person's risk of being harmed by an 'evil' on his list, the person knows of the risk, and the person committing the action does not have a good explanation for his or her action. It might be OK to violate a rule IFF after careful analysis you are convinced it would be OK for other people in similar situations to violate the rule. But both you and they would have to be rational and insightful, able to anticipate the long-term consequences of any rule breaking. Note that G's first five rules deal with evils that rational people try to avoid. He argues acts are evil IFF those acts significantly increase a person's chance of death, pain, disablement, loss of freedom, or loss of pleasure. These are not occupation-specific prohibitions, although the first half is particularly relevant to medical profession. Second five rules apply more directly do media ethics environment: truth telling, promise keeping, honesty, obedience to the law, and in general meeting the expectations of your trade. These ideas not new. While not stated as rules per se, have certainly been advocated in most media COE and media criticism lit. We recognize problems arising when we violate a commonsense rule. For instance: A communicator who wants to live up to your obligations (rule No. 10). Promised to meet a deadline (No. 7), and you don't want to do harm (No. 2 and perhaps 3, 4, 5). But the deadline is pressing in on you, and you consider whether to cut corners (violating rule 8). You may be tempted to plagiarize or violate copyright (violate rule 9). To apply G, you may tell yourself that you won't cause any real harm by yielding to temptation. However, would you want your colleagues (or anyone else) to think they also could break these rules? Might the violation lead to more and more disruption in the media/societal environment - in ways you can only begin to imagine? Could all s-holders - and any fully informed, rational, impartial witnesses - tolerate violation of any of these rules? It is unlikely. You probably conclude that you are morally obligated to meet your deadline without cutting corners. You might ask your boss or client for an extension, and you may be more careful next time you accept an unrealistic deadline. On the other hand, if you review the situation very carefully, you might conclude that if you don't violate one of the rules (perhaps 8 or 9), your ornery boss might cause you severe pain and mental suffering (violating rules 2 and 3), or fire you (violating rules 4 and 5.). At that point, you must decide whether violating a moral rule is rational, and whether other s-holders and impartial witnesses would justify doing so, and whether the boss' response is fair. Box: Gert's Ten Moral Rules Described a natural law approach to moral rules, based upon observing human nature and understanding that all humans have some fundamental rights. With a nod to duty-based and other approaches, first five are tied to not harming others, while the final five are tied to keeping trust. It has a special focus on medical ethics but also can be applied to other human enterprises. 1. Do not cause death (permanent loss of consciousness). 2. Do not cause pain (or other mental suffering). 3. Do not cause loss of ability (mental, physical, or volitional). 4. Do not cause loss of freedom (to act or to be acted upon). 5. Do not cause loss of pleasure (or opportunities for pleasure). 6. Do not deceive. 7. Keep your promises. 8. Do not cheat. 9. Obey the law. 10. Do your duty (universal or particular/role-specific duties). If Bernard Gert were sharing your office... Gert would tell you to bear in mind his list of 10 moral rules as you carefully: 1. Gather all the morally relevant info you can before making a moral evaluation about whether to violate any of the rules - among other questions, you might ask: è What evils or harms are you likely to cause, avoid, or prevent? è What are the desires and beliefs of the person toward whom the rule is being violated? è What is the power relationship between you and the other person? è What goods or benefits are being promised by the violation? è Why are you considering violating the rule? è Are there any good alternatives to violating the rule? 2. Consider what would happen if other rational people in similar circumstances knew they could violate the same moral rule(s). Applying Gert to Case Studies Unlike K, G would also want us to at least consider consequences in the two case studies. For Case 1, it is easy to see how violating No. 6 [do not deceive] would on its face forbid lying to the nurse, because that lie also could lead to a loss of ability or freedom (Nos. 3-4) for the nurse, who would not have ability to make good decisions when you deprive information to the nurse. On the other hand, Rule 10's Do your duty could be used to argue that journalists have the duty to seek and report important information that could help students - that the benefit outweighs the harm, so the hospital's rule is not as important. (But also note among the reasons for breaking the rule is our own ambition and loyalty to self, as breaking such stories would make you noticed by potential employers.) Finally, we should consider alternatives to lying, even if it means not being the first with the story. But then we move to the second question - what if other rational people knew they could break the rule? - and it becomes trickier. Some journalists might argue there are times when misleading a source might be justifiable, but not even all journalists (or anyone else) might agree. For Case 2, could argue promoting the movie could harm underage children and the parents who would have to be the 'bad guys' to their kids who want to see the movie. You also could argue that the power relationship (your powerful marketing vs. children) gives you an advantage. But you also could argue that the benefits of making money on the movie, even if a few young children see it and knowing that some would see it regardless of what you do, would promote good for your company and perhaps others. Then the second questions asks about what the public would say - a question that be thornier if you had an 8-year-old of your own. Bottom Line on Gert G carefully described the rational process people should use when considering how to apply the rules. He published widely in bioethics, the human genome project, business ethics, engineering ethics, and the ethics of scientific research. It takes only a small leap to see how his ideas can be applied across the media environment, whether to inform, entertain, persuade.

Introduction to Principles Most of us may think we are ethically superior and adhere to 'high principle.' Likely to stumble when asked to describe the principles that guide our lives in making ethically consistent decisions. To the extent we claim to follow our principles, probably envision that as meaning 'we try to do what is right.' *Media influence society in good/bad ways, people working in mass comm take specific role-related duties that motivate them to perform at high level. Many media ethics discussion are then limited to making decisions with a focus on the p... o..., or making decisions with a focus on our d... *These two principles are known as t... and d... T...: Philosophies concerned with desired e... or c...; adherents are called t... or c... (t...- cause and effect). "E...-based" u..., or the effects and outcomes of their choices. D...: Philosophies concerned with m... d... or r...-based ethics, and the 'm...-based' people who espuse it called d... (d...- duty). Less consideration of o.../c... One way to justify actions is consider nature of the c... of those acts. Have we figured out which c... are morally relevant, and to what extent? Considered the interests of s-holders? Are more people h... than h...? Is the benefit spread w...? Is there a greater amount of g... than h...? If there is more h... than g..., how can we minimize the h...? *Doing ethics using a c... approach means taking these questions into consideration. Fair to say most modern media institutions tend to use a c.../u... calculus when offering moral explanations for behaviors. Media serve a 'mass' audience and results of media actions have c... and draw a..., most practitioners would say it makes sense to consider the r... of their decisions *Because of this... ->Media try to avoid being overly offensive in quest for sales/ratings. ->Advocates try to persuade gently rather than attacking audiences' deeply rooted beliefs. ->Entertainers try to maximize pleasure and eye appeal without being overly distracting. ->News workers try to inform without being too boring. ->Reporters reveal systems failures but try to avoid causing apathy or hopelessness. ->Wise users of SM consider how others will respond to their posts. These are rational justifications, coming from commercial, unregulated media whose successes/failures are usually measured in terms of s..., d..., and im... on p... o... However, as we will see, there are pros and cons to doing a rudimentary c...-b... analysis when making moral decisions. Theories demand far more of us than merely counting up the 'g...' and 'b...' that occur. Two Case Studies, Two Ethical Approaches Basic moral questions in these cases relate to concerns on c... or d... (consequentialism or deontology). Try to avoid thinking c... thinking is m... p... (nonrestrictive) and d... thinking is m... r... (always saying no). More complex than simple c...-b... analysis or following arbitrary set of m... r... Case 1. Explosion in science lab, lab instructor may have given permission to student to conduct a dangerous experiment. This student sent to medical center. *Our readers will want to know why the kid pulled the stunt; students have right to know if the labs use unsafe procedures; whether the university is hiring incompetent instructors, endangering students; that we were on a tight deadline and if we didn't get it now we'd be beaten; it could place blame in the public's mind that the kid did it on his own; that if we went through the PR department or identified as reporters we'd be given runaround; and if we published the official report that other journalists were going to publish, wouldn't be doing our job. Decision was to lie and say we were friends/family of student. Decided our only recourse. Confirmation from two other classmates, no comment from lab instructor. Days that followed, kept up pressure on university and investigators. Showed were unsafe lab practices, lab instructor at fault. As result, lab procedures safer; lab instructor asked not to return; and the university paid bills for all injured. Decision maker's use of utilitarianism: Our alternatives were (1) tell the truth, (2) lie to the nurse, (3) print what one source, uninvolved said without confirmation from the involved parties. Persons directly affected: sources at the hospital, sources in the explosion, our readers, the university administration, co-workers. Likely consequences: *By telling the truth to the nurse, we would have had the same incomplete story as everyone else and it might not ever have come out that the lab instructor and the university were at fault; the university would have kept the same unsafe practices; our readers would have been cheated; and the kids would have been blamed. *By lying to the nurse, we would get the whole story, the university would have to admit to its errors, and we would beat our competition. Could also have left a bad impression on our other less-experienced personnel that we advocate lying to get the truth in all situations; the hospital would be more wary of us and might start making it harder to see real relatives in their care; and some might ask, Why should we believe you when you lied to get the story? Major benefits of lying to the source: the university paid the medical bills, it changed practices in the lab, it asked a poorly qualified instructor not to return, readers got the whole story, the kids were exonerated, we beat the competition, and we fulfilled our responsibility. Major harm: The hospital will be more wary of media and may be more careful in scrutinizing visitors; an instructor was essentially fired; young campus newspaper staffers might get wrong impression; some readers might question our reliability when we lied to the nurse. How's it going to look?: Given that the g... a... of g... for the g... n... of p... was done by lying to the nurse, and the least amount of harm was done to the least amount of people, willing to go public. Case 2: *Writing script for movie. Producers have two requests: a) Aim script to make PG-13 rating. More likely to draw teens and older viewers, since mere PG rating may be seen as boring/for kids. Can add curse words, shed more blood, toss out double-entendres, include a sex scene that shows no nudity. b) Add cartoon character, make marketing deal with well-known fast food chain. Include character in kids' meals. *Fine on one level, not high art (more marketing power + money) and done before. But parents may not let children (who are being marketed to) see the movie, and if they did, would be exposed to language and scenes may be inappropriate. CONSEQUENTIALISTIC + DEONTOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR EACH CASE... Case 1: Consequentialism *Journalists who deceived the nurse did what was morally required because r... was good, aside from the lie for a higher purpose and embarrassing a few members of the university community. *University was held accountable for its policies, conditions safer for students, and stories more complete than those from competing media. *Journalists gave the injured student a voice, chance to be heard, something authorities sought to take from him without his consent. *P... pa... was certainly wo... the p... of one relatively insignificant lie. *However, even if their primary goal was to bring good results, students might have reached the opposite conclusion. They could ethically decide to not rush to publication out of concern they may have made a rash mistake about the university's culpability. They may sense publishing a potentially erroneous and dubiously researched story might seriously harm their newspaper's reputation and independence. May conclude that deceitfulness ought not be a reportorial tool. Might discover the outrage over the lie became a bigger focus than the story. Case 1: Deontology *Although the journalists may have acted with good intentions, were morally wrong because they deceived the nurse, using her as a m... to their own e..., and violated the hospital's p... p... that had been established to protect vulnerable patients. All of these are inherently immoral actions. How can news media claim they are fighting for honesty while acting less than honestly in gathering/reporting their story? E... does not justify the m...! *All of this utilitarian argument is p... h...; what would the journalists have said if their lie had backfired and caused additional harm? And how could they possibly know the long-term consequences of their actions? *However, a simple duty-based rationale may have motivated the student journalists to conduct the deception and publish the story - especially if their immediate sense of o... to the majority of their stakeholders clearly overshadowed their o... to abide by abstract ethics codes and privacy policies. Minor moral transgression against nurse was not intended to dehumanize her, but to help the journalists meet a higher o... to full and complete storytelling. Some d... are more compelling than others. Case 2: Consequentialism *Makes sense to attract the largest audiences possible in today's marketplace. Much better to produce a film that appeals to children and teens than produce one that will appeal only one of those two demographics. *Know it's good marketing to admit that some material may be inappropriate for young children. We're not h... anyone by spicing up our script. Kids have probably heard curse words and seen blood, not breaking taboos. Besides, their parents will accompany them or give permission to see the film. *Marketing tie-in is crucial, if we want our movie to stand out from rest of summer's films. Tie-in reduces production company's costs. *Good cartoon character will generate buzz that is essential if we hope to do a sequel. Production company and I and the fast-food industry will all do very well, and nobody's really going to get h... in the process. *However, if we remain focused on bottom line, we might come to an opposite conclusion, attempting to improve viewership by appealing to the 'family values' market. In the short run, we may sell a few more tickets if we include some material inappropriate for young children, but we may run the risk of o... a significant demographic. Case 2: Deontology *In deciding this case, we should invoke r..., r..., and c... - general and could be applied to all p... and in all c... We could argue it is always wrong to pander to vulnerable populations. *Most of them say we ought to display respect and decency. Common sense tells us if we make this film needlessly crude and violent, using children for our own b.... Doesn't matter whether children are actually h... by the film's production and fast-food marketing; what matters is we're violating some f... r... about how to treat people. *Wrong to market a movie to an audience younger than the suggested rating. It's not fair to make parents be the 'bad guys' who have to say no to kids, after your marketing told kids the movie was OK to see. *However, if concerned primarily about meeting our o..., we may conclude we have a d... to help the film producers meet their commitments to their underwriters. Should do all we can to make the film financially successful within the established rules of the rating system. Our role-related o... are to write good scripts; parents' role-related duties are to help their children make informed decisions.

Consequentialism and Utility Most of us thinking we are ethically superior. Might say we adhere to 'high principle' - whatever that redundant adjective adds. We're likely to stumble for words when asked to describe the principles that guide our lives and decisions in making ethically consistent decisions. To the extent we claim to follow our principles, we probably envision that as meaning 'we try to do what is right' - another abstract phrase. Media influence society in good and bad ways, and people working in mass communications take specific role-related duties that motivate them to perform at a high level. Thus, many media ethics discussions are limited to making decisions with a focus on the predicted outcome, or making decisions with a focus on our duty. The two principles are more rightfully known as teleology and deontology. Teleology - philosophies concerned with desired ends or consequences; its adherents are called teleologists or consequentialists. (teleo- cause and effect). "Ends-based" utility, or the effects and outcomes of our choices. Deontology - philosophies concerned with moral duties or rules-based ethics, and the 'means-based' people who espouse it are called deontologists. (deon- duty). Less consideration of outcomes and consequences. One way to justify our actions is to consider the nature of the consequences of those acts. For instance: Have we figured out which consequences are morally relevant, and to what extent? Have we considered the interests of all the stakeholders? Are more people helped than harmed? Is the benefit spread widely? Is there a greater amount of good than harm? And if there is more harm than good, how can we minimize the harm? Not simple questions to answer, but to 'do ethics' from using a consequentialist approach means taking these questions into consideration. Fair to say most modern media institutions and practitioners tend to use a consequentialist or utilitarian calculus when offering moral explanations for their behaviors. Given media serve a 'mass' audience and the results of media actions have consequences and draw attention, most practitioners would say it makes sense to consider the results of their decisions. As a result, media try to avoid being overly offensive in quest for sales and ratings. Advocates try to persuade gently rather than attacking audiences' deeply rooted beliefs. Entertainers try to maximize pleasure and eye appeal without being overly distracting. News workers try to inform without being too boring. Reporters reveal systems failures but try to avoid causing apathy or hopelessness. Wise users of SM consider how others will respond to their posts. These are rational justifications, coming from commercially based, relatively unregulated media whose successes and failures are usually measured in terms of subscribers, dollars, and impact on public opinion. However, as we will see, there are pros and cons to doing a rudimentary cost-benefit analysis when making moral decisions. Theories demand far more of us than merely counting up the 'goods' and 'bads' that occur when we enter the media ethics environment. Two Cases, Two Ethical Approaches The basic moral questions in these cases relate to concerns about consequences and duties. Try to avoid thinking that consequentialistic thinking is morally permissive (nonrestrictive) and that deontological thinking is morally restrictive. Utilitarians don't do 'whatever it takes' and duty-based philosophers don't always 'just say no.' Much more complex than either conducting a simplistic cost-benefit analysis or following an arbitrary set of moral rules. Case 1: Journalism (The Temptation to Deceive) Explosion in physics lab. Within 30 minutes knew what happened, names of the injured parties, other standard info from police. Interviewed a student who wasn't hurt, said lab instructor may have given permission to the student to pour liquid nitrogen into a glass soda bottle. We had the real story! Knew name of the kid who bottled the nitrogen, rushed in an ambulance to medical center. Dealt with medical center and people a lot, discussed our chances of talking to the student. Knew their policies, they are restrictive. Our readers will want to know why the kid pulled the stunt; students have right to know if the labs use unsafe procedures; whether the university is hiring incompetent instructors, endangering students; that we were on a tight deadline and if we didn't get it now we'd be beaten; it could place blame in the public's mind that the kid did it on his own; that if we went through the public relations department or identified ourselves as reporters we'd be given the runaround; and if we just published the official report that other journalists were going to publish, we wouldn't be doing our job. Decision was to lie and say we were friends/family of student. Decided our only recourse. Walked into his room and identified myself as clearly as possible. Kid told me everything that happened. Confirmation from two other classmates, no comment from lab instructor, university powers that be, we went with the story. Days that followed, kept up pressure on university and investigators. Showed were unsafe lab practices, lab instructor at fault. As result, lab procedures have been made safer; lab instructor though not officially punished, asked not to return the next semester; and the university paid bills for all injured. "I have always believed in spite of its flaws, utilitarianism best suits a newspaper. Our alternatives were (1) tell the truth, (2) lie to the nurse, (3) print what one source, uninvolved but at the scene said without confirmation from the directly involved parties. Persons directly affected: sources at the hospital, sources in the explosion, our readers, the university administration, co-workers." Likely consequences: By telling the truth to the nurse, we would have had the same incomplete story as everyone else and it might not ever have come out that the lab instructor and the university were at fault; the university would have kept the same unsafe practices; our readers would have been cheated; and the kids would have been blamed. Would have done no better than our competition. By lying to the nurse, we would get the whole story, the university would have to admit to its errors, and we would beat our competition. Could also have left a bad impression on our other less-experienced personnel that we advocate lying to get the truth in all situations; the hospital would be more wary of us and might start making it harder to see real relatives in their care; and some might ask, Why should we believe you when you lied to get the story? Major benefits of lying to the source: the university paid the medical bills, it changed practices in the lab, it asked a poorly qualified instructor not to return, readers got the whole story, the kids were exonerated, we beat the competition, and we fulfilled our responsibility. Major harm: The hospital will be more wary of media and may be more careful in scrutinizing visitors; an instructor was essentially fired; young campus newspaper staffers might get wrong impression; some readers might question our reliability when we lied to the nurse. How's it going to look?: Given that the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people was done by lying to the nurse, and the least amount of harm was done to the least amount of people, willing to go public. (Chapter 14) Case 2: Marketing Your Movie Writing the script for an action-packed fantasy movie you expect a film distribution company to make. 'Popcorn' movie, aimed at making a splash during summer height of the movie season. Plot is solid, can make the movie as tame or racy as you want. Movie's producers have 2 requests: 1) Aim script so it will receive PG-13 rating, cautions parents 'some material may be inappropriate for young children.' Aiming for PG-13 means movie will be more likely to draw teens and older viewers, since mere PG rating might make older moviegoers think movie is boring or for kids. Hit that PG-13 rating, can add a few curse words, shed little more blood, toss out some double-entendres, include a sex scene that shows no nudity but leaves little to imagination. 2) Add a cartoonish character in it, so film company can make a marketing deal with a well-known fast food chain that would include the character as toys in kids' meals. At one level, fine with decisions because your movie isn't exactly high art, means more marketing power and money for the movie. Besides, been done before with kids' meals for PG-13 movies Hulk, Transformers. However, when driving home from meeting with producers, pass an elementary school and see class of 10-year olds on playground. Be able to buy the kids' meal, but their parents may not let them go to see the movie if it were rated PG-13. And if the kids saw the movie, they would be exposed to language and scenes that the movie raters say may be inappropriate for children. Consequentialistic and Deontological Justifications Following sets of responses regarding student journalist and film-marketing cases: Case 1: Justification 1 (Consequentialistic) Journalists who deceived the nurse did what was morally required because the result was good, aside from the lie for a higher purpose and embarrassing a few members of the university community. University was held accountable for its hiring/supervision policies, conditions became safer for students and staff, and stories were more complete than those from competing media. Journalists gave the injured student a voice, chance to be heard, something that authorities sought to take from him without his direct consent. Positive payoff was certainly worth the price of one relatively insignificant lie. However, even if their primary goal was to bring good results, students might have reached the opposite conclusion. They could ethically decide to not rush to publication out of concern they may have made a rash mistake about the university's culpability. They may sense publishing a potentially erroneous and dubiously researched story might seriously harm their newspaper's reputation and independence, and their own future job prospects. May conclude that duplicity (deceitfulness) ought not be a reportorial tool. Might discover the outrage over the lie became a bigger focus than the story. Case 1: Justification 2 (Deontological) Although the journalists may have acted with good intentions, were morally wrong because they deceived the nurse, using her as a means to their own end, and violated the hospital's privacy policies that had been established to protect vulnerable patients. All of these are inherently immoral actions. After all, how can news media claim they are fighting for honesty and integrity while acting less than honestly in gathering and reporting their story? Two wrongs do not make a right! End does not justify the means! All of this utilitarian argument is post hoc; what would the journalists have said if their lie had backfired and caused additional harm? And how could they possibly know the long-term consequences of their actions - what if none of their sources will trust them (or other journalists) again? However, a simple duty-based rationale may have motivated the student journalists to conduct the deception and publish the story - especially if their immediate sense of obligation to the majority of their stakeholders clearly overshadowed their obligation to abide by some rather abstract ethics codes and privacy policies. Minor moral transgression against nurse was not intended to dehumanize her, but to help the journalists meet a higher obligation to full and complete storytelling. Some duties are more compelling than others. Case 2: Justification 1 (Consequentialistic) Makes sense to attract the largest audiences possible in today's complex marketplace. Much better to produce a film that appeals to children and teens (probably lure a large number of their parents into theater) than produce one that will appeal only one of those two demographics. Know it's good marketing to admit that some material may be inappropriate for young children. We're not hurting anyone by spicing up our script. Little kids have probably heard a few curse words and seen a bit of blood, not breaking any taboos. Besides, their parents will either accompany them or give them permission to see the film. Marketing tie-in is crucial, if we want our movie to stand out from rest of summer's films. Tie-in reduces production company's costs. Good cartoon character will generate buzz that is essential if we hope to do a sequel. Production company and I and the fast-food industry will all do very well, and nobody's really going to get hurt in the process. However, if we remain focused on bottom line, we might come to an opposite conclusion, attempting to improve viewership and marketing by appealing to the 'family values' market. In the short run, we may sell a few more tickets if we include some material inappropriate for young children, but we may run the risk of offending a significant demographic. In the long run, our marketing tie-ins may have an enormous appeal to families with young children. Pixar phenomenon has proven you can appeal to all ages and do not have to be offensive to be successful. Case 2: Justification 2 (Deontological) In deciding this case, we should invoke rules, regulations, and codes - some of which are general and could be applied to all people and in all circumstances. We could argue it is always wrong to pander to vulnerable populations. Most of them say we ought to display respect and decency. Common sense tells us if we make this film needlessly crude and violent, using children for our own benefit. Doesn't matter whether children are actually hurt by the film's production and fast-food marketing; what matters is we're violating some fundamental rules about how to treat people. Wrong to market a movie to an audience younger than the suggested rating. It's not fair to make parents be the 'bad guys' who have to say no to kids, after your marketing told kids the movie was OK to see. No way we could make any sort of general principles about 'do whatever you're inclined to do when you're producing stuff for the mass media.' However, if concerned primarily about meeting our obligations, we may conclude we have a duty to help the film producers meet their commitments to their underwriters. Should do all we can to make the film financially successful within the established rules of the rating system. Our role-related obligations are to write good scripts; parents' role-related duties are to help their children make informed decisions. It is not unethical to write a PG-13 script and promote a film with marketing tie-ins.

1) Immanuel Kant Im... and P... Duties *Two types of duties. *A p... duty is one we must always observe! *An im... duty is one we must observe only sometimes. I have a p... duty not to injure another person; only an im... duty to show affection/compassion. Must sometimes show affection, but when and to whom are entirely up to me. Latter - im... - appear to go beyond minimum. Kant might say duties are... 1. No matter the c..., it is always wrong to lie. (p...) 2. We must always treat people (including ourselves) as e..., not as m... only. (p...) 3. An action is right when it satisfies the c... im... 4. P... and im... duties give a basis for claims that certain rights should be recognized. How does Kant resolve flaw of utilitarianism - problem with j...? (Little focus on principle of j..., because what serves the interest of the majority may mean gross injustice to others). *Tentative answer is every individual is to be treated as an e... and never merely as a m... to an e...; consider impossible to legitimately e... some for benefit of others. If Kant were sharing your office... *Want to be ethical communicator, abide by u... r...; would be a person of 'good will.' Obey your duty and coform to certain rules resting on two governing principles known as the c... im... 1. Never make any rule that you are not willing to u... Your rule should apply to you and others, in all circumstances, and not just your media-focused job. 2. Respect the h... in every person. Treat all persons as e... in themselves, not a mere m... to some end. Would tell you to: 1. Decide what you want to do. 2. Figure out what professional 'r...' you would be obeying if you follow through on that decision (Journalists should always seek and report truth; PR practitioners owe a special allegiance to their clients, are conventional journalism/PR rules). 3. Try to u... that rule, making it apply to all people. 4. Question whether your rule, and thus your proposed action, respects the d... and w... of all people involved. 5. If you can answer yes to numbers 3 and 4 above, go for it. If not, rethink rule or action. Applying Kant to Case Studies *If accept Kant's c... im..., how would it change how we do business in mass comm? *Not approve student journalists' lying to get into hospital. Story was significant and truth important to reveal (bring justice and accountability), but competitive m... of students - scoop other media - didn't spring from p... r... *Didn't treat all persons as rational e...; not transparent. Alternative means to get full story received little consideration; used a utilitarian calculus to decide it was appropriate to deceive. *Softer deontologist like Ross may approve of deception, o... to serve informational need of a majority of s-holders may have trumped o... to be fully transparent with nurse, or to dogmatically abide by university policy. *Kant have problem with film writer motivated by commercialism to convert script from PG to PG-13, then market to children under 13. *Institutional policies already in place to address issues of decency and responsibility. Doesn't appear they were applied a... in this case! Intended audiences were manipulated not respected as r... creatures in and of selves. *Could filmmakers apply moral duties and notions of moral a... to their task of selling tickets and making commercial tie-ins? Only if they truly believed that people's self-worth could be addressed through entertainment. *The 'moral evil' might be diminished if consumers are expected to refine their r... process (This fits with K's advocacy of 'c...' the process by which children and immature are led to the right decisions by instructional examples/experiences, after which they can act as a... moral agents). *Again, others like Ross may reach opposite conclusion. Script writer driven by o... to help filmmakers succeed in m-place so long as abide by ratings system's rules. Role-related duties may include helping children and parents make informed decisions on purchasing movie tickets and supporting marketing tie-ins. Criticisms of Kant Ronald Munson: three things that can apply to media ethics environment. 1) Principles apply no clear way to resolve cases where d... c..., occurs in many ethics quandaries. Example: I have a duty to keep my promises, but I also have a duty to help people in need. No rank ordering of our c... duties. 2) C... im... can be problematic, we are free to choose how we formulate a ma... for testing. None of us would approve a u... m... such as 'Lie when it means we can make more money.' But we might be more inclined to make this a u... law: Lie when telling the truth is likely to cause harm to others. 3) How do we define the 'r... beings' or person to whom we have duties? Physicians have problems with that definition as people live longer or are born earlier. How do they deal with 100 year old people on life support systems and no quality of life, or a newborn with an ill-formed brain and other serious birth defects? Media practitioners must answer these ?s too, especially on r... beings or people in journalist/persuasive communicatioon. Example: What does a p-grapher do when shooting film in a psychiatric hospital? Or journalists who happen across totally hysterical survivors of a tragedy? Do these people possess an a..., s...-r... w... as Kant perceived those to whom the CI applied? Without such a w..., such people are not legitimately affected by the CI. They cannot 'give consent' to be treated the way the p-grapher or reporter is using them. *Note these three m... could be applied to the same situation. Because Kant does not tell us how to formulate our m..., we can act virtually any way we choose if we merely describe the situation in detail. Bottom Line Influence of Kant remains important, but c... im... doesn't solve moral problems quite as neatly as it appears. C... matter too (even when there may be times a duty-only approach matters in doing ethics). Look to two modern views, considering duty AND c...!

Imperfect + Perfect Duties K distinguished between two types of duties: perfect and imperfect. A perfect duty is one we must always observe; an imperfect duty is one that we must observe only sometimes. I have a perfect duty not to injure another person, but only an imperfect duty to show affection and compassion. I must sometimes show affection, but when and to whom are entirely up to me. The latter - imperfect - then, appear to go beyond the minimum. What perfect and imperfect duties do we have in mass comm? What's your list? Kant might say the duties are...: 1. No matter the consequences, it is always wrong to lie. 2. We must always treat people (including ourselves) as ends, not as means only. 3. An action is right when it satisfies the CI. 4. Perfect and imperfect duties give a basis for claims that certain rights should be recognized. How does K resolve a flaw of utilitarianism - the problem with justice? (U'ism has little focus on the principle of justice, because what serves the interests of the majority may mean gross injustices to others). The tentative answer is that K, by telling us that every individual is to be treated as an end and never merely as a means to an end, considers it impossible to legitimately exploit some for the benefit of others. If Kant were sharing your office... K would say if you wanted to be an ethical communicator, you would abide by universal rationality. Would be a person of 'good will.' Would obey your duty and conform to certain rules that rest on two governing principles known as the 'categorical imperative.' 1. Never make any rule that you are not willing to universalize. Your rule should apply to you and others, in all circumstances, and not just your media-focused job. 2. Respect the humanity in every person. Treat all persons as ends in themselves, not a mere means to some end. K would tell you to: 1. Decide what you want to do. 2. Figure out what professional 'rule' you would be obeying if you follow through on that decision (Journalists should always seek and report truth; Public relations practitioners owe a special allegiance to their clients, are conventional journalism and PR rules). 3. Try to universalize that rule, making it apply to all people. 4. Question whether your rule, and thus your proposed action, respects the dignity and wellbeing of all people involved. 5. If you can answer yes to numbers 3 and 4 above, go for it. If not, rethink rule or action. Applying Kant to Case Studies If we accept K's CI, how would it change how we do our business in mass comm? How can these ideas be applied to the two scenarios. As suggested in the second set of justifications for each of two scenarios in last chapter, a strictly Kantian decision would not have approved the student journalists' lying to get into the hospital. The story was significant, and the truth behind the explosion was important to reveal (to bring justice and accountability in that specific case and for future health and safety of students). But the competitive motivations of the student reporters - to scoop other media - did not spring from pure reason. They did not treat all persons as rational ends in and of themselves. They were not transparent. Alternative means of getting the full story received little consideration; the journalists quite readily used a utilitarian calculus to decide it was appropriate to deceive. Note a softer deontologist like Ross might have approved of the deception, because the obligation to serve the informational needs of a majority of the stakeholders may have trumped the obligation to be fully transparent with the nurse, or to dogmatically abide by the university and hospital privacy policies. K also would have problem if a film writer motivated by commercialism diddled with a script to convert it from PG to PG-13 rating that would then be marketed to children under 13. One argument might be that institutional policies are already in place to address issues of decency and responsibility in cinema. However, it does not appear they were applied autonomously in this case. The intended audiences were being manipulated and not respected as rational creatures and valuable entities in and of themselves. Could filmmakers apply moral duties and notions of moral autonomy to their task of selling tickets and making commercial tie-ins? Only if they truly believed that people's self-worth and self-improvement could be addressed through entertainment. The 'moral evil' might be diminished if consumers are expected to refine their reasoning process (This fits with K's advocacy of 'casuistry' the process by which children and immature philosophers are led to the right decisions by instructional examples, case studies, or experiences, after which they can act as autonomous moral agents) All in all, however, the case study seems to encourage the filmmakers to cut some moral corners. Again, others such as Ross might have reached an opposite conclusion. The script writer may be driven by an obligation to help the filmmakers succeed in the marketplace so long as they abide by the ratings system's rules. The role-related duties may include helping children and parents make informed decisions about purchasing movie tickets and supporting marketing tie-ins. Criticisms of Kant Kant has his critics. Ronald Munson suggests three things in Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics that can apply to the media ethics environment: 1. K's principles apply no clear way to resolve cases where duties conflict, which occurs in many media ethics quandaries. Example: I have a duty to keep my promises, but I also have a duty to help people in need. K provides no rank ordering of our competing duties. 2. The CI can be problematic because we are free to choose how we formulate a maxim for testing. None of us would approve a universal maxim such as 'Lie when it means we can make more money.' But we might be more inclined to make this a universal law: Lie when telling the truth is likely to cause harm to others. This may be more ethically sound if we're talking about lying to Nazis who want to find an innocent person to kill them solely because of race, or a doctor who has good reason to believe a patient's life will be threatened if the patient were told the truth of the condition. 3. How do we define the 'rational beings or person' to whom we have duties? Physicians and others have problems with that definition as people live longer or are born earlier. How do they deal with 100 year old people on life support systems and no quality of life, or a newborn with an ill-formed brain and other serious birth defects? There are serious Qs. Media practitioners must answer these Qs too, especially about rational beings or people in journalists and persuasive communication. For instance, what does a p-grapher or cinematographer do when shooting film in a psychiatric hospital? Or journalists who happen across totally hysterical survivors of a tragedy? Or for the advertiser, the small children who are targets of commercials? Or the subjects of orchestrated PR campaigns, who are targets, who may not have full access to opposing info? Do these people possess an autonomous, self-regulating will as Kant perceived those to whom the CI applied? Without such a will, such people are not legitimately affected by the CI, are they? They cannot 'give consent' to be treated the way the p-grapher, cinematographer, reporter, PR practitioner, or advertiser is using them. Note these three maxims could be applied to the same situation. Because Kant does not tell us how to formulate our maxims, we can act virtually any way we choose if we merely describe the situation in detail. We might be willing to have everyone act just as we are inclined to act whenever they find themselves in exactly this kind of situation. Bottom Line on Kant K's influence remains important, but the CI does not seem to solve our moral problems quite as neatly as it first appears. While there may be times when a duty-only approach matters in doing media ethics, we recognize the consequences can matter, too. Two more approaches that may be more helpful for media practitioners as they considerduty and consequences.

Examining the Justifications *Justification 1 captured the teleological or consequentialist approach to moral theory. Consequentialists believe an action's m... s... is a function of the c... of performing the action. *Believe that whether a particular action has/lacks property of being m... o... is a function of the action's r.../its p...! *The e... justify their m... (not every m... is ethical though). Kind of action performed is ir... to its moral evaluation. To evaluate the morality of an action, only evaluate the c... of performing the action. *Case 1: Justification focuses on the outcome of deceiving the nurse and embarrassing the university in relation to b... to other stakeholders. *Case 2: Whether the filmmaker and fast-food marketers benefited without causing too much h... *Justifications don't emphasize the k... of conduct in which the communicator engaged in to achieve their r...! *Justification 2 captures deontology, radically different approach to moral theory. Reject consequentialist view an action's m... s... is function of the r... it produces. Believe some actions are just the right k... of actions to perform, other k... are inherently wrong to perform. *D... - some role-related, other universal - and r... are important considerations. Some actions are m... o...; ought to be performed because they are the k... of actions they are, regardless of c... Not all o... hav equal moral weight! *Whether a particular action is m... o... is a function of the k... of action it is! *Reasons for critquing student journalists' enterprise didn't involve the good/evil that resulted, or which s-holders gained benefits/suffered losses. Rather, involves the k... of actions and moral d... or o... that should have motivated the student and the filmmaker. Results aren't important! But... consequentialists aren't fixated on getting away with stuff; deontologists don't always wag finger and say No. Utilitarianism/Consequentialism Defined Many definitions: Human conduct should promote the interests or w... of those a...; insists the right action is what b... the g... n... of p.../h... the l... n... of p... *The sole ultimate standard of right, wrong, and obligation is the principle of utility. In everything we do, seek the moral end that offers the greatest possible b... of g... over e... (or least possible b... of e... over g...) in the world as a whole. *Theory appears democratic. Allows for e... t... of people and provides calculus to determine right action, fairer than strongest/wealthiest people winning because they are the strongest. Theory is more philosophically mature than ethical e... (everyone to do whatever pleases them) and ethical r... (each person/culture defines what is right). *On the other hand, readily faulted if it judges each individual act's rightness/wrongness solely on basis of im... b... or h..., or if it disregards any unnnecessary h... as being incidental byproduct of a c...-b... calculus. *Certainly problematic if theory is trotted to justify s... in..., so long as the majority benefits from the practice (51% majority cannot enslave 49% minority). Tends to overlook fundamental d... to do r... for its own sake. *Utility/disutility exist in context of individuals + society. Make decisions in certain amount of uncertainty - never completely sure of the o... of our choices. Making decisions based on individual utility easier than considering social utility. Concern with greatest good to me versus greatest good for rest of society. *Media constantly face utilitarian ?s of f.../d... Info, entertainment, persuasion, general transfer of culture from gen to gen all functions of media. But for every f..., equal and opposite d..., whether intended or not. -> Journalism, a graphic news photo may alert readers and viewers to danger (f) but may paralyze them or make them believe the world is scarier than it really is (d). -> Online content, a headline can lead readers to click to the site to see the content and advertising that pays for it (f) but may be so misleading it confuses readers or angers them with the bait-and-switch technique (d). -> PR, campaign may draw attention to an important issue (f) but provide only a one-sided view that crowds out opposing views (d). Etc. Major concern over utility/disutility may be v... Big ?s remain: How do we measure the effects of good and evil, truth, love, friendship, security, a world at peace, etc.? How do we know when we are maximizing b... to self and society? What are the tradeoffs between and among conflicting v...? How much of one v... needs to be compromised in order to maximize another v...? Types of ?s utilitarians try to answer. Focus now on three major thinkers... built upon the others to bring subtle/not-so-subtle differences to topic. Consequentialists grapple with key concerns over utility/disutility... *Utility vs. Disutility B... vs. c... G... vs. b... Pl... vs. p... H... vs. un... Box: Happiness or eudaimonia? Happiness and understanding its deep meaning is important to understanding philosophies. Good fortune, chance of fortune to fall to a person. Something we pursue or someting that happens as we live our lives. *Happiness tied to emotion, not something can always catch when we pursue it, fleeting (doesn't last long when we do catch it). *Better word: Eudaimonia. Not the short-lived feeling but how one lives one's life as a whole. Good spirit. Better described as flourishing or highest good for people. (Desirable for its own sake, end in itself - rather than mean toward some other end).

Examining the Justifications Does your REASONING (not conclusions) closely align with justifications 1 or 2? Only how you processed the problem. Or do you have yet another approach to justify your view on the cases? Justification 1 captures the teleological or consequentialist approach to moral theory. Consequentialists believe that an action's moral status is a function of the consequences of performing that action. More precisely, consequentialists believe that whether a particular action has or lacks the property of being morally obligatory is a function of that action's result - its 'payoff.' Crudely stated, then, consequentialism is the view that the ends justify their means (not every 'means' is ethical as most consequentialists will argue). The kind of action performed is irrelevant to its moral evaluation. To evaluate the morality of an action, one need only evaluate the consequences of performing that action. In Case 1, the justification focuses on the outcome of deceiving the nurse and embarrassing the university vis-à-vis (in relation to) the benefit to other stakeholders, or whether the filmmaker and fast-food marketers benefited without causing too much harm. The justifications did not emphasize the kinds of conduct tin which the journalist and entertainers engaged to achieve their result. Justification 2 captures deontology, a radically different approach to moral theory. First, deontologists reject the consequentialist view that an action's moral status is a function of the results it produces. Second, deontologists believe some actions just are the right kinds of actions to perform, and other kinds of actions are inherently wrong to perform. Duties - some role-related, others universal - and rules are important considerations. In other words, some actions are morally obligatory; they ought to be performed just because they are the kinds of actions they are - regardless of their consequences. Not all obligations have equal moral weight! Deontologists believe that whether a particular action is morally obligatory is a function of the kind of action it is. In Justification 2, the reasons for critiquing the student journalists' enterprise do not involve the good or evil that resulted from the investigation, or which stakeholders gained specific benefits or suffered specific losses from what decision you make about a film rating. Rather, the justification involves the kinds of actions and moral duties or obligations that should have motivated the student journalists interested in exposing possible incompetence and filmmakers attempting to market their merchandise. The results are not as important. Consequentialists aren't fixated on 'getting away with stuff,' and deontologists don't always wag their fingers while saying 'No.' Both theories are morally compelling. Utilitarianism/Consequentialism Defined U has many definitions. Encyclopedia of Ethics: U holds that human conduct should promote the interests or welfare of those affected. Shorthand definition is that U insists the right action is what benefits the greatest number of people or harms the least number of people. Another says that the sole ultimate standard of right, wrong, and obligation is the principle of utility. Means that, in everything we do, should seek the moral end that offers the greatest possible balance of good over evil (or least possible balance of evil over good) in the world as a whole. The theory seems democratic. Allows for = treatment of people and provides a calculus to determine right action, which is fairer than the strongest or wealthiest people win because they are the strongest or wealthiest. In this sense, the theory is more philosophically mature than ethical egoism (allowing everyone to do whatever pleases them) and ethical relativism (concluding that each person or culture defines what is right). On the other hand, U is readily faulted if it judges each individual act's rightness or wrongness solely on the basis of imagined benefits or harm, or if it disregards any unnecessary harm as being an incidental byproduct of a cost-benefit calculus. It is certainly problematic if the theory is trotted out to justify social injustices by saying that, so long as the majority benefits from the practice, tough noogies (The 51% majority cannot enslave the 49% minority). Finally, the appeal to U tends to overlook our fundamental duty to do right for its own sake. Utility and disutility exist in the context of individuals and society. We make decisions in a certain amount of uncertainty - that is, we are never completely sure of the outcomes of our choices. Making decisions based upon individual utility is easier than considering the social utility. In the former, the concern is with greatest good for me. Latter, concern is with greatest good for rest of society. Media constantly face utilitarian questions of functions and dysfunctions. Information, entertainment, persuasion, and general transfer of culture from generation to generation are all 'functions' of media. But for every function, there may be an approximately equal and opposite dysfunction, whether intended or not. In consequentialist terms, each of the following are matters of utility and disutility... è Journalism, a graphic news photo may alert readers and viewers to danger (function) but may paralyze them or make them believe the world is scarier than it really is (dysfunction). è Online content, a headline can lead readers to click to the site to see the content and advertising that pays for it (function) but may be so misleading it confuses readers or angers them with the bait-and-switch technique (dysfunction). è PR, campaign may draw attention to an important issue (function) but provide only a one-sided view that crowds out opposing views (dysfunction). è Advertising, a campaign may help company sell its product (f) but may make people feel inferior because their lives don't match the ad's ideal (d). è Entertainment, an entertaining (f) movie dealing with organized crime may lead some viewers with low levels of moral development to think there is honor among such thieves (d). è SM, post may provide interesting info and commentary (f) but lead people to respond with hateful comments that lead to arguments and disrespect (d). The major concern over utility and disutility may be 'values.' Big questions remain: How do we measure the effects of good and evil, truth, love, friendship, security, a world at peace, etc.? How do we know when we are maximizing benefit to self and society? What are the tradeoffs between and among conflicting values? How much of one value needs to be compromised in order to maximize another value? These are the types of questions utilitarians try to answer. Focus now on thinking of Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, William Frankena. Each built upon the others to bring subtle (and not-so-subtle) differences to the topic. Consequentialists grapple with key concerns over utility and disutility Utility: Benefits Goodness Pleasure Happiness Disutility: Costs Badness Pain Unhappiness Box: Happiness or Eudaimonia? Word happiness appears throughout Question 5: What do philosophers say? Understanding the deep meaning of that word is important to understanding the philosophies. Word happy comes from Middle English word hap, which means "good fortune" or the "chance or fortune that falls to a person." Happiness is something we pursue, or something that happens as we live our lives. Definition suggests that happiness is tied to emotion, not something we always catch when we pursue it, and fleeting as it often does not last long when we do catch it. (Taking kids to 'Happiest Place on Earth' only to watch their kids melt down in tears in afternoon heat.) Better is the word 'Eudaimonia.' While being happy is important and sometimes considered by some moral philosophers, eudaemonia is not the short-lived feeling but instead about how 'one lives one's life as a whole.' Greek term translates as 'good spirit.' It is better described as 'flourishing' or the 'highest good' for people. Aristotle called it the 'only human good that is desirable for its own sake (an end in itself) rather than for the sake of something else (as means toward some other end).' Good example might be replacing 'happiness' in the US Declaration of Independence that people have 'certain inalienable rights' that include 'life, liberty, and pursuit of' eudaimonia. Writers were arguing their lives could not flourish without freedoms they sought by breaking away from England. Notion of happiness as 'human flourishing' will appear again (virtue).

Fifth Question: What do philosophers say? *Which school of philosophy or set of moral principles provides you with a moral compass? Don't have to think through decisions alone - wisdom of the ages, offered by centuries of moral philosophers here to help. Many died long before mass media became a thing, but can apply general thinking to our specific media-focused dilemmas as we make decisions. *Their voices aren't in unison! Disagree on many things from subtle differences in terminology to significant differences on what constitutes moral life + proper ways to engage in moral reasoning. Five general schools of thought... 1) C... + u... - focus on e... 2) D... + o... (deontology) - focus on m... 3) V... + c... - focus on m... 4) J... + f... - focus on v... 5) C... + r... - focus on r... Principles are touchstone in our efforts to do ethics and think critically about media ethics environment. *Believe to 'do ethics' we need to start with using our o... j... about the moral dilemma. Then make pragmatic consideration over which rules/policies/conventions that apply. Then prioritize conflicting loyalties to individuals/groups, then moral/non-moral values. OUR O... J... should be exercised up to this point. *Should not rely on an a... v... to judge for us. After tha, then it is appropriate to check our good insights against judgments of others we trust. *If we start invoking a particular school of philosophy, some risk that our chosen philosopher might p...-d... our answers for us (John Stuart Mill -> focus exclusively on utility, etc.) - all the while tempting us to overlook importance of other moral principles + nuances that should have emerged from doing our own heavy lifting (asking and answering our other questions in our model). *Use principles rationally, not dogmatically. Keep mind open to nuances, respect well-reasoned choices made by well-meaning people who may be influenced by other school(s). Do not retrofit thinking so all cases are simplifed by just invocating and post-hoc applying a bumper-sticker philosophy.

The Fifth Question, What do Philosophers Say? In general and specifically in this case, which school of philosophy or set of moral principles provides you with a moral compass? We don't have to think through decisions alone - the wisdom of the ages, offered by centuries of moral philosophers is here to help. While many died long before mass media became a thing, we can apply their general thinking to our specific media-focused dilemma as we make decisions. BUT their voices are not in unison: these philosophers disagree about many things - from subtle differences in basic terminology to significant differences about what constitutes moral life and the proper ways to engage in moral reasoning. Their differences can be clustered into the principles of - Consequentialism and utility - a focus on ends. - Duty and obligation - a focus on means. - Virtue and character - a focus on motivations. - Justice and fairness - a focus on values. - Care and reciprocity - a focus on relationships. These five general schools of thought and where principles overlap. Principles are touchstones in our efforts to do ethics and think critically about the media ethics environment. Place at the end of the book, not beginning: We believe that to 'do ethics' we should start by using our own judgment about the moral dilemma of the problem at hand. Next make a pragmatic consideration about which rules, policies, conventions may or may not apply. Then we clarify and prioritize our conflicting loyalties to individuals and groups of people, and our moral and non-moral values. Up to that point, we should have been exercising our OWN judgment when weighing the variables, instead of relying upon an authoritative voice to judge for us. After that, it seems appropriate to check our own good insights against the judgments of others we trust. If we start by invoking a particular school of philosophy, some risk that our chosen philosopher might predetermine our answers for us. John Stuart Mill might automatically lead us to focus exclusively on utility, Kant on moral duties, Aristotle on virtue, Rawls on justice, Gilligan on caring, etc. - all the while tempting us to overlook the importance of other moral principles and nuances that should have emerged from doing our own heavy lifting: asking and answering our other questions. Through intuition or experience, you may have already become utilitarians or deontologists, or adhere to another school of philosophy (may even have been in one of these camps without knowing the terms). IF that is the case, you will bring these principles into the decision-making equation. However, use the principles rationally, not dogmatically. Keep minds open to nuances, respect well-reasoned choices made by well-meaning people who may be influenced by a different school. Don't retrofit your thinking so that all cases are simplified by mere invocation and post hoc application of a bumper-sticker philosophy! It is more important to engage in a defensible process than take too much comfort in always having the 'right' answer. Ownership of a good process means you can apply it thoughtfully to any number of situations, which bodes well for your future as professionals and thoughtful critics of media.