Ethics in Journalism

Ethical procedures in journalism are altering the approaches and consequences of practitioners’ actions within the field. Regulators responding to public reactions are constantly changing and evaluating what is ethical and what is good or bad practise. From recent highlighted events in the media such as the recent Leveson enquiry, professional journalism procedures and ethics have come into question, and gained an extensive quantity of attention. This has occurred through a misuse of information, and what is deemed to be unethical procedures being employed. These events have been highlighted, and continue to be exposed for the general public to view. This has therefore impacted on the views and opinions of media, and the representations of particular organisations and professionals, whom have come to be scrutinised and challenged in the public domain.

Two particularly controversial practitioners within journalism that have come to be questioned regarding their ethics are Piers Morgan, and Jeremy Clarkson. To look at these two practitioners in particular, the problems and issues relating to journalism ethics in the modern society and the public domain will be highlighted, and thus compared to evaluate the ethical issues encountered. A range of questions that confront and challenge ethics and ethical procedures in journalism will be discussed, using appropriate comments and files that document these in relation to both practitioners.

Remarks have been made by both of these journalists throughout their careers that may be deemed insensitive, offensive, and unprofessional. But at what point does the barrier between journalists being offensive, cross to them being unethical? Do the two practitioners in question have a particular style that influences them to be depicted as unethical, therefore generating an approach that could challenge ethical issues. If the styles of both of these practitioners have ensured they disregard any ethical procedures, it may ask a question posed by Berry, (2008); ‘What is so special about journalism, that ethics becomes invalid?’                                                                           

Journalism is such a broad spectrum, and provides such a varied amount of personalities, styles, and roles, that it therefore could be insurmountable to impose one particular ethical rule for all to abide. ‘Most journalists if pressed to identify the strictly ethical aspects of ‘good journalism’, are likely to display ambivalent, contradictory and confused attitudes.’                                                                                                                                (Keeble 2009)

In relation to the two practitioners in question, their styles and roles within media and broadcasting, allow and require them to be factual, but also be entertaining. ‘There is no reason that journalism should not have further aims as well, such as entertainment,’ (Belsey 1992). This requirement would assume that they need to entice the public with a style that would be compelling and to sometimes border what may be perceived as rude or distasteful in order to entertain. In 1998, Clarkson reportedly referred to BMW workers at a motor show as ‘Nazis,’ of which a BBC spokeswoman later replied that; ‘Jeremy's colourful comments are always entertaining, but they are his own comments and not those of the BBC.’

                                                                                                                   (1998, news.bbc.co.uk)

In February 2009, he also referred to the Prime Minister at the time, Gordon Brown, as a ‘one eyed Scottish idiot.’                                                           (2009, guardian.co.uk)   

This was also condemned by Scottish ministers, and the institute for the blind, of whom called for Jeremy to be fired by the BBC. Remarks such as these were made in reference to a category of people of whom Jeremy disregarded in terms of respect, but in doing this, and causing offense, it could be argued that he was purely commenting for entertainment value, rather than being unethical in his phrasing.  The representation of Clarkson when saying these comments could have overemphasised the comments, of which he may not have aimed directly to cause offense, but as they were portrayed, it did indeed cause a section of people to be offended.

As journalists, remarks can cause offense to groups or individuals of whom are commented about, but does the questioned taking offense necessarily mean the journalist is unethical? If journalists have a separate ethical structure to everyday ethics that people not associated with journalism have, due to the nature of their work and the responsibilities they have within it, ethics within journalism could remain separate from what is considered ethical by the general public. This could be a reason for discrepancies between morals and ethics in the public and the exampled journalist’s comments. Could Jeremy’s comments still surpass both ethical structures regardless? A theory by Keeble (2009), states that; ‘Ethical issues have little relevance for journalists.’  He further states reasoning for this in that, ‘there is not enough time for them and journalists have little power to influence them.’

If this theory were to be applied to Jeremy and his comments, this would present a representation of unethical balance between a journalist, and the public. In an article by Bowman (2008), Ward (2009), states that; ‘modern journalism ethics was built upon the twin pillars of truth and objectivity… today; the pillars of truth and objectivity show serious wear and tear.’ This emphasises the fact that the truth may indeed be second to journalists of whose nature is first and foremost to entertain, rather than to deliver the truth or be factual.

In comparison to Clarkson, Piers Morgan has a figurehead role that requires him to seek the truth, in what could be deemed as old fashioned journalism. His portrayal as someone whom demands attention and to seek the truth, regardless of the nature of what he seeks, may also represent him to be unethical. Piers has a role of an entertainer in his style of journalism, such as in his book Misadventures of a Big Mouthed Brit, he makes various comments and suggestions that are to a similar nature of Jeremy’s. He refers to several celebrities in what could be perceived as a derogatory manner. He refers to Madonna’s marriage in a section that states, ‘and purely on the back of her firm denial, I’m going to have a few quid on a Madonna divorce by Christmas.’ He has also reported on actor Hugh Grant in this book, as he states, ‘serial whinger Hugh Grant – who has never forgiven me for buying up the story of his Los Angeles prostitute friend.’ This he reports was when he was editor of the News of the World. He makes several remarks on the other practitioner in question too, as he refers to Clarkson on various occasions, one being; ‘Jeremy Clarkson has been spotted on a Barbados beach sporting the biggest pot belly since Vanessa Feltz was last pregnant.’

Some of the above examples are remarks that each journalist has made, all in the name of entertainment. It is these undefined roles that these journalists perform, that can exemplify means of unethical actions or behaviour. ‘Many segments of the modern media are stripped of almost all ethical concerns.’                 (Keeble 2009)

To define a journalists role further, could justify how these comments would be perceived, as their journalistic role as an entertainer, would provide them with the platform to suggest the comments made with justifiable means. Although this may moderate reaction to comments made, it is an undeniable fact, as both of the practitioners have since found, that ‘ethics is inseparable from journalism.’

                                                                                                                          (Belsey 1992)

These remarks are made in a presentation that is purely for entertainment value, but as Piers has had several other roles during his journalism career, one being editor of the News of the World, he also has a role as a journalist to report the truth. 

This is an alternative side to journalism, of which the ethical structures and procedures followed may lead to different consequences and reactions, to those of a more entertaining nature.

The journalist’s role as an entertainer in both of the practitioners discussed has exampled interpretations of unethical behaviour, but in both journalists, there lies a different level of unethical. A statement by Belsey (1992) argues that, ‘Journalists… do not even need to be bribed to behave unethically.’

It could be argued that this alternative role that journalists can provide is a ‘public interest role’. Piers Morgan has been subject to the aforementioned Leveson enquiry in regards to his ethical and legal behaviour whilst working for the Daily Mirror. This enquiry has delved into and discussed ethical procedures in relation to Piers’ actions, and has reported insight that gives Piers’ own interpretations of ethics. One exchange with Lord Leveson came as Mr Morgan described using information gathered by an individual named "Benji the Binman" who collected celebrity rubbish. Mr Morgan replied to this part of the enquiry with; “Did I think he was doing anything illegal? No. Did I think it was on the cusp of ethical? Yes.”                                                                                         (2011, news.uk.msn.com)

This comment by Piers implies that although he did not see the actions as illegal, he did state affirmation that this could be perceived as unethical. Other parts of this enquiry discussed a more in detail example of intrusion of privacy, in relation to two other celebrities and their marriage. Piers published a story that suggested affiliations were strained between the two, but it was the recording that he had listened to in order to acquire the story the posed concerns. (2011, news.uk.msn.com), reported that; ‘Mr Morgan refused to give any details on the grounds that it might compromise his source and claimed that listening to the tape was not unethical.’              

Here is a video link in regards to Piers discussing ethics relating to the voicemail. http://video.uk.msn.com/watch/video/morgan-unaware-of-hacking/2i4klzpa

The fact that Piers see’s the detail of listening to the tape not as an unethical practise, thus ensures that the whole reasons of which he acquired the story through doing this, were also not unethical. Actions such as these in relation to Piers could pose the question, is a good journalist someone who seeks the truth or seeks to exploit it? A statement by Frost (2007) implies, ‘don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.’ Counteracting this, although a journalist should follow the above statement, a government report into Press Standards, Privacy and Libel (2009), also states that; ‘the press should be allowed to publish stories that are in the public interest subject to the proviso that ‘they are acting in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism.’  

Piers’ actions were not in unethical in his own mind, therefore suggesting he believed that he would be providing a story that was in the public interest without subjecting himself to be questioned regarding his ethics. This whole debacle could be supported by a statement and grounds that ‘if reporters get too ethical, they will produce ‘wishy-washy’ journalism. They will be so concerned about hurting someone’s feelings or doing the wrong thing that they will not pursue the truth aggressively.’                                                                          (Smith 2008)

Piers Morgan’s ethical concerns regarding the enquiry refer to quite a different style of unethical questioning in comparison to his comments in his book, Misadventures of a Big Mouthed Brit. The same could also be said regarding Jeremy Clarkson and his comments of which he was also condemned for, in comparison to the series of events uncovered regarding Piers in the Leveson enquiry.

Clarkson has recently been subjected to a more serious debate in reference to comments that he made on the BBC’s One Show. Whilst being interviewed regarding a widespread public matter, Clarkson said the following in regards to public sector workers striking; ‘I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families.’                                                                                                       (2011, telegraph.co.uk)

This comment was criticised widely, and in obvious correlation to offense, it would reason that this comment would be regarded as unethical by the section of people that complained and were outraged by the comments. The ethical concerns surrounding this remark are difficult to ascertain and distinguish. It is possible, that some remarks may be light hearted, and taken out of context to over emphasize negative issues, that surround journalism ethics. Even so, ‘Most newspapers and television stations have policies limiting what reporters and editors can say and do even when they are not at work.’                                                       (Smith 2008)

But, as evidenced, the BBC of whom Clarkson works for, have already stated on occasions that his comments are ‘entertaining.’ It would be naïve to suggest that the remarks would be acceptable if they were made by other public figures or the general public, but would they be as interesting and generate the amount of scrutiny applied to them comments if they were?

It is a notable fact that Clarkson’s comments could be considered offensive, but in the name of entertainment, the interpretations of the comments could generate an interest in the person that has made the remarks, enticing people to comment further on the matter. It is stated by Keeble (2009), that; ‘Profits are the root of all journalism.’ This could be the principal factor in journalism, that ethics, although inseparable, are also not the primary objective of journalists.

In the two sections of ethical debate, both Piers, and Clarkson, have been subjected to a different type of ethical investigation. The first, an entertainment role as a journalist, and how those comments, although not completely ethical, do first and foremost supply what they intend to achieve, which is to entertain; the second, a more intrusive insight into the considerably more prevalent ethical concerns, such as actions that provoke illegal or highly unethical phrasing in the view of widespread publicity. In exploration of the analysed sections, it appears that there is an ethical imbalance between what is considered a journalistic quest to entertain, and a journalistic quest for the truth. Kovach (2001), cited Bowman (2008), argues ‘there is little doubt journalists believe themselves to be engaged in pursuing the truth.’ The two journalists in question may therefore challenge ethics in journalism, and their actions thus shaping and moulding how ethics is monitored and regarded. It appears however, from the perspective of a journalist such as Piers in regards to the Leveson enquiry, he pursued the truth in a manner he did not interpret as unethical. ‘The notion of journalistic objectivity is intrinsically tied up with the purported journalistic quest for ‘truth’.                                                                                                   (Bowman 2008)

The pursuit of stories in the public interest, and the remarks that generate a public interest, are somewhat different in their consequences in regards to ethical structures within journalism. The approaches of the two practitioners, motivated through entertainment, seeking the truth, and generating a public interest, have lost all connections with moral judgement. This journalistic practise of seeking the truth, could have banished all connections with moral judgement. As Freud (1933) cited Sigelman, (2009), insinuates that the moral judge, of which he refers to as the ‘super ego’, is an individual’s own personalised moral standards. Freud also implies that at some stage, there will be conflict between a person’s moral judge, and their ‘id’, which is the persons own personal goal which they seek. This confrontation it seems is intensified in the common journalism role, as all moral judgement is dismissed in place for the admiration and requirement for the truth. 

The most underlining factor for journalists is to abide the law in all circumstances. Piers’ actions confronted the law, in a case of which his ethical behaviour challenged what may be considered illegal processes. As Clarkson has also discovered, his ethical behaviour will also not be tolerated nor accepted, regardless of the nature of what he says. It is a person’s own choice to carry out actions, of which they see as ethical, as a proclamation by Glover (1992) states;

‘ethical principles are not, and cannot be, handed down by an authority, but have to be discovered through the ingenious interplay of human reason and human experience, a process which while producing results of great value in both science and ethics is both fallible and endless.’ 

The approach of ethics it seems must therefore be determined by each individual, but the consequences no doubt, will be determined by the law, as supported by (Kovach 2001), ‘while the law is far from infallible it is also hardly inept.’

The fallible lines of both the law and ethics will continue to provide journalists with an undefined line of uncertainty regarding what is deemed as ethical, but the search for the truth, to provide entertainment, and to produce stories in the public interest, will always be defined by what is determined as legal.