A Content Analysis of Ethical Statements Within Journalistic Codes of Conduct

A Content Analysis of Ethical Statements within Journalistic Codes of Conduct

A thesis presented to

the faculty of

the Scripps College of Communication of Ohio University and the Institute for Communication and Media Studies of Leipzig University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degrees

Master of Science in Journalism (Ohio University),

Master of Arts in Global Mass Communication (Leipzig University)

David B. D. Neri

August 2020

A Content Analysis of Ethical Statements within Journalistic Codes of Conduct

DAVID B. D. NERI

has been approved for

the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism,

the Scripps College of Communication,

and the Institute for Communication and Media Studies by

Bernhard S. Debatin

Professor of Journalism of The E.W. Scripps School of Journalism

Scott Titsworth

Dean, Scripps College of Communication, Ohio University

Christian Pieter Hoffman

Director, Institute for Communication and Media Studies, Leipzig University

Abstract

NERI, DAVID B. D., M.S., Journalism; M.A., Global Mass Communication,

August 2020

3755338

A Content Analysis of Ethical Statements within Journalistic Codes of Ethics

Director of Thesis: Bernhard S. Debatin

Committee Members: Bill Reader, Rosanna Planer

Although previous research has been targeted at the aspects of journalistic cultures within nations through the views of their population, such as the multinational

Worlds of Journalism Study (2019), other avenues of study can offer a new perspective on these differences. To this end, the study provides a comparison of journalistic codes of ethics. Such codes (while differing in structure, implementation, and reach) share a common purpose in providing and defining standards of ethical action within the field of journalism. By making note of what standards are discussed within journalistic codes of ethics with national reach, and in what manner the ethical rationale is constructed and defended within said ethical codes, the study aims to provide insight into the similarities and differences of the journalistic cultures in which they are set. The study found that the

25 ethical codes examined discussed over 100 distinct generalized ethical situations, the documents often stretched beyond outlining the practice of ethical journalism. The codes of ethics were also found to primarily make use of deontological and virtue-based justifications, although examples of the other selected ethical frameworks were found in small numbers. Additionally, both the deontological and virtue-based justifications

iii

occurred dominantly within the examined codes of ethics with such frequency as to be considered ethical norms within the standards set by the study. In both cases, the findings provide a means to critique and point to ways these ethical codes could be improved in order to better relate to both the journalists they hope to guide and the public they hope to educate while laying the groundwork for similar examinations in the future.

Dedication

To my mother Mary Elizabeth Todd, my father David E. Neri and my brother Kevin A. R.

Neri for their unwavering support, without which this thesis would not have been

completed.

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge and thank the members of my research committee for their advice, suggested research avenues and especially criticisms that were essential in bringing this thesis to its current state. I would also like to specifically thank my committee chair Bernhard Debatin for his guidance and suggestions concerning the philosophical systems used within this thesis.

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract ...... iii

Dedication ...... v

Acknowledgments...... vi

List of Tables ...... ix

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1

Chapter 2: Background, Literature Review and Research Questions ...... 4

Literature Review: Codes of Ethics ...... 4

Literature Review: Ethical Frameworks ...... 10

Research Questions ...... 34

Chapter 3: Method ...... 37

Code of Ethics Selection ...... 37

Establishing Order of Examination ...... 38

Data Saturation ...... 40

Methods of Examination ...... 43

Chapter 4: Results ...... 48

Results concerning the Categories of Action ...... 49

Results Regarding the Categories of Influence ...... 57

Chapter 5: Discussion ...... 66

Analysis of Results ...... 66

Clarification of Results ...... 70

vii

Limiting Factors and Potential Complications ...... 71

Future Recommendations ...... 73

Chapter 6: Conclusions ...... 77

Utility of Method ...... 77

Utility of Results ...... 78

Works Cited ...... 83

List of Examined Codes ...... 95

Appendix A: Descriptive Characteristics for Selected Journalistic Codes ...... 99

Appendix B: List of Categorization Related Data for Selected Journalistic Codes ...... 103

Appendix C: List of Generalized ethical situation categories and their designation # ... 105

Appendix D: Ethical Justification percentages by code and influencers found ...... 115

viii

List of Tables

Page

Table 1: List of Frameworks with Justification Descriptions ...... 46

Table 2: Descritption of Content Super-catagories and Number of Catagories ...... 50

Table 3: Ethical Justification Makeup and Influncers by Code ...... 58

Table 4: List and Number of Influnced Codes by Justification Framework...... 64

Chapter 1: Introduction

Within the broader academic discussion on the intersection of journalism ethics and the culture of journalism, several studies have focused both on potential multinational commonalities of ethical journalism and their cultural differences (Deuze, 2002; Hafez,

2002; Sanders et al., 2008). In a prominent example, the Worlds of Journalism Study,

Hanitzsch and a number of other researchers (2019) interviewed more than 27,500 journalists —living and working in 67 different nations around the globe— about the importance of various aspects of journalism ethics and practice. The examination’s results also highlight the potential utility of comparisons on perceived and promoted journalistic ethics on the global level as a productive approach for academic study.

Although the large-scale collection of the expressed views of the journalists does allow researchers to examine aspects of a nation’s journalistic culture, this method is not the only means of doing so. Aspects of macro-cultural journalism (that is to say, the dominant mores of journalism within a culture) also appear within the more formal representations of journalism ethics, such as codified texts of norms and values produced within the nation in question (Hafez, 2002). Of course, the writers of those codes of ethics are by no means inventing ethical modes of thought; instead, code creators take cues from firmly established normative frameworks that have influenced the practice and perception of modern journalism. Not meant to compete with one another for a singular interpretation, the frameworks instead offer a means to examine moral issues within the field of journalism and arrive at an ethical course of action.

With these aspects in mind, the study examines journalistic ethical macro-cultures through a formal representation, such as journalistic codes of ethics and conduct. However, one cannot simply pull from any organizational code for such an examination. The organizations that produce the selected codes of ethics should be representative of the macro-culture in which they are set. Additionally, the selected ethical codes must originate from nations with a strong and independent journalistic tradition.

Pulled from press councils and national independent journalistic organizations1 situated within 26 of the top 40 countries of the 2019 World Press Freedom Index (WPFI), the examination of the selected codes of ethics within this study focuses heavily on the language within the documents. Specifically, the study is focused on the language of statements addressing ethical actions using qualitative content analysis. With this method, one can identify both the general situations addressed within the codes of ethics and the presence of the influences of six prominent normative ethical frameworks upon their justifications. Once identified, the two groups have the potential to reveal recurring patterns, both within the documents themselves and among statements addressing similar situations across the collected ethical codes. This method provides a look at the trends of idealized ethical decision-making of the local journalism culture at the institutional level and insight into the makeup of such ethical frameworks at the global level. Such an

1 As opposed to merely a singular news-producing organization with a national reach, the presence of a guild or press council indicates a certain level of interaction between such groups to establish macro- cultural norms that are meant to be abided by all parties. 2

examination allows for a more accurate sense of how these institutions make use of frameworks in their presentation of proper journalistic conduct as well as how these frameworks can be employed in regards to informing and promoting discussion of ethical practice among both fellow journalists and the public at large.

Chapter 2: Background, Literature Review and Research Questions

Literature Review: Codes of Ethics

Despite issues of both access and language, an understandable drawback in analyses of ethics codes on a multinational level, the number of studies focusing on journalistic codes of ethics in a nation-wide context is not sparse. Although some of the studies focus on specific issues addressed within various ethical codes, such as the lack of consistent policies addressing journalistic moonlighting (Limor & Himelboim, 2006), others focus their efforts on a more general reading of the similarities and differences among codes of ethics at the macro-cultural level (Laitila, 1995). Naturally, such ethics codes have hardly been the same in either their scope or implementation. Therefore, the identification of those differences becomes extremely important to specific document selection.

In his examination of journalistic codes of ethics, Kai Hafez (2002) made note of the multiple forms such codes can take, identifying five categories differing in both scope of implementation as well as the types of organizations that publish them. Hafez’s findings noted a mix of similarities and differences within the codes of ethics examined by region, pointing to a heavier focus on individual privacy and reduced press freedom in cases regarding state and religious matters within the ethics codes of Middle Eastern nations.

However, within all the codes of ethics constructed by democratic non-governmental institutions, the study also found that the universal importance of freedom of expression was stressed. Other studies concerning the perception of press freedom noted a divide between this perception and the actual level of press freedom within the journalistic

cultures examined (Himelboim & Limor, 2008). These aspects of journalistic macro- cultures can have profound impact on journalists working within the system they mean to cover, as researchers have also found that the ethical mores put forth at the ideological/country (i.e. macro-cultural) level as described by Reese (2001), rather than localized ones, have a greater effect on the ethical inclinations of journalists operating within said cultures (Berkowitz et al., 2004; Plaisance et al., 2012). In their examination of the journalistic macro-cultures of EU nations, Metykova and Preston (2019, p. 13) found that the ideological level is often more heavily influenced by national culture rather than international mores. Journalists interviewed from the cultures examined often noted distinct differences in practice from contemporaries in foreign journalism cultures and commonly placed international EU issues within the national context, despite efforts at “cultural globalization”

Concerning journalistic codes of ethics directly, a study of European ethical codes by Laitila (1995) found both notable similarities and differences in overall principles among the 30 codes of ethics examined. While Laitila’s findings pointed to a large degree of similarity among the examined ethics codes concerning represented themes, the findings also showed a large degree of difference when looking at the representation of specific principles across multiple codes of ethics, for which Laitila found no third causal variable.

Laitila also highlighted the fluid nature of the ethical codes she examined, many of them holding significant ethical differences from previous versions. In an earlier study, J.

Clement Jones (1980) also noted numerous differences among the macro-cultures he

examined. Although the study was more concerned with similarities rather than differences

—using these similarities to construct theoretical international code drafts meant to act as a guideline for different purposes that such codes of ethics can take on— Jones did go into the various contexts that played a role in a large number of macro-cultures’ approaches to the question of journalism ethics.

In an examination of the differences in media codes of ethics across time within the

United States, Lee Wilkins and Bonnie Brennen (2004) defined the amount of previous examination about ethical codes as “sporadic” (p. 298). Even in comparison to the discussion of professional journalism ethics, codes of ethics are a relatively recent addition to journalistic culture. According to Stephen Ward (2009), such documents became common within the United States in the 1920s, with earlier ethical codes for journalists dating back only to the late 19th century (Starck, 2001).

Wilkins and Brennen (2004) also noted that the widespread formation of ethical codes most likely occurred as a response to the backlash to “yellow journalism” and other perceived failings of various newspapers by the public. Other research has pointed to the desire for professionalism, both from a monetary and ethical perspective, as being another factor in the rise in the creation and adoption of codes of ethics by journalists (Jones, 1980).

Jones’ work outlined the formation of several media ethics codes within various nations across the globe, while also providing a short analysis of their intended purpose and effectiveness within the context of the journalism cultures in which they are set. Of course, given both the fluid nature of such codes of ethics and the political and cultural changes

between the 1980s and the modern day, some content and contexts have certainly changed since Jones’ examination. Of specific note in the cases of Jones’ and Laitila’s work, the increasing effect of the world wide web on countless aspects of the profession has resulted in a large number of changes on both the technical and academic discussions of journalism since its adoption (Singer, 1998; Deuze, 1999).2

Making use of a more historical lens, Wilkins and Brennen (2004) noted that examinations of ethical codes as avenues of study did not begin in any meaningful fashion until around the 1980s. Although previous academic work had examined journalistic ethics in a more general sense, these studies tended to focus more on the industry’s products and/or the actions taken by journalists rather than institutional codes of ethics. As the timing of Jones’ report can attest, interest in multinational examinations and commonalities followed close on the heels of the push for looking at the codes of ethics as potential avenues of study. Researchers have used several methods to both examine and update journalistic academia’s knowledge concerning such documents. Furthermore, a question resting parallel to such analysis is how much such ethics codes—being constructed by several groups within the journalism industry, not just journalists—have in common with the ethical views of the individuals that they mean to guide.

2As noted by Talabi in his discussion of the expansion of the world wide web, the internet has greatly affected most aspects of journalistic practice, including ethical discussion (2011, p. 17). Focusing more specifically on ethics codes, Diez-Campo and Segado-Boj show a degree of revision in regards to this new context (2015), although the level of direct discussion of digital journalism among these revised ethical codes was at the time rather limited, with only 9 of the 31 revised codes of ethics directly addressing the issue (p. 15). 7

A common value applied to journalism ethics codes when viewed through both a historical (Wilkins & Brennen, 2004) and practical (Fletcher, 2013) lens is their status as a set of guidelines, rather than as a set of ironclad rules of action. Other studies have claimed that the ethical codes of individual newspapers do not have a noticeable effect on immediate journalistic action (Boeyink, 1994a; Pritchard & Morgan, 1989). In a separate article published the same year, Boeyink (1994b) characterized the relationship between codes of ethics and journalists in the same way as Fletcher (2013), framing the implementation of the ethics codes to promote debate among the journalists themselves. In such debates, Boeyink describes the ethics codes as providing a “broad base” (p. 45) as a resource to improve such a discussion. This aspect may also move beyond the discussion of journalism by journalists alone, as Dale Beyerstein notes that codes of ethics can function as public pronouncements, and thus geared toward public consumption (1993). In the field of modern journalism, with its relationship with the public well-being (Marvin & Meyer,

2005), this aspect takes on notable importance. Additionally, Elliott-Boyle puts forth another potential purpose for codes of ethics, noting that they act as a philosophical and an ethical exercise for those involved in their creation (1985).

That is not to say all scholarship concerning journalism codes of ethics portrays their effects in an entirely positive light. Jay Black and Ralph Barney (1985) noted that, because they are potentially stifling to a journalist’s own development of personal ethics as he or she matures, codes of ethics can become harmful if applied in an ironclad manner. In

Journalism Across Cultures, Levi Obijiofor and Folker Hanusch (2011) also made note of

the divide between theory and practice that separate codes of ethicsfrom those they mean to inform. While such critics do note the potential harmful effects that ethical codes might have if applied improperly, they seem to agree with other scholars that codes of ethics can be useful as guidelines for journalistic ethical discussion.

Taken together, the findings of previous journalistic scholars point towards a rather short (Starck, 2001; Ward 2009) and diverse (Jones, 1980) history for codes of ethics applied within professional journalism. Even shorter is the span of time that such texts have been examined as documents of culture in and of themselves rather than simply signaling external ethical trends (Wilkins and Brennen, 2004). Much like previous scholarship concerning the ethical attitudes of actual journalists, the codes of ethics were found to have the potential to differ substantively across macro-cultures (Hafez, 2002) as well as changing over time (Laitila, 1995) but often did contain underlying similarities to one another as ethical codes. While a number of studies have been conducted to compare ethical codes as a collection of statements to one another (Laitila, 1995; Himelboim &

Limor, 2008), little to no work has been done to connect and compare these documents in regard to their potential ethical influences, rather than what these codes directly state to be ethical. However, such an examination would not only require contextualization regarding the previous research surrounding codes of ethics as documents of culture but also the potential ethical frameworks that are commonly applied to journalism (and thus could influence the framing of the situations and answers constructed within journalistic codes of ethics and conduct).

Literature Review: Ethical Frameworks

Although the start of academic examination of journalistic codes of conduct is somewhat recent when viewed historically (Wilkins & Brennen, 2004), the formation and study of the ethical frameworks that underlay such codes have a much longer history.

While less useful in discussing that history in depth, textbooks focusing on ethical journalism do provide a useful starting point given their broad focus. Such a foundation can then provide support to a more targeted examination of the topic at hand. In Media Ethics:

Key Principles for Responsible Practice, Plaisance (2013) highlighted three major ethical frameworks applicable to journalism ethics and practice: consequentialist ethics, deontological ethics, and virtue ethics.

Although the growth and interplay among the three major frameworks are highly informative in the examination of journalism ethics (Plaisance, 2013), the frameworks are by no means exhaustive. In their overview of ethical frameworks related to journalism,

Black and Roberts (2011) highlighted two other frameworks centered on the ideals of justice and care, which provide alternate perspectives to the rationale behind ethical journalistic action. Of additional note is the Ethic of Responsibility put forth by Max

Weber(1918), who posited personal responsibility and concrete ends as essential components of ethical action. The three additional frameworks provide a lens to examine

ethical situations3 in ways that do not completely align with utility, deontology, or virtue- based ethics.

Virtue Ethics

Out of the three frameworks highlighted by Plaisance (2013), virtue ethics has the farthest-reaching roots, with its foundations set in the writings of the Greek philosopher

Aristotle. Within Nicomachean Ethics (350 B.C.E./1972), Aristotle established happiness as the end goal of human existence and, after discussing and dismissing several definitions of happiness, arrived at happiness as the exercise of virtue (EN I.9, 1099b25). Virtues, according to Aristotle, are mean “states of character” (II.6, 1106a10-15) that lie between an excess and a deficiency, either of which would turn otherwise virtuous behavior into a vice.

However, Aristotle clarifies that the line dividing such behaviors cannot be logically set.

Instead, the individual must rely on the perception of an idealized actor, and one’s own development of what said actor would do, in determining the virtuous course of action within a situation (II.6 1107a1-5). Additionally, Aristotle made a note that it is virtuous character, rather than the products or acts of the individual case, that determines the ethical nature of the action (II.4, 1105b5-15). It is in such emulation of the perceived ideal actor that the ethical weight of the action resides, rather than the direct consequences of an action or within the action itself.

3 Such as the fair portrayal of subject’s fairness, and a journalist’s obligation to members of their community or the use or publishing of classified material within the public interest 11

Within modern ethical discourse, the field of virtue ethics gained greater attention as an ethical theory in the middle of the 20th century, with many citing Elisabeth

Anscombe’s 1958 article Modern Moral Philosophy as the catalyst for the renewed interest

(Hursthouse and Pettigrove, 2018; Coope, 2006; Trianosky, 1990). Within the article,

Anscombe positioned virtue ethics as an alternative to both Kant’s deontology and Mill’s utilitarianism.4 Both theories, she argued, depend upon a law-centric conception of ethics in which the rightness or wrongness of an action creates an obligation (Anscombe, 1958, p. 4), that are then universalized into codes of conduct. Rather than making use of the concepts of right and wrong (and their underlying obligations under universalized laws) Anscombe stated that one should instead approach the issue as it pertains to virtues, which allows for more a detailed conception of applied ethics (p. 13).

Since Anscombe’s article, several camps concerned with virtue ethics have emerged

(Hursthouse and Pettigrove, 2018). One such group, the Neo-Aristotelian ethicists, connected virtue to the Aristotelian concept of eudaimonia, often translated as happiness or flourishing. Other camps, such as those focused on how the agent or action itself relates to and defines the virtues expressed, have similarly taken classical Aristotelian concepts in several directions. Although modern scholars have expanded upon different aspects of virtue ethics, acting in such a way to develop a virtuous state (and the practical wisdom

4 both discussed later in the chapter 12

necessary to determine said state) remains a uniting aspect within the field of modern virtue ethics.

For the study’s purposes, it is important to highlight the scholarship of virtue ethics regarding journalism specifically. Sometimes linked with communitarian thought5 (Borden,

2010), the application of virtue ethics itself within journalism often involves the connection of journalistic practice to journalistic virtues, such as truthfulness, objectivity, or honesty.

Under the Neo-Aristotelian naturalistic model highlighted by scholars such as Aaron Quinn

(2007), ethical action must be internalized though the development of virtues into not just an understanding of the concept but as a habit, an external effect of the virtue becoming a part of the journalist’s worldview. Quinn positions this virtuous development as superior to external regulation, as virtuous understanding serves the spirit, rather than the letter, of an ethical guideline (p. 169).

Of course, that is not to say that the application of virtue theory in journalism is a purely internal experience. Looking at a larger scope, previous examinations have noted the presence of common virtue themes within codes of ethics (Cooper, 1990; Laitila, 1995), which, as mentioned previously in this chapter, do have the potential to shape how journalists examine ethical issues (Berkowitz et al., 2004; Plaisance et al., 2012). Therefore, the presence of virtue ethics at this level can work to guide the virtuous development of the individual. Additionally, the codification of these virtues can help critique media practices

5 itself discussed more in-depth in relation to care-theory later in the paper 13

that run contrary to virtuous behavior, as well as providing a means for the public as consumers of media to engage with these issues (Couldry, 2006; Couldry, 2010).

Deontological Ethics

Unlike virtue ethics, deontological ethics (also known as duty-based ethics) concerns itself less with the intent of a given action and instead with the act itself (Larry and Moore, 2016). According to Immanuel Kant (1785/2018), individuals interact with the world around them using maxims, defined as “subjective principles of volition” (p. 16), to bring about desired goals. Removing the subjectivity of the maxims, Kant also constructed imperatives, which state a way a person should act. Kant made special note of a singular categorical imperative, also termed “the law of morality” (p. 36), which states, “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (p. 37). The categorical imperative differs from what Kant labeled as

“hypothetical imperatives,” that merely highlight the way a person should act to bring about a specific goal (and it is, therefore, the goal that a person would use to argue the goodness of the action). Instead, the categorical imperative itself provides the reason for the action, rather than any desired end. Kant pointed to the distinction as proof that hypothetical imperatives hold no true moral weight, as their purpose comes from situational welfare

(prudence) or the best possible achievement of a specific goal (skill). These factors identify hypothetical imperatives as conditional actions, which are impossible to either universalize or require. Kant posited both factors as necessary for an action to be considered moral (p.

33). From the categorical imperative, Kant further constructed perfect duties (which all

individuals should follow in all cases) and imperfect duties (which all individuals should follow to some extent), to facilitate moral action. Along these lines, deontology places the ethical weight of a situation not upon the intentions of the actor or the products of the act but instead upon the action itself. With that in mind, the adherence to previously defined ethical duties stemming from the categorical imperative determines the specific ethical nature of the action.

Later deontological ethicists have moved in several directions since Kant’s model, such as the mixed-rule deontological theory put forth by W.D. Ross and the model put forth by Bernard Gert (Plaisance, 2013). Unlike Kant, Ross argued that duties may clash with one another when applied to real-life situations, with the actor having the responsibility to figure out the more important moral obligation to pursue in each case presented. According to Ross (1930), a prima facie duty, or a conditional duty, becomes breakable if it interferes with a higher moral duty (p. 20). Gert (1998), on the other hand, claimed that ethical rules, although still impartial, are not constructed but instead discovered (p. 113). Such rules are also breakable when the action prevents evil. However, in all cases the ethical weight of a situation remains ingrained within the act itself.

Within Global Journalism Ethics, Ward (2008) highlights cosmopolitan journalism as an extension of Kantian thought, pointing to his focus on universal maxims and seeing others as “moral equals” (p. 14). It is this push for equality that has resonated with journalistic ethical practice, especially in relation to Jürgen Habermas’ discursive ethics

(Salter, 2005). Within “Ethics and Eloquence In Journalism: An approach to press

accountability,” Theodore Glasser and James Ettema (2008) point to the discursive approach as a means for journalists to better articulate and develop ethical positions and decision making through stressing the importance of eloquence as a means to test their positions.

The focus on human dignity also highlights the importance of truth and transparency as moral laws, as only by holding to these laws do we not attack the human dignity of a journalist’s audience, sources and peers. According to Plaisance (2007), transparency is of particular importance in this regard for journalists as it, by touching upon a journalist’s decision to communicate honestly, effects nearly all aspects of the journalism industry (p. 205). With the placement of the concept as not only an accepted practice but as an adaptation to the altered journalism landscape (Vos and Craft, 2017), transparency, particularly “active” transparency (Plaisance, 2007, p. 205), resonates with the outwardly discursive and cosmopolitan journalistic thought. This mode of thought seeks to recognize voices traditionally silenced, such as the audience itself, in the societal consumption of journalism.

Utilitarian Consequentialism

Unlike deontological theories, consequentialism, much like virtue ethics, makes use of a teleological philosophical foundation. Although both virtue and consequentialist ethics determine ethical action in a teleological manner, each differ in the specific external goals they use in said determinations. Consequentialism defines an action as ethical for the positive outcome it creates (Plaisance, 2013, p. 32), virtue ethics does so for the virtue it

shows and promotes in the actor (p. 24). So, while both hold goals lying outside of the action itself, consequentialism differs from virtue ethics in its focus on the outcome rather than what the event shows about the actor.

Although utilitarianism is one of the more common forms of a consequentialist approach to ethics one might use (Plaisance 2013, p. 32), the two terms are not synonymous; consequentialism encompasses a wide variety of later theories in addition to classical utilitarianism, including John Rawls’ justice theory as well as the ethics of responsibility outlined by Max Weber, both of which appear later in this chapter. While containing notable differences from one another, all consequentialist theories focus on the products (or consequences) of an action as determining the ethical nature of the event, although some more detailed discussions concerning the specifics of consequentialism argue for a more exclusive definition of the framework (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2015). If one were to place consequentialism within the model used in the discussion of the previous frameworks, consequentialism would place the ethical weight of an act upon its outcomes, rather than the act itself or the actor’s intentions.

The initial foundation of the ethical framework of consequentialism is often linked with the utilitarianist writings of the 18th century scholar Jeremy Bentham. Within An

Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Bentham (1789) held that the concepts of pleasure and pain are the determinators of all human action, and thus are the only concepts from which morality can stem (p. 6). Bentham highlighted four mutually exclusive principles concerned with those concepts (utility, asceticism, sympathy and

antipathy), however, according to Bentham, except for the principle of utility, it is impossible to follow these principles to any logical end. Utility holds that one should recognize the influence pain and pleasure have over one’s existence and act to maximize pleasure while minimizing pain (p. 7). In his later years, Bentham expanded upon the concept by crafting the “Greatest Happiness Principle,” the core tenet of classical utilitarianism. Bentham defined the principle as: “the greatest happiness of all those whose interests are involved is the right and proper—and the only right and proper and universally desirable—end of human action; of human action in every situation, and in particular in the situation of functionaries exercising the powers of Government” (p. 6). Unlike previous ethical theories, Bentham's utilitarianism placed the ethical value upon the products of a given course of action, specifically its utility, divorced from the actions that brought the products about.

Another important factor of utilitarianism’s coalescence as a moral theory was the work of John Stuart Mill. Within On Liberty, Mill—much like Bentham—pointed to utility as the sole ethical determiner (Mill, 1859, p. 14) but claimed that, by virtue of human capacities, the power of choice and decision is necessary within the individual to produce the greatest good and that such decision making is itself a pleasure (p. 55). Therefore, as the power of choice and decision must be consistently practiced by the individual in order to

remain strong, governments and other organizations should only interfere to prevent harm6 to others (p. 13), the prevention of such a state needing to be considered alongside the good produced by the greatest happiness principle. Mill later expanded upon those ideas in

Utilitarianism, where he notes that quality of pleasures, and not just quantity, plays a part in determining overall utility, specifically pointing to the higher quality of intellectual pleasures over physical sensations (Mill, 1985, p. 10). However, due to either circumstance or habit, individuals can become focused on lesser pleasures and hardened against the greater, necessitating intervention to prevent such a situation. Therefore, according to Mill, the greatest happiness principle requires: “the general cultivation of nobleness of character, even if each individual were only benefited by the nobleness of others, and his own, so far as happiness is concerned, were a sheer deduction from the benefit” (p. 13) to reach its ultimate conclusion. However, one must keep the principle of reducing harm in mind when putting this concept into practice. With Mill’s additions, we see the formation of the theory of classical utilitarianism (Driver, 2014).

Since Bentham’s original theory, several other scholars have taken utilitarian theory in many different directions. In Towards a Credible Form of Utilitarianism, Brandt (1963) noted some perceived issues within classical utilitarian theory, describing a fundamental disconnect between act utilitarianism, which determines ethical action by its direct effects,

6 While Mill remains vague within the text itself, scholars often identify harm in this context as a non- consensual and notable negative effect on a person or persons (Brink 2018). 19

and rule utilitarianism, which holds individual actions against societal ethical rules which, if followed by the society, result in greater utility for the community than would otherwise occur. Combining aspects of both rule and act utilitarian thought, the two-level utilitarianism theory pioneered by Hare (1978) instead argues that both of these versions of utilitarianism have their place, each being used in the case of the critical and the intuitive levels of moral thinking respectively (p. 181). In such cases, although the process of determining ethical action may differ, the weight of the ethical situation remains tied to the potential products the action produces, rather than the action itself or the intentions of the actor.

Greatly resonating with the classical liberal theory of the press, utilitarian theory has left an unquestioned mark on journalism as an institution. Closely connected with the development of journalism practice of the progressive era, which saw the initial formation and adoption of journalistic code of ethics (Wilkins & Brennen, 2004), utilitarianism has had a prominent impact on journalistic ethical thought in particular. As put forth by John

Ferré (2008), journalists during this period made use of a “common-sense utilitarianism,” that focused on the effects of journalism upon the public (p. 19). This influence can also be found within many of the profession’s oldest ethical proscriptions, which hold to the desire for impartiality and professionalism that characterized much of early 20th century journalism. Those virtues, such as detachment, objectivity and neutrality, allowed for a more empirical and calculated view of the press’ mission, which meshed with a desire for professionalization (Christians, 2007). In this regard, scholars point to the adoption of a

utilitarian mindset as the beginnings of the examination of the ethics of journalism in a direct manner (Christians, 2007, p. 118), and asking the important question of what the institution of journalism is supposed to directly bring to society (Ferré, 2008).

Within his review of journalism ethics, Stephen Ward (2008) points to the connection between utilitarian philosophy and the liberal theory of the press, which, while often used within modern ethical discourse as the metaphorical dragon to bring one’s own framework against, still resonates with journalists looking at applied issues of ethical practice. In his examination of the ethics of tabloid reporters and editors, Mark Deuze

(2005) points to a strong focus on utilitarianism regarding ethical decision making, a sentiment echoed by other studies focusing on other topics such as Nigerian newspaper practices (Pratt, 1988) as well as terrorism and war coverage (Shaw, 2011; Todd, 2020). In this context, utilitarianism and liberal theory construct some of most recognizable defenses of press freedom, due to the benefit that press provides through its function as a watchdog and supplier of accurate and informative news (Ward 2008).

Ethics of Justice

Although utilitarianism is a consequentialist framework, it is not the only way to situate an ethical focus on an action’s end products. Justice theory, proposed by John Rawls in his 1971 book, A Theory of Justice, provides an alternative consequentialist approach to ethics that both differs from utilitarian thought (Wenar, 2017) and resonates with the discussion of the consequentialist ethics within journalism (Ward, 2005). Rather than only seeking to maximize the utility of the collective whole (or in the case of average

utilitarianism, the maximized average utility of the members within the group) Rawls’ theory takes a different approach. Justice theory instead looks to promote the best interests of all sectors within a society, noting that unless an unequal distribution of primary goods leads to a benefit for all members of a society, ethical action requires distribution of the goods equally so that everyone could benefit from them (Rawls, 1999, p. 54). Rawls also insisted on placing the value of people as not just a means to an end, but as a central concept to be considered in conjunction with an action’s utility in determining its ethical nature, a later addition to Rawls’ conception of justice that further distinguishes it from a utilitarian form of consequentialism (p. xii). According to Rawls, the concept of justice is not merely agreed to but developed within individuals through social interaction; however, the act of putting this ideal into practice is often compromised by the benefits of one’s place within society (p. 119).

To that end, Rawls’ constructed a logical exercise meant to help individuals reach ethical conclusions. Within the exercise, individuals imagine themselves in an “original position” behind what Rawls described as a “veil of ignorance,” where a person’s knowledge of both one’s specific place within a society and the society’s general norms are not yet determined. Removed from those factors, Rawls argued that individuals will construct ethical rules as “all are similarly situated and no one is able to design principles to favor his particular condition” (p. 11). Due to the factors inherent in Rawls’ exercise, those rules naturally promote the best possible situation for the community as a collection of individuals, and can therefore highlight the proper ethical course of action. Although

Rawls’ justice theory falls within a consequentialist viewpoint due to its focus on the products of an action in determining its ethical nature, its use of themes found in both virtue and deontological frameworks provides an alternate consequentialist perspective than that of utilitarianism. Therefore, Rawl’s theory of justice combines the shared consequentialist attitude toward ends with the placement of people as ends in and of themselves, providing yet another viewpoint from which we may examine ethical action.

This alternative consequentialist viewpoint has found some fertile soil in discussions of journalism ethics; the theory positioned in some respects as an alternative to the utilitarian-consequentialist influenced liberal model discussed earlier in the chapter. In

Philosophical Foundations for Global Journalism Ethics, Ward (2005) cites Rawls as one of his influences for the construction of a contractualist global ethical framework. Within the framework, Ward argues that both journalists and the public must work together to establish exactly which principles and restrictions journalism and individual journalists should be imbued with, holding fast to three foundational principles upon which to build; credibility7, justifiable consequence8 and humanity (p. 3).9 In this regard, Ward’s construction shares Rawls’ focus on the benefit of actions towards all sectors of society as persons that deserve ethical consideration in and of themselves.

7 The duty to provide credible news against the public’s right to test that credibility 8 Being able to justify the potential consequences of their work 9 That a journalists first loyalty is to humanity 23

In his overview of the concept of justice related to a number of journalistic frameworks, David Craig (2008) points to both the potential of Rawls’ theory being applied to practical journalistic issues, identifying specifically issues related to the interviewing of subjects (Patterson and Wilkins, 2005), as well as its use in ethical construction, citing

Lambeth’s (1992) positioning of justice as foundational to the media’s watchdog role. This connection is also put forth, albeit indirectly, by James Ettema (2007), who points to

Rawlsian justice as a central tenant of the press’ duty towards a deliberative democracy.

Ettema goes on to cite this tenant as reason enough for journalists and journalistic institutions to publicly take stances to promote such ideals, requiring only that these stances be backed by morally compelling arguments and holding to the aim of fair cooperation.

Such scholarship once again backs Rawls’ focus on all sectors of society, not just through the promotion of justice but by stressing the seeking of cooperative dialogue in order to bring these changes about.

Care Ethics

In her examination of the ethics of care, Held (2006) noted three main features that define the moral theory: the inherent moral importance of caring for and nurturing those for whom we feel responsible, the value of emotion (rather than its rejection) within the epistemological process, and finally a push against the situational abstraction found within dominant moral theories (p. 10). The features of care, which differ from the theories discussed previously, posit that ethical action requires that individuals are not simply viewed as ends in and of themselves but as fully non-abstracted people, their relationship

with the actor being a direct factor in the ethical nature of the situation, rather than the action’s adherence to some universal principle.

Although commonly identified with virtue ethics, the ethics of care, much like justice theory, draws from several philosophical sources. In addition to connections to proto-feminist philosophers such as Mary Wollstonecraft and Harriet Beecher Stowe

(Sander-Staudt, 2011), the origins of modern care ethics can also be found within religious ethics of compassion, such as those found within Christian (Bradshaw, 1996)10 and

Buddhist (Barnhart, 2012)11 thought, as well as the works of continental philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhauer (Cartwright, 1988; 2008).12 While the roots of ethics of care reach back centuries, the framework has seen a relatively recent resurgence within American ethical scholarship (Held, 2006), and in this context is often connected with the works of

Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings (Sander-Staudt, 2011).

In her discussion of Lawrence Kohlberg’s (1971) theory of moral development, which assigns moral actors into one of six stages, Gilligan (1993) claimed that the common female moral experience differs from Kohlberg’s path, which she defined as primarily

10 Connecting care to the Classical and Judeo-Christian concept of agape, love as altruism based upon the “all-embracing Thou” (p. 11) 11 Positing the primary ethical questions of Buddhism to move beyond questions of moral action directly to questions of moral care (p. 30). 12 Schopenhauer stated that the concept of “Mitleid” —translated as pity, sympathy, or compassion— to be the only driving force of true ethical action (Cartwright, 1988; Guyer, 1988). Compassion, according to Schopenhauer, is “the direct participation, independent of all ulterior considerations, in the sufferings of another, leading to sympathetic assistance in the effort to prevent or remove them” (Schopenhauer, 1840/1903, p. 170). For Schopenhauer, compassion alone rests as the basis for voluntary justice and genuine love and kindness, therefore separating itself from malice or egoism by imbuing actions it inspires with true moral value. 25

centered on a masculine conception of ethics (p. 21). Where Kohlberg’s model placed justice as the motivator for the most developed moral actors, Gilligan argued that the common female moral experience holds care via communal responsibility to be a parallel, rather than lesser, primary ethical drive (p. 73). Gilligan’s “ethic of care” sets forth a different set of steps of moral development, beginning with the care of oneself, transitioning to a care for others (brought about by internalizing criticism of the former as

“selfish”) and finally into an ethic of universal care (a “self-chosen principle” that combines care of self and others). In such a stage, the moral actor recognizes the connection between the self and others and the needs of both (p. 74). Rather than a moral actor developing into a person driven by accepted or self-defined abstract rules, as in

Kohlberg’s model, an actor might instead universalize the “other serving” impulse, internalizing caring for all people, including oneself, as a driving moral imperative.

Within Caring, Nel Noddings (2013) expanded upon the more personal aspects that define the ethics of care, distinguishing the concept of caring for, which denotes the act in regard to personal care givers and receivers, from the concept of caring about, which focuses instead on the actor’s development of caring. With the concept of caring about,

Noddings also addressed the concept of abstraction, arguing that the care of those who are closest to the actor to be of greater moral importance. For such individuals, context is more clearly defined and therefore the actor’s ability to effectively care is greater (Noddings,

1999), although this aspect is far from uniformly accepted by other care scholars (Sander-

Staudt, 2011).

The ethic of care resonates with the communitarianist approach to journalism highlighted by scholars such as Cliff Christians, John Ferré and Mark Fackler (1993), who advocate a shift in the ethical attitudes and professional focuses of journalists and their institutions in order to best serve its purpose within society. Within a communitarian construction, mutuality, rather than autonomy, defines the individual (Fackler, 2008; p.

305) as a person’s perceptions, both internal and external, are naturally guided and directed by their community rather than forming “in isolation” (Christians, 2004; p. 227). Fackler

(2008) noted a particular importance to journalistic institutions in this regard, describing them as “the most influential means of publicizing the dialogue on values” (p. 307), and connected many of the social responsibility based reform efforts ideologically to the framework as essentially proto-communitarian in this regard.

Focusing on journalism’s role within the community, Christians, Ferré and Fackler

(1993) argued that the culture of modern journalism, with a particular focus on American journalism, must move away from its ethical foundations within enlightenment based individualism13 towards a model that focuses on the social responsibility of individuals towards their community. In this model, the telos of such journalism boils down to the

13 That is to say, the focus of journalism on the protection of individual autonomy and negative liberty over the promotion of positive liberties and the common good within the sphere of the community that, according to communitarian theory, is a requirement for the individual to truly exercise his freedom and protect his identity (Christians, Feere & Fackler, 1993, p. 45-46). 27

promotion of three primary goods: justice,14 covenant15, and empowerment16 (p. 91) all of which are necessary for a community to truly function properly as an instrument of freedom.

While differing in several aspects,17 both frameworks overlap in their intentional opposition to the focus of an ethical system that can be universally applied, instead supporting pluralistic ethical commonalities. In both cases, such a system is ultimately harmful to the promotion of ethical good as they, by necessity, must generalize such discussions, which discount the unique needs that individuals and communities ultimately require to thrive as well as the contexts in which they exist. Given the placement of journalism as a social institution, the focus on those to whom a journalist is responsible provides a unique perspective within the discussion of journalism ethics.

14 Later in their unpacking of the concept, Christians, Feere & Fackler identify that “Justice rejects privilege and insists on repairing social, economic and political inequities.” (1993, p. 92) 15 In their focus on covenant, Christians Feere and Fackler meant to highlight the underlying meaning of the community connection, stating: “Rather than taking a functional view of social life as an external exchange of goods and services, communities driven by covenant stress empathy and trusting vulnerability. Instead of a mere collective held together by self-interest, covenant communities are commented to the steadfast nurturing of partnerships.” (1993, p. 102) 16 Christians, Feere and Fackler noted that in the communitarian model, it is necessary to share power with the community as a whole rather than concentrated by individual members a state that by its very existence alters the interaction of a community’s members: “Empowerment deflates the impulse to control into a readiness to serve… Power is a force for other-minded energies, not self-directed felicitousness. The will to power is expressed in promoting the highest aspirations of a group’s service to the public, just as the duty to speak is enveloped in the responsibility to seek the truth.” (p. 107) 17 This difference is particularly notable in the individualistic focus of care theory as opposed to the wider potential focus of communitarianism through “persons-in-community” allowing for a certain level of abstraction, which care theory directly objects to. 28

Ethic of Responsibility

A third consequentialist ethical framework, the ethic of responsibility developed by

Max Weber, presents its own useful frame in the discussion of journalism ethics. Rather than looking to maximize the utility of the action or approaching the situation from a perspective removed from personal history and context, the ethic of responsibility requires the actor to take a more individualist and introspective approach to ethical decision making.

As expanded upon within this section, this approach allows for a more nuanced consideration of both the contexts and repercussions of one’s actions and the considerations of end products.

In “Politics as Vocation,” Weber (1918/1946) highlighted that to best use the means of a state, most notably violence, to bring about the best ends, one must divorce from Christian morals regarding the use of such means to promote good. However, Weber also stated that one should not simply adopt an ethic of absolute ends, which, in pursuit of an unobtainable state, makes it easy for the actor to push the consequences of one’s decisions off of himself by promising ends that are not truly possible, leading to damage of one’s overall cause. Instead, Weber put forth the ethic of responsibility, which promotes the tempering of passion within the actor through objective examination of both his goals and values and the acceptance of personal responsibility for the uses of the power he wields.

However, Weber’s ethic of responsibility was not meant to stand alone. While he rejects both an ethic of absolute ends as well as ethics based upon theology as attempts to dodge ethical responsibility (Adair-Toteff, 2011), Weber (1918) did note that individuals often

hold core beliefs that shape their moral worldview, which one should not simply discard for the purposes of political or professional expediency. Those beliefs, which make up the ethic of moral conviction, complement the use of the ethic of responsibility, the individual finding his own balance between the two in his or her navigation of ethical decision- making.

The issue of Weber’s coupling of the ethic of responsibility with the ethic of moral conviction was met with mixed reception by later responsibility ethicists. However, a number of scholars have examined the ethic of responsibility itself within multiple contexts outside of politics where an application of the ethic of ultimate ends may prove equally catastrophic, such as journalism (Kepplinger & Knirsch, 2001), ecology (Morris, 2013), and, quite prominently, technological development (Scodel, 2003).

Expanding upon Weber’s initial formation of the ethic of responsibility, Hans Jonas

(1982) made use of the theory in his examination of humanity’s developing unhealthy relationship with technology. While holding the capacity to promote human good (p. 891) modern technology rests both unrivaled power and temptation upon man’s shoulders, and therefore requires that we make use of such power responsibly to prevent the end of life on

Earth by our own hand (p. 894-895). Left ethically unexamined, such technology will promote the interest of future development at the expense of the common good rather than bending technology to the interests of society, becoming the ends rather than the means of scientific progress (Jonas, 1979, p. 36-37). Going beyond mere external effect, such a misuse of modern technology also has the potential to warp the community it is ostensibly

meant to serve (Turcan, 2017), moving the society further and further away from its own interest. Jonas also saw the destructive potential of modern technology towards nature as requiring very careful ethical decision making to ensure the survival of the species (Jonas,

1979) and indeed, life on Earth (Jonas, 1982), requiring mankind, as the holder of this power, to take up the role of steward of our planet as opposed to a mere inhabitant (p. 985).

This moral guideline forms an antithesis to a theoretical end state highlighted within the ethic of absolute ends (Weber 1918), instead presenting an extant current state, its theoretical absence an encapsulation of the ethic of ultimate ends’ harm in pursuit of an unobtainable promised good. For Jonas, the ethical decision maker (in the Weber style) must keep any action’s effect on the preservation of humanity in mind. In such a case, nothing is more important.

However, within Jonas’ discussion of the theory of bioethics we can see his examination of life’s quality rather than its survival. In such cases, Jonas (1976), in much the same way as in his handling of modern technology, states that progress is not the unconditional goal of science but the benefit of society andthat crossing ethical lines might cause unrecoverable harm. Therefore, Jonas held that scientists and doctors cannot see humans as means to an end, that their privileges as people rightly restrict the hunger of unrestrained progress for both their own and societal good. In his discussion on Jonas, Paul

Wolpe (2003) states the questions Jonas demands all decision makers must ask: “exactly why are we doing this? And, given our answer to that question, are our methods and our priorities true to the values we claim to espouse?” (p. vii). With journalism’s focus on

public good as well as the greatly shifting contexts of communication as technology continues to advance in mind, questions regarding undeniable goals must retain their relevance if the journalist is to proceed ethically. No less important is the need to reassess less apocalyptic, but no less ethically significant, practices in the face of journalism’s duty to both properly inform and defend the wellbeing of the public.

However, despite the discussion of journalism’s unique situation by Weber, the application of responsibility theory to journalism practice (Kepplinger & Knirsch, 2001) and theory (O’Donnell, 2007) have been slow-going. In their study of journalistic ethical decision-making, Kepplinger and Knirsch (2001) noted that while journalists profess to follow an ethic of responsibility, most continue to practice an ethic of ultimate ends. Other scholars have noted that the potential applications of Weber’s work seem to have been ignored within journalism and media theory, particularly in the case of the “Anglo-

American Sphere” (Davis, 2013 p. 178).

Thankfully, Weberian ethics is not completely absent from the discussion of journalism. In “The Responsibility to Report: A New Journalistic Paradigm” Allan

Thompson (2007) posits the ethic of responsibility, particularly in relation to a duty to report, as a means to spur journalistic coverage of horrors such as the Rwandan genocide.

More than pushing individuals to act, an adoption of the ethic of responsibility would, according to Thompson, allow journalists to make best use of the power of the media agenda and public attention for the practical benefit against horrors. Additionally, Roger

Dickinson (2013) points to Weber’s analysis of journalism’s status as a “pariah caste” (p.

12), separate it from most others due to society’s need for its responsible practice can be a useful tool in examining journalism’s social responsibilities against an increasingly commercial and politically partisan media (Davis 2013; Dickinson, 2013). However, the sparseness of such works suggest a general lack of theoretical application and construction within journalism ethics in regards to Weberian ethical thought; despite Weber’s initial examinations of journalism, it seems evident that further work must be done to bridge the basic understanding of ethical responsibility and the Weberian ethic in the context of journalism.

Taken together, the six discussed frameworks provide distinct perspectives by which one can evaluate ethical situations, with the ethical frameworks highlighting utility, deontology, virtue, justice, care and responsibility as useful tools to examine ethical action regarding journalistic practice (Black and Roberts, 2011; Weber, 1918/1946). Each has also found its own place within previous and current discussions of journalism ethics. Ethical codes of conduct within journalistic organizations, which are primarily constructed to guide a journalists’ own ethical faculties (Boeyink, 1994), resonate with such frameworks, the latter providing the ethical insight the former seeks to bend toward a precise professional setting. With these contexts in mind, the use of their presence within the examined codes of ethics will determine how these documents justify the journalistic norms they espouse. The specific aims and guiding questions for such an analysis is outlined within the following section.

Research Questions

With the background of modern journalistic ethical codes and the primary ethical frameworks they might draw from established, the study can move forward into the actual research questions constructed to guide the project’s analysis. Making use of the potential relationship between the discussed frameworks and journalistic ethics codes, the study is focused on the actions, norms and values present within the selected codes of ethics, as well as the implicit justifications that connect them to universal ethical frameworks. To this end, the study is focused on an analysis of the language used within the codes of ethics to justify the stances taken to the ethical frameworks outlined previously. Using such connections, one can form questions regarding the similarities and differences in the use of such ethically aligned justifications, both across the documents examined and regarding specific circumstances within them. Given the ethics codes’ use as guidelines created by and for those within the field of journalism, examining the similarities and differences in justifications within the codes of ethics provide insight into how journalistic institutions express what they see as the ethical ideal and how it may connect to the situations they choose to address. As an initial research question, the study requires clarification on what ethical situations the codes of ethics contain before one can examine for the presence of ethical frameworks within the language of the code. The focus on the subjects discussed also allows for a better understanding of which subjects appear across the codes of ethics examined and thus work as potential considered multinational norms. Therefore:

RQ1: What generalized ethical situations do the codes of ethics address?

The study is designed around three primary aspects of a statement: actions, norms/values and justifications. In this context, actions denote the subject of the ethical discussion, norms and values provide guidelines for interpreting and dealing with an action, and justifications implicitly connect the actions and norms to universal ethical frameworks determined through a close reading of the statement. For the purposes of the thesis, a generalized ethical situation is understood as a specific course of action, as well as the norms and values proposed by the ethical code to guide the action. After having established the categories of ethical situations, an examination of language and ethical justification within the statements themselves (and their connection to one or more ethical frameworks) can begin. This analysis provides another avenue for the examination of journalistic ethical norms regarding the previously identified ethical situations, as well as the justifications that link them together. Therefore:

RQ2a: What is the ethical justification makeup of each of the examined codes of ethics?

RQ2b: Which ethical framework(s) do the ethical justifications within each of the examined ethical codes accommodate?

Finally, one must examine what the ethical justifications and situations show regarding multinational norms and the general ethical makeup of the examined codes of ethics. In the case of multinational norms, looking at the presence of the justification categories (connected to addressed generalized ethical situations across the examined codes of ethics) can provide insight into the framework-based trends of the journalism industry’s codified culture. With each of the actions and ethical norms and values connected to a

justification in the code’s text, an examination of their presence within the codes of ethics as a whole provides a look at the extent to which these justifications occur in a transnational way. Using this method, one can identify heavily repeated justifications as recurring multinational journalistic norms. For this purpose, an ethical code shows similarity in regards to a framework when both codes of ethics contain justifications identified with that framework within at least 33% of its total statements.18 Additionally, a framework is identified as a multinational ethical norm if at least 50% of the selected codes of ethics contain that similarity in regards to the selected framework. This comparison allows for an examination of the codes of ethics on a multinational scale, potentially showing even more relationships and patterns when examined together than as individual documents.

Therefore:

RQ3: Which framework-based justifications occur dominantly enough to meet the criteria of a multinational journalistic ethical norm?

18 i.e. if 40% of the ethical statements of ethical code A contain deontological justifications and 80% of ethical code B contain deontological justifications, both show a similarity regarding the presence of deontological influence within them. 36

Chapter 3: Method

Code of Ethics Selection

Due to a desire to limit the cultural examination to journalistic macro-cultures considered healthy, the study incorporated ethics codes taken from the World Press

Freedom Index (WPFI) to ensure the overall viability of a nation’s press organization for analysis, only examining the top 40 nations for this purpose. To connect the selected nations to specific codes of ethics, the study allowed the use of collections such as

Accountable Journalism or EthicNet when an original copy or translation was unavailable.

The study’s method then called for examining these sites for press councils or unions with a nation-wide scope whose ethical codes, to use Hafez’s terminology, fit into the category of national independent codes based upon surface-level research into the organizations in question.

Despite such similarities, it is important to note the ethical codes themselves differ in several substantive ways. The collected codes of ethics vary widely in terms of the size of the document,19 the official languages of the publications themselves,20 their year of publication, and level of revision.21 Appendices A and B contain a full list of these factors regarding the ethical codes used within the study.

19 ranging between ten and 133 distinct statements made within a given code 20 the codes of ethics including official publication in 17 distinct languages 21 with the oldest code published in 1973 and others being revised as recently as 2019. 37

In a case of multiple usable organizations found within a specific nation, the organization containing a higher number of participating news affiliates was selected to represent the journalistic macro-culture. Of the 40 nations initially examined, 26 could be properly connected to journalistic organizations containing ethics codes with English versions. Of the 26 ethics codes, 25 were found to be usable for the purpose of the study.22

The removal of nations from the study occurred primarily due to a lack of translation for the most recent version of the ethical code in question, although in some cases no code or connected journalistic organization could be found. The possible data complications arising from their removal is discussed toward the end of the thesis. Appendix A and B contain information concerning the ethics codes determined to be relevant to the study.

Establishing Order of Examination

Due to the large number of ethics codes examined, the collected set was divided into one of four categories to determine an order of examination as a precautionary measure against the influence of unknown third-party variables. The categories were based upon the stated purpose within a given code of ethics, determined from a cursory examination of the introduction and/or preamble section. While the categorization of all the selected documents proceeded without issue, this step of the method had the potential to be shortened due to a perceived lack of meaningful further data. Given the countries’ presence

22 This discrepancy is due to the removal of the selected Belgian code, which was initially included in the study, this removal from both the study and various appendices appears in more detail within the Limitations section of the thesis. 38

within the top ranking 2019 WPFI nations, a system to determine the order of analysis was implemented to avoid a potential false positive for saturation from unforeseen factors based upon WPFI ranking. This potential shortcoming, and the additional measures added to circumvent its effects, is discussed within the method section as it becomes relevant to the study.

Furthermore, the study called for the placement of the examined documents into categories to help determine examination order, allowing for a more comprehensive analysis of the potential ethical facets of the documents if an issue regarding data saturation had occurred. These categories, which described the stated purpose of the codes,23 are listed below:

1. The code of ethics establishes and clarifies journalism’s base practices and ethical

requirements.

2. The code of ethics encourages discussion and provides support for individual ethical

decision making.

23 It should be restated that while many of the ethics codes could function in any of the first three capacities, the categorization is based upon the purpose stated within the introductory sections of the document. By stating a purpose, it becomes formalized within the document itself and ingrained within its intended function. Otherwise these capacities are subject to the relationship between the ethics code and the reader. For example, while the individual reader could make use of a code of ethics to support ethical decision making, highlighting this function in the introductory section of the document shows intention for it to be used in this way by the authors. 39

3. The code of ethics defends the public from unethical journalistic practice either by

providing a set of guidelines, which members of the public can cite in such cases, or

by better informing the public of journalistic norms.

4. The code of ethics does not contain a stated purpose expressed within the document

itself (although this, intentionally, does not account for purposes listed outside of

the document).

Thirteen of the ethics codes were placed in category one, four in category two, three in category three and five in category four. In the case of an ethics code being placed in multiple categories,24 it functioned as a member of its highest categorization number within the coding order25. To ensure an examination of a wide variety of positions, the documents were categorized and analyzed sequentially, based first upon their placement within a category and secondly concerning their comparative WPFI ranking. Therefore, the ethics code with the highest WPFI ranking in category one was examined first, followed by the ethics code with the highest WPFI ranking in category 2, etc.

Data Saturation

Within their examination of data saturation, Guest, Bunce and Johnson (2006) noted that data saturation had occurred by the 12th interview (out of 30) in one set of interviews, with 92% of the final coding categories developed by this stage (p. 66). A similar study

24 It should be noted that this did not occur in the categorization process. 25 For example, an ethics code that was found to fit into both category 1 and category 3 would function in the order of examination as belonging to category 3. 40

reached code saturation after 9 interviews (out of 25) (Hennink et al, 2017). However, both the previous research as well as the peculiarities of the current study point to a potential need for a larger minimum sample size.

While stating that code saturation was significantly lower, Hennink et al. also noted that a far larger number of the total codes (between 16 to 24 out of 25) were necessary in developing “meaning saturation” regarding the content of the examined interviews.

Additionally, the examination of codes of ethics entails a wider degree of difference among the selected documents than the interviews conducted in the study by Guest, Bunce and

Johnson. Such interviews necessitated a standardization of the interviews conducted for use in the study (although including open-ended questions), which is not necessarily the case when examining journalistic codes of ethics, even if they are potentially united in general purpose. With these factors in mind, the minimum number of ethics codes examined was set to 16, with the option to end the process being open if it is determined that no further meaningful data remains for analysis, although such an action required careful consideration. However, it must be stressed that in the application of both data and meaning saturation, the above examples examine information obtained from focused and ultimately linked interview sets. Those factors differ from the journalistic codes of ethics examined in the study, which (while potentially influencing one another) by no means hold the same sort of interconnected relationship as a set of interviews. Therefore, extra caution must be taken in this case to determine if saturation has occurred, requiring the use of qualitative focused saturation methods to do so.

Due to the qualitative focus of the study, it is important to discuss the distinction between the concept of saturation regarding quantitative and qualitative analysis as well as the methodologies that have been used in qualitative studies to determine when saturation has been reached. While use of saturation as a method of establishing effective analysis in both quantitative and qualitative studies, as stated by Fusch and Lawrence (2015), there is no one-size-fits-all method to reaching data saturation. Instead, one must apply the common criteria that signals having reached data saturation: the lack of any new patterns or themes as well as the possibility of replication, with Fusch and Lawrence specifically noting the lack of “pragmatic guidelines” that can be easily reapplied from study to study (p. 1409).

However, depending on the theory behind the analysis, there are several means of applying saturation.

In her examination of the use of saturation within qualitative studies, Janiece

Walker (2012) noted a number of methods that have benefited from the use of saturation as well as the degree to which each method was able to determine saturation within its data, including grounded theory, qualitative description, phenomenology, ethnography and narrative analysis.26 Of the theories, a theoretical cousin of narrative analysis, thematic analysis (as highlighted by Guest, Bunce and Johnson) would seem to be the most appropriate to contextualize the findings of the study regarding saturation (2002). The method resonates with the study’s own focus on similar recurring situational patterns

26 Although it should be noted that, much like Guest, Bunce and Johnson, Walker mainly discussed data saturation in the context of interview-based studies. 42

(especially regarding RQ 1) and seems most able to retain its utility outside of the interview-based examination format.

In their study of saturation methodologies, Guest, Bunce and Johnson (2006) noted the use and review of a structured codebook as a useful means of determining when meaning saturation is reached, which Cicely Kerr (2010) notes to be particularly useful when applied to qualitative textual analysis. Fortunately, this codebook analysis mirrors the method outlined by Hsieh and Shannon (2005) regarding the creation of categories within qualitative content analysis, which is discussed later in the chapter. Both methods focus on the application of the codebook’s definitions to the statements analyzed as well as keeping careful note of the changes made to the codebook’s definitions in addition to the patterns found within the examined texts themselves (Hsieh and Shannon 2005; Keer 2010). The similarities become especially apparent upon examining the “practical suggestions” of

Kathleen MacQueen (1998) regarding codebook development, which stresses the need for clarity in stating all parts of code definitions as well as consistent review and re-coding, in order to maintain relevant coding patterns and determine saturation. However, it should be stressed that these similarities are purely convergent within the current study, therefore a more intentionally applied saturation methodology would benefit further studies in this vein, especially those involved with category creation.

Methods of Examination

After having established the examination order for the ethics codes, the passages of each document were categorized using the process of conventional qualitative content

analysis, as opposed to a directed or summative approach, all three outlined by Hsieh and

Shannon (2005) in “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.” Hsieh and

Shannon’s process of coding can be divided into three primary steps. First, the researcher performs a casual reading of the document, making note of how the document is structured in regards to previously defined categories in order to familiarize the researcher with the text (with the exception of the six documents in the series as no categories will have been constructed) but does not yet attempt to categorize the statements within the document itself. Second, the researcher rereads the document, with each statement within the ethics code considered an isolated unit to be analyzed. While the general content of all sections of the document were noted in their initial reading, the parts of the ethics code that do not directly deal with journalistic action and/or proposed norms/values were not included in the categorization process (such as the preamble of the document or sections concerning the document’s history). However, addendums or clarifications that fit the criteria were included as separate codable statements. The third step occurs once six of the ethics codes have been analyzed, with the establishment of a set of initial categories based upon the interpretations of the statements already examined, then continuing with the coding process. New categories are added as necessary as the coding process continued.

After completing the three steps outlined by Hsieh and Shannon, the study moved onto a fourth step similar to the qualitative method outlined by Philipp Mayring (2014), wherein the coding of the selected documents was repeated to account for the potential presence of the constructed categories within previously analyzed documents, with no

additional categories created (p.54). The findings of this second round of coding were then analyzed as the results of the study. This allowed for the examination of the categories against the full set of codable data and acted as a review of the results of the first coding set. During this process, the ethical justification (identified through the statement's structure) was also categorized in relation to the previously discussed ethical frameworks.

Rather than being contemporaneously constructed, this set of coding categories were formed before the examination of the ethics codes in the same manner as the categories employed by Malloy and Fennell (1999) in their exploration of codes of ethics. Expanding upon their use of two categories, deontological and teleological, six more ethically specific categories based upon the research highlighted within the literature review, were constructed. The categories providing a more nuanced understanding of the code of ethics' justifications using the criteria listed in Table 1.

Table 1

List of Frameworks with Justification Descriptions

Framework Justification Description (and example)

Utilitarian The statement focuses on the potential benefits or detriments of Consequentialism its content. (Avoid the acceptance of gifts as it may negatively affect your perceived impartiality as a journalist.)

Deontological The statement is constructed as self-justifying (Don’t plagiarize.)

Virtue The statement is justified by actions of an ideal actor (A journalist does not plagiarize.)

Justice based This statement is justified by appeal to concepts meant to Consequentialism promote the good of society. (As a defender of free speech, the acceptance of reward for the alteration of an article's content is unacceptable)

Communitarian/Care The statement is justified by an appeal to the wellbeing of those to whom we feel responsible for. (To protect sources, confidentiality agreements must be adhered to completely.)

Responsible The statement is justified by an appeal to the quality of a Consequentialism journalist’s work and the impact of the work on society. (Given the repercussions of publishing slanderous information, the right of reply must be upheld.)

These six categories, each connected to a specific previously outlined framework, allowed for a more precise examination of the ethics codes and their influences. Each passage of the document was examined for its relationship to one or more of the ethical frameworks through the linking criteria provided above, with the reader making note of both the action and its justification during the coding process. After all 25 documents had

been fully categorized, the data was then examined with the previously established research questions in mind.

While RQ1, RQ2a and RQ2b were determined merely by a basic interpretation of the data collected, RQ3 required an examination of the identified justifications in relation to the general ethical categories and their prevalence across the examined codes of ethics. This allowed for the interpretation of the data collected regarding the identification of potential multinational journalistic norms. In the case of RQ3, the statements were placed within subcategories based on their position within a matrix constructed using the previously defined categories of justification and the categories of action established during the coding process. A separate matrix was also constructed using justification variables and the code of origin (represented by the nation in which the ethics code of ethics was created) to establish the prevalence of each framework’s influence on a code of ethics' total statements.

Chapter 4: Results

Before moving to discuss the direct results of the study, the nature of the documents examined (and more specifically how they function as a group) must be discussed. Unlike content influenced by the researchers beforehand, such as interview sets, the codes of ethics were created by a diverse set of organizations for potentially different purposes and certainly in different contexts. With such factors in mind, before moving on to the results of the study as related to its guiding research questions, it is important to first highlight some of the structural differences between the various codes of ethics examined, which as mentioned previously are by no means a uniform set. Although quantitative, rather than qualitative, in nature, these factors do allow some insight into the range of differences amongst the codes of ethics examined as well as similarities that may color the results of the study and should therefore be kept in mind.

The study’s selection and examination process highlighted several differences amongst the codes of ethics themselves separate from their eventual categorization. Most notably, the size of the codes of ethics varied greatly, ranging between 10 and 133 statements with a median of 43 and an average of 48.24 and a word count range of 549 and

6273 with a median of 1826 and an average of 2399.24. However, it should be noted that in many cases, codes of ethics containing a smaller number of statements often used individual statements to cover multiple related concepts, thus being categorized into multiple categories of action or even categories of justification depending on how the issues covered by a given statement are addressed.

As the study was constructed to examine aspects regarding macro-cultures, each code of ethics is strictly national in scope. Due to the limits on which macro-cultures were chosen to be examined for code-creating organizations and useable codes of ethics, the macro-cultures examined were not evenly distributed regarding geographic area. In total, three nation-code pairs were based within Oceania, two within North America and three within Africa with the remaining 17 codes of ethics being based within macro-cultures set in Europe. However, several macro-cultures located outside of Europe that were listed within the top 40 of the WPFI were not examined by the study, including Costa Rica,

Suriname, Uruguay, Burkina Faso, Trinidad and Tobago as well as Samoa. The removal of these macro-cultures was due to an inability to find a national code creating organization, code of ethics or useable translation within the guidelines set for the study.

Results concerning the Categories of Action

As mentioned in the method section, coding for this study was completed in two stages, the first round of coding involving the construction of 145 distinct situational categories of action through the 25 codes of ethics analyzed. To improve the interpretation of the findings, the categories were also placed into 11 super-categories. While Appendix C contains a full list of the 145 categories (as well as their corresponding super-categories),

Table 2 lists both the super-category groups and the number of categories each contains.

Table 2

Description of Content Super-categories and Number of Categories

Super-category Action/content super-categories Number of number categories within group

1 Societal responsibilities of the press 5

2 Professional rights of a journalist 9

3 Professional duties of a journalist 15

4 Issues concerning published content 19

5 Issues of transparency 7

6 Issues of journalistic integrity 11

7 Proper interaction with the public 11

8 Interaction with sources and gathering 21 information

9 Interaction with subjects 13

10 Guidelines for specific content groups 21

11 Technical document guidelines 13

The 11 super-categories show that the codes of ethics, when taken as a whole, address a wide range of issues. With many focusing on outlining specific ethical practice, these categories cover a large variety of subject matter. Therefore, before one examines the large-scale findings regarding the categories of action, the interpretive mindset that produced these super-categories should first be outlined. One of the largest super-

categories, issues concerning published content (super-category 4), casts a wide net, including subjects such as the required accuracy of the content published (4c),27 restrictions on questionable content (4h),28and proper identification of non-factual content (4i),29 among many others. However, all categories grouped into super-category 4 share a common link by discussing how a journalist should portray material. This differs from the super-categories concerning integrity (super-category 6) and transparency (super-category

5), which instead focus on aspects of a journalist’s work that may influence how their content is received. Specifically, the categories discuss issues that might effect a journalist’s perceived creditability through the two concepts, such as openness on personal issues that could affect a journalist’s work (5a)30 or openness on cost for hosted events

27 As an example, statement 3-13 of the Code of Ethics for the Journalistic Profession: “The commitment to seek the truth means that a journalist always informs about facts whose origins he/she knows, he/she does not falsify documents nor does he/she leave out essential information, he/she does not publish information which is false, misleading or distorted.” (Federation of the Spanish Press, 1993) 28 Statement 2.6 of the Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press: “Never undermine the clear distinction between editorial copy and advertisements. It must be obvious to the public what is deemed to be commercial content. The distinction must be obvious also when using web links and other connective means. Decline any commercial content that can be confused with the individual medium’s journalistic presentation.” (Norwegian Press Association, 2015) 29 Statement 4.2 of the Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press: “Make plain what is factual information and what is comment.” (Norwegian Press Association, 2015) 30 Statement 2.3 of the Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press: “Be open on matters that could be relevant for how the public perceive the journalistic content.” (Norwegian Press Association, 2015) 51

(5e)31 and issues concerning conflicts of interest (6a)32 or the acceptance of gifts (6g)33 respectively.

Much like super-categories six and five, super-categories seven through nine share a certain degree of similarity regarding subject matter, in this case being focused on the external actions of the journalist and the press towards others. The difference between the super-categories lies with the specific group filling the role of the other for each category.

Super-category seven concerns the actions towards the public at large such as apologies for misleading or offensive content (7a),34 protections against the alteration of content

31 Statement 16.1 of the Code of Ethics and Conduct for Namibian Print, Broadcast and Online Media: “Where audiences are invited on air to react to a programme or competition the media must make known the full cost of a telephone call or SMS.” (Editors’ Forum of Namibia, 2017) 32 Statement 11a of the Code of Practice for Jamaican Journalists and Media Organisations: “Journalists shall not be involved in any association or activity such as politics, demonstrations, secondary employment or social causes which could reasonably be perceived to be a conflict or interest or is in fact a conflict of interest.” (Press Association of Jamaica, 2011) 33 Statement 24 of the Code of Ethics in Providing Information to the Public of Lithuania: “A journalist has no right to accept any gifts, paid travel and vacations, or any other ingratiation which could harm their independence. A journalist must inform the society about any kind of support received in any case, excluding the salary that is paid or the support given by the producer or communicator of public information with which the journalist is in an employment or a creation relationship.” (Public Information Ethics Association, 2016) 34 Principle 12 of the Statement of Principles: “A publication’s willingness to correct errors enhances its credibility and, often, defuses complaint. Significant errors should be promptly corrected with fair prominence. In some circumstances it will be appropriate to offer an apology and a right of reply to an affected person or persons.” (New Zealand Media Council, 2002) 52

submitted by the public (7f),35 and proper management/monitoring of forums (7j).36 Super- category eight instead focuses on actions concerning journalistic sources, such as the protection of sources (8a),37 a source’s right to know of the journalist and his or her intentions (8c)38 and the rules against harassment, intimidation and/or stalking of sources

(8p).39 Super-category nine, focuses specifically on interaction with the subjects of journalistic work, such as extending the right of reply (9c),40 the right to privacy (9a)41 and

35 Principle 5 of the Statement of Principles: “Opinion, whether newspaper column or internet blog, must be clearly identified as such unless a column, blog or other expression of opinion is widely understood to consist largely of the writer’s own opinions. Though requirements for a foundation of fact pertain, with comment and opinion balance is not essential. Cartoons are understood to be opinion. Letters for publication are the prerogative of editors who are to be guided by fairness, balance, and public interest. Abridgement is acceptable but should not distort meaning.” (New Zealand Media Council, 2002) 36 Statement 4.17 of the Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press: “Should the editorial staff choose not to pre-edit digital chatting, this has to be announced in a clear manner for those accessing the pages. The editorial staff has a particular responsibility, instantly to remove inserts that are not in compliance with the Ethical Code.” (Norwegian Press Association, 2015) 37 Statement 14 in the Guidelines for Journalists and an Annex: “The journalist is entitled and duty bound to conceal the identity of any person who has provided confidential information by agreement with the source. If the publication of information that is in the public interest results in highly negative publicity, it is desirable that the editorial office makes public how the reliability of the anonymous source and the information obtained from it has been assured.” (Council for Mass Media, 2014) 38 Statement 8 of the Rules of professional conduct within the Code of Ethics for Press, Radio and Television in Sweden: “Accommodate reasonable requests from interviewees who want to know in advance how and where their statements will be used.” (Press Ombudsman, 2001) 39 Statement 11a of the Code of Practice for Jamaican Journalists and Media Organisations: “Journalists should neither obtain nor seek to obtain information or pictures through intimidation or harassment.” (Press Association of Jamaica, 2011) 40 Statement 2 of the Code of Practice for Jamaican Journalists and Media Organisations: “A fair opportunity to reply to inaccuracies should be given to individuals or organisations when reasonably called for.” (Press Association of Jamaica, 2011) 41 Statement 1 of the General Ethical Norms within the New Code of Ethics of Journalists: “The journalist should respect an individual's right to privacy and avoid sensationalistic and unjustified disclosure of an individual's private sphere to the public. Infringement upon an individual's private sphere is only permissible on the basis of public interest. The public's right to being informed widens in reporting on public figures and those seeking power, influence and attention. The journalist should be aware of the possibility, that by collecting and publishing information and photographs, he might harm individuals not accustomed to media and public attention.” (The Association and the Union of Journalists in Slovenia, 2002) 53

outlining situations that supersede protections or agreements with subjects (9k).42 It should be noted that while the categories within super-category seven focus on the public as a group, super-categories eight and nine instead often focus on the journalist’s interaction with (generalized) individuals that receive special context through their status as part of a journalist’s work. While they are of course still members of the public, this status is superseded by their status as a source, just as their status as source or a member of the public is superseded by their designation as a subject of journalistic scrutiny.

Super-category 10 concerns how to properly approach specific kinds of content or subjects that could be encountered in journalistic work, such as coverage of minors, (10b)43 scientific content (10i)44 or death/suicide (10d).45 It is important to distinguish the many categories placed within super-category 10 and category 4h (Prohibition or restrictions on specific content), as the latter specifically outlines prohibition and restriction, thus focusing on the material a journalist publishes while the categories placed within super-category 10

42 Statement 2 of the Right to Privacy within the Ethical Guidelines: However, there are inevitable conflicts between the right to privacy, and the rights of all citizens to be informed about matters of public interest. Each situation should be judged in light of common sense, humanity and relevance. (The Canadian Association of Journalists, 2011) 43 Statement 13 of the Code of Ethics in Providing Information to the Public of Lithuania: “Journalists, producers and the communicators of public information must take care of the protection of minors from any adverse effects of the public information, and not cause any grief or fear to minors by the information that they publish.” (Public Information Ethics Association, 2016) 44 Section 14 of the German Press Code: “Reports on medical matters should not be of an unnecessarily sensationalist nature since they might lead to unfounded hopes or fears on the part of some readers. Research findings that are still at an early stage should not be portrayed as if they were conclusive or almost conclusive.” (German Press Council 2017) 45 Statement 2B of The Press Ethical Rules: “Suicides or attempted suicides should not be mentioned unless an obvious public interest requires or justifies public coverage, and in that case the coverage should be as considerate as possible.” (Press Council of Denmark, 2013) 54

have the potential to cover other aspects of coverage concerning a specific subject or group.

Therefore, while they can overlap, both have their own unique focus. Finally, super- category 3 focuses on the requirements for journalists that do not cleanly fit into the subject matter of the categories mentioned thus far but still focus on the requirements of ethical journalistic practice, such as fair dealing with fellow journalists (3e)46, holding the safety of the public in high regard (3n)47 and final control and personal responsibility for published content (3a).48

However, in addition to statements concerning proper journalistic practice, the codes of ethics also included statements focusing on other issues, including the rights afforded to journalists (super-category two) such as the right to refuse assignments that are unethical or illegal (2a),49 the right to have agreed upon working conditions maintained

46 Statement 1.1 in the Icelandic Press Council Rules of Ethics in Journalism: “A journalist aims to do nothing which may bring his profession or professional organisation, newspaper or newsroom, into disrepute. He must avoid anything which may be deleterious to the public's opinion of the journalist's work or damage the interests of the profession. A journalist must always be honourable in his dealings with colleagues.” (Icelandic Press Council, 1991) 47 Statement 11b of the General Code of Ethics for the News Media: “Journalists should not become involved in ongoing kidnappings or hijackings in such a way as to become a publicity or safety factor in the incident.” (Media Council of Papua New Guinea, 2016) 48 Statement 1-18 in the Guidelines for Journalists and an Annex: “It is worthwhile consenting to interviewee’s requests to read their statements prior to publication, if the editorial deadline permits. This right only concerns the personal statements of the interviewee, and the final journalistic decision cannot be surrendered to any party outside the editorial office.” (Council of Mass Media, 2014) 49 Statement 1-5 in the Guidelines for Journalists and an Annex: “The journalist is entitled to refuse assignments that conflict with the law, his/her personal convictions or good journalistic practice.” (Council of Mass Media, 2014) 55

(2d),50 and the right to unobstructed and transparent access to news sources (2i).51 Those differ from journalistic duties by requiring action from parties other than the journalists, often concerning requirements that are necessary for the journalist to do their job properly.

Super-category 11 instead focuses on the code creators themselves as well as including categories that do not prescribe ethical action but instead are meant to contextualize the statements listed in the code of ethics, such as outlining punitive measures (11e),52 the responsibilities of the code creators (11l)53 and outlining context for the application of other guidelines (11d).54 Finally, super-category one deals with statements that discuss the wider purpose of the press as a whole such as the respect for the truth (1c),55 the protection of the

50 Statement 2f of the Declaration of the Rights of a Journalist within the Press Council Code of Conduct: “The right to benefit from work conditions guaranteed by a collective agreement, including the right to be active in professional organisations without suffering discrimination.” (Swiss Press Council, 2017) 51 Statement 4 in the General Clauses of the Journalists’ Code of Practice: “Respect for the journalist’s right to unobstructed access to the sources of news and transparency are necessary prerequisites for proper information.” (Cyprus Media Complaints Commision, 2008) 52 Statement 1.ii within the Editors’ Code of Practice “A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.” (the Independent Press Standards Organisation, 2019) 53 Comment 1 concerning the Practice of Financial Journalism within the Journalists’ Code of Practice: “The Ethics Committee, considering that the issue of financial journalism is of crucial importance, intends to denounce publicly and without delay any cases where violation of the aforementioned guidelines has been noted.” (Cyprus Media Complaints Commission, 2008) 54 Statement 1 of the Guiding Principles within Chapter 3 of the Code of Ethics and Conduct for Nambian Print, Broadcast and Online Media: “This chapter applies where a complaint is brought against an online media member in27respect of comments and content posted by users on all online platforms it controls and on which it distributes its content.” (Media Ombudsman, 2001) 55 Directive 1.1 of The Press Council Code of Conduct: “The search for truth is at the heart of the act of informing. It presumes taking account of available and accessible data, respect for the integrity of documents (text, recording, image), verification and rectification. These aspects are dealt with in 3, 4 and 5 hereunder.” (Swiss Press Council, 2017) 56

people from injustice (1b)56 and the safeguarding and promotion of human rights/values

(1e),57 providing an approach to the larger questions of journalism’s place within society and its ethical aim.

The findings also suggested a certain level of diversity in regards to the number of situations within a super-category, with proper source interaction, rules on publishable content and guidelines concerning specific subject matter holding between 19 and 21 situational categories, while the rest held between 7 and 13. However, not all of the statements dealt directly with justifying ethical action, such instances being placed in their own content category (within super-category 11) and categorized as N/A in regards to justification. Within the study, N/A instances were still considered to be statements for the purposes of determining the ratio of justification statements within a given code of ethics.

Results Regarding the Categories of Influence

Regarding ethical justifications, the findings point to either deontology-based justifications, virtue-based justifications, or a combination of the two to be the prevailing ethical norm within the codes of ethics examined. While examples of the other four justifications (utility, justice, care and responsibility) did occur, these justifications often made up only a small number of an ethical code’s total statements. In no cases did any of

56 Statement 1.5 of the Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press Council: “It is the task of the press to protect individuals and groups against injustices or neglect, committed by public authorities and institutions, private enterprises, or others.” (Norwegian Press Association, 2015) 57 Statement 1.3 of The Latvian Union of Journalists’ Code of Ethics “The duty of mass media is to protect human rights.” (Latvian Union of Journalists, 1992) 57

the four justifications occur in great enough numbers by the standards set in the study to be considered influential, with the highest number of statements58 and the highest fraction of each framework within each code of ethics59 acting as outliers for a general trend of an extremely low number of occurrences per code. In some cases, a given framework would not even appear in the ethical code examined. Table 3 provides an overview of the specific ratios and a list of influencers for each of the final examined codes of ethics.

Table 3

Ethical Justification Makeup and Influencers by Code

Nation Utility Deontology Virtue Justice Care Responsibility Code Code Influencers

NOR 1/43 23/43 5/43 7/43 1/43 7/43 2

FIN 1/40 22/40 10/40 2/40 5/40 3/40 2

DNK 0/23 19/23 0/23 1/23 2/23 1/23 2

EST 1/36 19/36 15/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 2,3

NLD 0/39 8/39 28/39 1/39 3/39 1/39 3

SWE 1/30 23/30 0/30 1/30 4/30 1/30 2

DEU 4/71 33/71 23/71 7/71 8/71 9/71 2

ISL 0/ 15 1/15 7/15 0/ 15 1/15 1/15 3

58 The given text showing five statements for utility (Switzerland), 14 for justice (Luxembourg), nine for care (Switzerland) and 12 for responsibility (Switzerland). 59 The given text showing 3/24 (Latvia), 8/42 (Spain), 4/23 (Ireland) and 9/42 (Spain) respectively. 58

Table 3 continued

CHE 5/69 17/69 29/69 12/69 9/69 12/69 3

NZL 1/12 6/12 2/12 1/12 0/12 2/12 2

NAM 1/99 52/99 44/99 1/99 7/99 0/99 2,3

LVA 3/24 6/24 15/24 1/24 0/24 4/24 3

JAM 0/47 18/47 29/47 0/47 1/47 1/47 2,3

AUS 1/29 13/29 12/29 0/29 3/29 5/29 2,3

LTU 0/66 17/66 54/66 3/66 2/66 4/66 3

ZAF 2/59 29/59 32/59 3/59 4/59 2/59 2,3

IRL 0/23 7/23 13/23 2/23 4/23 0/23 3

SVN 1/28 4/28 23/28 0/28 1/28 0/28 3

LUX 1/84 37/84 41/84 14/84 3/84 3/84 2,3

CAN 5/72 60/72 6/72 4/72 1/ 72 5/72 2

GHA 0/24 0/24 24/24 1/24 0/24 0/24 3

CYP 5/129 60/129 54/129 8/129 7/129 8/129 2,3

ESP 2/42 11/42 36/42 8/42 0/42 9/42 3

UKG 1/44 21/44 22/44 0/44 0/44 1/44 2,3

PNG 0/57 53/57 4/57 1/57 6/57 1/57 2

As can be seen in Table 3, while only the deontological or virtue frameworks were found to be accommodated within any of the codes of ethics, each of the ethical frameworks do appear within the examined codes, being categorized based on the different 59

criteria found within a given statement. Beginning with deontological influenced statements, as their categorization is determined not by what is present within a statement but by what that statement lacks, specifically any text that justifies the policy regarding the action discussed. In the case of statements that contain this deontological influence, the required amount of text for the statement is rather low, as, by its very nature, they were not required to (and in fact could not) contain language that justifies the position taken, as seen in statement 4.9 of the Norwegian code: “Suicide and attempted suicide should in general never be reported” (Norwegian Press Association, 2015). Of course, this is not to say that all of the deontologically influenced statements are short, merely that they do not contain justifying language, as can be seen in statement 4.15 of the Norwegian code below:

Those who have been the subject of an attack shall have the chance to reply at the

earliest opportunity, unless the attack and criticism are part of a running exchange

of views. Any reply should be of reasonable length, be pertinent to the matter and

seemly in its form. The reply can be refused if the party in question has rejected,

without an objective reason, an offer of presenting a contemporaneous rejoinder on

the same issue. Replies and contributions to the debate should not be accompanied

by polemic editorial comment. (Norwegian Press Association, 2015)

These statements differed from those found to be influenced by the remaining five ethical frameworks included within the study, all of which contain some sort of ethically justifying language, although the exact nature of this language differs depending on the specific framework or frameworks influencing the statement examined. In the case of

statements influenced by virtue ethics, this external ethical positioning is shown in the framing of the statement to concern what “journalists” (or similar grouping such as “the press”) do, which creates the connotation that this is required of the reader to be a member of that group (or at least one acting correctly). An example of such positioning can be seen in statement 2.1 of the Danish code:

The responsible editor carries personal and full responsibility for the contents of the

media and has the final decision in any questions regarding editorial content,

financing, presentation and publication. The editor shall act freely and

independently towards any persons or groups who – for ideological, economic or

other reasons – might want to exercise an influence over the editorial content. The

editor shall safeguard the editorial staff’s production of free and independent

journalism. (Danish Press Council, 2013)

In contrast to both the deontological and virtue justification categories, the three consequentialist categories constructed for the study (focusing on utility, justice and responsibility) hinge on the potential external product of an action to provide the ethical weight of its justification. However, the external product can be either explicit (as is the case for the utilitarian consequentialist category) or implicit (as is the case with the influence categories regarding the justice60 and responsibility61 consequentialist

60 By an appeal to societal concepts (and the upholding of these concepts through the action discussed) will benefit society as a whole 61 By an appeal to the potential influence (either positive or negative) or the journalist’s actions on their work and consequently that work’s influence on society at large. 61

frameworks). This can be seen in the differences between the three statements (statements

2.2, 1.14 and 1 of the Swedish Press Code) listed below, all of which were categorized in one of the three consequentialist categories:

“Do not accept commissions, invitations, gifts, free trips or other benefits – and do

not enter into any agreements or other undertakings – that may cast suspicion upon

your position as a free and independent journalist.” (Press Ombudsman, 2001)

“Remember that, in the eyes of the law, a person suspected of an offence is always

presumed innocent until proven guilty. The outcome of a legal case should be

published if it has been previously reported on.” (Press Ombudsman, 2001)

“The role played by the mass media in society and the trust of the public of these

media call for accurate and objective news reporting.” (Press Ombudsman, 2001)

Finally, rather than looking towards the products of an action, a communitarian/care influenced statement concerns itself with the effect of the situation on members of society for which the journalist is responsible, rather than society as a whole, highlighting their unique needs based upon the context of the statement, as can be seen in statement C.8 of the Danish code:62

A suspect, an accused, or a convicted person should be spared from having attention

called to an earlier conviction if it is without importance in relation to the offence

concerning which he/she is now suspected, charged, or convicted. Previous criminal

62 Note the difference in framing of the similar concepts within Statement 1.14 of the Swedish code and C.8 of the Danish code. 62

charges against a named person should not, as a rule, be mentioned in connection

with other news. (Danish Press Council, 2013)

Moving on to look at the codes of ethics as a whole, the number of both virtue and deontological influenced ethical codes surpassed the threshold set by the study. When examining all 25 of the codes of ethics alongside one another, a virtue-based ethical influence was found within 17 of the codes examined, and a deontology-based influence within 16 of the codes examined. Table 4 lists the specific influenced codes of ethicsby justification framework.

Table 4

List and Number of Influenced Codes by Justification Framework

Justification Framework Number of Codes Influenced Influenced Codes

Utilitarian 0 N/A Consequentialism

Deontological 16 NOR, FIN, DNK, EST, SWE, DEU, NZL, NAM, JAM, AUS, ZAF, LUX, CAN, CYP, UKG, PNG

Virtue 17 EST, NLD, ISL, CHE, NAM, LVA, JAM, AUS, LTU, ZAF, IRL, SVN, LUX, GHA, CYP, ESP, UKG

Justice based 0 N/A Consequentialism

Communitarian/Care 0 N/A

Responsible 0 N/A Consequentialism

Taken together, the answers to the study’s research questions point to an overall prominent influence of both virtue and deontological frameworks within the construction of codes of ethics, both within specific codes as well as on an international scale.

Additionally, the codes of ethics were found to address a wide variety of subject matter, including those outside of situations dealing directly with ethical journalistic practice. With these factors in mind, the study’s results can be further extrapolated toward several interesting potential avenues for further research, both regarding the data collected (and

what that data shows about the codes of ethics themselves) as well as the methodology developed for the study.

Chapter 5: Discussion

Analysis of Results

As laid out in the previous chapter, the study’s results suggest that the examined codes of ethics reflect deontological and/or virtue based frameworks through the majority of their justifications, a trend which was also mirrored in the results concerning international norms in addition to their presence within the codes of ethics as individual documents. This points to the ethical codes making use of a combination of both deontological and teleological theories in their outlining of journalistic ethics, with the ethical action positioned either as simply correct (and therefore requiring no defense) or as an immobile ethical facet of the journalist the ethical code speaks to (and therefore something the reader should strive to emulate). Notably, such focuses stand in sharp contrast to the consequentialist-based frameworks and the communitarian/care frameworks, which were rarely found within the codes of ethics examined.

The differences present within the findings suggest that the codes of ethics have less of an overt focus on the outcomes or ramifications of ethical or unethical action by the code creators and more on the establishment of what is or is not ethical within the profession.

Such results are consistent with straightforward extrapolation from previous research concerning ethical codes, reinforcing the established view of the documents as tools for discussion of journalistic ethical action as explored by Fletcher (2013), Boeyink (1994a;

1994b) as well as Elliott-Boyle (1985). This theory is also supported by the findings related to RQ1, with entire super-categories not dealing with the practice of ethical journalism

itself but instead with concepts such as professional rights of journalists or editors. This focus points to the industry as a whole, which would include individuals responsible for implementing and maintaining these defenses, in addition to non-journalist members of the public, are a potential target audience for the documents that include these kind of statements.

With the large difference between the presence of these frameworks and those of virtue and deontological ethics, questions begin to arise regarding what such findings may signify. By itself, some difference among the presence of frameworks is not surprising, as it would be odd to see an actual even distribution both within a single ethical code or as a pattern at the trans-national level. However, the large ratios of ethical framework influence found for deontology and virtue do stand out as striking, especially when set beside much smaller ratios for the consequentialist and care theories. It would be difficult to attribute this ethical makeup to simply being written in an earlier time, as both previous research into journalistic codes of ethics (Laitila, 1995) as well as the years of revision cataloged in this study suggest against attributing this disparity to a lack of updates to the code of ethics themselves. Additionally, this deontological/virtuous trend does not seem to alter based on the presence or temporal proximity of revisions, being present in around 2/3rds of the ethical codes examined.

This disparity in framework influence also suggests a trend of placing deontological and virtue based ethical reasoning over that of other ethical frameworks within journalism.

However, whether this trend is due to the pressures of the ethical medium or a trend in

intentional or unintentional efforts by journalism power structures to strengthen these ethical concepts is beyond the scope of the current study. Instead the codes of ethics seem to by and large ignore both the communitarian ethics as well as consequentialist ethics both of that have, although in different ways, had a profound impact on journalistic ethical thought (Christians et al., 1993; Ferré, 2008; Ward, 2007). While it should be restated that the ethics presented in such codes are not meant to accurately reflect the general ethics of journalists within the same macro-culture, the two still do effect one another (Metykova and Preston, 2019). The codes of ethics’ projection of the “correct” ethical journalistic decisions to both journalists and the public (and implicitly, the form of ethical calculus to reach such determinations through the linguistic constructions examined by the study), which at the macro-cultural level has shown to be potentially influential, should also be kept in mind (Berkowitz et al., 2004; Plaisance et al., 2012).

The examination of statements also saw a wide variety of categories addressed regarding the practice of ethical journalism that, while not encapsulating all the statements of an ethical code, remains the focus of the documents. This focus becomes extremely apparent regarding both situational ethical considerations, proper publishable content and proper interactions with subjects, all of which contain a higher number of categories than the other constructed super-categories. The distinction suggests an ethical focus on these matters, however in many of these cases the rules are not meant to be unbreakable, instead, they often include provisions for ignoring some (although not all) of the guidelines set out.

The provisions often invoke the protection of the public interest as the only reason for

ignoring the ethical statement, even if such ends are not posited as holding the ethical weight of the statement itself. Additionally, in many cases the statements are found to address multiple distinct (if related) ethical situations and make use of multiple ethical frameworks to justify the code creators’ decision making. The findings concerning the collected ethical statements point toward a wide range of topics addressed within the ethics codes. While, in some cases, statements did not contain a push toward ethical action (and were therefore categorized as such) these statements were not necessarily devoid of ethical value, often highlighting the importance of ethical concepts used later in the document as justifications. Additionally, several statements drew upon multiple justifications in their positioning of ethical action, once again suggesting a purpose as an aid to ethical discussion and growth among members of the industry. However, as discussed in the conclusion, these aspects seem to stand at odds with the frameworks chosen to provide ethical weight to the statements themselves, leaving further work to be done if the code creators’ intention were to improve ethical discussion beyond merely listing the ethical situations themselves.

In total, the examination of the codes of ethics did find patterns of ethical justification, both within the individual codes of ethics themselves as well as taken as a group. The study also highlighted that the many large number of ethical situations discussed show enough similarities and differences in the statements addressed by the ethical codes to warrant further study, a factor examined more thoroughly later in the chapter. The results also present a view of how the cultures that fashion these ethical codes wish to portray themselves, and, if examined alongside studies focusing on individual

perception of ethics and/or legal histories regarding journalistic action, can form a more complete picture of the macro-culture in question. This potential interaction points toward examination of codes of ethics in this vein as a useful tool for highlighting ways in which journalistic institutions frame ethical action.

Clarification of Results

In describing the results of a study, laying out in no uncertain terms what it doesn’t say is almost as important in stating what it does. Thus, while the limitations of the study’s design and implementation will follow before any discussion of the potential for further research occurs, the study must address any complicating factors the results have brought to light. Despite the success of the study in showing both ethical justification trends as well as the multitude of generalized ethical situations addressed within journalistic codes of ethics, there are several limiting factors regarding both the utility of the results as well as their potential applicability.

Although the study does shed some light on both the philosophical underpinning of journalistic ethical actions, such as how the writers of the selected codes of ethics present and justify the stances taken within the documents, one must take care in extrapolating such findings. The results of the study are by no means meant to convey a static picture for how journalistic codes of conduct make use of philosophical frameworks in the sense of determining unbreakable common patterns that could be further extrapolated. The findings do not concern the ethical beliefs of individual journalists operating within the macro- culture or, in the case of international norms, journalists overall, as the codes of ethics only

focus on generalized ethical situations (as opposed to the extremely personal and practical realities of a journalist in the moment). It is, however, meant to provide both a collection of the situations discussed by the codes of ethics as well as the patterns these codes take (both as individual documents and as a group) to justify the statements they make. These findings, examined together, provide a sense of the commonalities in ethical justifications on an international scale and insight into the similarities of ethical positioning within journalism beyond each organization’s macro-cultural sensibilities.

To summarize, although the study highlights use the examination of ethical documents to gain an insight into the journalistic macro-cultures residing within the given nations, such analysis is by no means beyond reproach or meant to be wholly representative of the journalistic cultures in question. Instead, the study provides insight into how the structures of these journalistic macro-cultures portray ethical action. Larger questions than these would require not only a more substantial study but a multifaceted approach to macro-cultural ethics considering not only the intentions of the crafters of the ethical code but the ethical inclinations of both journalists and those involved with the industry’s process.

Limiting Factors and Potential Complications

Given the nature of such an examination, there are a few limiting factors for this study that should also be outlined. The first is the nature of the project as comparative. The codes of ethics examined were pulled from unique political and cultural contexts, each holding different levels of influence and written with different criteria in mind. Even if one

were to discount those differences, their lack of a common structure and length makes a simple comparison more difficult. It is for that reason that the study was not constructed to compare the specific guidelines of each ethical code to one another, nor the intentions of their authoring bodies, instead having focused on the connection of these texts to shared ethical norms commonly discussed within the context of journalism. Through the coding structure of content analysis, the study presents the core concepts, arguments and justifications behind the diverse set of languages analyzed.

A second, and more direct, limiting factor is the required use of translations for the comparison. Given the unfamiliarity and lack of fluency of the researcher with several of the documents’ original languages, translations were used to allow the project to proceed.

This linguistic issue resulted in a few potentially problematic factors for the thesis. First, although English language versions of the documents in question were procured, the required use of such translations does raise the possibility of either poor or incorrect translations of passages, especially in cases where translations were procured from groups other than the publishing body. To minimize the chance of such an issue, the translations were taken from the official publishing source when possible. When making use of secondary collection sites such as Accountable Journalism, the translations were connected to the untranslated copy published on the authoring group’s website. In those cases, the original was then run through translation software to double-check the translation’s general accuracy. Second, although the limitation was expected, and to a certain extent prepared for through the use of a large initial sample of nations, the nations removed due to a lack of

translation (in addition to other reasons for removal) did affect the makeup of the sample.

The exclusion of several non-European and non-Western nations, such as Costa Rica and

Samoa may have caused issues in effective representation of the concepts examined. In a sample that already draws few nations outside of Europe, this should be kept in mind when viewing and interpreting the results of the study.

As mentioned previously, the removal of one ethical code from the study occurred after the thesis proposal’s acceptance but before the completion of the coding process. The organization that produced the ethical code in question, representing Belgium, specifically covered Flemish language media, with another organization responsible for French and

German language media, however the ethical code for this second organization did not contain an English translation. With the lack of translation and the presence of two codes of ethics providing unnecessary complications to the study in mind, the removal occurred at the end of the first round of coding, which included removal from both the second set of coding and the relevant appendices in order to avoid confusion. However, the citation of the ethical code remains within the works cited section of the thesis due to its initial presence within the study.

Future Recommendations

While focused on the makeup of the codes of ethics themselves, the findings of the study do point to a potential relationship between the ways in which the code writers addressed ethical actions and their potential justifications (both as part of a comprehensive code of ethics as well as within individual statements). The findings also provide further

support for the method used, which (although modified to better fit the specifications of the study) has many potential applications. These factors point toward several avenues for further research.

Rather than examining the statements as distinct parts of an overall code of ethics, a focus on the potential relationship between specific action/content statements and justifications may provide more information on how the norms themselves are ethically addressed and justified. While this study reported low numbers for utility, justice, care and responsibility-based justifications within the codes of ethics, an alternate approach might also uncover influence in journalistic discussion concerning specific ethical concepts. For example, while the findings of the study suggest utility is less influential upon the ethical justification of the ethical code as a whole, it might still prove attractive in codified discussions and justifications of specific journalistic situations and/or norms.

An examination of the codes of ethics along the lines of continents or some other geographic grouping may also prove useful in providing an alternate picture of ethical framework distribution. By doing so, the study would be able to better deal with the issues of how the geographic setting of a given macro-culture, might influence the results by examining geographic groups in isolation before comparing the groups to one another.

Such a study may also prove more fruitful for those interested in finding targeted commonalities that may be developed into global ethical norms in the vein of Ward and

Christians, as it would allow for an additional space of examination, located between the

individual national ethical codes and global ethics through this limited trans-national grouping.

Additionally, the success of the study also highlights the utility of the method within the context of ethical codes. In this regard, a larger study crafted along similar lines

(and avoiding some of the limitations mentioned earlier in the thesis) would provide more data for further examinations of ethical justifications within codes of ethics. Given the findings outlined by Laitila (1995) concerning specific principles within her examination of

European ethics codes, a study focusing on how the selected codes of ethics discuss these specific norms (rather than how they discuss norms overall) may hold a useful perspective in understanding the institutions that produce such codes. In particular, a co-operative study would allow for a more comprehensive examination of codes of ethics in this manner. Such a study might avoid the removal of several ethics codes due to issues of language or even finding new codes by being better equipped to traverse untranslated websites while also providing a means for cross-examination of the coding process, lessening the potential for individual biases to effect the results. Keeping the differences in content highlighted by

Hafez (2002) in mind, such a study even has the potential to uncover more substantive differences in terms of ethical actions discussed.

Given the wide range of groups making use of ethical codes, there is also no reason that other researchers could not co-opt the study’s approach to examine codes outside of journalism as well. Much like within Malloy and Fennell’s (1999) examination of tourism codes, the results of this study indicate deontological theories to be a relatively common

ethical justification within the total list of ethical codes, while those based upon consequentialist theories saw similarly low percentages within the codes examined (even if one were to combine all three into one category). This suggests the potential for a common deontological thread within ethical codes, although such speculation would require further research. In fact, keeping in mind the potential differences in ethical decision making and externalized oversight between journalism and other professions making use of codes of ethics, such an examination may prove more useful in uncovering preferred ethical action for the organizations involved. However, such a study would require extensive research to identify common ethical frameworks discussed within the field in question, rather than simply transplanting the six used in the current study.

Finally, in the process of designing and implementing the study, it became clear that work remains regarding both the collection and translation of codes of ethics and the cataloging of their publishing organizations. While such collections do exist, in some cases these collections are either out of date, missing the most recently updated versions of a given code of ethics, or are archived haphazardly, not distinguishing between the ethical codes of currently active organizations and those they have replaced. Work towards a more complete collection of these ethics codes and organizations would not only strengthen the foundation that other examinations of journalism ethical codes might build upon but also be useful as a means of reference for code construction by similar organizations.

Chapter 6: Conclusions

While the results of the study by and large fall in line with previous research, reinforcing the views expressed by existing academic literature, the thesis nonetheless highlights several interesting factors regarding journalistic codes of ethics. Finding the ethical codes to consistently reflect either a deontological and/or virtue-based mindset within its justifications of ethical action, the conclusions point to further potential veins of research. Of particular note is the examination of said justifications put toward improving the codes of ethics in the context of their capacity as a deliberative tool and a codifier of ethical principles for journalistic outsiders. In such a case, an analysis could be applied to both codes of ethics as well as other ethical documents within journalism for further study.

The study’s results also suggest that codes of ethics, when taken as a group, address a wide variety of issues concerning both journalism’s practice as well as the proper environment in which journalism is to take place. Additionally, the method developed for the study, bringing together a number of sources to construct a means of examining documents with a high degree of variety along similar ethical lines, holds many potential applications both within and outside of the examination of journalistic codes of ethics and conduct.

Utility of Method

The examination of codes of ethics is by no means a novel approach by which to examine aspects of a professional culture, nevertheless the method constructed for this study allowed for a more comparative analysis of a highly diverse set of ethical codes in regards to both their structure, purpose and content. Notably, the decision to connect the

statement to commonly discussed ethical frameworks, rather than directly comparing the statements themselves, allowed for a smoother examination of the ethical influences upon each of the documents by removing them from their individual contexts. So removed, the ethical frameworks provide a common link in their discussion of ethical action. The creation of categories (and super-categories) of action allow for a similar level of contextual distance between the codes of ethics for the comparison and analysis of the documents as a set. These factors might prove useful in the implementation of further studies regarding both journalism ethics as well as any other profession making use of codified ethical documents along similar lines.

Utility of Results

Regarding the direct findings of the thesis, the pronounced presence of virtue and deontological ethical justifications within the examined codes of ethics inform our understanding of how dominant structures portray ethical journalistic action. Both deontology and virtue ethics to some extent require the ethical actor to remove themselves from the direct results of action. This is done either by abandoning a teleological focus, instead looking for ethical weight within the action (deontology) or by leaving the consequences out of focus in favor of the intention of the actor and the development of his or her ability to be ethical (virtue). In contrast, both the three consequentialist theories as well as care theory focus on the specific context of a given ethical case, as well as the end products that result. These four were found in far fewer numbers compared to the other two justification frameworks. This prevalence suggests the potential for virtue and deontology

based ethical reasoning to be more highly pronounced within the macro-culture, given previous scholarship’s focus on the national/ideological level influential in the ethical decision making of journalists (Reese, 2001) and how journalism ethics is portrayed to the public (Beyerstein, 1993). These results also point to a rather idealistic response to the process of ethical decision making among the code creators, which itself might influence ethical discussion of the concepts addressed given ethics codes potential use as an informer and catalyst. Of course, further research is necessary to tackle such questions directly, especially given the potential effect of the medium of ethics codes on the presentation of their content. Even further removed from the individual cultural contexts, any approach to a unified transnational code of ethics would most likely be influenced by such sentiments, given the widespread use of virtue and deontology connected justifications found in the study.

Further, studies focusing on these recurring ethical presentation patterns at the ideological level and the views of journalists themselves (or even individual journalist’s views on their own codes of ethics) could also prove useful. Finally, an alternate study focusing on the trends of justifications for a given generalized category of action, rather than within an ethical code as a whole, could shed more light on the potential influence of the four other frameworks found to be non-influential within the codes of ethics, through their resonance with specific generalized ethical issues. In some contexts, such as proper dealings with sources or the acceptance of gifts, a consequence or care-based justification may prove more attractive.

However, while the codes of ethics as analyzed do present an ideal of journalistic action, making use of virtue and deontological theories to this extent do open up ethical codes to a few issues in their attempt to inform journalistic ethical standards and provide a means for discursive analysis of journalism ethics by the reader. The first of these issues is one of relatability. With research toward the topic pointing to consequentialist and care based frameworks as the often used ethical calculus of practicing journalists (Pratt, 1988;

Shaw, 2011; Todd, 2020), their lack of presence within the ethical codes’ discussion of ethics highlights a notable disconnect if they are to be used in the kind of discussion and self-reflection discussed by Boeyink and Fletcher (1994b; 2013). This is an even larger issue if one considers the public as an audience for the ethical codes. By placing the codes of ethics in a primarily deontological and virtuous context, these codes isolate the non- journalistic reader from interacting with the ethical codes in any kind of discursive manner by placing the ethical action as either inherent (deontology) or an ideal of the practice

(virtue) rather than grounding it in its effect on the reader. As mentioned previously, these frameworks are not meant to dominate one another but instead provide alternative perspectives from which to consider ethical conduct, therefore their lack of substantive presence within the codes of ethics provides no benefit in the context of the codes as aids of ethical discussion. This narrow ethical viewpoint holds the codes of ethics back from their full potential as a means of informing journalistic dialogue both within journalistic institutions as well as the larger dialogue between journalistic practitioners and the public.

With the identification of these issues, code creators can work both towards avoiding such pitfalls in future drafts of journalistic ethics codes as well as re-examining how the values of these codes are portrayed in their current versions. Properly focused, macro-cultural codes of ethics could help in promotion of discursive and community based ethical thought in relation to journalism by making the codes of ethics an active, rather than passive, force, bringing the public into the discussion by highlighting the benefit of actions either directly, to society as a whole or to the readership specifically. Additionally, with the examination of the code’s ethical statements, one can also see the various structures such codes of ethics can take and how these structures could be constructed to better support the purposes of the codes of ethics. In many cases, the ethical codes made use of multiple statement layers in order to open up a given issue for a more through discussion, an opportunity that could, through careful writing, show the issue from a number of ethical angles. Finally, a more open method of construction, including not just journalists and media owners but the public as well in the discussion of ethical thought (although not necessarily giving full codifying power), would allow for a more socially understood and, according to discursive scholars such as Glasser and Ettema (2008), ethically stronger kind of journalism. In the popular conception, journalism is seen as a profession characterized as favoring the pragmatism of grounded practical questions (O’Donnell, 2007). By shifting the focus of codes of ethics from outlining actions in deontological and virtuous isolation to highlighting how and why these actions are important to journalistic work, journalists can move beyond the defensive and reflexive proscriptions of codes of ethics past and aim to

better discuss with both each other and the public not just what we do and do not do but why.

As it stands, the wide net cast by the codes of ethics on what generalized situations it chooses to address, (particularly aspects outside the questions of ethical journalism) do suggest a move by the journalistic macro-cultures in question beyond simply providing guidelines for proper ethical work. Instead, the cultures have moved on to include discussions of how journalism as an institution should function both regarding its members and as a part of society. However, as discussed above, there is still more work to be done in the refining of such ethical codes to reach their true potential. More than answering the questions set to guide the study, the results reveal both the importance of further examination and the large number of research avenues that remain unexplored, which may improve the way codes of ethics portray ethical action. With these documents highlighting the importance of the ethical implications inherent within organizational codes of conduct, what can these implications tell us about the cultures they are both a product of and are positioned to define? A closer and more careful look into the ethical positioning of such documents, as well as examining how this positioning might help move journalism towards a place more amenable to a re-imagining of the professions longstanding ethical assumptions, may provide even greater insight into the unique facets and future of journalistic culture, both transnational, macro-cultural and local.

Works Cited Adair-Toteff, C. (2011). Protestant ethics and the spirit of politics: Weber on conscience,

conviction and conflict. History of the Human Sciences, 24(1), 19-35.

Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). Modern moral philosophy. Philosophy, 33(124), 1-19.

Aristotle (1972) The Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle (D. Ross, Trans.). London: Oxford

University Press (original work published in 350 B.C.E.).

Barnhart, M. (2012). Theory and comparison in the discussion of Buddhist ethics.

Philosophy East and West, 62(1), 16-43.

Bentham, J. (1879). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

Berkowitz, D., Limor, Y., & Singer, J. (2004). A cross-cultural look at serving the public

interest: American and Israeli journalists consider ethical scenarios. Journalism,

5(2), 159-181.

Beyerstein, D. (1993). The functions and limitations of professional codes of ethics.

Applied ethics: A reader, 416-425.

Black, J., & Barney, R. D. (1985). The case against mass media codes of ethics. Journal of

Mass Media Ethics, 1(1), 27-36.

Black, J., & Roberts, C. (2011). Doing ethics in media: Theories and practical

applications. New York, NY: Routledge.

Boeyink, D. E. (1994a). How effective are codes of ethics? A look at three

newsrooms. Journalism Quarterly, 71(4), 893-904.

Boeyink, D. E. (1994b). Public understanding, professional ethics, and the news: A

response to Jane Rhodes. Fed. Comm. LJ, 47, 41-45.

Borden, Sandra. (2010). The Moral Justification for Journalism. In C. Meyers (Ed.),

Journalism Ethics: A Philosophical Approach, (53-68). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Bradshaw, A. (1996). Yes! There is an ethics of care: an answer for Peter Allmark. Journal

of Medical Ethics, 22(1), 8-15.

Brandt, R. B. (1963). Towards a credible form of utilitarianism. In H.N Castañeda and G

Nakhnikian (Eds.). Morality and the language of conduct, 107-143.

Brink, David, "Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy", In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition).

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/mill-moral-political/

Cartwright, D. E. (1988). Schopenhauer’s compassion and Nietzsche’s pity. Schopenhauer

Jahrbuch, 69, 557-567.

Cartwright, D. E. (2008). Compassion and solidarity with sufferers: The metaphysics of

Mitleid. European Journal of Philosophy, 16: 292-310.

Christians, C. G., Ferré, J. P., & Fackler, P. M. (1993). Good news: Social ethics and the

press. Oxford University Press.

Christians, C. G. (2004). Ubuntu and communitarianism in media ethics. Ecquid Novi:

African Journalism Studies, 25(2), 235-256.

Coope, C. (2006). Modern virtue ethics. In T. Chappell (Ed.), Values and virtues:

Aristotelianism in contemporary ethics, (pp. 20-52). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Cooper, T. W. (1990). Comparative international media ethics: In search of universals.

Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies, 11(2), 107-147.

Couldry, N. (2006). Listening Beyond the Echoes: Media, Ethics, and Agency in an

Uncertain World. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Couldry, N. (2010). Media ethics: Towards a framework for media producers and media

consumers. In S. J. Eards & H. Wasserman (Eds.), Media ethics beyond boarders: A

global perspective. New York: Routledge.

Craig, D. A. 2008. Justice as a journalistic value and goal. In Wilkins, L. and Christians

(Eds.) The handbook of mass media ethics, (pp. 203–216). New York, NY:

Routledge.

Davis, A. (2013). Applying a Weberian Perspective to the Analysis of UK Journalism:

Hacking and Leveson as Products of Organizational Rationalization. Max Weber

Studies, 13(2), 176–196.

Deuze, M. (1999). Journalism and the web: An analysis of skills and standards in an online

environment. Gazette (Leiden, Netherlands), 61(5), 373-390.

Deuze, M. (2002). National news cultures: A comparison of Dutch, German, British,

Australian, and US journalists. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,

79(1), 134-149.

Deuze, M. (2005). Popular journalism and professional ideology: tabloid reporters and

editors speak out. Media, Culture & Society, 27(6), 861-882.

Díaz-Campo, J., & Segado-Boj, F. (2015). Journalism ethics in a digital environment: How

journalistic codes of ethics have been adapted to the internet and ICTs in countries

around the world. Telematics and informatics, 32(4), 735-744.

Dickinson, R. (2013). Weber’s sociology of the press and journalism: continuities in

contemporary sociologies of journalists and the media. Max Weber Studies, 13(2),

197–215.

Driver, J. (2014). The history of utilitarianism. In E. Zalta (Ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia

of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-

bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=utilitarianism-history

Elliott-Boyle, D. (1985). A conceptual analysis of ethics codes. Journal of Mass Media

Ethics, 1(1), 22-26.

Ettema, J. S. (2007). Journalism as reason-giving: Deliberative democracy, institutional

accountability, and the news media's mission. Political Communication, 24(2), 143-

160.

Fackler, M. (2008). Communitarianism, In Wilkins, L., & Christians, C. G. (Eds.), The

handbook of mass media ethics. (pp. 319-330) Routledge.

Ferré, J. P. (2008). A short history of media ethics in the United States. L. Wilkins & C. G.

Christians (Eds.), The handbook of mass media ethics (pp. 15–27). Londra:

Routledge.

Fennell, D. A., & Malloy, D. C. (1999). Measuring the ethical nature of tourism

operators. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 928-943.

Fletcher, P. (2013). Code of ethics as a weapon. The Quill, (2), 12.

Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research.

The qualitative report, 20(9), 1408.

Gert, B. (1998). Morality: Its nature and justification. New York City: Oxford University

Press.

Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development.

Harvard University Press.

Glasser, T. L., & Ettema, J. S. (2008). Ethics and eloquence in journalism: An approach to

press accountability. Journalism Studies, 9(4), 512-534.

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How Many Interviews are Enough? An

experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods, 18(1), 59-82.

Guyer, P. (2012). Schopenhauer, Kant and Compassion, Kantian Review, 17(3), 403-429.

Hafez, K. (2002). Journalism ethics revisited: A comparison of ethics codes in Europe,

North Africa, the Middle East, and Muslim Asia. Political Communication, 19(2),

225-250.

Hanitzsch, T., Hanusch, F., Ramaprasad, J., & de Beer, A. S. (Eds.). (2019). Worlds of

journalism: Journalistic cultures around the globe. New York: Columbia

University Press.

Hare, R. M. (1978). Moral conflicts. The Tanner Lecture on Human Values. Utah State

University, 169-193. https://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/tanner.pdf

Held, V. (2006). The ethics of care: Personal, political, and global. New York City:

Oxford University Press.

Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Marconi, V. C. (2017). Code saturation versus meaning

saturation: How many interviews are enough? Qualitative health research, 27(4),

591-608.

Himelboim, I., & Limor, Y. (2008). Media perception of freedom of the press: A

comparative international analysis of 242 codes of ethics. Journalism, 9(3), 235-

265.

Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content

analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.

Hursthouse, R. & Pettigrove G. (2018). Virtue ethics. In E. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

Jonas, H. (1976). Philosophical reflections on experimenting with human subjects. In

Biomedical ethics and the law (pp. 217-242). Springer, Boston, MA.

Jonas, H. (1979). Toward a philosophy of technology. Hastings Center Report, 34-43.

Jonas, H. (1982). Technology as a subject for ethics. Social Research, 49(4), 891.

Jones, J. C. (1980). Mass media codes of ethics and councils: A comparative international

study on professional standards. Paris: Unesco Press.

Kant, I. (2018). Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals (A. W. Wood, Trans.). New

Haven: Yale University Press. (Original work published in 1785)

Kepplinger, H. M., & Knirsch, K. (2001). The relevance of Weberian ethics for

contemporary journalism. European Journal of Communication, 16(1), 5-23.

Kerr, C. Nixon A. and Wild D., (2010). Assessing and demonstrating data saturation in

qualitative inquiry supporting patient-reported outcomes research. Expert Review of

Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 10(3), 269-81.

Kohlberg, L. (1971). Stages of moral development. Moral education, 1(51), 23-92.

Laitila, T. (1995). Journalistic codes of ethics in Europe. European Journal of

Communication, 10(4), 527-544.

Lambeth, E. B. (1992). Committed journalism: An ethic for the profession (2nd ed.).

Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Larry, A., & Moore, M. (2016). Deontological ethics. In E. Zalta (ed.). The Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

Limor, Y., & Himelboim, I. (2006). Journalism and moonlighting: An international

comparison of 242 codes of ethics. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 21(4), 265-285.

MacQueen, K. M., McLellan, E., Kay, K., & Milstein, B. (1998). Codebook development

for team-based qualitative analysis. Cam Journal, 10(2), 31-36.

Marvin, C., & Meyer, P. (2005). What kind of journalism does the public need? Institutions

of American Democracy: The press, 400-11.

Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic

Procedures and Software Solution. Klagenfurt: Beltz.

Metykova, M., & Preston, P. (2009). An elusive European public sphere: The role of shared

journalistic cultures. In A. Charles (Ed.). Media in the enlarged Europe: politics,

policy and industry. (pp. 61-68) Intellect Books.

Mill, J. S. (1869) On Liberty. London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer.

Mill, J. S. (1895). Utilitarianism. London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer.

Morris, T. (2013). Hans Jonas's Ethic of Responsibility: From Ontology to Ecology. New

York City: Suny Press.

Noddings, N. (1999). “Response: Two Concepts of Caring.” Philosophy of Education

Archive, 36-39. Urbana: University of Illinois.

Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A relational approach to ethics and moral education

Berkeley: Univ of California Press.

Obijiofor, L., & Hanusch, F. (2011). Journalism across cultures: An introduction.

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

O'Donnell, P. A. (2007). Journalism and philosophy: remembering Clem Lloyd.

In Australian Media Traditions Conference. Charles Sturt University.

Patterson, P., & Wilkins, L. (2005). Media Ethics: Issues & cases (5th ed.). Boston:

McGraw-Hill.

Plaisance, P. L. (2007). Transparency: An Assessment of the Kantian Roots of a Key

Element in Media Ethics Practice. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22(2/3), 187–207.

Plaisance, P. L. (2013). Media ethics: Key principles for responsible practice. New York

City: Sage Publications.

Plaisance, P. L., Skewes, E. A., & Hanitzsch, T. (2012). Ethical orientations of journalists

around the globe: Implications from a cross-national survey. Communication

Research, 39(5), 641-661.

Pratt, C. B. (1988). Responsibility and ethical reasoning in the Nigerian press. Africa

Media Review, 2(2), 46-64.

Pritchard, D., & Morgan, M. P. (1989). Impact of ethics codes on judgments by journalists:

A natural experiment. Journalism Quarterly, 66(4), 934-941.

Quinn, A. (2007). Moral Virtues for Journalists. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22(2/3),

168–186.

Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice: Revised edition. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of

Harvard University Press.

Reporters without Borders. (2019). World Press Freedom Index. Reporters Without

Boarders. https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2019

Reese, S. D. (2001). Understanding the global journalist: A hierarchy-of-influences

approach. Journalism Studies, 2(2), 173-187.

Root Wolpe, P. (2003). Not just how, but whether: Revisiting Hans Jonas. The American

Journal of Bioethics, 3(4), 7-8.

Ross, W. D. (1930) The Right and the Good. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Sanders, K., Hanna, M., Berganza, M. R., & Sánchez Aranda, J. J. (2008). Becoming

journalists: A comparison of the professional attitudes and values of British and

Spanish journalism students. European Journal of Communication, 23(2), 133-152.

Sander-Staudt, M. (2011) Care Ethics. In: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/care-eth/

Scodel, H. (2003). An interview with professor Hans Jonas. Social Research: An

International Quarterly, 70(2), 339-368.

Schopenhauer, A. (1903) The basis of morality (A.B. Bullock Trans.) London: Swan

Sonnenschein. (Originally published in 1840)

Shaw, W. H. (2016). Utilitarianism and the ethics of war. New York: Routledge.

Singer, J. B. (1998). Online journalists: Foundations for research into their changing roles.

Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 4(1), JCMC412.

Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2015) Consequentialism. In E. Zalta (Ed.). The Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2015 Edition).

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/consequentialism/

Starck, K. (2001). What’s right/wrong with journalism ethics research? Journalism Studies,

2(1), 133–150.

Talabi, F. O. (2011). The internet and journalism practice in Nigeria. Global Journal of

Human Social Science, 11(10), 14-20.

Thompson, A. (2007). The responsibility to report: A new journalistic paradigm. In A.

Thompson (Ed.), The media and the Rwanda genocide (pp. 433-445). Ann Arbor,

MI: Pluto Press.

Todd, P. A. S. (2020). What Is It Good For? Towards A Millian Utility Model for Ethical

Terrorism Coverage. Media Watch, 11(1), 50-66.

Trianosky, G. (1990). What is virtue ethics all about? American Philosophical Quarterly,

27(4), 335-344.

Turcan, C. (2017). Hans Jonas’ ethics of technology: Risks of technological society.

Communications-Scientific letters of the University of Zilina, 19(1), 35-38.

Vos, Tim P., and Stephanie Craft. (2017) The discursive construction of journalistic

transparency. Journalism Studies 18, no., 1505-1522.

Walker, J.L. (2012). The Use of Saturation in Qualitative Research. Canadian Journal of

Cardiovascular Nursing, 22(2), 37–41.

Ward, S. J. (2005). Philosophical foundations for global journalism ethics. Journal of Mass

Media Ethics, 20(1), 3-21.

Ward, S. J. (2009). Journalism ethics. In T. Hanitzsch & K. Wahl-Jorgensen (Eds.), The

handbook of journalism studies (pp. 295-308). Routledge.

Weber, M. (1946). Politics as a vocation. In H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (Trans. and

Eds.), Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, pp. 77-128, New York: Oxford University

Press, 1946. (Original work published in 1918)

Wenar, L. (2017). John Rawls, In E. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(Spring 2017 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/

Wilkins, L., & Brennen, B. (2004). Conflicted interests, contested terrain: journalism ethics

codes then and now. Journalism Studies, 5(3), 297-309.

List of Examined Codes

Australian Press Council. (2011). Standards of practice.

https://www.presscouncil.org.au/standards/

Blaðamannafélags Íslands. (1991). Rules of ethics in journalism. Accountable Journalism

(Trans.). https://accountablejournalism.org/ethics-codes/Iceland-Rules

Comision de quejas deontologia. Deontological code for the journalistic profession.

EthicNet (Trans.).

http://ethicnet.uta.fi/spain/deontological_code_for_the_journalistic_profession

Conseil de Presse Luxembourg. (2006). Code of ethics. Accountable Journalism (Trans.).

https://accountablejournalism.org/ethics-codes/luxembourg-press-council-code-of-

ethics

Cyprus Media Complaints Commission. (2008). Journalist’s code of practice.

http://www.cmcc.org.cy/code_practice2.html

Deutscher Presserat. (2016). German press code.

https://www.presserat.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Downloads_Dateien/Pressekodex1

3english_web.pdf

Eesti Ajalehtede Liit. (1997). The code of ethics of the Estonian press.

http://www.asn.org.ee/english/code_of_ethics.html

Ghana Journalists Association. (2017). The GJA code of ethics.

http://gjaghana.org/index.php/code-of-ethics

Independent Press Standards Organisation. (2017). Editor codes of practice.

https://www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/

Julkisen Sanan Neuvosto. (2014). Guidelines for journalists and an annex.

https://www.jsn.fi/en/guidelines_for_journalists/

Latvijas Žurnālistu savienība. (1992). Code of ethics for Latvian journalists. Accountable

Journalism (Trans.). https://accountablejournalism.org/ethics-codes/Latvia-Ethics

Media Council of Papua New Guinea. (2016) General code of ethics for the news media.

https://media-council-of-papua-new-guinea.webnode.com/code/

New Zealand Media Council. (2017). Statement of principles.

https://www.mediacouncil.org.nz/principles

Novinarsko častno razsodišče. (2002). New code of ethics of journalists. Accountable

Journalism (Trans.). https://accountablejournalism.org/ethics-codes/Slovenia-New-

Code

Press Council of Ireland. (2017). Code of practice. https://www.presscouncil.ie/press-

council-of-ireland-1/code-of-practice-

PresseNævnet. (2013). The press ethical rules. https://www.pressenaevnet.dk/press-ethical-

rules/

Pressens Opinionsnämnd. (2016). Code of ethics for press, radio and television in Sweden.

https://po.se/about-the-press-ombudsman-and-press-council/code-of-ethics-for-

press-radio-and-television-in-sweden/

Press Council South Africa. (2019). Code of ethics and conduct for South African print and

online media. https://presscouncil.org.za/ContentPage?code=PRESSCODE#

Pressens Faglige Utvalg. (2015). Ethical code of practice for the press (printed press, radio,

television and net publications). https://presse.no/pfu/etiske-regler/vaer-varsom-

plakaten/vvpl-engelsk/

Raad voor de Journalistiek. (2018). Council for journalism – Code of practice.

https://www.rvdj.be/pagina/english-version

Raad voor de Journalistiek. (2018). Guidelines of the Netherlands press council.

https://www.rvdj.nl/english/guidelines

Schweizer Presserat. (2017). Declaration of the duties and rights of the journalist.

https://presserat.ch/en/journalistenkodex/erklaerungen/

Schweizer Presserat. (2017). Directives relating to the declaration of the duties and rights of

the journalist. https://presserat.ch/en/journalistenkodex/richtlinien/

The Canadian Association of Journalists. (2011). Ethics guidelines.

http://caj.ca/content.php?page=ethics-guidelines

The Press Association of Jamaica. (2011). Code of practice for Jamaican journalists and

media organizations. http://pressassociationjamaica.org/code-of-practice-revised/

Media Ombudsman Nambia. (2017). Code of ethics and conduct for Namibian print,

broadcast and online media.

http://www.mediaombudsmannamibia.org/downloads/codeofethics_online.pdf

Visuomenės informavimo etikos asociacija. (2016). Code of ethics in providing

information to the public of Lithuania. http://www.etikoskomisija.lt/teisine-

informacija/etikos-kodeksas/item/178-code-of-ethics-in-providing-information-to-

the-public-of-lithuania

Appendix A: Descriptive Characteristics for Selected Journalistic Codes

Code Nation of Publishing Official Year WPFI Origin (and organization published Published # UN country Languages1 (Last code) updated)

Code of Ethics Norway Norsk -Norwegian 2015 1 of the (NOR) Presseforbund -English Norwegian (Norwegian Press Press Association)

Guidelines for Finland Opinionsnämnden -Swedish 2011 2 Journalists and (FIN) för massmedier -English (2014) Annex (Council for Mass -Finnish Media)

Code of Ethics Sweden Kungessens Sweedish2 2001 3 for Press, Radio (SWE) Opinionsnämnd and Television (Press in Sweden Ombudsman)

Guideline of the The Raad voor de -Dutch 2007 4 Netherlands Netherlands Journalistiek -English (2018) Press Council (NLD) (Council for 2018 Journalism)

The Press Denmark Pressenævnet -Danish 1991 5 Ethical Rules (DNK) (Danish Press -English (2013) Council)

The Press Switzerland (Schweizer -German 1977 6 Council Code of (CHE) Presserat) Swiss -French (2017) Conduct Press Council -Italian -English

New New Zealand -English 1999 7 Statement of Zealand Media Council (2002) Principles (NZL)

Code of Jamaica Press Association -English 2005 8 Practice for (JAM) of Jamaica (2011)

Jamaican Journalists and Media Organizations

The Code of Estonia Avaliku Sõna -Estonian 1997 11 Ethics of the (EST) Nõukogu -English Estonian Press (Estonian Press -Russian Council)

Guidelines for Germany Deutsche -German 1973 13 Journalistic (DEU) Presserat (German -English (2017) Work Press Council)

Rules of Ethics Iceland Blaðamannafélags -Icelandic2 1988 14 in Journalism (ISL) Íslands (Journalist (1991) Association of Iceland)

Code of Ireland Press Council of -English 2008 15 Practice (IRL) Ireland

Code of Ethics Luxemburg Conseil de Presse -French2 2006 17 (LUX) Luxembourg

Ethics Canada The Canadian -English 2011 18 Guidelines (CAN) Association of Journalists

Statements of Australia Australian Press -English 2014 21 Principles (AUS) Council

Code of Eth Namibia Editors’ Forum of - English 2017 23 ics and Conduct (NAM) Namibia for Namibian Print, Broadcast and Online media

Latvian Union Latvia Latvijas -Latvian2 1992 24 of Journalists (LVA) Žurnālistu Code of Ethics Savienība

100

(Latvian Journalists Union)

The GJA Code Ghana Ghana Journalists -English 1994 27 of Ethics (GHA) Association (2016)

Journalists’ Cyprus Cyprus Media -English 1997 28 Code of (CYP) Complaints -Greek (2008) Practice Commission

Deontological Spain (ESP) Federacion de -Spanish3 1993 29 Code for the Asociaciones de la Journalistic Prensa de Espana Profession (Federation of the Spanish Press)

Code of Ethics Lithuania Visuomenės -Lithuanian 2016 30 of Lithuanian (LTU) informavimo -English Journalists etikos komisija (Public Information Ethics Association)

Code of Ethics South Africa The Press Council -English 2016 31 and Conduct for (ZAF) of South Africa (2019) South African Print and Online Media

Editors’ Code United Independent Press -English 2015 33 of Pra ctice Kingdom Standards (2019) (UKG) Association

General Code of Slovenia Association and -Slovanian3 2002 34 Ethic s for the (SVN) the Union of News Media Journalists in Slovenia

Code of Papua New Media Council of -English (2017) 37 Practice Guinea Papua New (PNG) Guinea

101

1The first language listed coincides with the primary language presented on the website.

2Translation taken from Accountable Journalism website

3Translation taken from EthicNet website.

102

Appendix B: List of Categorization Related Data for Selected Journalistic Codes

Code Nation of Purpose # of statements Word Origin Category contained Count

Code of Ethics of the Norway 1 42 1823 Norwegian Press

Guidelines for Finland 2 40 1813 Journalists and Annex

Code of Ethics for Sweden 2 31 1380 Press, Radio and Television in Sweden

Guideline of the The 1 40 2084 Netherlands Press Netherlands Council 2018

The Press Ethical Rules Denmark 3 23 1365

The Press Council Switzerland 1 69 4388 Code of Conduct

Statement of Principles New Zealand 2 12 1160

Code of Practice for Jamaica 1 47 2473 Jamaican Journalists and Media Organizations

The Code of Ethics of Estonia 4 36 920 the Estonian Press

Guidelines for Germany 3 75 6273 Journalistic Work

Rules of Ethics in Iceland 4 10 788 Journalism

Code of Practice Ireland 1 23 996

Code of Ethics Luxemburg 1 83 4991

103

Ethics Guidelines Canada 1 72 2773

Statements of Australia 2 30 2417 Principles

Code of Ethics and Namibia 3 100 4279 Conduct for Namibian Print, Broadcast and Online media

Latvian Union of Latvia 4 24 600 Journalists Code of Ethics

The GJA Code of Ghana 1 24 549 Ethics

Journalists’ Code of Cyprus 1 133 6273 Practice

Deontological Code for Spain 1 41 1561 the Journalistic Profession

Code of Ethics of Lithuania 4 65 3525 Lithuanian Journalists

Code of Ethics and South Africa 4 59 2771 Conduct for South African Print and Online Media

Editors’ Code of United 1 43 1826 Practice Kingdom

General Code of Ethics Slovenia 4 27 945 for the News Media

Code of Practice Papua New 1 57 2008 Guinea

104

Appendix C: List of Generalized ethical situation categories and their designation #

Ethical Situation Designation #

Protection of Freedoms, such as Speech, Expression Information 1a and/or Press

Uncovering and protection of the people from injustice 1b

Respect for the truth and acceptance of multiple perspectives it 1c requires

Responsibility to the public and their right to (prompt, accurate and 1d beneficial) information

Safeguarding and/or promotion of human rights and values 1e

Right to Protection from being ordered to act contrary to the law, 2a one’s own values or good practice or reprisals for such actions by external or internal pressures.

The right of the journalist to be informed of the ownership and 2b structure of their paper/company and of decisions that may affect its future.

The right to professional training 2c

The right for previously agreed upon working conditions to be 2d maintained for both collective and/or individual.

The right of the journalist to a moral / economic independence 2e

Right for the editorial office and/or journalists to express their own 2f views and opinions on discussed topics.

Right to make use of any organizational complaints process 2g

Right to proper payment for copyrighted work 2h

Right to unobstructed and transparent access to news sources 2i

105

Final control of and personal responsibility for published material and 3a policy decisions

The responsibility to act with journalistic principles, such as holding 3b the operation of journalistic work to high standards and independent reporting.

The responsibility for maintaining proper relationships with 3c government bodies and a moral attitude toward providing/embargoing of information related to sensitive situations (such as active bombing threats or terrorism)

The responsibility to act to avoid damage to the image of journalism 3d or the public’s trust

The responsibility for fair dealings and conduct with fellow journalists 3e

The responsibility for maintaining proper relationships with 3f advertisers

The responsibility to Respect for democratic institutions and moral 3g standards

The responsibility to respect for national culture 3h

The required development or applying of other rules and procedures 3i in addition to those laid out in the code of conduct

The responsibility to seek and continue necessary training as a 3j journalist

Responsibility to avoid creating or perpetuating falsehoods, prejudice 3k or undue panic in the act of reporting.

Obligation to oppose the monopolization of the public’s access to 3l information in the public interest

Responsibility to properly consider and/or justify breaches of typical 3m journalistic practice

Responsibility to hold the safety and wellbeing of members of the 3n public in high regard, and avoiding actions that put them at risk

106

Responsibility to keep an up to date and accurate archive of previous 3o work

Clear presentation and separation of non-articles (including 4a advertisement, press releases or archival material) from regular content.

Non-misleading, unambiguous and ethical use of journalistic material 4b (including photos, headlines, captions, video and quotes)

Pursuing fair and accurate and non-misleading presentation of content 4c in article text

Distinction between confirmed factual information and 4d unsubstantiated information.

Removal and prominent correction of incorrect, misleading or unduly 4e offensive information

Following up on “active” news stories and publishing their 4f conclusions with respect to importance

Proper objectivity/balance in presentation of a multi sided issue 4g

Prohibition or restrictions on specific content (such as unethical 4h advertising, propaganda, harmful information or incitement of violence)

Proper identification and ethical use of opinion, edited, recreated or 4i publicly submitted content from factual content

Attempting to limit the effect of biases on reporting 4j

Clear presentation and/or separation of edited material 4k

Warnings/advisories concerning extreme content 4l

Avoiding offensive presentation, glamorization, sensationalization, 4m voyeurism and undue minimization or prominence of a given topic.

Avoiding the use of indecent and/or unreasonably hurtful language or 4n images.

107

Refusal to publish unsubstantiated, anonymous, unconfirmed 4o confidential and/or malicious allegations or content

Exemptions concerning non-factual editorial content 4p

Exemptions or criteria for adjacent statements regarding publishable 4q content

Use of photos taken in public areas 4r

Proper vetting and clear indication of links to third-party (especially 4s non-journalistic) material in online text

Openness on personal or professional factors of the journalist or any 5a contributors that affect the context of either a given piece or a journalist’s professional work

Openness on issues of sponsorship, external financing or other forms 5b of assistance or content provided by outside sources

Openness on the collection methods (such as payments) and 5c presentation of content

Informing the public of any group connected to a given hosted event. 5d

Informing public of any costs for participation in a hosted event 5e

Disclosure of financial payments or ties to freelancers 5f

Openness on the authorship of a news piece 5g

Avoiding/managing potential conflicts of interest 6a

Avoiding the exploitation of the role of journalist for personal or 6b institutional gain

Avoiding the trading/selling of favors or (unpublished) information 6c

Avoiding accepting of outside assignments or obligations 6d

Resisting external pressures on the content or publishing of their work 6e

Avoiding the use of unethically gathered information 6f

108

Rules concerning the proper acceptance or refusal of gifts 6g

Rules concerning the use of a journalist’s name, image and/or voice 6h for promotional material or advertisement.

Prohibition from reporting on content in which the journalist has a 6i conflict of interest

Prohibition undue fraternization concerning subjects on which the 6j journalist plans to report

Fair and non-biased distribution of prizes and rewards in promotional 6k event

On apologies for and notices of incorrect, misleading or unduly 7a offensive information to the public, including council rulings or defamation outcomes.

Presentation of rules and guidelines for submitted content or 7b participation and interaction with newspaper staff

Proper collection of personal information and protection of collected 7c information from misuse or loss

Establishing and promotion clear channels of communication for 7d receiving concerns on perceived inappropriate publications by public

Proper separation of reader and editorial opinions 7e

Journalistic protections against distortion concerning content 7f submitted by the public

Avoiding personal attacks on the beliefs/convictions of a member of 7g the public

Guidelines concerning anonymization of authors of submitted content 7h and its suitability for publication

Keeping individuals abreast of any breach in collected personal 7i information or submitted content

Requirements for and Proper management/monitoring of online 7j forums.

109

Removal of offensive statements or comments on online forums 7k

Guidelines concerning protection or Identification of sources by the 8a journalist

Critical evaluation of accuracy, utility, legitimacy and potential 8b drawbacks (concerning usage) of sources and collected information as well as verification thereof.

Source’s right to knowledge of the journalist as such, knowledge of 8c the journalistic organization and requirements as well as the journalist’s understanding and intended use of information provided or collected.

Restrictions or prohibitions of underhanded methods of information 8d gathering

Review or factual correction of published material by the providing 8e source

Proper use of leaked information 8f

Interaction with and protections of sources unfamiliar with media or 8g under physical/emotional stress

On making and keeping agreements concerning information with a 8h source (such as, off-the record status, exclusivity or an embargo)

Use of private or unpublished 3rd party material 8i

On proper and use of press releases, and other previously published or 8j copyrighted 3rd material

Other restrictions on the acceptance or gathering of information 8k

Proper citation of sources and avoiding plagiarism 8l

On limits and guidelines concerning compensation or payment of 8m sources for information

On conditions that superseded confidentiality, inherent protections 8n and/or agreements with sources.

110

Use of public digital statements or information 8o

Rules against harassment, intimidation or stalking (including unethical 8p photography) of sources

Working to include input and/or interests from all parts of society 8q

Informing sources of the permanency of information regarding online 8r publication

Proper acquiring of permission for the gathering or use of source’s 8s image or recorded content

Respecting a source’s right to refuse to answer questions or give out 8t information

Prohibitions or restrictions on interactions with criminals as sources, 8u either during a crime in progress or after the fact

Outlining Right to privacy concerning both public and non-public 9a figures

Proper limitation of the publishing of irrelevant personal information 9b or unnecessary personal characteristics and history or discrimination of subjects due to such characteristics

Right of reply 9c

Consent, review and potential anonymization or restriction of 9d material, including submitted or archival material

Respecting the rights/dignity/integrity of subjects 9e

Cases of anonymity considered or required withholding or limiting of 9f identifiable information

The right to be forgotten 9g

Proper Interaction and sympathy concerning subjects and bystanders 9h in situations of great stress, shock or hardship

Proper avoidance of defamation and clarification between defamation 9i and simple embarrassment

111

Outlining ethical situations regarding the withholding information 9j from the public

Outlining situations that superseded protections or agreements with 9k subjects

Avoiding causing undue harm to subjects or connected individuals 9l

Proper identification of subject’s status and situation 9m

Special considerations concerning accident/crime victims and their 10a families

Special considerations of minors or the otherwise dependent 10b

Special considerations of court reporting and charged and/or 10c convicted individuals

Special considerations when reporting on death (including suicide) 10d

Special considerations concerning the portrayal and use of data and 10e polls

Special considerations concerning the discussion of companies and 10f their products and services

Special considerations concerning the portrayal of violence (including 10g public threats), terrorism or war

Special considerations concerning the portrayal of drug abuse 10h

Special considerations concerning the portrayal of science and 10i medical content

Special considerations concerning the portrayal of sex crimes and 10j victims

Special considerations concerning the coverage and investigation of 10k corporations

Special considerations in avoiding undue negative coverage and 10l discussion of the issues concerning race, sex, religion, gender identity or migrant/foreigner status

112

Special considerations concerning the coverage of HIV/AIDs 10m

Special considerations concerning coverage of politics 10n

Special considerations concerning coverage of debtors 10o

Special considerations concerning coverage of health-related issues 10p (including coverage within hospitals)

Special considerations on coverage of intimate family or private 10q events.

Special considerations on coverage of financial subjects 10r

Special considerations on coverage concerning national security 10s

Special considerations concerning public figures 10t

Special considerations concerning potentially offensive or “adult” 10u subject matter

Statements not advocating actions 11a

Outlining aspects of complaint and review process 11b

Further defining of or providing examples or exemptions for 11c regulations regarding previous passages

Outlining additional contexts within journalism for applying 11d guidelines (i.e. the rules on X also apply to X)

On punitive measures for breach of code 11e

Outlining contexts or groups that the code addresses in whole or in 11f part

On examination and/or improvement of the code 11g

Requirements of journalists, editors and papers regarding the code 11h

Outlining groups covered by the code 11i

Availability of the code 11j

113

Outlining purpose or publishing of the code 11k

Outlining the responsibilities of the code creators 11l

Defining specific terminology used within the code 11m

114

Appendix D: Ethical Justification percentages by code and influencers found

Nation # of Utility Rule Virtue Justice Care Responsibility Influe Code coded based based based based based based nce # statements

NOR 42 2.30% 54.70 11.90% 16.67% 2.30% 16.67% 2 %

FIN 40 2.50% 55% 25% 5% 12.50% 7.50% 2

DNK 23 0% 82.60 0% 4.48% 8.70% 4.48% 2 %

EST 36 2.78% 52.78 41.67% 2.78% 2.78% 2.78% 2, 3 %

NLD 39 0 20.51 71.79% 2.56% 7.69% 2.56% 3 %

SWE 30 3.3% 76.7 0% 3.3% 13.3% 3.3% 2 %

DEU 71 1.39% 46.48 32.39% 9.86% 11.27% 12.68% 2 %

ISL 15 0% 6.67 46.67% 0% 6.67% 6.67% 3 %

CHE 69 7.25% 24.64 42.03% 17.39% 13.04% 17.39% 3 %

NZL 12 8.3% 50% 16.7% 8.3% 0% 16.7% 2

NAM 99 1.01% 52.53 44.44% 1.01% 7.07% 0% 2, 3 %

LVA 24 12.50 25% 62.50% 4.17% 0% 16.67% 3 %

JAM 48 0% 38.30 61.70% 0% 2.13% 2.13% 2, 3 %

115

AUS 29 3.45% 44.83 41.38% 0% 10.34% 17.24% 2,3 %

LTU 66 0% 25.76 81.82% 4.55% 3.03% 4.55% 3 %

ZAF 59 3.34% 49.15 54.24% 5.08% 6.78% 3.34% 2,3 %

IRL 23 0% 30.43 54.17% 8.70% 17.39% 0% 3 %

SVN 27 3.70% 14.81 85.19% 0% 3.70% 0% 3 %

LUX 84 1.19% 44.05 48.81% 16.67% 3.57% 3.57% 2, 3 %

CAN 72 6.94% 83.33 8.33% 4.16% 1.39% 6.94% 2 %

GHA 24 0% 0% 100% 4.17% 0% 0% 3

CYP 129 3.88% 46.51 41.86% 6.2% 5.43% 6.2% 2, 3 %

ESP 42 4.76% 26.19 85.71% 19.05% 0% 21.43% 3 %

UKG 44 2.27% 47.73 50% 0% 0% 2.27% 2, 3 %

PNG 57 0% 92.98 7.02% 1.75% 10.53% 1.75% 2 %

116

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Thesis and Dissertation Services ! !