In the media profession, journalists are generally tasked with reporting the truth and expected to follow certain rules of the profession, just as every profession has its laid down rules. Every profession today demands that its ethics be followed to the letter. According to the Centre for Journalism Ethics, ethics is “the dynamic, evolving activity of applying, balancing, and modifying principles in light of new fact, new technology, new social attitudes and changing economic and political conditions”. This suggests that as situation changes, laid down principles must be adjusted to suit it. Ethics of the media guide journalists in making decisions in relation to the challenges they face on the job. This essay will discuss how Kant’s approach to ethics can be regulated with that of Bentham for the media environment.
According to Frost (2016), “ethics is a way of studying morality which allows decisions to be made when individuals face specific cases of moral dilemma.” He believes that a journalist ought to seek information truthfully and to publish stories based on facts. The future of the profession looks bleak when journalists do not fact-check information before reporting it (Duprey, 2010).Frost further identifies a pressure journalist face, which is the challenge to report a good story within a short period of time. In this situation, journalists are still expected to stay within the confines of their professional ethics.
Immanuel Kant, the German Philosopher “helped to develop the concept of deontological or duty-based ethics” (Frost, 2016). He compounded the fundamental principle of reality, the categorical imperatives, which is one of the key concepts of Kant. Bordum (2002) in his summary of Kant’s ethics stated four types of formulations of the categorical imperatives. The first is described as “a principle of universalization”. It states that one should, “act according to that maxim which can at the same time make itself a universal law” (Kant 1994:42, 437). As rational beings, Kant believes that people ought to treat others in a way that one would want to be treated. Journalists should learn to treat others well, even more because damages to someone’s personality or name could be costly.
The second categorical imperative is “formulated as a practical principle”, Bordum (2002) quoting Kant states that one should “act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means” (Kant 1994:36, 429). This calls that one should respect oneself as well as respect other people too. For the journalists dealing with sources in reporting a story, he or she should treat the sources fairly and equally. The kind of treatment extended to sources should be fair enough such that if the journalist were to be given the same treatment, he or she will be comfortable with it. The rights of the sources should be considered. According to the NUJ code of conduct, a journalist must “protect the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of his/ her work.” Sources are to be well managed, therefore, journalists must seek appropriate consent from a source, with no deception involved.
Another categorical imperative is “formulated in relation to the kingdom of ends, therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends” (Kant 1994:43, 438). This formulation recognises the freedom and free will of one as an individual and member of a group. Each person is entitled to making their own choices for which they ought to think of the consequences involved. Journalists ought to consider the reasons and results of their actions.
Here is where Jeremy Bentham’s approach comes in. “Utilitarianists believe that an action that produces an excess of beneficial effects over harmful ones must be the right one” (Frost, 2016). In other words, an action is right if it causes more happiness, and it is wrong if it is otherwise. For journalists, the Kantian ethics means that they must bear the consequences of their actions, but infusing Bentham’s approach means they will not face the consequences of their actions if it brings about good result. This gives more room for investigative journalism to thrive. Journalists can discover stories that will lead to the revelation of immoral or corrupt activities, that will benefit a community. Even though this might cause damage to the reputation of those involved, such will still be considered as being right.
The NUJ code of conduct states that a “journalist does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of public interest”. Journalists should consider the interest of the public as their duty is to them. They must “at all times uphold and defend the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed” (NUJ Code). While Kantian ethics can restrain the individual pursuit of good, utilitarianism allows for it, if it causes better good than evil. Journalists should report the truth for the greater good. Despite the benefits of utilitarianism, however, there is a criticism which posits that it “does not require any measure of motive for the action”, which can allow for a bad deed to be justified (Frost 2016).
In conclusion, ethics is less about individuals seeking to maximise their goods and more about right relations among people (Centre for Journalism Ethics). Therefore, sources should be well treated. Stories of public interest should be reported considering other ethics of the profession. Journalists are expected to be ethical in their profession generally. When reports are not done objectively and ethically, people tend to lose trust in the media. The approach of Kant and Bentham towards ethics, when infused together serve as an ethical stronghold for Journalists.
Elohor's Blog 