"The press is never really free unless it accepts a pattern which protects it from the perils of self-destruction."1
[Unknown]
The subject of mass media ethics, from a philosophical perspective, cannot be understood based on what are referred to as the professional codes of ethics of newspaper editors, writers and broadcast journalists. For practicing journalists, such codes serve as guidelines for appropriate behavior under ordinary conditions of communication.
Foucault speaks of a "moral code" as the manner in which one complies with a standard of conduct, respects or disregards a set of values, and the manner in which one ought to "conduct oneself" as an ethical subject, acting according to the prescribed elements of the code. Given a code of actions and with regard to a specific type of action, there are different ways to "conduct oneself" morally and behave as an ethical subject of this action.2 Mills speaks of a "moral uneasiness" resulting from the fact that older values and codes which no longer hold in the corporate era, have not been replaced by new values and codes which would grant them moral meaning and approval. Moral terms of acceptance and rejection no longer exist.3
Along with an increased attitude of social responsibility, there emerges a greater awareness of ethical codes and emphasis on the use of media power. The media have substantial power, a great deal of freedom under the First Amendment and considerable responsibilities. Michael J. O'Neill 1982, argues that the press has acquired power out of proportion to its ability to use it responsibly. It is his contention that freedom of the press will ultimately depend upon media not exploiting their unlimited power to the fullest.4
How is that power used and how are responsibilities exercised? Those in the business of news are constantly challenging themselves, laboring over self-imposed rules for covering news. Operating in an increasingly hostile public environment, the media are under public pressure to be more than profit-making concerns, and cannot ignore serious ethical issues on the public agenda. By doing so, they would face deeper intrusion into the news process from the government and other power institutions which could jeopardize the First Amendment and concept of free media.
The American Society of Newspaper Editors, Associated Press Managing Editors, Society of Professional Journalists, and Radio/TV News Directors Association all publish codes of standards for their membership. All codes purport the duty of the journalist to serve the truth; freedom to learn and report the facts; the public's right to know the truth; and performance with objectivity and high standards of accuracy, fairness and truthfulness. Codes are statements of ideals and aspirations and, as such, they have been useful in getting journalists to think about the objectives of journalism. However, the application of codes to different situations encountered by journalists have been found to be of limited help in addressing the daily decisions which they make.
Many television analysts have suggested that news values and conventions of presentation be thought of as a set of codes. Among television news personnel these codes represent issues of most concern in the world: what is going to change things the most; what it is presumed the viewer will be interested in; in what manner it will be shown, and what types of narrative structure will be most appealing. Although these codes are not always explicit or consciously held, they tend to be widely shared by the profession.5
Journalists have argued that while there are written codes, many are outdated and do not lend themselves to application in today's technological media. The Report of the Commission on Freedom of the Press 1947, the "Hutchins Commission," can be called the first freedom of information committee report, since it called on government to provide full information to the media. The Hutchins Commission attempted to deal philosophically with the purposes and practices of journalism. Its basic agenda was the proper role of the press as an institution in society, and of government and law as guarantors of the liberty exercised by the press and public. Hutchins' literature contains little that would assist a journalist in making daily ethical judgments.
The Federal Communications Commission and professional organizations such as National Association of Broadcasters, have written professional regulations and codes designed to clarify the function of television and to protect the viewing public from possible harm. Defenders of television often base concerns in fear of television's educational function, along with similar concerns for television's political and economic powers toward the integrity of minority and special interest groups.6
What the Hill-Thomas hearings uncovered were the political decisions that go into creating a consensus about internal rules. The distinction between internally accepted, formally neutral rules and externally imposed, politically motivated rules was not functioning. Statements of committee members, such as "this is not a trial" and "this is not a courtroom," cast dispersions upon the procedural logic of the hearings. While one could argue that rules of order in such hearings and rules of law in a courtroom are different, one also could argue that political controversy was the outcome of the fact that rationally proven rules of law were not followed in the Hill-Thomas hearings.7