Are journalists becoming less moral?

Discuss and analyse journalists’ moral status and

development within the context of ethical theories and principles. You may also refer to

the challenges and influences that affect their ethical decision-making.

Student ID: gfb21157

Word Count: 2850

 It should come as no surprise to learn that there has been a significant uptake in the

amount of fake news that has been spread during the last few years. Statistics shows that 24%

of UK citizens report seeing a fake news article weekly, and that just over 5% see as many as

twenty fake articles (Watson, 2022). This raises a question as to whether journalists are

becoming less moral in their choice of story reporting, or whether other factors are now

influencing their decisions. One perspective also considers that journalism has an equally

sordid past, with journalist George Pitcher saying that the notion of a moral decline implies

the “romantic fantasy of Old journalism”, a past that never really existed (Pitcher, 2018).

This may be because there are no universal moral frameworks, so what one school of thought

might consider immoral, might be perfectly acceptable to another. These differences also

extent to the rubric by which moral integrity is measured, with some emphasizing

consequences and rule-breaking, while others suggest there is a fundamental moral quality

that motivates a journalist’s actions. Ethical frameworks can be studied to help examine

where the morality of journalism currently stands.

One perspective, the deontic framework, suggests that rules and codes of conduct are

the measure for what should be considered moral. Foreman (2009) argues this is because

frameworks come about as a result of thoughtful, off-deadline discussions and reflect the

wisdom of experience, meaning they are more likely to be in the best interest of the majority.

Kant’s “universality principle” expands on this, stating that people should “act only in

accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a

universal law” (Johnson and Cureton, 2021). However, recent evidence has shown that there

has been an increase in journalists who rely on other means to guide their moral compass.

Villegas (2015) found that personal values were now the biggest influence on European

digital journalists, more so than codes of conduct and interactions with the public. From a

deontological viewpoint, this demonstrates a decrease in morality as journalists instead use

their own moral stances to decide which stories they should run. One explanation for this

could be a discrepancy between the teaching of rules and their application in real life. Kostyu

(2009) found that while many journalists in education can correctly identify what actions

break deontological morals, they often severely underestimate the severity of these violations,

as well as not knowing what they would do if they were accused of them. Perhaps the action

of deferring to the individual’s moral stance is due to a lack of understanding surrounding

rules that a more academic and less vocational approach to learning journalism brings with it.

A journalist who breaks the law is considered immoral by deontic standards, even if

doing so results in a positive societal outcome. This shows a potential clash between the law

and social norms, the wider-arching codes of conduct that supposedly govern legal

proceedings. In fact, this has led to the law having to adjust itself to allow journalists to

pursue “difficult” stories that they may be prosecuted for otherwise (Greenslade, 2015).

There exists a fundamental flaw in deontological ethics, where sometimes journalists who

break a rule expose that the rule does not act in the public interest, and should be changed.

Deontological ethics is limiting because it presupposes that the codes of conduct used are

morally correct and up to date without questioning them. The current digitalised landscape

changes rapidly, so there may be a lapse in morality as new values and concepts are

investigated. Stöber (2004) argued these changes have not yet been “institutionalised” for the

next generation of journalists. Belsey and Chadwick (2002) also show that there are now a

multitude of frameworks, not only across hundreds of news organisations, but from

competing advertisers and external bodies. Two codes of conduct might conflict with one

another, and it could be left to the journalist to decide which system they decide to follow.

Too many option could lead to journalists becoming “paralysed” (Foreman, 2009). To this

end, deontological ethics may not be suitable in measuring journalistic morality when there

are too many opposing codes of conduct that exist. Rules that are common across many
journalistic practices such as a focus on transparency (van der Wurff, 2010) are also too

broad and non-descript to have a place in a practical society.

If a journalist decides to go against the codes of conduct of their media institution,

then they can be seen to have adopted a virtue ethics approach. This perspective is concerned

with moral character, as opposed to duties, or the consequences of actions (Hursthouse,

1999). This perspective posits that a decline in morally good journalism is the result of a

decline in morally good journalists. To this end, it was found that journalists performed far

worse in 2019 than thirteen years prior on the Defining Issues assessment, a test of an

individual’s moral compass (Ferruci, Tandoc Jr. and Schauster, 2019). This could go some

way to explaining the rise in fake news stories, as journalists make decisions based off their

less stringent moral code. There have been notable exceptions where journalists have stood

out against what they believe to be an immoral situation. Carol Marin was a co-anchor who

quit her job after the hiring of a comedian who didn’t oppose the moral code of her

organisation, but of her own moral character (Carter, 1997). More recently, this has extended

to activism, with journalist Roman Pratesivich being detained and exiled for his involvement

in activist movements (CBS News, 2021). However, these individuals are the exception, and

not the rule, and the fact that journalists opposing their organisations is still worthy of news

stories suggests that this is not the norm. This could either be because of an alignment

between the individual’s morality and the codes of conduct that govern them, or more

practical reasons that clash with the ability to be fully moral.

Noted by Keenan et al. (2006), “the triumph of organisation is not so much that it

thwarts morality, but that it redeploys it towards the pursuit of technical ends”. This refers to

an idea that virtuous behaviour is restructured by the needs of the organisation, here the

media company, in order to further benefit commercial gain. By this definition, journalists

may become less moral as the demands of the organisations that they work for change and
require them to suppress virtuosic tendencies for the sake of their job. It could also be argued

that perhaps the willingness to suppress one’s own moral tendencies is, within itself, a moral

code. There is also a distinction to be made between an agent-based approach, that of the

individual’s moral character, and an agent-focused approach, their actions (Crisp and Slote,

1997). If a journalist publishes a morally ethical story, but for an unethical personal reason,

then it is a matter of philosophical debate whether or not this is a morally good action. While

some like Blackburn (2003) argue that people do well by acting in a righteous way, this

might be too optimistic for modern society, where the most popular media outlets are

constantly found to promote biased and subjective reporting. Recently, Barthel and Bürkner

(2019) found an overwhelming pro-EU attitude across hundreds of Western papers in

response to Ukraine’s attempts to leave the EU, which had rolling consequences on the view

of the country. From a virtue ethics perspective, there is no real doubt that there has been a

decline in journalistic morality, pushed forwards by corporate and societal values.

The third major viewpoint concerns consequences of actions, a utilitarian standpoint,

which differs quite considerably from the previous approaches. Ward (2011) outlines how

Mill’s Utilitarian essay shows that good consequences elevate pleasure and happiness, or

“utility”. Christians (2007) outlines that by this definition, a utilitarian approach is not

governed by any philosophical, divine, or individual moral rules, but is instead “rooted in the

ordinary human motivation to avoid pain and pursue pleasure”. This perspective is perhaps

more practical when it comes to measuring real-life contexts. Investigative journalism, one of

the main tenets of media reporting that hopes to work in the interests of the public is thriving

now more than ever. A decrease in the size of newsroom has meant that smaller, independent

organisations have been set up with the sole purpose of reporting investigate journalism, such

as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and the Centre for Investigative Journalism

(Greenslade, 2019). This suggests that journalists have not become less moral, but that many
join smaller organisations to get their stories told. However, Mill argues that the “good of the

whole” must be considered, not just the majority, as this can lead to heavily believed

perspectives trampling out others. This definition suggests the concept of ‘public interest’ is

not enough, and that everyone must benefit. Investigative journalism often hopes to uncover

the wrongdoings of a group or an individual, rendering this definition too narrow. Journalist

Kevin Carter took his own life after backlash from a published photograph of a starving child

in Africa (Neal, 2014). This perspective neglects to realise that journalists are also part of the

public, and while his story may have consequentially raised collective awareness of African

poverty, who has the right to determine whether that outweighs the loss of life and grief that

Carter’s family must have felt.

Other utilitarian approaches have suggested broader definitions for what can be

considered a positive consequence, with Blackburn (2003) saying that respect over love for

each other is perhaps the most practical solution, and Ross (1930) arguing that “people

recognize promise keeping, equal distribution, nonviolence, and preventing injury as moral

principles”. However, there are also criticisms to this approach. It can be argued that by these

consequences, journalism is expected to go beyond objective and truthful reporting, to

actively prevent injury and negative consequences. This blurs the lines between objective

reporting and subjective activism. Another problem with a utilitarian standpoint is how time-

consuming it is to hypothesize all possible consequences. A more wide-spread society means

there will be more consequences, and to expect a journalist to be able to fully understand and

weigh them all up is practically impossible. In the realm of breaking news, it is sometimes

required that stories be delivered under a deadline to offer the public the latest information.

but research is now showing that constant breaking news is bad for mental health (Lindberg,

2020). This posits that a story can have both positive and negative consequences. It is

therefore up to the individual’s values to decide whether to run it or not. As research expands,
this is becoming a problem in almost all areas of journalism. Culver (2014) considers the use

of drones from a utilitarian standpoint and suggests a balance must be struck between

consequences of privacy invasion and the greater good of the population. To this end, a

decrease in journalistic morality could actually be due to practical limitations that society

cannot yet deal with.

In today’s rapidly digitising society, there is an argument to be made that journalists

face obstacles than render it harder to make morally correct decisions. Diaz-Campo and

Segado-Boj (2015) found that in an analysis of ninety-nine journalistic codes of ethics from

around the globe, only nine referred to the use of the internet and online journalism. Even

then, these codes simply stated that digital journalism should be governed by the same

principles as traditional journalism. A deontic perspective helps to explain an apparent

decline in morality, as the codes that an individual uses to assess their morality are not yet at

an acceptable standard to be viable in today’s climate. However, a virtue ethics framework

would argue that codes of conduct are not needed for one’s actions to be morally good. This

is becoming even harder to express as in recent years, the journalist’s morality may not even

be the deciding factor in story reporting. Dörr and Hollnbuchner (2016) analysed the ethics of

algorithm journalism, an online emergence where programmes are used to generate content

from mined data. They say that “the importance of the individual is diminishing, whereas the

importance of media organizations and the media system as moral agents is rising”. This

moves the discussion away from the individual to an interconnected network of professionals

within a news organisation who now have the responsibility to act morally. Köster (2002)

argues that a business that acts morally almost always follows ethical egoism. This would

suggest a more self-centred approach that focuses on profit and survival of the self. This issue

separates the journalist as the individual from journalism practice, and suggests that there are

other bodies whose moral actions must be considered.

 On the other hand, it has been suggested that the internet offers structures in place to

allow journalists to act more moral, despite the above limitations. This is offered through the

ability to help create beneficial social change. Atton (2002) argues that “a radical approach

to the internet is essential…it can act as a countervailing force to the one-way flows of

information in commercial media”. The creation of a truly free and expressive medium offers

journalists the ability to create their own news network, and deliver news that is motivated by

their understanding of morality. Wiesslitz and Ashuri (2011) argue that in this way, the

internet fosters a new type of journalist, away from previous notions of being an objective or

advocatory journalist. They suggest a “moral” journalist, who reports suffering with the aim

of changing its reality. This is possible because there are fewer entry barriers to becoming an

online journalist, which allows stories to be given directly to their audiences, with no

professional mediation that depends on an organizational hierarchy or financial interests. This

has already been seen, with Dahlberg and Siapera (2007) showing that an advocation for

minorities and challenging dominant ideologies is easily achievable through the internet.

From a virtue ethics perspective, it would seem that journalists are not taking enough action

to capitalise on the freedom that digitalisation offers. It is, however, important to ask whether

the practicalities of being a fully “moral” journalist clash with the requirements of stable,

well-paying media reporting jobs.

There is also an issue regarding audience participation and consumption. If a media

organisation is not able to survive when acting morally, then this would suggest that the

general public do not want to engage with such content. Journalism cannot exist without an

audience despite “not knowing how to win its loyalty” (Nelson, 2019), and so to some extent,

they determine the moral compass of a newspaper through which articles they engage with.

This creates a layer of moral filtration, above those of the self and the organisation, as

affordance offered by the internet allow articles to be shared and engagement more closely
measured. If audiences are more likely to share unethical news stories, and this process is a

rubric by which a journalist judges the success of their story, then the journalist will start to

base their own moral code on the moral code of their audience. If this article is being shared

more, then logically, a journalist will want to write more articles like it. This utilitarian

perspective sees a journalist’s morality level change dependent on the consequences of its

success. Effron and Raj (2019) found that the more often fake news is encountered, the more

unethical it seems in the mind of the audience to share and spread it. This creates a

downwards spiral, where the journalist is encouraged to be less ethical by an audience that is

slowly become acclimatised to a more biased and untrustworthy media landscape. An

analysis of audience morality must therefore be considered to fully understand the journalist’s

morality. Research is not uplifting. Fake articles are considerably more likely to go viral on

social media than real articles, with Vosoughi, Roy and Aral (2018) finding that “lies spread

faster than the truth”. The top 1% of fake news can reach up to 100,000 people, whereas real

news only reaches 10,000. If this is used as a measure of success, the journalist is bound to

fall short ethically.

To conclude, the question of whether journalistic morality has decreased is too broad

to be answered. Merely the existence of more than one moral framework is enough to render

the question almost impossible to answer. But as new ways of thinking imbue modern

society, as corporate and media bodies rise in dominance, “the commonly held notion that

morality belongs solely to the human domain needs to be discarded” (Newman, 2012).

Instead a focus should be on values. To understand the values of a journalist or organisation

is to understand from what ethical framework they will be acting. These concrete attributes

such as money, truth, or success need to be factored into the equation. Hopefully, as society

and the media adjusts to the almost endless possibilities for news production that are now
available, those that embody virtuous values and good principles of journalism will rise to the

forefront and lead future generations to the truth.

References

Atton, C. (2002) ‘Towards a Cultural Study of Alternative Media on the Internet’,

Southern Review, 35 (3), pp. 52–62.

Barthel, M. and Bürkner, H. J. (2019) ‘Ukraine and the Big Moral Divide: What

Biased Media Coverage Means to East European Borders’. Geopolitics, 25 (3), pp. 633-657.

Belsey, A. and Chadwick, R. (1992) Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media.

London: Routledge.

Blackburn, S. (2003) Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Carter, B. (1997) ‘Chicago News Anchor Quits After Station Hires Jerry Springer’.

The New York Times, May 4. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/04/us/chicago-

news-anchor-quits-after-station-hires-jerry-springer.html. (Accessed 17 February 2022).

CBS News (2021) Arrested journalist weeps on Belarus state television. 4 June.

Available at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/raman-pratasevich-belarus-journalist-weeps-

state-television-interview/. (Accessed 18 February 2022).

Christians, C. G. (2007) ‘Utilitarianism in media ethics and its discontents’. Journal

of Mass Media Ethics, 22 (2-3), pp. 113-131.

Crisp, R. and Slote, M. (1997) Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Culver, K. (2014) ‘From Battlefield to Newsroom: Ethical Implications of Drone

Technology in Journalism’. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 29 (1), pp. 52-64.

 Dahlberg, L. and Siapera, E. (2007) ‘Tracing Radical Democracy and the Internet’. In

Dahlberg, L. and Siapera, E. (eds.) Radical Democracy and the Internet. London: Palgrave

Macmillan, pp. 1-10.

Diaz-Campo, J. and 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).

Dörr, K. N. and Hollnbuchner, K. (2016) ‘Ethical Challenges of Algorithmic

Journalism’. Digital Journalism, 5 (4), pp. 409-419.

Effron, D. A. and Raj, M. (2019) ‘Misinformation and Morality: Encountering Fake-

News Headlines Makes Them Seem Less Unethical to Publish and Share’. Psychological

Science, 31 (1), pp. 75-87.

Foreman, G. (2009) The Ethical Journalist: Making Responsible Decisions in the

Pursuit of News. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.

Ferrucci, P., Tandoc Jr, E. and Schauster, E. E. (2019) ‘Journalists Primed: How

Professional Identity Affects Moral Decision Making’. Journalism Practice, 14 (8), pp. 896-

912.

Greenslade, R. (2015) ‘Keir Starmer to call for journalists to have a public interest

defence’. The Guardian, July 13. Available at:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/jul/13/keir-starmer-to-call-for-

journalists-to-have-a-public-interest-defence. (Accessed 20 February 2022)

Hursthouse, R. (1999) On Virtue Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 Johnson, R. and Cureton, A. (2021) ‘Kant’s Moral Philosophy’, in Zalta, E. N. (ed.)

The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Available at:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/# (Accessed 15 February 2022)

Keenan, J., Bartunek, J., Bartunek, J. M. and Hinsdale, M. (eds.) (2006) Church

Ethics and Its Organizational Context: Learning from the Sex Abuse Scandal in the Catholic

Church. Washington: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Kostyu, P. (2009) ‘Doing What Is Right: Teaching Ethics in Journalism Programs’.

Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 5 (1), pp. 45-48.

Köster, M. (2002) Ethics in Human Resource Management. Munich: GRIN

Publishing.

Lindberg, S. (2020) ‘Is Watching the News Bad for Mental Health?’ Very Well Mind,

May 28. Available at: https://www.verywellmind.com/is-watching-the-news-bad-for-mental-

health-4802320. (Accessed 15 February 2022).

Neal, L. M. (2014) ‘How Photojournalism Killed Kevin Carter’. All That’s

Interesting, September 7. Available at: https://allthatsinteresting.com/kevin-carter. (Accessed

10 February 2022).

Nelson, J. (2019) ‘Journalism needs an audience to survive, but isn’t sure how to earn

its loyalty’. The Conversation, February 7. Available at:

https://theconversation.com/journalism-needs-an-audience-to-survive-but-isnt-sure-how-to-

earn-its-loyalty-109221. (Accessed 18 February 2022).

Newman, C. (2012) ‘Moralization’ of Technologies – Military Drones: A Case

Study’. E-International Relations, May 2. Available at: https://www.e-

ir.info/2012/05/02/moralization-of-technologies-military-drones-a-case-study/. (Accessed 11

February 2022)

Pitcher, G. (2018) The New Media Ethics: Journalism has never been respectable, but

journalists should have self-respect. Available at:

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/polis/2018/09/06/the-new-media-ethics-journalism-has-never-been-

respectable-but-journalists-should-have-self-respect-guest-blog-first-in-a-series/ (Accessed

21 February 2022)

Ross, W. D. (1930) The right and the good. Oxford: Clarendon.

Stöber, R. (2004) ‘What Media Evolution Is: a theoretical approach to the history of

new media’. European Journal of Communication, 19 (4), pp. 483–505.

van der Wurff, R. (2010) ‘Between Profession and Audience: Codes of conduct and

transparency as quality instruments for off- and online journalism’. Journalism Studies, 12

(4), pp. 407-422.

Villegas, J. C. (2015) ‘Ethical and deontological aspects of online journalism. Their

perception by journalists’. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 70, pp. 91-109.

Vosoughi, S, Roy, D. and Aral, S (2018) ‘The spread of true and false news online’.

Science, 359 (6380), pp. 1146-1151.

Ward, S. J. (2011) Ethics and the Media: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Watson, A. (2022) Fake news in the UK - statistics & facts. Available at:

https://www.statista.com/topics/8897/fake-news-in-the-uk/# (Accessed 25 February 2022)

Wiesslitz, C. and Ashuri, T. (2011) ‘‘Moral journalists’: The emergence of new

intermediaries of news in an age of digital media’. Journalism, 12 (8), pp. 1031-1055.