News Media Innovation Reconsidered Ethics And Values In A Creative Reconstruction Of Journalism Maria Luengo And Susana Herrera Damas full chapter pdf docx

News Media Innovation Reconsidered:
Ethics and Values in a Creative

Reconstruction of Journalism María
Luengo And Susana Herrera-Damas
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/news-media-innovation-reconsidered-ethics-and-valu
es-in-a-creative-reconstruction-of-journalism-maria-luengo-and-susana-herrera-dama
s/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Journalism and Truth in an Age of Social Media James E.

Katz
https://ebookmass.com/product/journalism-and-truth-in-an-age-of-
social-media-james-e-katz/
Innovation in the Cultural and Creative Industries

Pellegrin-Boucher
https://ebookmass.com/product/innovation-in-the-cultural-and-
creative-industries-pellegrin-boucher/
News from Moscow: Soviet Journalism and the Limits of

Postwar Reform Simon Huxtable
https://ebookmass.com/product/news-from-moscow-soviet-journalism-
and-the-limits-of-postwar-reform-simon-huxtable/
Authoritarian Journalism: Controlling the News in Post-

Conflict Rwanda Ruth Moon
https://ebookmass.com/product/authoritarian-journalism-
controlling-the-news-in-post-conflict-rwanda-ruth-moon/
Programming in Ada 2012 with a Preview of Ada 2022 2nd
Edition John Barnes
https://ebookmass.com/product/programming-in-ada-2012-with-a-
preview-of-ada-2022-2nd-edition-john-barnes/
News Values from an Audience Perspective Martina

Temmerman
https://ebookmass.com/product/news-values-from-an-audience-
perspective-martina-temmerman/
Asylum Seekers in Australian News Media: Mediated

(In)humanity Ashleigh Haw
https://ebookmass.com/product/asylum-seekers-in-australian-news-
media-mediated-inhumanity-ashleigh-haw/
The Independence of the News Media: Francophone

Research on Media, Economics and Politics 1st ed.
Edition Loïc Ballarini
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-independence-of-the-news-media-
francophone-research-on-media-economics-and-politics-1st-ed-
edition-loic-ballarini/
Cognitive Film and Media Ethics Moss-Wellington
https://ebookmass.com/product/cognitive-film-and-media-ethics-
moss-wellington/
News Media Innovation Reconsidered
News Media Innovation Reconsidered
Ethics and Values in a Creative Reconstruction of Journalism
Edited by María Luengo

Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Madrid, Spain
Susana Herrera-Damas
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Madrid, Spain
Copyright © 2021. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
News Media Innovation Reconsidered : Ethics and Values in a Creative Reconstruction of Journalism, edited by María Luengo, and Susana
This edition first published 2021
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from
this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of María Luengo and Susana Herrera-Damas to be identified as the authors of the editorial
material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered Office
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
Editorial Office
111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley
products visit us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some
content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no
representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this
work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties
of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by
sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that
an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of
further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services
the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is
sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The
advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult
with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work
may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither
the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages,
including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Paperback: 9781119706496
ePDF: 9781119706472
epub: 9781119706502
oBook: 9781119706519
Cover image: © Busakorn Pongparnit/iStock/Getty Images

Cover design by Wiley
Set in 9.5/12.5 STIXTwoText by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd, Pondicherry, India
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
v
Table of Contents
Introduction:
Journalism’s Creative Reconstruction: How Innovation in News
Is Embracing Enduring Professional and Civil Values vii
María Luengo
Journalism, Ethics, and Innovation in Times of Digital Turbulence 1
1 An Inquiry into the Ethics of Innovation in Digital Journalism 3

José Alberto García-Avilés
2 Democratically Engaged Journalists: Ethical Invention amid

Unreasonable Publics 20
Stephen J.A. Ward
3 Journalism Innovation in a Time of Survival 40

Alfred Hermida and Mary Lynn Young
News Ethics and Emerging Journalistic Narratives 53
4 Ethics in 360-Degree Immersive Journalism 55

María José Benítez de Gracia, Sara Pérez-Seijo, and Susana Herrera-Damas
5 Quo Vadis, Newsgames? Ethical Boundaries Between

Journalism and Games 73
Salvador Gómez-García and Juan Martín-Quevedo
6 Guiding the Adoption of News Storytelling Design Through Ethics: The Use of
Stories in Google’s AMP Project 92
Mariché Navío-Navarro and Laura González-Díez
vi Table of Contents
Interrogating
Data, Algorithms, and Automatization Through
Journalism Ethics 105
7 Data Journalism, Massive Leaks, and Investigation: What the Panama Papers
Have Taught Us About Ethics 107
Helena Cortés and María Luengo
8 Semi-automated Journalism: Reinforcing Ethics to Make the Most of Artificial

Intelligence for Writing News 124
José Luis Rojas Torrijos
9 Ethical Challenges in Incorporating Artificial Intelligence into Newsrooms 138

Teresa Barceló-Ugarte, José Manuel Pérez-Tornero, and Pere Vila-Fumàs
Journalistic Innovation at the Service of the Public 155
10 Journalism, Algorithms, and the People’s Right to Know 157

Michaëla Cancela-Kieffer
11 Ethical Dilemmas in the Personalization of News from Voice Interfaces 174

Luis Miguel Pedrero-Esteban and Beatriz Gas-Gozalbo
12 Transparency, Innovation, and Journalism 187

Rogério Christofoletti
13 Innovative Tools for Citizen Empowerment in the Fight Against

Misinformation 202
Óscar Espíritusanto and Inès Dinant
Conclusion 222
Susana Herrera-Damas
Index 228
vii
Introduction
Journalism’s Creative Reconstruction: How Innovation in News Is
Embracing Enduring Professional and Civil Values
María Luengo
News media are suffering a Schumpeterian “creative destruction” (Schumpeter, 1975

[1942]). This has been the received wisdom among scholars and media watchers eval-
uating the impact of digital technology on journalism today. However, is “creative
destruction” an appropriate term in this case? The use of it to explain this recent period
of upheaval in journalism usually involves reductive techno-economic paradigms that
overlook critical cultural and ethical dimensions.
This collective book aims to understand technological innovation as “creative recon-
struction” (Alexander, 2016). The idea of creative reconstruction was coined by cul-
tural sociologist Jeffrey C. Alexander around 2014, after he and a group of cultural
sociologists and journalism scholars expressed frustration at how academics and pun-
dits were narrowly theorizing in purely technological and economic terms the current
“crisis of journalism” and the consequent changes and innovations in news. This per-
spective was crystalized in The Crisis of Journalism Reconsidered (Alexander, Breese,
and Luengo, 2016), a book that shows how crisis and change in journalism are equally
caused by cultural and ethical factors. The empirical investigations in The Crisis of
Journalism Reconsidered demonstrate that intense alarm over digital change implies
the strength of both journalistic ethics and democratic values (Carlson, 2016; Luengo,
2016). The book argues that the compulsion to defend these ethical and civil commit-
ments actually energizes a search for new organizational and technological forms.
In line with this previous cultural sociological theorizing and research, this book
focuses on the energizing of journalism’s ethical and civil ideals by looking at emerg-
ing journalistic practices and products such as 360-degree immersive journalism,

newsgames, the automatization and personalization of news, artificial-intelligence
news production, and data journalism. Our book theoretically and empirically explores
new concepts, models, initiatives, and practices that show how forms of professional
ethics that overlap notably with civil ideals—truth seeking, transparency, accuracy,
accountability, and civic engagement, among other ethical values—are invigorating
the innovative dimension of journalism. If Alexander, Breese, and Luengo’s cultural
sociological perspective issued a significant challenge to the technological and eco-
nomic view of a so-called “crisis” in the sector in a recent context of dramatic changes
within journalism, this new collective book entails a fresh turn of the screw against
reductive explanations, this time specifically within the area of news innovation.
News Media Innovation Reconsidered: Ethics and Values in a Creative Reconstruction of Journalism,
First Edition. Edited by María Luengo and Susana Herrera-Damas.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
viii Introduction
The Ups and Downs of Techno-economic Explanations
It is becoming increasingly evident that new digital technologies and new forms of
news production and distribution have gradually led to the emergence of innovative
and consolidated journalistic organizations. Many pure digital media born more than
a decade ago have survived the current crisis facing the news industry and now com-
pete alongside major legacy media nationally and globally. On the other hand, many
other initiatives have failed, and well-established national and local journalistic enter-
prises have cut jobs drastically or just disappeared from the market. And news media
companies are continuing to suffer enormous hits to advertising as a result of
COVID-19.
Media experts and scholars explain the emergence of new actors (and the erosion
and digital reinvention of old ones) in the Schumpeterian economic terms of “creative
destruction” (Bruno and Nielsen, 2012; Schlesinger and Doyle, 2014; Nee, 2013;
García-Avilés, 2016; Negredo et al., 2020). Schlesinger and Doyle’s exploration of how
major UK media groups have responded to the crisis in printed newspapers draws on
this economic pattern. They argue that, because of advancing technology, “the value
of large, dominant incumbent firms that fail to transform themselves eventually
becomes eroded and, in some cases, completely destroyed” (Schlesinger and Doyle,
2014, p. 2). In Bruno and Nielsen’s pioneering report on journalistic online start-ups in
Western Europe (2012), pure digital media players, which are first tentatively located
on the “creative” side of this Schumpeterian process, are also seen as subjects of
destruction in the same way as inherited business models are. Explanations of the rise,
survival, success, or failure of new players and the destruction of old ones seem to
reflect a process through which new technologies and new markets cause the “muta-
tion” of journalistic organizations (Boczkowski, 2004) and the whole media system
from within.
Just as technology and economics bring the “destructive” element, they also embody
the “creative” one. Responses to the transformations of journalism include technologi-
cal innovations, innovative ways to measure and analyze audience figures, and new
business models (sources of revenues, ownership, and financial sustainability). The
success or failure of new media are also measured and assessed according to techno-
economic factors. Through the process of creative destruction, technology and eco-
nomics impose “a regime of trial and error and of making wagers,” as Jean-Gustave
Padioleau puts it. The image of creative destruction establishes a present scenario and
foresees a digital future in which new players are forced to compete with old ones, and
new arrivals successfully win niche markets using up-to-the-minute technology.
Padioleau observes that “under the guise of innovation, activities disappear to make
room for newer, more ‘creative,’ more reliable/efficient ones. According to Schumpeter,
creative destruction is at the heart of economic growth” (Padioleau, 2006, p. 110).
Schumpeter’s economic reductionism parallels a narrow technological understand-
ing of journalism innovation. Drawing on research on journalism in Canada, Hermida
and Young’s thought-provoking Chapter 3 in this book examines whether legacy
newsrooms’ defensive adoption of innovation “as a technological-led solution” to eco-
nomically navigate financial turbulence has been to their detriment. By entering into
“the cycle of the never-ending pivots in the search for the killer innovation that will
save the media,” Hermida and Young say, journalistic organizations get trapped in it.
Seeing Creative Destruction as Creative Reconstruction ix
And in times of survival, they argue, few can afford to adopt the latest shiny new
technology.
Seeing Creative Destruction as Creative Reconstruction
Padioleau (2006, p. 10) is critical of the use of the term “creative destruction” in describing
the crisis facing the media, on the basis that it is misleading. Is creative destruction
a deceptive label? This terminology focuses mainly on economics and ignores the critical
cultural and ethical component when explaining current changes in journalism.
This book aims to put current technological innovations of journalism into the broader
context of professional ethics and civil values. It examines journalism innovation from
the energizing of ethics, looking at specific arenas of such innovation, from new forms
and narratives to processes and ways of dissemination.
Without denying the tangible role played by digital technology and market conditions
in reshaping the news today, this collaborative book takes a different angle to interpret
recent changes in news media. Contrary to reductive techno-economic explanations,
the contributors’ analyses of new journalistic forms and practices help show the power
of journalistic and civil values for invigorating the profession. By looking at the ethical
dimension of different initiatives and innovations in various countries, the chapters in
this book seek to advance cultural and ethical insights into journalistic innovation.
Alexander (2016, p. 2) points out that:
Recent technological change and the economic upheaval it has produced are
coded by social meanings … Cultural codes not only trigger sharp anxiety about
technological and economic changes; they also provide pathways to control
them, so that the democratic practices of independent journalism, rather than
being destroyed, can be sustained in new forms.
Following Alexander, contributors to this book were invited to look at news media
innovations from the ethical values that make technological innovation sustainable.
The various contributions to this book make it possible to identify the ethical and
professional codes that are invigorating the profession through digital technologies.
The selected innovations are characterized by an online-only or online-first approach,

conveying the news via websites, mobile apps, or social networks. They integrate
experienced journalists, journalistic entrepreneurs, reporters, and computer
scientists.
The ethical perspective deployed to cross-examine the different innovations dis-
cussed also serves as the basis for the theoretical argument behind this book: ethics
and values can be envisioned as pathways to a creative reconstruction of journalism.
This new conceptualization transcends the economic logic of a creative destruction,
which, according to Alexander (2016), would result in the destruction of the economic
foundations of journalism. “Journalism would become Exhibit A of capitalist ‘creative
destruction,’” he observes [p. 7]. In this vein, in the following two sections, I wish to
briefly draw attention to the performative power of journalism for innovative repair by
looking at the professional and civil values that may be generating and sustaining new
entrants in the news media digital ecosystem. To what extent does the ethics of
x Introduction
journalism prevail and foster quality journalism through innovation within new dis-
ruptive digital scenarios? How are these ethical values shaped by new journalistic ini-
tiatives? To address these questions, I first use some of the closing remarks of Breese
and Luengo’s (2016) “News Innovations and Enduring Commitments” chapter as scaf-
folding to semiotically map the arena of news media innovation as a symbolic place
where journalism’s entrenched ethical codes are being re-signified. Then, I apply this
theoretical framework performatively to new journalistic forms and practices at the
intersection between ethics and technological innovation. This last section will serve
as a more explicit introduction to the specific content of the chapters.
Mapping News Innovation Culturally
A cultural sociology insight into news media innovation allows us to reconsider how
the core journalistic values of long-established new media organizations are now
being re-signified by new technologies, work processes, and forms of news production
and distribution. While the meanings of technologies and practices quickly change,
the symbolic codes of journalism remain. Professional values such as “truth,” “accu-
racy,” “independence,” and “criticism” represent some of the cultural codes of profes-
sional journalism, while “falsehood,” “bias,” “inaccuracy,” and “dependence” often
describe counter-values of professionalism (Breese and Luengo, 2016). When journal-
ism entered the digital era, the printing press and legacy media had a monopoly over
codes of professional journalism, whereas the Internet and new digital media have
stood for opposing values. García-Avilés’s Chapter 1 reflects the way in which these
values and counter-values of professionalism explain the initial uneasy relationship
between ethics and digital technologies in journalism. From 2008, enduring journalis-
tic values have been incorporated into a narrative of “crisis” (see Hermida and Young’s
Chapter 3) shared by many practitioners, experts, and scholars (Alexander, Breese,
and Luengo, 2016). The crisis narrative associated technologies, forms, and practices
of traditional media, particularly printed newspapers, with professional journalism.
Many forms, practices, and processes of well-established news organizations around
the world had already become potent symbols of professionalism. Traditional media
were “signifieds” (meanings) of a broader “signifier”—professional journalism. As
Figure I.1 shows, there is an ongoing relationship between signified and signifier.
What was signified becomes possible signifier. By combining signifier and signified,
many traditional forms of journalism became signs (symbols) of core journalistic and
democratic values. Based on this signification, digital technologies have been coded as
tangible sites of the threat to the profession.
Digitalization broke this monopoly power. In the recent context of rapid technologi-
cal change and economic upheaval, new digital ventures have proliferated, and the
pace of change in the signifieds associated with them has accelerated. The continuous
work of re-signification progressively places digital technologies on the side of journal-
istic standards. As Breese and Luengo (2016, p. 284) explain,
When blogs, Twitter, online-only news, live-streaming news, and other tech-
nologies enter newsrooms as new avenues for presenting news to the public,
they tend to be greeted with anxiety. At first, mainstream journalists distance
Mapping News Innovation Culturally xi
Print / legacy Independence

media Truth-seeking
Fairness
Signified Accuracy
Symbolic codes
Professional
Journalism
Signifier
Figure I.1 The “Crisis in news narrative:” print/legacy media as meanings associated with
professional journalism.
themselves from the technologies and related practices, dismissing them as

antithetical to journalistic standards. Over time what had represented a threat
to the news when it was “new” comes to successfully represent the civil codes
of professional journalism.
Matthias Revers’s (2016) comparative analysis of how Twitter was adopted by journal-
ists from the official press corps in New York and Bavaria shows the different ways in
which digital media encounter specific journalism cultures “which draw from
entrenched symbols and sacred discourses of journalism” (Revers, 2016, p. 231).
Revers explains how these symbolic codes stand for boundary work that protects the
journalistic profession against “competing occupations” as well as “deviant insiders.”
He conceives the amalgamation of digital culture and professional journalism as a
“cultural performance” (Alexander, 2004), “in which collective representations of pro-
fessionalism provide the symbolic strength and substantive basis for scripts to act pro-
fessionally in concrete situations” (Revers, 2016, p. 232).
This boundary process and cultural performance implies a symbolic struggle for
newcomers to meet and assert journalistic standards so that they can be considered
full players in themselves. New media have produced a discourse seeking to purify
past negative characterizations that have positioned them as a threat to journalism.

Thus, newly-founded ventures distance themselves from the polluting effects of the
market and claims about the financial sustainability of their innovative business
models. Once considered the cause of massive layoffs of journalists, falls in advertis-
ing revenues, drastic cuts in newsrooms, and other catastrophic consequences in the
news business, digital technology is now presented as sustaining journalism. Online
news start-ups, for example, have become for many the safety valve of journalism.
Born-digital small companies successfully fill market niches of information, reaching
where mainstream media cannot. The characterization of news websites, clicks,
social networks, or web statistics has shifted from their being seen as sources of
aggregative, superficial, sensational, and commodified news to their becoming tools
for reporting original stories, breaking news, and conducting in-depth investigative
journalism. Figure I.2 conveys this re-signification of the symbolic codes of profes-
sional journalism.
xii Introduction
Figure I.2 The re-signification of professional journalism through new digital forms.
New Journalistic Performances on Stage: Ethics Vis-à-Vis

Innovation
In Chapter 2, Ward offers the challenging notion of “democratically engaged journal-

ism” to reconsidered journalism’s civil morals today. Ward contextualizes his concep-
tual proposal within a “toxic sphere of partisan, global media.” In many cases, digital
technology has helped to feed our complex civil spheres with polarization and exclu-
sion. In turbulent times of “irrational publics” (Ward, Chapter 2) and dizzying political
shocks, the association of digital forms’ new meanings with the signifier of profes-
sional journalism must go through a cultural process in which moral values such as
civil commitment, solidarity, social justice, dialog, and inclusion are highlighted (see
Figure I.2). Contributions to this book show how, intermingled and reinforced by
these civil and democratic values, truth seeking, fairness, independent reporting, and
other enduring symbolic codes of journalism not only inspire new journalistic initia-
tives but also help to ensure journalism’s long-term survival.

The journalistic innovations examined in this book raise the value of engagement.
In line with other recent studies on journalism’s immersive storytelling (Jones, 2017;
Kukkakorpi and Pantti, 2020), Benitez, Pérez-Seijo, and Herrera (Chapter 4) empha-
size audience engagement as one of the specific characteristics that makes 360-degree
video journalism disruptive and innovative, along with first-person experience, the
illusion of presence, and empathy. However, as Benitez et al. show, to be success-
fully incorporated into journalistic practices and organizations, immersive journal-
ism needs to reflect more than the audience’s emotional engagement. It needs to
become civil engagement by the way in which narratives cathartically bring compas-
sion and solidarity into the audience experience. Social connectedness goes beyond
empathy, and the feeling for others and putting oneself in the place of another per-
son represent more than a mere illusion of presence recreated by technological
effects. To foster civil engagement, 360-degree immersive journalism must be based
New Journalistic Performances on Stage: Ethics Vis-à-Vis Innovation xiii
on credible stories that preserve the accuracy and integrity of spaces, images, and
sounds and that are constructed using a careful search and selection of news sources.
The case studies in this chapter show the way in which successful journalistic
approaches to 360-degree news have been guided by professional codes of transpar-
ency, truthfulness, and responsibility.
Gómez-García and Martín-Quevedo’s Chapter 5 reflects a similar tension between
the audience’s emotional engagement and accurate reporting of the facts. The
authors describe successful performances of new forms of interactive journalism
that incorporate gameplay. These performances involve an ongoing cultural struggle
against the immorality of playing with real-world events, deaths, and suffering. In
this struggle, entertainment and triviality give way to the design of relevant social
and political simulations that progressively include more investigative sources and
perspectives. Stories based on biased, personalized objectives, which guide the
gamer by targeting groups and individuals, turn into innovative newsgaming pro-
jects that ensure transparency and responsibility without losing the engaging and
emotional dimension of gameplay.
New journalistic narratives may reflect how journalistic institutions are producing
news in a more engaged way. In their analysis of “stamp story” formats, Navío-Navarro
and González-Díaz (Chapter 6) argue that this new way of disseminating the news
helps to reach and engage with, for instance, Gen Z and Millennial audiences immersed
in a digital culture, by maintaining journalism’s complexity and interpretation.
The use of big data has brought into journalism new ethical concerns in relation to
transparency and the quality and bias of the data sets being used. These polluting
effects of data available through digital technology, however, seem to have been par-
tially overcome by some new forms of collaborative investigative journalism. Drawing
on the metajournalistic discourses on the Panama Papers from different newspapers
that investigated the leaked documents of Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca,
Cortés and Luengo (Chapter 7) observe that data journalists place themselves on an
unpolluted side of new investigative reporting, in which, far from activism, data serve
democratic-accountability journalism.
Other current ethical concerns specify the cultural performance of new journalistic
forms, practices, and processes within the area of algorithms, bots, and automatiza-
tion. Rojas Torrijos’s Chapter 8 focuses on the ethics of journalism generated by
machines. Barceló-Ugarte et al.’s Chapter 9 explores the specific incorporation of arti-

ficial intelligence (AI) into Spanish public television’s workflows, emphasizing the
ethical challenges posed by the different phases of newsgathering, documentation,
writing, publishing, archiving, and audience analysis. As Chapters 8 and 9 explain, AI
is changing the way in which news is created.
Most of these changes—to give an example, in May 2020, Microsoft was accused of
sacking journalists working at its MSN website and replacing them with AI software
(Waterson, The Guardian, May 30, 2020)—are interpreted as threats to journalism. Yet
layoffs of journalists by digital publishers are not the only reason for seeing automated
technology as foreshadowing journalism’s extinction. A few weeks after the layoffs at
Microsoft, MSN.com published a news story about the mixed-race pop star
Jade Thirlwall’s personal reflection on racism; the story was illustrated with the wrong
mixed-race member of the singer’s band, Little Mix. Thirlwall had been attending a
Black Lives Matter protest in London. The anecdote triggered widespread criticism
xiv Introduction
within the media of Microsoft’s employment of robots that cannot differentiate mixed-
race individuals. More significantly, it echoed current ethical debates on alleged racist
biases (and other types of human distortions) in AI software coding.
Rojas analysis of some of the best practices of AI journalism shows that a “semi-
automated” journalism, in which human reporters and robots work together, might
help to overcome criticism focused on software’s biases as well as another ethical chal-
lenges that AI poses to journalism. The selected initiatives show how algorithms and
bots are used by leading journalistic organizations to broaden news media coverage
and enhance high-quality reporting on public-interest issues, such as police informa-
tion on homicides (Los Angeles Times) or earthquake warnings (Los Angeles Times and
Oregon Public Broadcasting). These journalistic projects bring to the forefront of news
media innovation the combination of old and “new guiding principles” for a new digi-
tal era of journalism (McBride and Rosenstiel, 2014)—for example, verification, rigor,
depth, civil engagement, or community.
Taking the British Press Association’s automated news service RADAR
(Reporters and Data Robots) as an example, Rojas Torrijos (Chapter 8) highlights
the community value of algorithmic journalism, which is currently meeting “the
increasing demand for fact-based news for local communities” by delivering data-
driven localized versions of stories to the UK’s local newsrooms (PA Media Group,
2018). Likewise, in other countries around the world, semi-automated news is
filling the gap left by the disappearance of local reporting, and consequently it is
contributing to building a sense of community. The combining of speed and veri-
fication, as well as of reporting and investigation, and the providing of both public
interest news and community-driven stories are, among other professional and
civil values, the basis of journalism innovation achieved through AI. New semi-
automated journalistic practices mirror the way in which journalism is, to quote
Rojas Torrijos, “acquiring a new vision that can cope with change so as to make
professional ethics the guiding thread that anchors and stimulates innovation”
(Rojas Torrijos, Chapter 8).
This book ends with a section devoted to the public. Contributions to this section
revisit core ethical debates on big data (Cancela-Kieffer, Chapter 10), the personaliza-
tion of news (Pedrero-Esteban and Gas-Gozalbo, Chapter 11), transparency
(Christofoletti, Chapter 12), and verification (Espíritusanto and Dinant, Chapter, 13),
posed by the previous chapters, to reflect on journalism’s mission to inform the public
in times of post-truth, distrust of institutions, echo chambers, big tech, and social and
political shocks.
Christofoletti’s Chapter 12 questions transparency to rethink journalism’s profes-
sional culture. When promoting transparency, does journalism itself become more
open and contextualize its own products, practices, and modus operandi? For
Christofoletti, transparency in journalism “is not an end in itself, but a path” to replace
arrogance with humility, narcissism with dialog, and to create and develop newsrooms
that are more publicly exposed and more willing to review procedures. The author
explores new civil and journalistic initiatives based on this new culture of transpar-
ency that are helping journalism to implement new trust-building strategies. By the
same token, Espíritusanto and Dinant (Chapter 13) use verification and the question
of how people can ascertain the truthfulness of a news story to explore innovative
technological tools to empower citizens to fight against misinformation.
References xv
In Chapter 10, Cancela-Kieffer argues that the only way for journalism to navigate a
disrupted data-driven society is to fully embrace its core mission: “safeguarding ‘the
people’s right to know.’” She advocates for creativity and for a “radical collaborative
journalism” involving other disciplines—for example, mathematics and coding. She
appeals to a journalistic culture of objectivity (the separation of facts from opinion)
and self-criticism to combat subjectivity and self-defensiveness. Cancela-Kieffer
argues that technology allows journalists to bring “personalized experiences” into peo-
ple’s lives. “Small data,” a simpler and more local form of data journalism, she observes,
has demonstrated the significant contribution that the “granularity” of data (detailed
demographic maps of neighborhoods, crime statistics, sensors, etc.) can make to
“uncover disparities and inequalities.”
When journalists attempt to stand on the side of their public by choosing, preparing,
and telling stories in a way that helps the public to be informed participants in demo-
cratic society, the ethics of news innovation become a real challenge. Too often media
scholars offer only more reasons to despair. Overall, the reader will find grounds for
optimism in these pages. This positive spirit was what inspired this collective book
project.
Some of the texts in this book were first drafted for the IAMCR preconference “News
Media Innovation Ethics: Activating Human and Civil Rights Through Core
Professional Values,” held at Carlos III University (Madrid, July 6, 2019). An enriching
dialog between participants (including scholars and practitioners specializing in news
media innovation) and organizers (the editors of this book) started before the confer-
ence and kept going during and after it. Our book reflects this continuous conversa-
tion as well as the further engagement with each contributor that was undertaken by
the editors to unify the various texts around the aim, themes, and scope of the book.
References
Alexander, J.C. (2004). Cultural pragmatics: social performance between ritual and
strategy. Sociological Theory, 22(4), 527–573.
Alexander, J.C. (2016). Introduction: journalism, democratic culture, and creative
reconstruction. In Alexander, J.C., Breese, E.B., and Luengo, M. (Eds.). The Crisis of
Journalism Reconsidered: Democratic Culture, Professional Codes, Digital Future.

Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–28.
Alexander, J.C., Breese, E.B., and Luengo, M. (2016). The Crisis of Journalism
Reconsidered: Democratic Culture, Professional Codes, Digital Future. Cambridge/New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Boczkowski, P.J. (2004). Digitizing the News: Innovation in Online Newspapers. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
Breese, E.B. and Luengo, M. (2016). Conclusion: news innovations and enduring
commitments. In Alexander, J.C., Breese, E.B., and Luengo, M. (Eds.). The Crisis of
Journalism Reconsidered: Democratic Culture, Professional Codes, Digital Future.
Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 282–289.
Bruno, N. and Nielsen, R. (2012). Survival Is Success: Journalistic Online Start-Ups in
Western Europe. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of
Oxford.
xvi Introduction
Carlson, M. (2016). Telling the crisis story of journalism: narratives of normative

reassurance in Page One. In Alexander, J.C., Breese, E.B., and Luengo, M. (Eds.). The
Crisis of Journalism Reconsidered: Democratic Culture, Professional Codes, Digital
Future. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 135–152.
García-Avilés, J.A. (2016). Developing an index of media innovation in a national market,
journalism studies, Journalism Studies, 9(1) 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616
70X.2016.1161496
Jones, S. (2017). Disrupting the narrative: immersive journalism in virtual reality. Journal
of Media Practice, 18(2–3), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/14682753.2017.1374677
Kukkakorpi, M. and Pantti, M. (2020). A Sense of Place: VR Journalism and Emotional
Engagement. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2020.1799237
Luengo, M. (2016). When codes collide: journalists push back against digital desecration.
In Alexander, J.C., Breese, E.B., and Luengo, M. (Eds.). The Crisis of Journalism
Reconsidered: Democratic Culture, Professional Codes, Digital Future. Cambridge/New
York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 119–134.
McBride, K. and Rosenstiel, T. (Eds.). (2014). The New Ethics of Journalism. London: Sage.
Nee, R.C. (2013). Creative destruction: an exploratory study of how digitally native news
nonprofits are innovating online journalism practices. International Journal on Media
Management 15(1), 3–22.
Negredo, S., Martínez-Costa, M.P., Breiner, J., and Salaverría, R. (2020). Journalism
expands in spite of the crisis: digital-native news media in Spain. Media and
Communication, 8(2), 73–85.
PA Media Group (2018). https://pamediagroup.com/
more-than-1000-uk-regional-news-titles-now-have-access-to-stories-jointly-written-by-
journalists-and-ai-as-radar-launches-new-website
Padioleau, J.-G. (2006). Les médias face à la destruction créatrice. Débat, 139, 109–121.
Revers, M. (2016). Digital media and the diversification of professionalism: a US-German
comparison of journalism cultures. In Alexander, J.C., Breese, E.B., and Luengo, M.
(Eds.). The Crisis of Journalism Reconsidered: Democratic Culture, Professional Codes,
Digital Future. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 228–246.
Schlesinger, P. and Doyle, G. (2014). From organizational crisis to multi-platform
salvation? Creative destruction and the recomposition of news media. Journalism,
16(3), 305–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884914530223
Schumpeter, J.A. (1975 [1942]). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper
& Row.
Waterson, J. (2020). Microsoft sacks journalists to replace them with robots. The Guardian
(30 May).
1
Journalism, Ethics, and Innovation in Times of Digital

Turbulence
3
An Inquiry into the Ethics of Innovation in Digital

Journalism
José Alberto García-Avilés
Universidad Miguel Hernández
An Ethical Perspective on Journalism Innovation
Research into the evolution of journalism ethics from the perspective of innovation
offers wonderful insights. Throughout the past decades, journalists have embraced the
innovations implemented in many newsrooms and, at the same time, they have met
the ethical challenges brought about by these innovations. In this process, we could
establish a pattern. Initially, journalists tend to regard the new practices as a challenge
to the established standards, that is, as something alien to the shared ethical guidelines
and therefore, they tend to believe these new practices should be questioned on ethical
grounds. This attitude often translated into a veiled rejection of those innovations that
at first sight seemed to collide with the traditional professional practices. However, as
the innovations gradually take hold in the newsrooms and the journalists accept them,
ethical standards are adapted accordingly to this new reality.
In the digital media ecosystem, the boundaries between producers, audiences, con-
tent, technology, and business tend to fade away as the platforms and algorithms
increasingly gather and distribute information through multiple channels, with a mas-
sive offering of news and entertainment that is seamlessly integrated into people’s
lives (Ruotsalainen and Heinonen, 2015). Traditional sources of income based on
advertising show symptoms of fatigue, and the competition between legacy media and
digital pure players increases, as the business strategies that worked for decades have
become obsolete (Küng, 2017).

After several stages of adaptation and integration into this digital ecosystem, the
media are living up to constant change. However, what is new is not change itself but
the pace and the degree of change in journalism: a constant and deep transformation
accelerated by the simultaneous impact of different technologies (virtual reality, arti-
ficial intelligence, blockchain, voice, data mining, etc.) in the gathering, production,
distribution, and commercialization of content. In addition, technological companies
have burst into force, competing with the news outlets for users’ attention. These pow-
erful players (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, etc.) monopolize a large percentage
of advertising investment, as well as many successful live streaming platforms (Netflix,
HBO, Disney+, Amazon Prime, Spotify, etc.).
In this complex scenario, aggravated by the worldwide crisis of COVID-19, the
media have less control over how and where their contents are consumed, while
4 1 An Inquiry into the Ethics of Innovation in Digital Journalism
their relationship with audiences is weakened by a more interactive, horizontal,

and collaborative communication. On the other hand, digital-only media have
been able to fully understand the mobile, social, and global ecosystem and, what is
more important, they have rapidly adapted to the consumption habits of hyper-
connected users. Therefore, when facing disruptive competition, legacy media
companies need to focus their strategies on sustainability, market penetration, and
innovation.
In this context, media innovation has been invoked as a “mantra,” which offers a
solution to the complex industry problems. However, innovation advocates often lack
a clear conceptual background about how innovations are differentiated from change,
when exactly is something considered to be innovative, and at what level of analysis
(individual, organizational, product, or process) does innovation lie (Prenger and
Deuze, 2017). As both authors argue (p. 235), “epistemological challenges further
amplify these wide-ranging questions, as innovation is invariably a moving object,
raising the issue of how to adequately study something so dynamic.”
Any kind of innovative journalism should also be an ethical one. Without the essen-
tial component of ethics, no journalism is capable of innovating because the very pro-
fessional activity of reporting itself is based on the commitment to the truth.
Accordingly, journalistic ethics and quality are synonymous terms since all quality
journalism is necessarily ethical. In Tony Harcup’s words, “ethical journalism is cru-
cial for the health and well-being of a society” (2006, p. 144).
Journalism ethics is the result of multiple and complementary forces. Ethical rea-
soning is a unique and indivisible reality, which is individually, institutionally, and
culturally based. Professional ethics cannot be isolated from individual or social
ethics. When news organizations face ethical quandaries, they often implement
regulations, norms, and codes that soon tend to become obsolete (Whitehouse,
2010).
We can distinguish three problems when making ethical decisions in journalism:
(a) Technological determinism: When focusing on the role of technology, we can

easily exaggerate the influence technology as the driving force of media inno-
vation and overlook the impact that emerging journalistic practices have on the
development of innovative technologies. Technology plays a role in facilitat-
ing change, but overall, we do not find sufficient evidence to conclude that it
induces disruption in journalistic activity. Technologies must also be balanced
with prevailing standards that have guided the journalistic field, for these stan-
dards play a role in how journalists conceive of and perform their social roles
(Singer, 2003).
(b) What we might call “normative apriorism:” That is, to regard ethics just as
the result of the application of a series of norms embodied in codes and reg-
ulations. Ethical guidelines often become an excuse for ineffectiveness and
reflects managements’ short sightedness when facing the challenges of making
the right decisions. A focus on prescriptive ethics tends to ignore that there are
competing views on how to address moral questions within the context of eth-
ical reasoning (von der Pfordten, 2012). Hence, an ethical examination should
focus on the correlation of moral principles, rather than on the single norms
and codes.
An Ethical Perspective on Journalism Innovation 5
(c) Relativism: There are no universal or absolute ethical principles, so that

performance depends on the conditions in production, social, cultural, political
factors, etc., as well as the personal approach of everyone. Since this view con-
siders that ethics is purely subjective, based on individual interpretations, any
decision can be ethically correct if one justifies it according to their own beliefs.
My proposal about the ethics of journalistic innovation relies on three essential aspects
that shape professional decision-making: the ethics of the ends, the ethics of the pro-
cedures, and the ethics of the values, following insights from scholars such as Friend
and Singer (2007), von der Pfordten (2012), Ward (2018), and Ward and Wasserman
(2010), among others.
The ethics of the ends are based on the question: Why do I do this?—that is, what do
I intend to achieve with this project, product, or service? It could be a matter of inves-
tigating an issue, exposing corruption, expanding knowledge, acting in a responsible
manner, or being accountable to society. Ethical goals could be related to the right to
information, formulated in article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. The ends also relate to freedom of expression, the right to privacy and
honor, professional secrecy, and public service, and they deal with ethical problems
such as sensationalism, misinformation, and data manipulation (Suárez-Villegas and
Cruz-Álvarez, 2016a, p. 7).
Procedural ethics focus on the question: How do I do it? What processes do I follow
to carry it out? The ethics of the procedures raise the constant and recurring question
of whether the end justifies or not the means that are used (von der Pfordten, 2012).
Journalists’ practices include verification processes, collaboration with third parties,
confidentiality with sources, digital image manipulation, etc., which demand trans-
parency and accountability.
The ethics of values, ultimately, raises the question: What principles guide my work?
The list of values is very broad: truth, respect, trust, credibility, justice, accuracy, equa-
nimity, solidarity, dignity, honesty, professionalism, impartiality, etc. According to the
work of Kovach and Rosenstiel (2001, p. 24), based on interviews with hundreds of
journalists in the United States, these principles should rule in the profession:
Seeking the truth; loyalty with citizens; a verification discipline; independence

in regard to those who are informed; exercise control of power; become a public
forum for criticism and commentary; offer suggestive and relevant information,
as well as comprehensive and proportionate; and respect the individual con-
science of the professional.
How can we evaluate the ethical consequences of innovations? Moreover, how can media
ethics help us in this task? The report “Good and bad innovation: what kind of theory and
practice do we need to distinguish them?” by Geoff Mulgan (2016) deals with the ambiva-
lence of innovations. For example, the use of surveillance technologies to increase pro-
ductivity and safety in the workplace also can generate a high level of stress in the
workforce, as well as limitations to their privacy. Examples of negative innovations, such
as concentration camps for mass extermination, can be extreme but most innovations
have both positive and negative consequences. We can better address this ambivalence if
we define the concept of innovation in journalism and its practical implications.
Defining Journalism Innovation
Scholars are paying a growing attention to the culture of innovation in news organiza-
tions (Dal Zotto and van Kranenburg, 2008; Küng, 2013; Sádaba, García-Avilés, and
Martínez-Costa, 2016). However, the literature on media innovation tends to focus on
adoption, implementation, and diffusion of products and technologies, with little
emphasis on the design, development, and management stages of innovation (Dogruel,
2014). Research has largely ignored the question of how journalists learn in the news-
room and how they implement innovation (Porcu, 2017). The role of newsroom man-
agers in innovation strategies is usually invisible and empirical measurements of
in-house innovation within the media are scarce (Bleyen et al., 2014). As Weiss and
Domingo (2010, p. 1158) put it, a deeper theoretical framework is needed regarding
“the actors, dynamics and factors involved in the processes, theories that acknowledge
the changing nature of journalism.”
Innovation “combines discovering an opportunity, blueprinting an idea to seize that
opportunity, and implementing that idea to achieve results” (Anthony, 2012, p. 17).
Translated to the media industry, this means that innovation must involve something
more than the repetitive cycle of everyday news production. For this study, we define
journalism innovation as:
the capacity to react to changes in products, processes and services using crea-
tive skills that allow a problem or need to be identified, and to be solved through
a solution that results in the introduction of something new that adds value to
customers and to the media organization.
(García-Avilés et al., 2018, p. 29)
This definition, provided by a group of researchers from the Miguel Hernández

University, was applied to the design of the Journalistic Innovation Index of Spanish
media (De-Lara-González et al., 2015). We further analyzed how many newsrooms
disseminate these innovations and what factors accelerate or slow their implementa-
tion (García-Avilés et al., 2019), also in particular case studies such as digital-only
news outlet El Confidencial and the Spanish public broadcaster RTVE innovation lab
(Zaragoza-Fuster and García-Avilés, 2020).
The brakes on innovation are mostly cultural, rooted in the newsroom as systemic
practices and preferred work patterns (Ess, 2013). There is no successful single recipe
of media transformation and adaptation to the new realities. Going from products to
services, from hardware to software, and from audience to users, includes changing
mindsets, unlearning the trade and experimenting with bold ideas (Storsul and
Krumsvik, 2013). The individual mindset determines what ideas lead to innovation in
the newsroom: “Inventions within a variety of newsroom structures support the gen-
eral truth that innovation and change usually start with the ideas of individual crea-
tors” (Gynnild, 2014, p. 720). Experimentation produces mixed results on what works
or could work when it comes to creating commercially successful services and
products.
A holistic perspective on innovation must include the pre-phase of the innovation
process, considering for example goal setting, customer research, or observation of
competitors (Dal Zotto and van Kranenburg, 2008). Taking a step further, Bleyen et al.
Innovations and Journalism Ethics: 2000–2020 7
(2014, p. 48) established a typology of media innovations based on five categories: busi-
ness model, production and distribution, media consumption, inner form, and core
product. The first three categories are related to innovation processes, and the latter
two highlight product innovations, such as a groundbreaking television news program
or an original podcast.
Therefore, media innovation encompasses complex processes that involve people’s
motivations, strategy, structure, administrative processes, and systems that could cre-
ate value for the organization, because the characteristics of the media sector differ
from those of other industries (Küng, 2017). Specific features include the perishable
commodity of the news product, creative employees, intricate organizational struc-
tures, and a public service role, among others. As Sádaba, García-Avilés, and Martínez-
Costa (2016) argue, strategic innovation leads to better services and increased
responsiveness to users and, therefore, an increase in sales, subscriptions, or audi-
ences. In Pavlik’s words (2013, p. 190), “innovation is the key to the viability of news
media in the digital age.”
Innovation does not only relate to products and technologies but also relate to the
reinvention of social processes and the creation of services that improve people’s lives
(Fagerberg, Mowery, and Nelson, 2005). Innovating consists of providing a novel solu-
tion for a problem that is more effective, efficient, or sustainable than existing solu-
tions. Innovation should not be reduced to technology. In fact, non-technological
aspects such as storytelling, creativity, commercialization, or interaction with audi-
ences are important areas of journalism innovation. If innovations emerge only through
the reaction to the threats from the instability of the news market, technological disrup-
tion, and the competitive commercial environment, the change could be slow and
erratic. However, when management takes the lead, innovations increase in number
and quality. Incorporating new practices and experimenting with different ideas is
essential for innovation to flourish in media companies (García-Avilés et al., 2019).
We argue for a holistic approach to research in this field by considering many aspects
that influence journalism innovation processes, being aware of the conflicting ten-
sions that emerge.
Innovations and Journalism Ethics: 2000–2020

In 2000, I began to explore the consequences of the digitalization of television news-

rooms in the work of broadcast journalists. Between 2007 and 2014, I studied the
convergence models implemented in several European media outlets. Since 2014, I
research journalistic innovation, to find out where and how it occurs and what kinds
of changes it brings about (De-Lara-González et al., 2015; García-Avilés et al., 2018).
According to our findings in the Spanish market, most innovations take place in the
areas of product and service, content distribution, and interaction with the audience.
Most innovative initiatives were “incremental”: smaller advances or gradual
improvements of existing products or services. A few “radical” innovations occurred,
mostly within online-only sites. The number of technology-related innovations out-
weighed the non-technological, leading us to conclude that “while innovation is not
necessarily associated with technology, it is an important driver of change” (García-
Avilés et al., 2018, p. 38).
Taking one further step, we analyzed how media companies implemented innova-
tions in four main areas: production, distribution, organization, and commercialization
(García-Avilés et al., 2019). Each area has its own goal within the company: launching
innovative products, improving the distribution channels, innovating in the work
structure and newsroom organization, and incorporating new sources of revenue.
Within different historical media contexts, a combination of internal and external
forces helped bring about change and resulted in the innovation of digital journalism.
A recurring theme in my conversations with journalists over the years has been the
reaction to change. I have often discovered an attitude of distrust by most profession-
als. Before each wave of changes, many journalists invoked news quality and ethical
principles to justify their willingness to stay out of innovation, because they regarded
innovations as a problem, something that demanded a lot of time and work, or that
could threaten their job stability. It is interesting to find out that journalism has tradi-
tionally been a profession reluctant to embrace change.
In this study, necessarily short due to space limitations, I present in chronological
order some the ethical implications derived from the adoption of innovations in digital
journalism.
The Emergence of Journalism in the Internet

Between 1995 and 2000, thousands of newspapers and television channels worldwide
launched their websites and began generating content to feed them. The initial con-
cerns of journalists with the advent of the Internet focused on privacy, falsehood, and
loss of autonomy (Deuze and Yeshua, 2001). The new medium was quickly associated
with a high potential for spreading falsehoods involuntarily or deliberately. It was dif-
ficult to differentiate the truth in the Internet content, since anyone could easily repli-
cate the credibility indicators without taking any responsibility. Many journalists
feared that instant dissemination of information would undermine the processes of
journalistic verification that protects them against errors and lies, so that they would
be accountable for their ethical standards (Eberwein, Fengler, and Karmasin, 2019).
The value of professional autonomy also went into crisis. Journalists defended their
role as “independent gatekeepers,” based on their ability to make their own judgments
about what news is and, therefore, reinforce their public interest service (Suárez-
Villegas and Cruz-Álvarez, 2016a). The argument was that a careful selection of news
by professional gatekeepers would make it easier for citizens to receive truthful and
relevant information on the issues that are supposed to be essential for democratic
functioning: politics, international relations, economics, the performance of institu-
tions and social agents, etc. However, from the beginning, the ability of users to select
and access content directly was evident; journalists were losing their monopoly as pro-
viders of information in society, which caused them considerable frustration
(Boczkowski, 2004).
Convergence and Multimedia Content

There were two main trends at the beginning of the new millennium: experimenting
with convergence by combining news, products, and processes in separate newsrooms
of print, television, and online media; and producing multimedia content for several
outlets (Singer, 2006). Convergence soon became a buzzword that shook most news-
rooms: editors asked newspaper reporters to record videos at the scene or to make
their own summaries of the news for radio or television. Managers commissioned
broadcast journalists to write articles for the newspaper and to promote the stories
included in the print media. Thus, journalism became “convergent” and journalists
more versatile, as they had to generate content simultaneously for several platforms
(García-Avilés, Meier, and Kaltenbrunner, 2016).
Regarding the production of multimedia content, there was a lot of resistance by
journalists. Some of them admitted that this was due to fear of the unknown. However,
others justified their fear on ethical grounds, emphasizing the detrimental effects on
the news quality, the limited time available to produce more pieces, and the increasing
pressure to develop pieces for radio, website, print, and/or television. Work overload
often reduced journalistic quality and increased tensions among staff in multimedia
newsrooms (Carvajal and García-Avilés, 2008).
Blogs and Bloggers

As the self-publishing platforms were easier to use, horizontal communication chan-
nels proliferated, and all kinds of blogs rapidly incorporated the voice of citizens into
journalism. Bloggers claimed the professional territory of journalists: selecting events
and topics for the audience and commenting on relevant issues through content aggre-
gation. This led to further tensions between the possibilities afforded by innovations in
news production and the normalizing force of established newsroom routines
(Mitchelstein, Boczkowski, and Wagner, 2017). Professionals quickly drew the frontier
between journalists who valued equity, accuracy, balance, and other ethical criteria,
and content providers with their opinion blogs, which lacked a professional status
(Singer, 2003).
One of the ways in which journalists differed from bloggers was their independence,
based on neutrality, impartiality, or objectivity. Bloggers, on the other hand, published
their personal views and raised ethical problems. “It is not a fair, impartial or objective
journalism, nor does it intend to be. As they do not adhere to journalistic norms, blog-
gers do not have to be objective or politically correct,” protested one newspaper editor
(Carlson, 2007, p. 268). The success of bloggers posed the question of which character-
istics defined a digital journalist (Hayes, Singer, and Ceppos, 2007).

An ethical problem that journalists frequently criticized was that the material pub-
lished on blogs was not verified and, therefore, was not reliable. An editor summed up
this concern: “If something appears in The Washington Post or The New York Times, I
know it has been reviewed by someone whose profession requires them to have it
checked. With a blog, you have no idea. Bloggers don’t know how to verify the facts.
Calling a blogger a journalist is like calling a photographer anybody who takes a snap-
shot” (Carlson, 2007, p. 274).
Criticisms related to impartiality and verification pointed to the emergence of a
norm that was especially suitable for digital media: transparency. It was important for
the disclosure of a blogger’s background, their personal interests and financial ties.
Although the norms of objectivity and balance made it difficult for some journalists to
adhere to blogging, blogs became an acceptable innovation by 2012 (Mitchelstein,
Boczkowski, and Wagner, 2017).
User-Generated Content
Journalists had to face the consequences of user-generated content (UGC) and its
influence on their professional routines. The spread of UGC implied that journalists
could lose control over what they published, even as authors of the news and it soon
threatened editorial values and news standards (Paulussen and Ugille, 2008). Ethical
concerns about UGC focused on three aspects: accuracy, credibility, and civility. It
increased the difficulty of verifying the information and checking whether something
was true or were mere rumors or lies spread by people over whom journalists had no
control. News professionals saw that their credibility was in the spotlight. Some experts
criticized that users, unlike journalists, did not feel responsible for what they pub-
lished and did not report accurately (Noguera Vivo, 2012).
Legal concerns about the use of UGC in the media, such as copyright ownership,
were mixed with ethical ones. However, making sure that the material external to the
newsroom was “legally safe to publish” consumed considerable time and energy in
most newsrooms. According to one British editor, comments are “subject to lawsuits
for defamation, slander, libel, or the prohibition of spreading the name of the victim of
a violation: reading these things and supervising them involves tons of work” (Singer,
2003). In this way, journalists struggled to ethically accommodate the opportunities
for dialog presented by UGC, while safeguarding their credibility and sense of respon-
sibility. News professionals showed concerns about the value of user contributions, as
well as the consequences of uncivil comments on personal and institutional credibility
(Singer and Ashman, 2009, p. 18).
However, criticism of the use of UGC in the newsrooms was not universal; many
journalists expressed support for user contributions (video, pictures, news tips, etc.),
although warned about the actual costs versus the ideal benefits. As Singer (2003)
points out, most media outlets established an ethical framework about the problems
raised by this innovation and many newsrooms drew a line not to be trespassed.
Social Media
Platforms such as Twitter are essentially microblogs, but unlike users’ comments and
other UGC that are produced after the journalist has published the story, social media
material is a potential journalistic source (Noguera Vivo, 2012). Journalists initially
disdained the potential of social media in their job because instant information com-
bined mass distribution with an easy publishing process and the absence of editorial
supervision. “A toy for boring celebrities and high school girls” is how a columnist
described Twitter in 2009 (Hermida, 2012, p. 168).
Social media challenged traditional journalistic values such as impartiality and
accuracy. According to one study, a high percentage of tweets by journalists them-
selves contained at least some expression of opinion and used them to share infor-
mation about their work and their personal lives (Suárez-Villegas and Cruz-Álvarez,
2016b). Therefore, prestigious news outlets such as The New York Times, the BBC,
and The Washington Post, issued guidelines about the use of social media by their
employees. New ethical concerns arose as misinformation and fake news became
a problem. Newsrooms used with caution the available content in Twitter,
Facebook, YouTube, or Instagram, and most journalists adopted social media more
quickly and with fewer complaints than the previous innovations (Suárez-Villegas
and Cruz-Álvarez, 2016b).
Citizens and social media users were excluded from meaningful participation in the
media ethics discourse. However, as Ward and Wasserman (2010) argued, new tech-
nologies and platforms were democratizing media globally and were rendering jour-
nalistic practices more flexible and fluid, facilitating an “open media ethics.”
Journalistic Production for the Internet

Digital journalism is instantaneous. Journalists publish news content as it happens, in
a 7/24 cycle, with short time to check it. Journalism tends to be increasingly opinion-
ated because the news content is presented from the “ideological trench,” and is becom-
ing more entertaining, including a mix of spectacle, sensationalism, and clickbait
elements. In addition, news content is gathered and distributed in social media, where
sources, journalists, media consumers, and citizens participate almost at the same level.
Journalism innovations facilitated the production of content in multiple formats,
contributed to forge a more attractive and accessible journalism for a greater number
of people and, at the same time, broadened the focus of the ethical issues raised in the
newsrooms. Table 1.1 summarizes some ethical issues debated by journalists between
2010 and 2015.
Table 1.1 Ethical issues for news professionals who work in digital newsrooms.
Production stages Ethical issues
Access-observation ●● Verification of what is published on social media.

●● Check the information with two or more sources.
●● Journalists should not publish personal opinions in social
media.
●● Fight against misinformation and lies.
Selection-filtering ●● Verify the accuracy of UGC.
●● Label external content as such.
●● Pressure to promote topics that increase online traffic.
Transparency in accessing news sources.
●●
Processing-editing ●● Rejection of excessive multiskilling.

●● Convergence as a costsaving operation.
●● Low quality in production of multimedia content.
●● Separation between advertising and editorial.
Distribution ●● Value the journalist’s byline.
●● Obsession to beat the competition.
●● Immediacy of live coverage.
●● Use of clickbait.
Interpretation ●● Value of input from the users.
●● Moderation of comments and insults.
●● Correction of errors.
●● Transparency.
Source: Author
Thus, the ethics of traditional journalism, with values based on the accuracy, rigor,
precision, and verification, was gradually extended to digital journalism, where
collaboration with users, transparency, and immediacy predominate (Suárez-Villegas
and Cruz-Álvarez, 2016a).
Immersive Journalism
Immersive journalism tells stories through virtual reality (VR), augmented reality
(AR), or 360-degree video and allows the user to become part of the story through a
great variety of experiences. These formats raise important ethical issues (Pérez-Seijo
and López-García, 2019), such as:
●● To what extent producers can modify the recorded content, altering elements of
reality or making up scenes, so that the story works better.
●● Users’ exposure to content of a sensitive nature, including the use of violence,
emotional abuse, obscene language, or explicit sex scenes.
●● The manipulation of emotions that influence the users and arouse feelings of
adherence or rejection to ideas or institutions.
●● Business interests of companies that produce VR content or finance immersive
experiences.
VR environments could become incubators for manipulation and propaganda, and
for this reason, being unaware of the journalist orchestrating highly persuasive con-
tent could undermine the credibility of VR narratives (Kool, 2016). The use of VR
technology raises complex ethical questions that require careful consideration by
the producers of these formats to preserve journalistic standards (Pérez-Seijo and
López-García, 2019).
Journalism and Big Data

Big Data refers to the ability to process large amounts of information, analyze it, and
draw relevant conclusions. Big Data raises their own ethical dilemmas about user
privacy, information security, and data manipulation, among other issues, when
journalists decide how to incorporate the use of massive data into their stories.
The process of making public a large volume of data helps rethink their ethical
quandaries, as many journalists have embraced such openness as a professional norm,
facilitating public scrutiny of complete data sets and open programming code (Lewis,
2015). This trend can improve some journalistic processes, as Lewis (2015) states, by
integrating principles such as transparency and participation in newsrooms.
The use of massive data raises ethical dilemmas associated with the collection,
analysis, and dissemination of such information. Just because a content is publicly
accessible does not mean that the journalist had permission to make it public for
everyone (Lewis and Westlund, 2015). Problems often arise with public data provided
by governments and institutions or gathered through techniques such as crowdsourcing
or data scraping. Such problems can go unnoticed, either by the size of the data involved
or by its public dissemination, so journalists must weigh the benefits of publishing
open data against the risk of personal injury, especially when private information can
be easily shared (Lewis and Westlund, 2015).
Newsrooms as Communities of Practice 13
Automated Journalism
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are tools built by people to meet human needs and
purposes. Data mining algorithms can influence the way journalists cover any topic,
ranging from voting patterns to the spread of COVID-19 or the consumption of super-
market products. In addressing how journalists interact with AI, there is an opportu-
nity for hybridization in the development of processes that involve journalists and
technology. Algorithms often complement, but rarely replace the journalist. According
to some studies (Dörr, 2016), an algorithm could replicate only 15% of the reporters’
time and 9% of the editors’ time.
To date, most news-writing robots have been used to provide news on topics such
as stock market quotes, earthquake alerts, and sport. In the United States, The
Associated Press leads the use of robots in business and sports news. The auto-
mated Heliograf system writes stories for The Washington Post, while the Swedish
multimedia group MittMedia produces pieces written by robots on real estate
issues, among others. Newsrooms are increasingly automated to track down break-
ing stories and trending issues. The rapid development of machine learning is
likely to make journalism more speedy, efficient, and cost-effective (Diakopoulos
and Koliska, 2017).
We must consider whether automated journalism can play a role of responsibility as
humans do. There are concerns regarding the algorithmic strategies, personalization
of contents, filtering, and transparency. As computers assume greater prominence in
the evaluation of the news, encouraging a certain type of selection and consumption,
how are they “taught” to act ethically? Is there an “algorithm ethic?”
Ethics must unravel numerous dilemmas about the selection, interpretation, and
anticipation of news content, including how algorithms structure reality through
machine learning. Therefore, it is necessary to study the codes, the “black boxes” of the
algorithms, to discover “the power structures, biases and influences that computa-
tional artifacts exert in society” (Diakopoulos and Koliska, 2017, p. 815).
Newsrooms as Communities of Practice

Professional news practices, such as the proper transcription of a statement, the verifi-
cation of the source of an amateur video, or the double-checking of the information

provided by a source, always have an ethical dimension (Suárez-Villegas and Cruz-
Álvarez, 2016a). In this sense, the coherence of journalistic practices differentiates the
professional activity from the amateur level. There are few shared values about the
professional practices in journalism. The ethical decision depends on each profes-
sional, who is solely responsible for their own actions. Companies carry out the report-
ing activity, but specific individuals, men, and women with their beliefs and ethical
convictions, are the ones who produce the news.
Journalists are continually transforming their traditions in the newsgathering, pro-
duction, and distribution processes. News practitioners follow the criteria about what
they consider appropriate, true, and fair, according to newsroom standards and profes-
sional culture. Through a process of trial and error, journalists incorporate the innova-
tions as appropriate practices or dismiss them as unacceptable. The application of
ethical standards, in short, determines the very nature of the journalistic activity as a
professional practice in the full sense of the term.
Professions can become “communities of practice” whose members share a common
identity and goals. According to Alasdair Macintyre (1984), the effectiveness of a com-
munity of practice depends on the degree of cohesion among its members. In any pro-
fessional community, Macintyre (1984, pp. 65–67) identifies three main characteristics:
(a) The need for learning how to carry out that activity in a professional way.
(b) Excellence provides the participants with the goal of their activity.
(c) The learning process, based on decision-making and the assessment of actions,
products, and people, allows practitioners to evaluate their own performance
and to reach excellence.
In fact, the profession of journalism is an example of practice in the sense referred to

by Macintyre (1984), since newsrooms can be regarded as communities of profession-
als, made up of journalists who share their own standards and procedures for produc-
ing information, according to the criteria that emanate from newsroom managers and
employees (García-Avilés, 2014).
News standards are passed on from one generation of journalists to another, through
professional practices. Journalistic ethical standards cover practical issues, such as
how to edit an online news video or how to produce a VR report. Each of these activi-
ties can adapt to the ethical criteria of that community of practitioners. In these com-
munities of practice, “a philosophy of moral values guiding journalists is shaped by the
journalist or journalism organization’s need to be perceived by its audience as contrib-
uting to the public discourse by supplying factual, reliable, and meaningful informa-
tion” (Hayes, Singer, and Ceppos, 2007, p. 265).
Learning and knowledge sharing foster innovation in these professional communi-
ties. In this sense, the communities of practice share ethical norms about the acquisi-
tion, production, and distribution of contents, in order to illuminate “the ethical
conscience of the professional who applies the norms to the specific circumstances of
each case” (Jiménez, 2016, p. 26).
Journalistic ethics also translates into the “good practices” which take place during
the decision-making process in the newsrooms (García-Avilés, 2014). The issues dis-
cussed allow for shared and transparent results, so that the public can learn about the
decisions taken in producing the news and their justification. For this reason, journal-
ists should be held accountable for the procedures they use in newsgathering, produc-
tion, and distribution, to provide a responsible journalism that serves the public
(Eberwein, Fengler, and Karmasin, 2019). This approach contributes to updating the
standards of professional excellence and ethical values in the innovative practices,
which often are not included in traditional codes.
Throughout this process, journalists can engage with users who share a similar con-
cern for news quality. As former La Vanguardia’s ombudsman Roger Jiménez (2016,
p. 31) emphasizes, some readers “use the news content with a critical mentality, raise
the finger when they perceive biases, systematic distortions or silences, prosecute the
selection and placement of photos, and censure the prejudices that can slip into the
stories.” Thus, media managers must take advantage of the readers’ contributions
because they are an ethical asset for their news operations.
Conclusion: The Strategic Value of the Ethics of Journalistic Innovation 15
Ethical debates should incorporate all the issues that arise from innovations in news
product and service, process of production and distribution, use of technology, social
media, misinformation, etc. In Ward’s words (2014, p. 468), “traditional media ethics
is strong on abstract principles that cover all forms of journalism—such as acting inde-
pendently and seeking the truth. But it is weak on specifying guidelines and protocols
for different forms of media.” In conclusion, newsroom ethics should respond to the
current challenges faced by digital journalism and the mechanisms by which news is
produced.
Conclusion: The Strategic Value of the Ethics of

Journalistic Innovation
Ethics is the attempt to discern the “right action.” This means deciding what actions
are justifiable in the interest of individuals and society, given that many decisions
involve values, ends, and procedures that may conflict (Ward and Wasserman, 2010).
Digital media ethics (DME) has become a subdomain of applied ethics for those who
use digital technologies in their daily lives (Ess, 2013). DME addresses the ethical
problems caused using technologies implemented in developed countries, such as
cameras, smartphones, drones, bots, voice devices, navigation systems, biometric
health control devices, and “the Internet of things.”
These multiple contexts of use broaden the range of ethical challenges that arise
from technologies, far beyond the comparatively reduced circle of problems facing
journalists or computer professionals. DME can draw clear approaches to aspects
related to privacy, copyright, and technology, which help establish an accepted set of
ethical practices. Some problems include “online death” (related to websites on sui-
cides, and issues about censorship, “right to be forgotten,” etc.); issues arising from the
use of massive data, such as preventive surveillance or the use of robots, from lethal
weapons to “sex-bots” (Ess, 2013).
In addition to applied ethics, DME incorporates the ethical perceptions both of com-
munities of practice and the users, whose experience contributes to the design and use
of information and communication technologies. This field of ethics is increasingly
hybrid and multidisciplinary—it includes contributions from engineering, economics,
business, statistics, etc.—and fosters a collaborative attitude, addressing problems col-

lectively, seeking solutions through trial and error, and making decisions in an inter-
active, instantaneous environment (Friend and Singer, 2007).
The ethics of innovation bring about tensions between the different elements that
make up the work of journalism: privacy and freedom, integrity and commercializa-
tion, participation and control, immediacy and rigor, technology, and humanism.
Some journalists use ethics as a defensive weapon when they describe an innovation
as an attack on basic principles or a threat to journalistic integrity. Instead, journalists
can strive in the digital setting and, at the same time, preserve the fundamental values
of the profession (Friend and Singer, 2007), putting the focus on decision-making that
is consistent with the ethics of the ends, the procedures, and the values.
Not all ethical problems will be quickly or easily solved. Nevertheless, trying to reach
widespread solutions on issues such as privacy, the fight against misinformation, or
manipulation in VR environments, together with proposals on more complex issues,
will allow to rebuild journalism ethics. “Even if journalists agree to be responsible,

even if they embrace principles like truth-telling and verification, they will still not be
spared the task of rethinking their norms” (Ward, 2014, p. 461). The new epistemology
of media innovation ethics must consider how technologies can be used to advance the
communitarian mission of journalism.
News professionals in their communities of practice might contribute to project
solutions, as they become part of the strategic process of newsroom innovation.
Managers should have clear ethical standards and to be able to communicate them
effectively to all members of the news organization, both vertically and horizontally,
identifying ethical patterns that run across different media innovations, and the fac-
tors which shape change at distinct periods or in particular settings.
The media crisis arose from the penetration of digital technologies and the collapse
of previous business models. However, the crisis is economic, not journalistic, the
problems that journalists fear mostly coming from the pressures that arise from the
lack of funding, not from innovation. Media companies have laid off staff and have cut
budgets, and their journalists often lack the resources to maintain the quality of their
work, as legacy media see their traditional business model crumble and many digital-
only outlets fail to achieve an economically sustainable model.
When journalists try to improve the prevailing news standards and practices, they
feel they can make a difference in the ethics of professional journalism. In that sense,
dissatisfaction with the current situation is a key prerequisite for ethics. Within inno-
vative newsrooms, there can be a productive energy, if there is a strategic need for
change, for better ways to innovate. Therefore, dissatisfaction with the status quo and
market turmoil can also be one of the driving forces for a disruptive ethics culture in
which journalists take a proactive role (Ward, 2018).
The ethics of innovation, as a strategic asset for media companies, could contribute
to overcoming the crisis aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic: advertising downfall,
uncertainty about business models, the growth of misinformation and, ultimately, the
loss of relevance of journalism in society. In many newsrooms worldwide, innovative
journalists are transforming news procedures as they face new challenges in all kind
of professional situations, strengthening the public service function of journalism in
democratic societies. News organizations need an innovation strategy grounded on
the fundamental values of ethics, which will help build a sustainable future for
journalism.
References
Anthony, S.D. (2012). The Little Black Book of Innovation: How It Works, How to Do It.
Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
Bleyen, V.A., Lindmark, S., Ranaivoson, H., and Ballon, P. (2014). A typology of media
innovations: insights from an exploratory study. The Journal of Media Innovations, 1(1),
28–51.
Boczkowski, P.J. (2004). Digitizing the News: Innovation in Online Newspapers. Cambridge:
The MIT Press.
Carlson, M. (2007). Blogs and journalistic authority: the role of blogs in US election day
2004 coverage. Journalism Studies, 8(2), 264–279.
References 17
Carvajal, M. and García-Avilés, J.A. (2008). From newspapers to multimedia groups:

business growth strategies of the regional press in Spain. Journalism Practice, 2(3),
453–462.
Dal Zotto, C. and van Kranenburg, H. (Eds.). (2008). Management and Innovation in the
Media Industry. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
De-Lara-González, A., Arias-Robles, F., Carvajal-Prieto, M. and García-Avilés, J.A. (2015).
Ranking de innovación periodística 2014 en España. Selección y análisis de 25
iniciativas. El Profesional de la Información, 24(3), 235–245.
Deuze, M. and Yeshua, D. (2001). Online journalists face new ethical dilemmas: lessons
from the Netherlands. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 16(4), 273–292.
Diakopoulos, N. and Koliska, M. (2017). Algorithmic transparency in the news media.
Digital Journalism, 5(7), 809–828.
Dogruel, L. (2014). What is so special about media innovations? A characterization of the
field. The Journal of Media Innovations, 1(1), 52–69.
Dörr, K. (2016). Mapping the field of algorithmic journalism. Digital Journalism, 4(6),
700–722.
Eberwein, T., Fengler, S. and Karmasin, M. (Eds.). (2019). Media Accountability in the Era
of Post-truth Politics: European Challenges and Perspectives. London: Routledge.
Ess, C. (2013). Digital Media Ethics. Cambridge: Polity.
Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. and Nelson, R.R. (Eds.). (2005). The Oxford Handbook of
Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Friend, C. and Singer, J.B. (2007). Online Journalism Ethics: Traditions and Transitions.
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
García-Avilés, J.A. (2014). Online newsrooms as communities of practice: exploring digital
journalists’ applied ethics. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 29(4), 258–272.
García-Avilés, J.A., Carvajal-Prieto, M., Arias-Robles, F., and De-Lara-González, A. (2019).
How journalists innovate in the newsroom. Proposing a model of the diffusion of
innovations in media outlets. The Journal of Media Innovations, 5(1), 1–20.
García-Avilés, J.A., Carvajal-Prieto, M., De-Lara-González, A., and Arias-Robles, F. (2018).
Developing an index of media innovation in a national market: the case of Spain.
Journalism Studies, 19(1), 25–42.
García-Avilés, J.A., Meier, K., and Kaltenbrunner, A. (2016). Reshaping the “legacy” of
legacy media in the online scenario. In Franklin, B. and Eldridge II, S. (Eds.) The
Routledge Companion to Digital Journalism Studies. London/New York: Routledge, pp.

449–473.
Gynnild, A. (2014). Journalism innovation leads to innovation journalism: the impact of
computational exploration on changing mindsets. Journalism, 15(6), 713–730.
Harcup, T. (2006). The Ethical Journalist. New York: Sage.
Hayes, A.S., Singer, J.B., and Ceppos, J. (2007). Shifting roles, enduring values: the
credible journalist in a digital age. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22(4), 262–279.
Hermida, A. (2012). Tweets and truth: journalism as a discipline of collaborative
verification. Journalism Practice, 6(5–6), 659–668.
Jiménez, R. (2016). Cien casos. La ética periodística en tiempos de precariedad. Barcelona:
Universidad de Barcelona.
Kool, H. (2016). The Ethics of Immersive Journalism: a rhetorical analysis of news
storytelling with virtual reality technology. Intersect: The Stanford Journal of Science,
Technology, and Society, 9(3), 1–11.
Kovach, B. and Rosenstiel, T. (2001). The Elements of Journalism. New York: Crown
Publishers.
Küng, L. (2013). Innovation, technology and organizational change. In Storsul, T. and
Krumsvik, A.H. (Eds.) Media Innovation: A Multidisciplinary Study of Change.
Gothenburg: Nordicom, pp. 2–12.
Küng, L. (2017). Going Digital: A Roadmap for Organisational Transformation. Oxford:
Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
Lewis, S.C. (2015). Journalism in an era of big data: cases, concepts, and critiques. Digital
Journalism, 3(3), 321–330.
Lewis, S.C. and Westlund, O. (2015). Big data and journalism: epistemology, expertise,
economics, and ethics. Digital Journalism, 3(3), 447–466.
Macintyre, A. (1984). After Virtue. 2ª ed., Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.
Mitchelstein, M.E., Boczkowski, P.J., and Wagner, M.C. (2017). The boomerang effect:
innovation in the blogs of mainstream news sites, 2008–2012. Media, Culture & Society,
39(8), 1231–1244.
Mulgan, G. (2016). Good and bad innovation: what kind of theory and practice do we need to
distinguish them? NESTA. https://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/good-and-bad-innovationwhat-
kind-of-theory-and-practice-do-we-need-to-distinguish-them
Noguera Vivo, J.M. (2012). Redes y Periodismo: cuando las noticias se socializan. Barcelona:
Editorial UOC.
Paulussen, S. and Ugille, P. (2008). User generated content in the newsroom: professional
and organisational constraints on participatory journalism. Westminster Papers in
Communication & Culture, 5(2), 24–41.
Pavlik, J.V. (2013). Innovation and the future of journalism. Digital Journalism, 1(2),
181–193.
Pérez-Seijo, S. and López-García, X. (2019). La ética del periodismo inmersivo a debate.
Hipertext.net, 18(4), 1–18.
Porcu, O. (2020). Exploring innovative learning culture in the newsroom. Journalism,
21(10), 1556–1572.
Prenger, M. and Deuze, M. (2017). A history of innovation and entrepreneurialism in
journalism. In Boczkowski, P.J. and Anderson, C.W. (Eds.) Remaking the News.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 235–250.
Ruotsalainen, J. and Heinonen, S. (2015). Media ecology and the future ecosystemic
society. European Journal of Futures Research, 3(1), 9–19.

Sádaba, C., García-Avilés, J.A. and Martínez-Costa, M.P. (Coords.) (2016). Innovación y
desarrollo de los cibermedios en España. Pamplona: Eunsa.
Singer, J.B. (2003). Who are these guys? The online challenge to the notion of journalistic
professionalism. Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism, 4, 139–163.
Singer, J.B. (2006). Partnerships and public service: normative issues for journalists in
converged newsrooms. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 21(1), 30–53.
Singer, J.B. and Ashman, I. (2009). “Comment is free, but facts are sacred”: user-
generated content and ethical constructs at The Guardian. Journal of Mass Media
Ethics, 24(1), 3–21.
Storsul, T. and Krumsvik, A.H. (Eds.). (2013). Media Innovation: A Multidisciplinary Study
of Change. Gothenburg: Nordicom.
Suárez-Villegas, J.C. and Cruz-Álvarez, J. (Eds.). (2016a). Desafíos éticos en el periodismo
digital. Madrid: Dykinson.
References 19
Suárez-Villegas, J.C. and Cruz-Álvarez, J. (2016b). The ethical dilemmas of using social
networks as information sources. Analysis of the opinion of journalists from three
countries. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 71, 66–84.
von der Pfordten, D. (2012). Five elements of normative ethics-a general theory of
normative individualism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 15(4), 449–471.
Ward, S.J.A. (2014). Radical media ethics. Digital Journalism, 2(4), 455–471.
Ward, S.J.A. (2018). Disrupting Journalism Ethics: Radical Change on the Frontier of Digital
Media. London: Routledge.
Ward, S.J.A. and Wasserman, H. (2010). Towards an open ethics: implications of new
media platforms for global ethics discourse. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 25(4),
275–292.
Weiss, A.S. and Domingo, D. (2010). Innovation processes in online newsrooms as
actor-networks and communities of practice. New Media and Society, 12(7), 1156–1171.
Whitehouse, G. (2010). Newsgathering and privacy: expanding ethics codes to reflect
change in the digital media age. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 25(4), 310–327.
Zaragoza-Fuster, M.T. and García-Avilés, J.A. (2020). The role of innovation labs in
advancing the relevance of public service media: the cases of BBC news labs and RTVE
lab. Communication & Society, 33(1), 45–61.
20
Democratically Engaged Journalists

Ethical Invention amid Unreasonable Publics
Stephen J.A. Ward
University of British Columbia
The reinvention of journalism ethics for a digital, global media must be radical,
addressing three daunting problems, the digitalization of media, the globalization of
media, and the use of this digital, global media to spread misinformation, fake news,
and intolerant ideology.
Digitalization has extended the bounds of journalism ethics beyond professional
newsrooms to the journalism of citizens, NGOs, political groups, and almost anyone
with access to the Internet. Globalization means journalism ethics should be revised to
make journalism a globally responsible practice. This means that codes of journalism
ethics and journalism principles should help journalists properly cover global issues
such as immigration and climate change, and evaluate reports that will circle the
globe. Finally, the existence of unreasonable and intolerant groups in the global media
sphere entails that journalists should conceive of themselves as social advocates,
engaged in the promotion of egalitarian democracy and human flourishing anywhere
in the world.
Today, new forms of journalism arise, such as participatory journalism, entrepreneur-
ial journalism, and civic engagement journalism.1 These forms of journalism set aside
calls for the reporter to be neutral or objective. The journalist, or the activist who uses
journalism as a tool, enters public debate with an explicit perspective and goals. Often,
the goal is to persuade others and recruit citizens to their cause or organization.2
In some cases, such as civic engagement journalism, journalists are ready to act with
citizens to support social or political reform. They immerse themselves in the commu-
nity to better understand the concerns of disadvantaged groups, even if this method
raises questions about their independence as journalists.3
1 See Singer, Participatory Journalism, Briggs, Entrepreneurial Journalism, and Batsell, Engaged
Journalism.
2 An example of engaged, partisan journalism are the websites established by American conservative
groups, such as the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and the Sam Adams
Foundation, to cover state legislatures from their libertarian, right-wing perspectives. See http://
watchdog.org/about/and http://watchdog.org/category/illinois.
3 An example of civic engagement journalism is the Honolulu Civic Beat, a website established by
Pierre Omidyar at www.civicbeat.org. In one series, “Home but not Homeless,” a Civic Beat reporter
lived for months with a camp set up by poor citizens in an exclusive part of the city to focus attention
the lack of proper housing.
2 Democratically Engaged Journalists 21
These forms of journalism do not embrace the traditional ideal of journalistic disen-
gagement or detachment from their audiences, financial sources, their citizens, and
their nation’s political system.4 Instead, they embrace various methods of social
expression and engagement. They use methods of funding that reduce the editorial
distance between journalists and revenue sources, e.g., citizen and group donations,
philanthropic individuals, or politically engaged civic societies.5 Not all of this engaged
journalism is biased, or politically extreme. A significant amount is thoughtful,
informed, and regularly wins awards for journalistic excellence.6 Some of the best and
most informative sources on human rights, for example, are to be found on NGO
online sites.7
Engaged journalism is studied by academic institutions,8 developed by labs,9 is pro-
moted and supported by journalism centers,10 is the topic of books, and is a concept
analyzed by journalism organizations.11
Non-neutral journalism, criticism of detachment, and activist journalism are not
new. Non-neutral journalism was one of the first forms of modern journalism as a
periodic news press emerged in seventeenth-century Europe. The new editors pro-
duced newsbooks redolent with advocacy and partisan political journalism—roy-
alist versus non-royalist newspapers, then conservative versus liberal newspapers.12
However, with the mass commercial press in the early 1900s, neutral reporting,
especially in North America, became an ideal, and was separated from editorial
opinion. Neutrality and objectivity were central principles of many of the first
explicit journalism codes of ethics.13 In the United States and then in Canada, the
idea of journalists as neutral or detached reporters striking a balance between
viewpoints became an influential model for good reporting. North America
4 Traditionally, in journalism ethics, neutrality has been regarded as part of the stance of objective
reporting. Neutrality refers to the psychological attitude of not taking sides when reporting on
conflicting groups. Objectivity is neutrality plus a strict reporting of just the facts, stripped of bias
or interpretation. I chart the history of this notion of objectivity in Ward, Objectively Engaged
Journalism.
5 One method is to use social media to “crowdsource” sources of revenue, such as asking individuals
to donate to a series of stories. One form of engaged journalism, non-profit news organizations, may
depend on funds from major philanthropic organizations who may be liberal or conservative in their
political goals. For a successful nonprofit news organization, see the Wisconsin Center for
Investigative Journalism at https://www.wisconsinwatch.org.
6 For list of awards won by the Civic Beat, see https://www.civilbeat.org/about/our-awards.
7 See https://www.raptim.org/20-international-human-rights-organizations.
8 For example, conferences on engaged journalism have been held at the Agora Journalism Center
in the School of Journalism and Communication at the University of Oregon.
9 See https://medium.com/the-engaged-journalism-lab.
10 For example, the European Journalism Center hosts the Engaged Journalism Accelerator at
https://www.engagedjournalism.com/Engaged. Journalism is a topic of discussion among members
of the World Association for Newspapers and News Publishers, https://blog.wan-ifra.org/2019/01/25/
engaged-journalism-why-newsrooms-should-put-the-needs-of-their-communities-first.
11 https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/strategy-studies/
what-is-engagement.
12 Ward, The Invention of Journalism Ethics, Chapter 4.
13 Ward, The Invention of Journalism Ethics, Chapter 7.
22 2 Democratically Engaged Journalists
journalism ethics became a professional ethic of “news objectivity” where news

and opinion were strictly divided and the reporter’s job was to neutrally present
“just the facts.” News objectivity was never as robust or popular in Europe yet the
ideas of neutrality, factuality, balance, and fairness found their way into numerous
European codes of journalism ethics, especially in the guidelines for public
broadcasters.14
With the “democratization” of media in the late 1900s due to the Internet, citizens
and groups obtained the means to skirt around the mainstream press and publish
journalistic pieces that ranged from biased, partisan tirades and conspiracy theories
to informed analysis and advocacy—and everything in between. There is an increas-
ing amount of unreliable nonobjective journalism, whether supported by govern-
ments or far-right groups, and much of it expresses extreme political views. Therefore,
there are complaints about fake news or racist articles parading as accurate
journalism.15
Determining which report is true or false, and who is or is not a reliable information
source has become a large social problem. The voice of the informed and fair journalist
is lost amid a cacophony of angry, biased voices that grab attention and dominate pub-
lic debate, not only online but also on mainstream radio and television programs.
Today, both the citizen and the ethical journalist live in a polluted media sphere which
imperils egalitarian democracy.16
This emergence of engaged journalism raises ethical questions. There is the
issue of how society should attempt to detox the polluted public sphere. This is a
social question: How to reform media institutions, media laws, and systems of
accountability? Also, there is another question that goes to the heart of journalism
ethics: If media practitioners abandon neutrality or objectivity, what other norms
define the ethics of journalism? Moreover, if professional or citizen journalists
wish to practice their non-neutral journalism responsibly, then what norms should
they follow? What aims? What norms would help to ensure that non-neutral or
engaged journalism serves the public, publishing accurate material that is not
sheer partisanship? What distinguishes the ethical engaged journalist from the
unethical engaged journalist?
It can seem that the answer to a polluted public sphere is for journalists to follow
existing norms for responsible journalism. Or, they could avoid doing non-neutral
journalism and regard the engaged writers online as not “really” journalists but
14 Objectivity was at its zenith among the mainstream media of North America between the 1920s
and 1960s, and fell gradually out of favor among journalists. From its beginning, the ideal always
had its critics, such as the non-neutral magazine muckrakers, Henry Luce’s interpretive Time
magazine, and the activist journalists who covered the American civil rights movement.
Mark Hampton has argued that as American journalists were developing the ideal of objectivity in
the news, British journalists were resisting the trend. See Hampton, “The ‘Objectivity’ Ideal and its
Limitations in 20th-century British Journalism.” On muckrakers, see Filler, The Muckrakers; on
Luce’s negative view of objectivity, see Baughman, Henry R. Luce and the Rise of the American News
Media, 25.
15 On the amount and nature of unreliable media, see Ghosh and Scott. “Digital Deceit,” and Fuchs,
Digital Demagogue.
16 On the relationship between extreme opinion and democracy today, see Levitsky and Ziblatt,
How Democracies Die, and Ward, Ethical Journalism in a Populist Age.
2 Democratically Engaged Journalists 23
advocates. When the first online journalism appeared in the late 1900s and early 2000s,
with its opinions and perspectives, this attitude prevailed. Many professional journal-
ists dismissed it as subjective blogging, and not journalism at all. This conservative
resistance to new journalism is unhelpful today as non-neutral journalism grows.
As for falling back on existing norms, the problem is that journalism ethics today is
fragmented. Journalists lack a consensus on what ethics is appropriate for digital,
global media, and the new media create ethical issues never foreseen by the founders
of journalism ethics. Also, there is not a lot of rigorous, comprehensive ethics material
on non-neutral journalism to fall back on. One reason is that the ethics of non-neutral
journalism was under-developed in the previous century. Professional ethics focused
on how reporters should cover events in a detached and fair manner. Non-neutral
writing, sometimes lumped into the category of “opinion journalism,” was a subjective
enterprise which did not admit to a detailed ethic.17
This imbalance is being addressed today as ethicists and journalism associations
articulate guidelines for practice, such as how to use social media.18 But this is still a
work in progress. We do not have a mature, systematic ethic for non-neutral or engaged
journalism, let alone a consensus on what such an ethic should look like.
To respond to the ethical challenges, journalism ethics should reflect on three
levels:
(1) Reform of the moral ideology of journalism:19 How should we re-conceive journal-
ism’s ethical role and aims in a global media era?
(2) Reform of the “content” of journalism ethics: What new guidelines and practices
are needed to guide responsible journalism, and to oppose anti-democratic groups?
(3) Reform of media institutions and structures: How can journalists, citizens, and
civic groups, locally and globally, come together to detox the public sphere,
improve mechanisms of media accountability, and put pressure on unethical
media practitioners?
This chapter works on level (1), the philosophical level. It proposes a way to conceptu-
alize journalism as both engaged and objective. I call it democratically engaged jour-
nalism. It is a “third way” between partisan and neutral journalism. Once this moral
ideology is constructed, one can get to work on levels (2) and (3).
The chapter defines democratically engaged journalism, using a continuum of kinds
of journalism. Then it considers possible objections. It concludes by identifying four

duties of democratically engaged journalism.
17 However, there was writing here and there that attempted to codify non-neutral journalism, such as
MacDougall and Reid’s Interpretative Reporting, or ethical discussions around literary (or narrative)
journalism, e.g., https://www.poynter.org/archive/2002/the-ethics-of-narrative-journalism-a-continuing-
debate. As well, columnists explained their craft in articles, books, or public speeches, such as honoring
the norm of being “independent from faction.” See Kovach and Rosenstiel, The Elements of Journalism,
Chapter 5. But the amount and quality of serious ethical thinking on non-neutral journalism did not
compare with the numerous, in-depth textbooks on professional and objective journalism across the
twentieth century.
18 See, for example, Craig, Excellence in Online Journalism.
19 By a moral ideology I mean a view about the basic aims and principles of journalism—the point
of the practice.
Section 1: A Continuum of Journalism
Journalism is the publication of reports, analysis, and commentary on events and

issues of public interest and significance, using whatever forms of media are available.
Anyone can commit “acts of journalism” sporadically or regularly, and do so ethically
or unethically. One does not have to be a professional journalist in the mainstream
news media.
What is engaged journalism? Engaged journalism is journalism that is motivated,
fully or in large part, to promote certain ideas, causes, leaders, policies, or reforms.
Engaged and Disengaged

Our default psychological approach to the world is to be engaged with it in some man-
ner. The etymology of “engagement” revolves around three senses: being occupied
with something; being committed to something; and finding something interesting.
We are occupied when we perform a role or job. Teachers are engaged in classrooms.
Being occupied can also mean being engrossed in some activity, e.g., learning to paint
watercolors. Engagement is commitment when we pursue some complex, usually dif-
ficult to reach, goal, e.g., to commit oneself to marriage, or to devote one’s life to help-
ing street people. One is occupied and committed. We are engaged with something as
entertaining when something grabs our attention, such as an engaging play. For this
chapter, engaged means being occupied with, and committed to, social goals or
practices.
To be disengaged means not to be occupied, committed, or fully involved with the
world or some aspect of the world. This disengagement can take on two forms: global
and local.
Global disengagement occurs when a person withdraws from agency and society,
often caused by a decline in interest in the world. Seriously depressed people experi-
ence a nihilism of values, and can lose interest in the issues that roil social life. Some
people, depressed or not, may become an ironic spectator on life’s passing show, or
become a hermit. There is also local disengagement which means that a person is not
engaged in this issue, or that activity, or these groups, at this time.
Aside from depression or a lack of interest, what other reasons might there be to
adopt the attitude of disengagement? One reason is to set aside the pressures of life,
temporarily, to do intellectual work, e.g., to retreat to my study to create a theory.
Another reason is to ensure rigorous, critical inquiry. This is the motive behind the
many objective methods of scientific and humanistic inquiry into nature or society.
Disengagement means standing back from beliefs and goals, the better to judge them.
This same call for disengagement occurs in the professions, where judges, teachers,
and public servants are cautioned to make objective judgments based on facts and
logic, without the influence of conflicts of interest.
As noted, journalistic disengagement in the early 1900s came to be called news
objectivity. To be disengaged meant the reporter should place a distance between
themselves and their biases and beliefs. They do not use reporting to advance their
personal interests. They maintain intellectual and editorial independence from the
world outside—audiences, advertisers, donors, and political pressure groups. They are
neutral and report just the facts.
Section 1: A Continuum of Journalism 25
Engaged journalism is defined in contrast to disengaged journalism. It is not neutral

and its reports include “more” than the facts, such as interpretation, opinion, advo-
cacy, or polemical argument. Moreover, it does not place a “wall” of independence
between journalists and external groups. Some forms of engaged journalism think
journalists should get closer to public groups, the better to understand their needs or
causes.
Where does engaged journalism fit with respect to other forms of journalism? There
are many ways to categorize journalisms: by form of technology (e.g., broadcasting,
online, print newspaper), by size (global, national, or local news media), by their polit-
ical perspective (liberal, conservative, anarchist, far-right), or by their types of audi-
ences (young, rural, urban, college-educated). No category system is uniquely correct
or best. It depends on your purpose.
Figure 2.1 ranges from the strongly disengaged and neutral pole to the strongly
engaged pole. The continuum contains three broad categories of journalism.
Disengaged journalism: The goal is factual and fair informing, without taking a posi-
tion or a strong perspective, without engaging in persuasive rhetoric or seeking to
participate with citizens in some social project. The most obvious example is neutral
reporting already discussed. But it is not limited to neutral reporting. It is possible to
include explanatory journalism, such as found in science journalism, in thoughtful,
non-polemical analyses of issues, or in “backgrounders” on complex public events.
“Explainers” and analysis do depart from strict neutrality but they belong to the disen-
gaged category because they tend to stay close to the facts, they attempt to represent
views fairly, and they are moderate in opinion or persuasive rhetoric.
Perspectival engaged journalism: The goal is to influence public opinion, and perhaps
encourage social reform, by expressing through publication certain opinions, perspec-
tives, and arguments. A newspaper’s editorial or the opinion of a newspaper columnist
are traditional examples. Investigative journalism belongs here because it rejects neu-
trality, while seeking deep facts below the level of press releases and political rhetoric.
Interpretive journalism is found in attempts by foreign reporters to give “meaning” to
Disengaged Perspectival Engagement Active Engagement

civic engagement
moderate opinion extreme populism

straight ideology/partisan
participatory
reporting
analysis
investigative
explanatory
interpretative
magazine propaganda
Figure 2.1 A Continuum of Engagement.
complicated movements, and in magazines such as The New Yorker, and The Economist,
which mix reportage and commentary. Also included are stronger forms of perspecti-
val journalism, such as advocacy and activist journalism, and the websites of partisan
or ideological groups whose writings can stray into the realm of propaganda. In this
category, journalists abandon neutrality as an ideal, and they honor norms such as
accuracy and fairness in varying degrees.
Active engaged journalism: The goal is not only to express views and hope they have
an impact, but to act socially and politically in the public sphere. Journalism in this
category departs the most from the ideals of disengaged journalism. The kinds of jour-
nalism include: (a) extreme populist groups that seek to recruit citizens to their per-
spective and political causes, or to vote for their leaders. This may include encouraging
citizens to show up at rallies by their leaders, or to disrupt the public events of their
political “enemies;” (b) participatory journalism which uses the Internet and social
media to gather news, images, and eye-witness testimony from citizens around the
world; and (c) civic engagement journalism where journalists encourage community
activism in the hope of improving communities.
Features of the Continuum

The first feature is this: Where exactly a form of journalism should be placed on the
continuum to be debated. For example, should I have placed investigative journalism
before or after advocacy journalism? Why is civic journalism placed last on the con-
tinuum? It should not surprise us that precision in categorizing is difficult. Journalism
is too complex an area to be divided neatly into kinds of journalism. Differences are
matters of degree, and different kinds of journalism combine values in various ways.
The continuum is a map of a complex terrain. The aim of the continuum is not preci-
sion in placement but to show how kinds of journalism can be roughly grouped into
three categories of moral ideology.
Second, the differences between the kinds of journalism are matters of degree.
Generally speaking, as one moves from left to right, we move from a journalism that is
more invested in acting as a public spectator and sticking close to the “shoreline” of
available facts, than in venturing out into the choppy waters of political opinion and
advocacy. There is a greater degree of strict factual accuracy and pre-publication verifi-
cation. As we approach the right-handed pole, there are greater amounts of hypothe-
sizing, speculating, and theorizing. Journalists are also more active in the public sphere.
Third, the continuum helps to highlight misconceptions. For example, the contin-
uum shows that all three forms of journalism have goals and values. Disengaged jour-
nalism, such as neutral reporting, has its own goals. The ethical point of adopting the
disengaged model is to provide the public with a relativity unbiased stream of factual
information. This stream of information is important because it helps to create an
informed democracy. However, disengaged journalism has not always stressed that it
too has goals and is engaged in society. In fact, the ideology has often implied that
neutral reporters are not engaged at all. In this view, to be “engaged” was to be a politi-
cal partisan or a social activist. Journalists are not, or should not be, engaged.
Fourth and finally, the continuum reminds us that certain kinds of journalism may
combine norms from the three categories. For example, investigative journalists com-
bine disengaged journalism’s stress on facts with engaged journalism’s stress on stories
that prompt reform.
Section 2: Democratically Engaged Journalism 27
Section 2: Democratically Engaged Journalism
We can now approach two key questions: What is the idea of democratically engaged
journalism? Where does it fit on the continuum?
The Idea
Democratically engaged journalism is journalism that uses the most rigorous and
objective methods of inquiry to explain, promote, and defend democratic communities
for the sake of greater flourishing among citizens, individually and as a whole. The
moral ideology of democratically engaged journalism can be broken down into two
large pieces: one is its ultimate goal; the other is the method or stance by which it pur-
sues this goal.
Ultimate Goal: Dialogic Democracy

Journalists can be engaged in ways that are positive or negative, responsible or irre-
sponsible. So, we face a choice in forms of engagement.
For democratically engaged journalism, the goal is the promotion of democracy. But
there are many forms of democracy—representational, republican, parliamentary,
elitist, populist, participatory.20 Democratically engaged journalism does not support
all these forms. For instance, it should not support a populist democracy where dema-
gogues use media to portray themselves as “strong” men of the people; and it should
not support an elitist form of democracy marked by great inequalities.
In my view, democratically engaged journalism should support a representational,
liberal democracy that is plural and egalitarian. It is open and participatory in impulse
and structure, with constitutional protection for minorities from the tyranny of major-
ities. As Dewey argued, this form of democracy is a precondition for the richest kind of
communal life and human flourishing.21
Plural, egalitarian democracy is grounded in the rule of law, division of powers,
public-directed and transparent government, and core liberties for all. The process of
plural democracy is robust, knowledge-based, respectful dialog, a willingness to com-
promise for the common good, and a readiness to test (and modify) one’s partial view
of the world.22 I call this dialogic democracy. It is important that people have a mean-
ingful opportunity to participate in crucial decisions. Yet, how they participate is also
crucial. Dialogic democracy requires moderate, informed exchanges of information
and views not dominated by powerful interests or intolerant voices. Dialog promotes
what Rawls called a “reasonable pluralism,” a reasonable discourse among groups
with different values and philosophies of life.23 Dialogic democracy is an ideal. It is
valuable as a target at which to aim.
20 On the kinds of democracy, see Held, Models of Democracy.

21 Dewey, Democracy and Education, 16.
22 This preference for egalitarian, participatory democracy would need, to be fully persuasive, an
extended argument. I provide a detailed conception in Ward, Global Journalism Ethics.
23 Rawls, Political Liberalism, 4.
How does journalism help democratic publics exist? By influencing the flow and
quality of communication in a democracy’s public sphere. Journalism can help socie-
ties make the often-difficult assent to better forms of democracy, characterized by tol-
erance and equality. Or, journalism can encourage intolerant communication which
sends democracy into a downward spiral to discordant society.
Promoting dialogic democracy requires much more than disengaged, neutral report-
ing. It requires journalistic engagement in democracy. Among the tasks of democrati-
cally engaged journalism is monitoring and alerting the public to leaders or groups
that could undermine a democratic “concord” among groups.
To face our troubled public sphere, journalists could “double down” on neutrally
reporting just the facts, such as quoting accurately what leaders like Donald Trump
say in public; or sticking unswervingly to balanced reports on crucial issues, such as
immigration or climate change, where voices for non-credible and intolerant views are
given equal space with credible and tolerant views. Or, journalists could become
engaged as partisan activists, identifying with, and becoming mouthpieces for, specific
political parties or leaders. Perhaps they might join protesters marching in the streets.
Adopting Either Option Would Be a Mistake

If journalists join the protesters, this engagement would erode media credibility and
contribute to an already partisan-soaked media sphere. Yet a journalism of just the
(alleged) facts, studiously balanced, is too passive and ripe for manipulation. In a par-
tisan public sphere, what is a fact is up for debate. Democratically engaged journalism
lays between partisan advocacy and mincing neutrality. It is not a neutral spectator or
a channel of information that merely repeats people’s alleged facts or racist views.
When important social and democratic issues are raised, democratically engaged jour-
nalism critically evaluates sources and claims, and operates with a clear notion of the
goal of democratic media.
Journalism cannot avoid involvement in the political sphere. One reason is this: as
the politics of a country goes, so goes the flourishing of its citizens. If a nation becomes
a tyranny, the citizens suffer. So, journalists have a duty to critique and evaluate what
happens in the political sphere. Another reason is this: As democracy goes, so goes
journalism. Where democracy weakens, democratic protections of freedom of speech
and publication weaken. Journalists have a vested interest in maintaining a free and
democratic nation.
The Method
Democratically engaged journalism is distinct in its attachment to dialogic, egalitarian
democracy. It is also distinct in combining that attachment with a commitment to
objective methods in practice. Democratic journalists should guide their actions and
work by the best standards of objective inquiry. They should be objectively engaged
journalists.
This is not the narrow objectivity of the codes of professional journalism created
a century ago. Objectivity is not the passive, un-interpreted observation of external
facts. Humans possess no such capacity for observing pure facts. Moreover, neu-
trality is not the best stance for a social engaged practice like journalism. Any sig-
nificant piece of journalism—in fact, any story—is an interpretation of some
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
quale ricalcitrando da quella meccanica classificazione, obbediva
solo in quanto costretto; e così agevolavasi l’opera del despotismo,
cioè delle rivoluzioni, dove una piccola minorità o un prepotente o un
esercito cambiano le istituzioni d’un popolo per darvene altre non
meno dispotiche.
Realmente la libertà, come altrove, così in Italia era antica, e nuovo il
despotismo, giacchè solo la rivoluzione francese annichilò que’
privilegi municipali e provinciali che sono la forma del diritto prima
che diventi comune [155]. I principi accettarono la restaurazione in
quanto ripristinava la loro potestà, non in quanto rifletteva ai popoli; e
così si fecero rivoluzionarj sia calpestando gli antichi diritti storici de’
sudditi, e con ciò traendo questi a chiederne di nuovi e radicali, sia
accettando i doni della vittoria, cioè consacrando la forza, e
riducendo il diritto al fatto, la ragione alla riuscita.
Tutti quegli ordigni gli aveva introdotti Napoleone, e ne ritrasse odio
e debolezza; i succeduti faceano altrettanto, ascrivendone ad esso
la colpa. Ma il popolo diceva: — Siam servi come prima, paghiamo
quanto allora, diamo ancora i nostri figli a marcire nelle guarnigioni o
su terre straniere, e non ci restano tampoco il fragor della gloria, il
compenso delle apparenze». Le divise militari, l’apparato teatrale
delle magistrature, le rassegne, le pompe lasciarono il barbaglio
dopo cessate le fitte; e poichè il passaggio dalla vita militare alla
civile è naturalmente prosastico, que’ Governi positivi, misurati,
paterni sentivano di meschinità a fronte della preceduta
carnevalesca splendidezza, della rapidità di eseguire o almeno
comandare tante opere pubbliche, incompatibile con amministrazioni
ponderate e massaje. Impiegati tolto di posto o sminuiti di grado e di
potenza, arrangiavano continue lodi del passato; speculatori cui
erano mancate le occasioni d’improvvisi guadagni, moltiplicate in
tempi turbinosi; militari avvezzi a rapidamente acquistar gradi e
sperarne di sempre maggiori, e che coll’occasione d’uccidere e farsi
uccidere vedeansi tolta quella di diventar generali, e che, tutti fede
nell’onnipotenza delle armi, si persuadevano che un pugno di
veterani d’Austerlitz o di Catalogna basterebbe a sgominare un
esercito di costoro che parean nani a confronto del gigante di
Marengo e di Jena, ridestavano il culto di Napoleone, inneggiato non
per i beni che recò o rappresentò, ma per izza ai dominanti nuovi,
che ne proscriveano i ritratti e il nome.
Perocchè Napoleone, mentre in Francia per tiranno, fuori passava
per liberale, avendo diffuso qui alla cheta ciò che per la furia erasi
guasto colà, ed operato assai più che i principi del secolo
precedente, non limitandosi a riforme amministrative, e dando statuti
e leggi fondamentali ch’erano una scuola politica iniziatrice. Il regno
d’Italia e quegli altri alla francese erano costati sangue e tesori e
servitù, ma in effetto aveano surrogato codici metodici e brevi alla
farragine di decreti e di pratiche, risultanti da molti secoli e da
eterogenee dominazioni; la procedura semplificata ed evidente
sottraeva ai lacciuoli de’ mozzorecchi e alle ambagi dei legulej;
l’inestricabile varietà dei tributi erasi ristretta in pochi e chiari;
pubblici il debito e le ipoteche; garantiti con queste e
coll’intavolazione le proprietà e i contratti; distinta la potestà civile
dalla militare, l’amministrativa dalla giudiziale; sistemati i municipj,
parificato il diritto di tutti in faccia alla legge. Questi erano benefizj
effettivi; e quantunque già fossero qui predisposti e in parte attuati,
se ne ascriveva il merito a que’ Governi. Ora molti de’ principi
ristabiliti credettero vantaggio del popolo il derogarli, per tornare ai
vecchi di cui era cessata la ragione, cioè l’abitudine; e coll’astiare il
passato più che affidar nell’avvenire, favorirono l’inclinazione
ingenita nei popoli di rimpianger l’ordine caduto per raffaccio del
presente.
Mentre abolivasi il buono, conservavasi il peggio. In quello stato
violento e di guerra, i principi aveano dismesso i primitivi comporti
paterni, a fronte di nemici che bisognava combattere, di popoli che
aveano esultato ai loro disastri. La lebbra napoleonica degli eserciti
numerosi non guariva perchè non se n’erano tolte le cause; e si
continuò a sagrificarvi la quiete, gli affetti, la moralità, le famiglie: in
conseguenza bisognò mantenere le imposizioni come in tempo di
guerra rotta, eppure deteriorare le finanze, acciocchè la forza armata
desse ai Governi il sentimento di poter ogni cosa senza far mente
alle inclinazioni o ai bisogni de’ popoli.
Ma l’operosità, distolta dalla gloria militare, avea preso un indirizzo
nuovo, occupandosi di trattati, di miglioramenti, di lotte parlamentari,
e insieme dell’industria e del credito pubblico, di statistica e politica;
e tornossi a ragionare di diritti e libertà. Gli Stati prima della
rivoluzione poggiavano sul privilegio e la gerarchia delle classi, e
sull’unione di queste tra loro in modo, che il clero, la nobiltà, le
maestranze delle arti, le municipalità, protette da concessioni o da
consuetudini, impedivano ai Governi d’essere assoluti, e
sminuzzavano fra moltissimi corpi l’azione amministrativa. Altrettanta
disuguaglianza sussisteva nei beni, alcuni legati indeclinabilmente in
manimorte, altri tenuti a certe servitù di livelli e prestazioni, altri
ristretti in fedecommessi, godibili non alienabili, che dovevano
trasmettersi intatti di generazione in generazione.
Camminando nel solco avito, gli uomini compivano per usanza
un’infinità di atti, e veneravano tradizionalmente l’autorità, non tanto
rassegnandosi, quanto neppure riflettendo al peso di essa: e le
abitudini di dipendenza da una parte, di patronato dall’altra
tutelavano la società che aveva l’arbitrio per massima, la libertà per
effetto. La rivoluzione richiamò in disputa tutti i principj, tutte le
autorità, fin la paterna; e stabilì la naturale indipendenza dell’uomo,
che abbandonato agli impulsi della propria natura, userà tutte le sue
forze a procacciarsi il maggior numero di sensazioni piacevoli, il che
si chiama felicità. A tal uopo egli si elegge dei governanti, e si
rassegna ad essere governato: ma se coloro riescano d’impaccio
all’incremento di tal sua felicità, egli potrà abbatterli; potrà surrogarsi
ad essi quando ne invidii la quantità maggiore di sensazioni
gradevoli.
Come ciascuno fu dichiarato uguale all’altro in diritti, pretese esserlo
in fatti, sicchè parvero legale ingiustizia le disuguaglianze inerenti
alla convivenza; e ciascuno si arrancò a salire, ad acquistare,
nessuno più rassegnandosi a quel che prima si chiamava il proprio
stato. Ma il livellamento è un fatto puramente materiale, manchevole
delle prime condizioni di cuore e di mente; ed ora che non v’è più
classi ma soltanto posizioni, sempre sono incerte, sempre
minacciate; ciascuno, per mantenersi nella sua o per migliorarla,
cerca arricchire; quell’arricchire che altre volte era il piacere di
alcuni, ora è fatto passione di tutti.
Lo svincolo dei possessi agevolò i trapassi, crebbe la cura di
migliorarli; e i latifondi, testè abbandonati alla patriarcale negligenza
di corporazioni e luoghi pii, furono sminuzzati fra particolari, che
s’industriarono a trarne il maggior frutto possibile. Così crebbe la
ricchezza, e per essa l’industria, e con esse il desiderio de’
godimenti materiali; tanto più che, revocata in dubbio la vita
avvenire, non si accettarono i mali di questa come un’espiazione; e
posta per iscopo della vita la felicità, la si volle goder alla presta, fin
rinnegando il primo ministro di Dio, il tempo.
Adunque mancanza di principj fissi e universalmente accettati,
smania di possessi, di godimenti, di miglioramento materiale,
obbedienza violenta alla forza piuttosto che alla legge, erano i nuovi
spiriti sociali. Internamente non rimanevano più istituzioni tutrici
storiche, non corpi rappresentativi, ma quell’eguaglianza che lascia
libertà agli arbitrj: i nobili, mero apparato, non formavano un corpo,
difesa e limite al trono, alla cui ombra crescevano; i preti non
s’affezionavano a un potere che guardavali con gelosia; i borghesi
non poteano rivoltarsi che immediatamente contro il principe; i popoli
non s’adagiavano nella quiete, perchè d’un nuovo cambiamento
erano lusingati dai tanti che già aveano veduti. Cresceva dunque il
desiderio d’una intervenzione attiva ed efficace del Governo nel
proprio paese. Non lo ignoravano i principi, i quali della rivoluzione
aveano conosciuta la potenza a segno, di valersi dei dogmi e degli
stromenti di essa per abbattere colui che l’aveva infrenata. E
avrebbero presunto di rimetter il mondo qual era prima di essa? Le
idee morali erano svanite tra quella serie d’astuzie, d’abusi della
forza, di perfidie; era crollata la reciproca confidenza, che è la più
difficile a restaurarsi; i re non erano più i padri d’una gran famiglia,
ma conquistatori e capi d’eserciti; alle loro corone era venuta meno
fin la consacrazione della durata, dacchè per capriccio o per forza
erano state tolte, divise, restituite; dacchè essi medesimi voleano
riconoscerle soltanto dalla vittoria, che è un fatto non un diritto; tutti
si erano prosternati a un soldato per conservarsele; prosternati al
popolo per ricuperarle, senza dignità nè buona fede; il congresso
medesimo avea conculcato il diritto de’ popoli, ma insieme
sconosciuto quello de’ principi, mutandoli, barattandoli. Intanto i
Governi neppur possedeano il vigore d’un assolutismo confessato,
ond’erano costretti a turpe discordanza fra quel che promettevano e
quel che lasciavano fare; e come i poteri egoisti, credeano assai il
guadagnar tempo.
Quindi i principi si lamentavano di non trovare più que’ sudditi docili
del Settecento; i popoli si dicevano traditi nelle promesse, delusi
nell’aspettazione; Governo e governati non procedeano più di
conserva ma gli uni attenti a comprimere, gli altri a rialzarsi, e intanto
fremere, denigrare, disapprovare. Cessato di credere alla moralità
de’ governati, diveniva necessaria la repressione: cessato di credere
alla moralità de’ governanti, diveniva necessario un patto, un freno.
Si trovò strano che pochi forti dessero assetto a tutt’Europa, ed uno
in ciascun paese facesse le leggi, disponesse delle entrate a
vantaggio proprio, non dei più: e vagheggiavasi un meglio che
pareva più bello quanto meno era determinato. Alcuni principi fuor
d’Italia aveano adempiuto le promesse concedendo una costituzione
ai loro popoli; costituzione non fondata sulla storia, come la inglese;
neppur patto bilaterale fra il regnante e i sudditi, ma donata da essi
principi, i quali del passo medesimo poteano ritoglierla. Le più
avanzate fra quelle costituzioni portavano l’eguaglianza di tutti in
faccia alla legge, libertà della parola e della stampa, più o meno
partecipazione de’ rappresentanti del popolo a far le leggi e ad
assettare le imposte, inamovibilità de’ giudici, responsalità dei
ministri. Tale l’avea ottenuta la Francia; e messa come è nel centro
dell’Europa, e mirata come il tipo della civiltà, e con una lingua a
nessuno ignota, traeva l’attenzione sulle quistioni costituzionali che
alla sua tribuna pareva si agitassero in nome di tutto il mondo; e di
colà erompeva quella pubblicità che altrove teneasi repressa.
I Governi eransi data aria di mecenati coll’estendere gl’insegnamenti
classici; aumentando la folla de’ saputi, che più presuntuosi nelle
aspirazioni quanto meno atti all’opere, colla parola audace insieme e
inesperta sovvertono le indisputabili verità, e tirano l’opinione in balìa
di chi meno ha senno di guidarla [156]. Aperta che fu l’Italia, affluirono
forestieri a venerarne le ruine, ammirarne il cielo, goder le bellezze
che vi nascono dal bacio immortale dell’arte e della natura,
diffondervi il denaro e insieme le idee. Memorabile fra questi fu la
principessa di Galles, che menò pompa di libidini principalmente in
Romagna e sul lago di Como, poi non voluta ricevere dal marito
divenuto re d’Inghilterra, diede origine ad un processo scandaloso,
dove i nostri accorreano a testimoniare in difesa di quell’indegna, o
perchè pagati o perchè perseguitata. Il francese Beyle col nome di
Stendhal, scettico e volteriano ancora, ma già piegato ai concetti
romantici e fino al misticismo sentimentale, viaggiò l’Italia,
panegirista di essa e della passione, legandosi col meglio della
società e della letteratura, e carezzandovi l’amore delle novità. Lord
Byron, l’Alcibiade britannico, che non soddisfatto della sua patria, ne
esulò volontario, e invece delle assodate libertà di quella, fomentava
le avventurose dei rivoluzionarj, venne coll’esempio a sparger gusti
strani e falsi sentimenti di raffinato egoismo e voluttuosa misantropia
fra i nostri giovani, e contaminare le nostre donne, finchè diede un
nobile scopo alla sua vita andando a combattere per la risorta
Grecia [157]. Questi e tanti altri ci metteano sott’occhio passioni,
sentimenti, atti, lettere, che distoglievano più sempre dalle abitudini
nazionali, e invogliavano delle innovazioni, dell’operosità.
Speciali malcontentezze aveva l’Italia. Chiamata all’unità dalla sua
ben distinta postura e dalla religione che qui tiene suo centro, è
tratta all’isolamento di ciascuna provincia dalla bellezza di tutte, dalla
conformazione geografica, e dal non esservi predominato verun
conquistatore, quanto i Franchi nelle Gallie, i Normanni in Inghilterra.
Non che da ciò le derivasse pregiudizio, ebbe l’età più splendida
quando ciascuna città ricca d’ubertà, di commercio, di dottrina,
sentiva bastarle intelligenza, coraggio, mezzi di divenir capitale. La
nazionalità fermavasi dunque alle frontiere di ciascun dominio:
Genova non provava bisogno d’unirsi a Napoli; nulla chiedeva
Milano a Firenze; le guerre da Venezia a Romagna, da Toscana a
Sicilia non guardavansi come fratricide, nulla più di quelle tra Francia
e Borgogna, tra Castiglia ed Aragona.
Ma come il pressojo connette materie scomposte, così rimpetto
all’oppressione straniera l’Italia sentì d’esser una; lo sentì nella
lingua, nelle arti, nella letteratura, supremamente nazionale già fin
da Dante, e nella quale il nome di lei visse anche quando lo
cancellavano le spade e la diplomazia. Tale sentimento però
restringevasi nelle classi colte; e queste pure non facea repugnanti
alla dominazione forestiera, contro la quale appena trovereste un
lamento negli scrittori del secolo passato. Merito della natura dei
Governi d’allora che, non ancora ossessi dal demone
regolamentare, usavano riverenza alle forme storiche, e qualunque
fosse il dominio, conservavansi nazionali, moltissima azione
lasciando a’ rappresentanti de’ municipj e delle provincie; sicchè
molti partecipavano in qualche porzione all’autorità, colla nobile
compiacenza d’affaticarsi pel proprio paese.
Buonaparte proclamò non saremmo nè tedeschi nè francesi, ma
italiani; poi ci divise, ci barattò, ci vendette; costituì un regno d’Italia,
ma sconnettendone importanti porzioni, e col pomo della sciabola
foggiandolo alla francese. Al cader suo, dagli Alleati che aveano
trionfato in nome della libertà e dell’indipendenza, sperò vita l’Italia:
ma essi la spartirono fra signori, quali antichi, quali nuovi, quali
perfino a tempo, e tutti patriarcali. Il Governo intermedio aveva
cassato le antiche rappresentanze tutorie, sicchè non rimase che
l’assolutismo amministrativo, infelicità nuova. Le tante dogane
impacciavano il commercio, e que’ cambj da cui i comodi e la
ricchezza. Leggi discusse, giudizj pubblici e di gradi determinati,
sicurezza del debito pubblico, moderazione d’imposte, franchezza
del pensiero, pubblicità d’amministrazione, larghezza di censura,
erano bisogni che il progresso facea sentire tanto più, quanto che se
n’era già fatto il saggio. Ma ad ottenerli il maggior ostacolo pareva il
Governo straniero, che a tutti gli altri sovrastava; e poichè l’Austria
avea professato sosterrebbe i Governi patriarcali d’Italia, in essa
concentravasi l’avversione dei liberali.
Si aggiunsero fortuite disgrazie; e a Napoli, oltre l’incendio del gran
teatro, la peste s’introdusse nella terra di Bari: la carestia desolò
tutta la penisola il 1816 e 17, sicchè dagli Appennini calavano i
poveri a torme, a guisa di zingari vagando di terra in terra, e rubando
o accattando, or in cupo silenzio, or con grida minacciose: e fin nella
pingue Lombardia le radici e le erbe erano pascolo disputato. I
Governi vi opposero provvedimenti dispotici insieme ed insulsi, che
aggravavano il male [158]; lo temperava la carità, operosissima: ma il
tristo nutrimento predispose i corpi a un contagio di petecchie che
moltissimi uccise: la Toscana perdette innumere vite, mentre della
fame si imputavano furiosamente i fornaj. Intanto i medici o
credendole asteniche con Brown, o steniche con Rasori,
applicavano a quelle malattie rimedj opposti; e tutte in favor proprio
allegavano le statistiche, le quali forse non provano se non
l’impotenza dell’uomo contro questi flagelli, di cui non è insolito che i
popoli dieno colpa al Governo, e dicano anche qui, — Oh al tempo
de’ Francesi! — Oh sotto l’altro Governo!»
Di tutti questi elementi formossi quel che fu nominato liberalismo.
Che sovrano sia il popolo, in modo che la generalità rimanga sempre
autorità suprema, e i magistrati esercitino i poteri soltanto per
trasmissione fattane loro dal popolo, il quale può anche privarneli, e
a cui sono sempre obbligati a render conto; che tale massa collettiva
eserciti il potere supremo realmente e direttamente, nel che consiste
la democrazia; che il cittadino nell’uso della propria libertà non sia
limitato da riflessi al ben pubblico, alla costumatezza, alla fede, ma
soltanto dalla libertà altrui, sicchè non v’abbia restrizioni nello
spartimento dei beni, nell’esercizio de’ mestieri, nel domicilio, nella
predicazione, negli atti comunque scandalosi, nel che consiste la
libertà; che in tutte le relazioni pubbliche nessuna diversità di diritti
nasca dalle condizioni reali, cioè dai possessi, nè dalle professionali
o dal ceto e dalla corporazione, nel che consiste l’uguaglianza; che
le istituzioni riconosciute ragionevoli dalla maggiorità vengano tosto
attuate, senza riflesso a condizioni storiche o morali nè a diritti
acquisiti, nel che consiste il trionfo della ragione; infine che, abolita la
religione dello Stato, non si badi a professione di fede, a culto, a
sanzione di atti civili; sono questi postulati che la Rivoluzione erasi
proposto di ridurre ad atto, e sono i medesimi che il liberalismo
caldeggiava. Ma poi, o per illogica transazione o per forza, rispettava
le autorità esistenti, le naturali condizioni della vita e gl’interessi
materiali; e se alcuni vagheggiavano l’America, prosperante senza
re nè nobili nè clero, i più accontentavansi di sollecitare lo sviluppo
delle condizioni sociali com’erano. Ne veniva una specie di dottrinale
compromesso tra la verità e la menzogna, il quale bisogna ben
distinguere dalla vera libertà, che porterebbe il massimo del potere
privato col minimo del governativo, il più ampio uso delle facoltà
individuali coll’esercizio del diritto universale. La perpetua tutela,
l’accettare i magistrati invece di sceglierli, la volontà sottomessa a
irragionati comandi, la niuna garanzia dei diritti, l’autorità
incondizionata possono conciliarsi colla materiale felicità; non colla
dignità d’uomo che ha bisogno d’aver fiducia nel proprio diritto e
sicurezza contro l’abusata potestà e contro vessazioni arbitrarie, di
poter ritenere o spendere a modo suo il frutto del suo lavoro, di
partecipare alle ordinanze dalle quali penderà il suo ben essere,
insomma d’un governo intelligente e probo.
Di tal passo, alla consuetudine e alla fede perdute surrogavansi negli
animi l’opinione e l’individualità, cioè il vacillamento e l’egoismo;
l’assoluta eguaglianza portava alla sovranità del popolo, e per
conseguenza alla preponderanza del numero, il che riesce ancora
alla superiorità della forza e alla perpetua mobilità; un’immedicabile
scontentezza del presente, qualunque esso sia; un attribuire merito
alla opposizione ragionevole o no, dissolvente o restauratrice; un
credere all’onnipotenza della parola, scritta o declamata, e che con
essa e con decreti si possa cambiare il mondo, nulla riguardando
alla storia nè alle idee e alle abitudini del popolo; un volere che certe
dottrine di pochi, e per lo più negative, vagliano come dogmi, e siano
accettate anche dal popolo che non le intende, e per cui non hanno
importanza. Come tutti i partiti, questo considerava traditore il
pensante che conservasse l’indipendenza morale, e degradava il
popolo facendogli maledire o adorare feticci, a volontà degli
ambiziosi e de’ viziati, invece di adoprarsi nel surrogare la riflessione
alla passione.
Da Napoleone aveano imparato i re a ledere i possedimenti privati
con imposte e contribuzioni illimitate, e il possedimento più sacro, la
nazionalità: i liberali ne appresero a non calcolar mai la possibilità,
proporsi un fine senza misurarlo ai mezzi, e scordarsi che, nella lotta
delle idee contro le cose era soccombuto anche il gigante. Molti
erano fior del paese, generosi e d’integra fede: ma come accade, vi
si aggregavano i malcontenti di diverso merito e colore; que’ nobili e
quel clero che aveano sognato recuperare i vecchi privilegi, e
svogliavansi di Governi che gli aveano ripristinati soltanto per sè;
que’ letterati cui tardava l’occasione di metter in piazza le proprie
abilità; quei tanti che, sentendosi capacità od ambizione per
governare, non si vedevano adoperati [159].
Le società secrete, durante l’Impero, avevano ritemprato il
sentimento nazionale contro l’invasione delle idee e della
dominazione forestiera; conservato la memoria e il desiderio di
quella libertà che lo stivale ferrato conculcava. I re n’avevano
profittato contro i loro nemici: ma le perseguitarono, dacchè,
cangiando non direzione ma oggetto, si rannodavano contro le
nuove oppressioni.
I Carbonari, costituitisi nelle montagne calabresi dominando Murat,
si attenevano in gran parte ai riti massonici; se non che in questi
proponevansi la vendetta dell’ucciso Iram e i godimenti d’un deismo
confacente colla filosofia del secolo passato, mentre la forza
melanconica dei Carbonari assumeva di vendicare la morte di Cristo,
e ristabilirne il regno. Vi si aggregarono anche magistrati e lo stesso
re dopo che ruminò l’indipendenza: e l’esercito di lui nell’ultima
incursione lasciò numerose vendite nelle Legazioni, donde si
diffusero alla Lombardia, e massime a Bologna, Milano, Alessandria.
Nel costoro ordinamento, una vendita particolare non comprende più
di venti buoni cugini, in relazione fra sè ma isolati dalle altre vendite:
i deputati di venti parziali vendite ne formano una centrale, che per
via d’un deputato comunica coll’alta vendita; e questa per un
emissario riceve gli ordini dalla vendita suprema e da un comitato
d’azione. Tale gerarchia favorisce il segreto, la diffusione, i ritrovi,
senza togliere l’unità. Nulla scrivere ma partecipare a voce,
riconoscersi per mezzo di carte tagliate e delle parole speranza e
fede, alternare le sillabe ca-ri-tà, stringendosi la mano fare col pollice
il c e la n, erano i segnali e il regolamento, il rivelare i quali ai pagani
o lo spergiurare punivansi di morte, inflitta di fatto ad alcuni avversarj
o disertori. Dovea ciascuno procacciarsi un fucile e venticinque
cartuccie; versare alla cassa comune una lira per mese, e cinque
all’ammissione; giurare di «far trionfare i dogmi di libertà,
d’eguaglianza, d’odio alla tirannia; e se non fosse possibile senza
combattere, combattere fino alla morte».
Da questo tronco erano usciti moltissimi rami; dei Protettori
repubblicani, degli Adelfi, della Spilla nera, e via là. Più franca
l’Ausonia, giurava formare una repubblica italiana, divisa in ventuno
Stati, ciascuno dei quali manderebbe un deputato all’assemblea
sovrana, di cui uno ogni anno farebbe posto ad un altro; assemblee
provinciali nominerebbero le corti di cassazione, i consigli di
dipartimento, distretto e cantone, il capo della guardia nazionale,
l’arcivescovo, i superiori dei seminarj e licei; il potere esecutivo
affidavasi a un re del mare e un della terra, eletti per ventun anno
dalla assemblea sovrana, senza distinzioni ereditarie; imposta
progressiva a proporzione dell’agiatezza, il più povero pagando un
settimo di sua rendita, il più ricco sei settimi; il papa sarebbe pregato
a divenire patriarca della repubblica, risarcendolo dei possessi
temporali toltigli; il Collegio de’ cardinali non risiederebbe nella
repubblica, e se eleggesse un nuovo papa, questo dovrebbe
trasferire altrove la sua sede; conservati i soli frati Mendicanti, ma
libero l’uscirne chi vuole, e non vi si ascriva alcuno se non abbia
servito come militare.
In questo segretume tramestavano sempre i Buonaparte, e Luciano
ebbe il grado supremo di Gran Luce. Nel 1817 giovandosi della fame
e d’una malattia del papa, si tentò una sollevazione in Macerata col
proposito di ridurre tutta Italia sotto il consolato di un Cesare Gallo
d’Osimo; ma scoperti, e processati da monsignor Pacca, tredici capi
ebbero condanna di morte, e grazia dal papa. Anche l’imperatore
d’Austria ne processò alquanti del Polesine, e tredici condannò a
morte, commutata in carcere.
Le società segrete variavano natura o forma secondo i paesi: e
parvero loro opera le turbolenze scoppiate in molte parti; in
Inghilterra una congiura per trucidare i ministri; in Germania
l’assassinio del comico Kotzebue per mano dello studente Sand; in
Francia quello del duca di Berry, presunto erede della Corona, pel
coltello di Louvel; in Russia la rivolta d’un reggimento; e quella che
ebbe maggiori conseguenze, l’insurrezione della Grecia contro i
Turchi, nella quale si trattava di compiere l’antico voto dell’Europa
col riscattare i Cristiani dal giogo musulmano. Molti Greci venivano a
studiare nelle Università di Padova e Pavia, fra cui Coletti e
Capodistria; molti adottarono la nostra lingua, come Foscolo, Mario
Pieri, Petrettini, Mustoxidi; e fin dai tempi napoleonici erasi formata
in Italia una eteria o società per ricostruire l’impero greco; lusingata
di promesse dall’imperatore, avea disposto armi per tentare dalle
Jonie uno sbarco che le popolazioni seconderebbero; ma la caduta
del regno d’Italia sparse ogni cosa al vento. Dappoi fidando nella
Russia, fu ritessuta un’eteria, frutto della quale fu la sollevazione
della Grecia. Benchè fosse la croce che lottava contro la mezzaluna,
la civiltà cristiana contro la barbarie musulmana, le Potenze
sfavorirono quel tentativo, sol perchè avea aspetto di rivolta o
sentore di liberalismo: l’Austria facea vituperarlo ne’ suoi giornali, e
tenne prigionieri i capi di quella che potè cogliere.
La Carboneria era stata trapiantata in Francia, massime dal
fiorentino Buonarroti, già apostolo di Babœuf, e vi abbracciò
studenti, negozianti, soldati. Gli ambiziosi e gl’inquieti che vi
trescavano, ammantavansi coi nomi di La Fayette, di Dupont de
l’Eure, di più onorevoli; asserivano loro corrispondenti principali
Napoleone e Luigi Buonaparte figli del re d’Olanda; e intendeansi
soprattutto coi vecchi e coi nuovi militari. Ma se i cospiratori
convenivano nel concetto di distruggere ciò che sussisteva, non
bene risolveano che cosa sostituirvi; e chi era fido alla repubblica,
chi mirava al figlio di Napoleone, chi a Luigi Filippo d’Orléans. Si
stabilì a Parigi un comitato, che fomentasse le rivoluzioni dappertutto
e principalmente in Ispagna e in Italia, fantasticando una lega latina
da opporre alla lega nordica, per ridurre l’Europa ad un assetto
differente da quello impostole dai trattati del 1815.
I sovrani alleati, accortisi dell’ampliarsi del liberalismo e
dell’operosità delle società secrete, si congregarono ad Aquisgrana
(1818), e rinserrarono la loro unione non più coi soli intenti evangelici
della Santa Alleanza, ma collo scopo espresso d’impedire i Governi
costituzionali, e di reprimere ogni rivoluzione. Allora si tolse a
perseguitare non solo gli atti, ma l’opinione, la quale in tali casi
trasformasi in sentimento, e il sentimento elevandosi all’entusiasmo,
si propaga, offusca il raziocinio, fa ammirare i perseguitati, aborrire
chiunque resista, tremare gl’indifferenti, e gli stessi avversarj piegarsi
al vento che spira o alla paura. Allora prendono coraggio que’ ribaldi,
che di proposito inimicano al popolo il sovrano, fomentando i
sospetti; per rendersi necessarj fingono cospirazioni ove non sono
che aspirazioni; e inducono il bisogno di castigare l’opinione o il
desiderio di premiare la delazione, di rimuovere dai posti i meritevoli,
di cercare dalle carceri o dalla gendarmeria una sicurezza che più
non s’ha nella docile benevolenza. Il poliziotto che riferì formicolare il
paese di Giacobini e Carbonari, è impegnato a mostrarsi veritiero col
fiutare e origliare e moltiplicare processi; nei quali l’accusa essendo
d’opinione, è quasi impossibile scagionarsi; se non si trova da
condannare, se ne imputano la furberia degli accusati, il talento, le
relazioni loro.
Con siffatte arti cercavasi e combattevasi la libertà; e frutto
immediato n’era uno scontento indeterminato, quel mal umore che è
proprio di persone dotate d’intelligenza e non di genio. E certamente
la libertà nobilita l’individuo come la nazione: ma bisogna esserne
degni e usarla convenientemente; ed al fanciullo non ancora
provvisto di ragione, o al mentecatto che la perdè, o al vizioso che
ne abusa, legalmente vien tolta. Ora fra l’autorità che, non
conoscendo misura, precipita al despotismo, e la libertà che,
rifiutando ogni freno, degenera in licenza, se ponete unicamente la
forza per comprimere o per abbattere, arriverete o all’eccesso
dell’assolutezza che giustifica le rivoluzioni, o all’abuso delle
rivoluzioni che scusa l’assolutezza. Le costituzioni, che erano
l’espressione del liberalismo d’allora, eliminavano dalla scienza
politica la morale, sistemando il mondo con pure combinazioni
d’interessi, nessun uffizio nei rapporti politici riservando alla
sincerità, all’onoratezza, tutto riducendo allo spiarsi reciproco e
soperchiarsi dei due poteri, contrastantisi anzichè cooperanti, fino a
dire che il re non deve governare, cioè la monarchia riducendo ad
istituzione meccanica e giuridica, non già organica ed etica. Così
destituiti di fondamenti sodi, qual meraviglia se dal 1789 al 1830 ben
cencinquantadue costituzioni si pubblicarono?
Perchè cessi d’essere necessaria la coazione, il freno dev’essere
morale; nè altro migliore v’avrebbe che la religione, la quale insegna
a chinarsi all’autorità e insieme l’autorità raffrena. Or la religione
avea sofferto tali scosse vuoi nel fondo vuoi nell’esterna attuazione,
che tempo, longanimità, prudenza voleasi per rimetterla ne’ cuori,
non meno che nell’ordine civile. Intanto, quasi una protesta contro il
passato, Pio VII annuendo «alle pressanti suppliche d’arcivescovi,
vescovi e personaggi altissimi», ripristinò i Gesuiti (1814) che, per
volontà di altri altissimi, un suo predecessore aveva aboliti, e che
rinascevano gravati dei rancori dell’antica società, non della sua
sapienza e robustezza.
L’arbitrario mescolamento di nazioni, fatto dal congresso di Vienna,
riuscì a vantaggio della tolleranza, ponendo il papa in
corrispondenza colla Russia, coll’Olanda, con altri eretici o
scismatici, dai quali otteneva miglioramenti pe’ loro sudditi cattolici.
Ma fra i cattolici gran fatica gli costò il combinare coll’inveterata
disciplina le nuove pretensioni giansenistiche e filosofiche dei
principi che, mentre avrebbero dovuto consolidare il dogma
dell’autorità, lo scassinavano coll’ingelosirsi del papa [160]; vantavano
come libertà l’abbattere qualche ostacolo che i privilegi clericali
mettessero all’onnipotenza amministrativa; il proibirne o sorvegliarne
l’istruzione, le adunanze, le comunicazioni col capo supremo; il
sottoporre a revisione le encicliche de’ vescovi, le nomine de’
parroci, i brevi di Roma.
Fin il piissimo Vittorio Emanuele, spinto da consiglieri zelanti
l’indipendenza della civile dall’ecclesiastica giurisdizione, voleva
assettar a sua voglia le diocesi, e in quelle di fresco acquistate del
Genovesato operare non altrimenti che nelle antiche; poter dare il
consenso alla nomina de’ cardinali delle altre Corti, e averne un suo;
ricusava come anticaglie l’invio che Roma facea delle fasce pei
principi neonati, dello stocco benedetto, della rosa d’oro; non voleva
ripristinare la nunziatura; muovea lagni che l’Austria condiscendesse
troppo col papa, quasi per averlo stromento alle sue ambizioni. Il
cardinale Consalvi ministro di Pio VII, avendo conosciuto le Corti e la
sventura, inclinava ad annuire fin dove fosse compatibile colla
dignità, sebbene lo disapprovassero gli zelanti; e disfacendo il
concordato di Buonaparte, ne stipulò un nuovo col Piemonte,
circoscrivendo altrimenti le diocesi, sotto i metropoliti di Torino,
Genova, Ciamberì, Vercelli; alla Corte risederebbe un nunzio di
primo grado, il quale non ne partirà che decorato dalla porpora. Poi
in quel regno furono chiamati i Gesuiti a educare la gioventù; a
Pinerolo s’istituirono gli Oblati della Beata Vergine, preti secolari, con
voto speciale d’obbedienza al pontefice; altrove i Sacerdoti della
Carità del Rosmini; oltre gli Ordini antichi.
L’Austria, fedele alle tradizioni giuseppine, non solo nella Lombardia
nominava i vescovi ed esercitava poteri già competenti a Roma, ma
lo voleva anche nei nuovi acquisti di Ragusi e Venezia; del che
ottenne poi privilegio dal papa (1817).
Allorchè Ferdinando assunse il titolo di re del regno delle Due Sicilie,
il papa fece riserva degli antichi suoi diritti, ma il re non gli riconobbe
altra supremazia se non di capo della Chiesa. L’omaggio della
chinea che nel 1806 aveva egli giurato prestare, adesso negò come
uno di que’ pesi feudali che nei recenti trattati s’erano aboliti; donde
una disputa, esacerbata da molte scritture e dall’avere il papa
ricusato cedere per denaro Benevento e Pontecorvo, reciproco
ingombro. Finalmente Consalvi e il ministro Medici in Terracina
(1818) convennero fosse conceduto al re di nominare alle sedi del
suo regno, da cenquarantasette ridotte a novantadue; non
s’inquieterebbero i possessori di beni ecclesiastici; gl’invenduti
sarebbero divisi fra i ripristinati conventi, senza guardare di chi
fossero prima; i corpi religiosi dipenderanno da proprj generali; i
vescovi, liberi nel pastorale ministero a norma dei canoni, potranno
convocare sinodi, visitare le soglie degli apostoli, pubblicare
istruzioni su materie ecclesiastiche, intimar preghiere pubbliche o
altre pie pratiche; al loro fôro le cause ecclesiastiche, le matrimoniali,
e la censura dottrinale sui libri che s’introducono; la santa Sede
sopra le rendite de’ vescovadi si riservava dodicimila ducati l’anno,
da disporre a favore di proprj sudditi. Restava in arbitrio di ciascuno
l’appellare al papa; ma il re dichiarò, con questo non derogavansi i
privilegi del tribunale della monarchia di Sicilia. Non erasi stipulata
veruna immunità personale per gli ecclesiastici; ma nel 1834 fu
convenuto che i vescovi potessero esaminare i processi di quelli
condannati a morte, prima di disacrarli.
Questi ed altri concordati essendo parziali, non toglieano le varietà
disciplinari; in molti paesi restava colpa pe’ dignitarj ecclesiastici il
comunicare direttamente con Roma; in nessuno si ripristinarono
intere le immunità reali, personali e locali; nè illimitato il diritto
d’acquisto delle manimorte; la più parte delle prelature restò di
nomina, o almeno di proposizione governativa; erano sorvegliati i
possessi ecclesiastici, voluto l’exequatur ai decreti di Roma. La
Chiesa perdette inoltre gli Ordini militari, e que’ feudi che erano di
rinforzo al potere ecclesiastico, mentre al civile recavano debolezza i
feudi laici; e nella sola Germania le erano state tolte duemila leghe
quadrate di dominio con tre milioni di sudditi. Il clero, sentendosi
indebolito dalla Rivoluzione, s’appoggiò sui re, ai quali sin allora
facea contrappeso; e i re quando videro ampliarsi il liberalismo, oltre
i modi giuridici e le chiassate dei giornali e i freni alla stampa,
ricorsero alle repressioni morali, e da Pio VII fecero condannare le
società secrete (Ecclesiam a J. C), imputandole d’insinuare
l’indifferenza col «lasciare che ciascuno foggi a voglia una religione,
pur affettando rispetto e mirabile preferenza per la cattolica, e per la
persona e la dottrina di Gesù Cristo, che chiamano rettore e gran
maestro della società».
I principi mostravansi ombrosi d’un’autorità affatto morale, nel tempo
stesso che sentivano il bisogno di instaurarla. Quando Leone XII
proclamò il giubileo, da gran tempo impedito, la bolla fu mal gradita
da essi; in Francia non si permise di pubblicarla; l’Austria ne accettò
le disposizioni solo in quanto fossero compatibili colle leggi e
cogl’interessi dello Stato [161]. Al qual giubileo vennero a Roma da
quattrocentomila pellegrini; a novantaseimila diede tridua ospitalità
l’arciconfraternita della Santissima Trinità, de’ quali però ventimila
sudditi pontifizj, quarantacinquemila del Napoletano, giacchè ai
lontani mancava o lo stimolo della fede o la licenza de’ superiori.
Dei misfatti della Rivoluzione, accagionandosi le dottrine che la
precedettero, ed una filosofia che vuole dedurre tutto dalla ragione e
secondo la ragione, se ne eressero altre che possiam dire della
controrivoluzione, opponendo alla sovranità del popolo la legittimità,
ossia il potere costituito sovra la propria autorità; al patto sociale,
l’unità primitiva dello Stato; la costituzione organica di elementi
naturali, alla democrazia astratta e ai meccanici statuti; la
conservazione tradizionale, alla smania innovatrice. Insomma
ricercavano ciò che si deve mantenere del passato, mentre la
rivoluzione proclamava ciò che dell’avvenire può desiderarsi; e
poichè invece d’un astratto concetto, guardavano a ciò che fu, alla
storia specialmente della propria nazione, assumevano colore
distinto secondo i paesi, migliori qualora lo spirito della storia
nazionale riproducessero senz’alterarlo con concetti personali.
Questa scuola ebbe anch’essa adepti e apostoli, e superiore a tutti
Giuseppe De Maistre da Ciamberì (1753-1821), sul quale è dovere
di trattenerci, non tanto come savojardo, che come la più elevata
espressione del ritorno del mondo verso le idee religiose e
patriarcali.
Combattuto nelle prime guerre del Piemonte, egli andò a Pietroburgo
ambasciatore del suo re, al quale conservò fede anche dopo
scoronato. Venuto da paese che diede alla Francia insigni
scrittori [162], la sdulcinata lingua rinvigorì facendola parlare d’altro
che di passioni, di materia, di tornaconto, con uno stile fatto
pittoresco dalla collera, dagli ardimenti del genio, da animatissima
convinzione; e definiva lo stile l’alleanza del sentimento col gusto. Il
problema fondamentale della filosofia spiega egli col supporre una
primitiva rivelazione della parola, e delle idee con essa, offuscata poi
dal peccato originale. Il governo visibile della Provvidenza,
l’esistenza del male, l’origine divina dell’autorità regia, l’origine regia
di tutti i privilegi nazionali, l’universale fiducia delle nazioni
nell’efficacia de’ sacrifizj cruenti per redimere i delitti, dispone egli
con logica irrefrenabile in un sistema teosofico, dove son pareggiati i
dogmi della rivelazione cogli acquisti della semplice ragione
naturale, e ridotta la scienza a fede. Assimila il mondo a un immenso
altare, dove ogni cosa dev’essere immolata in perpetua espiazione
del male causato dalla libertà dell’uomo. Che altro rivela la storia se
non fra i selvaggi l’abbrutimento, fra i civili la strage continua? Anche
il giusto n’è vittima, perchè nella stabilita solidarietà egli sconta pel
colpevole, e perchè altrimenti occorrerebbe un miracolo ad
eccettuarlo, e conseguirebbe quaggiù la sua mercede. E con forza di
sentimento e fantasia mostrando dappertutto la mano di Dio e
l’ordine provvidenziale, considera la storia terrena come un regno di
Dio immediato e visibile: e per rimbalzo contro lo spirito
rivoluzionario corre più in là del medioevo, fondando sulla sanzione
di Dio non solo l’autorità suprema, ma anche la interna condizione
sociale e il segregamento delle classi. Di Dio son opera i re, gli Stati,
le costituzioni; e quando l’uomo presume stabilirli da sè,
necessariamente s’appiglia al peggio, e fa non fabbriche ma ruine.
La razza umana è così perversa, che vuolsi gagliardamente
infrenarla. Tra le costituzioni quella che Dio vuole è la monarchia
ereditaria. Necessario elemento di questa è la nobiltà, e Dio stesso
la scevera dalle altre classi, e discerne le schiatte. Difendersi contro
l’arbitrio e l’ingiustizia, garantirsi un governo legale che promova la
felicità de’ sudditi, è ben giusto: ma «il credere a promesse di re è un
mettersi a dormire sull’ale d’un mulino». Chi li reprimerà e
correggerà? Le bajonette, le tribune, le parodie della sovranità
popolare? barriere inefficaci! Elevare la plebe sopra i re è un
sovvertire la logica; il contrappeso del potere dev’essere in alto, non
in basso. Il papa che nel medioevo tutelava i popoli e fulminava i
tiranni, deve anche adesso francheggiare la giustizia e la libertà; a
lui si curvino l’intelligenza e le spade, la libertà e i despoti. Alla
corruzione dello stato morale provveda l’infallibilità della Chiesa,
fondata sulla supremazia del romano pontefice; supremazia estesa
anche ai vescovi ed ai concilj in modo, che nè esso decida senza i
vescovi, nè i vescovi senza di lui.
Con ciò tornava in armonia il sistema papale coll’episcopale, e
bersagliò le dottrine giansenistiche e le gallicane, formando della
Chiesa una monarchia temperata, giacchè il papa è sovrano, ma son
necessarj altri elementi a compirne la potestà; onde, surrogate la
pace e l’armonia all’antagonismo, può con tutte le sue forze
combattere la filosofia irreligiosa e impolitica. La logica il porta fino
all’apoteosi dell’Inquisizione, fin alla sistematica crudeltà; per le quali
teorie lo esecrano coloro stessi, che poi ne’ tempi e nella necessità
trovano giustificazioni al Comitato di salute pubblica che le avea
messe in pratica. E mentendo dissero, e avvezzarono i cialtroni a
ripetere epigrammaticamente, ch’egli santificasse il carnefice perchè
disse che, nelle società frenate soltanto dalla pena, il carnefice è il
gran sacerdote che procura l’espiazione, come le pesti, come la
guerra, come gli animali viventi di distruzione. Perocchè, come la
vendetta, così egli fa riversibili la preghiera e l’espiazione; donde i
sacrifizj antichi, i supplizj, la redenzione divina.
Tutto ciò espose non con teoremi scientifici, ma con discorso
conversevole, e con forza sì traboccante, da lasciare dubbio s’egli
sia un sofista o un profeta: certo fu grande in mezzo a tanti mediocri.
La rivoluzione, il filosofismo non ebbero mai più inesorabile
avversario; e mentre quelli adulavano il secolo e l’uomo pure
assassinandolo, egli lo sbeffeggia per salvarlo; le nubi da quelli
accavallate squarcia colle saette; confuta col recriminare, colpisce
coll’esagerare e coll’opporre all’affermazione affermazioni
imperterrite. Quando più giganteggiava la Rivoluzione francese la
conobbe effimera, nè possibile una grande repubblica, sovrattutto in
Francia, perchè non uscita spontaneamente dalla nazione, dai
costumi, dalle opinioni; schernì coloro che presumeano guidarla,
mentre Dio solo la spingeva in modo d’espiare le colpe della Francia,
dei re, della rivoluzione stessa. A Pietroburgo tutelò sempre i suoi re,
e predisse la ruina del loro persecutore. Allorchè delle sorti italiane si
disputava a Parigi, egli si oppose gagliardo all’ingrandir l’Austria col
cedere l’alto Novarese: — Se ciò si fa, non resta più equilibrio, tutti i
principi italiani essendo vassalli dell’Austria, che presto gli assorbirà.
Il re di Sardegna è il primo minacciato, perchè da gran pezzo
l’assoggettamento dell’Italia non ha nemico più costante di lui: la
tempesta gittatasi sulla penisola, ivi non si fermerà, e dal
mezzogiorno scaglierassi sul settentrione».
E vedendo quel traffico di popoli, — Povera Italia (esclamava), in
qual abisso va a cadere! È la moneta con cui pagheranno altre
compre. Eppure l’unione e separazione forzata delle nazioni non è
soltanto un gran delitto, ma una grande assurdità. Facciasi
qualunque sforzo per non essere condannati all’uffizio di
satelliti» [163]. Non stancavasi d’insistere presso Nesselrode perchè
fosse «data soddisfazione allo spirito italiano»; ma il ministro russo
gli rispondeva, questo spirito italiano essere appunto il peggiore
ostacolo a un buon assetto dell’Italia. Al Savojardo non restava
dunque che lamentarsi all’imperatore Alessandro perchè non si
tenesse conto delle nazioni e dei loro sentimenti, affetti, desiderj; che
un segretario sopra la carta geografica sconnettesse paesi uniti per
lingua, caratteri, abitudini; e gli uomini si contassero e dividessero
per testa come gli armenti.
L’instaurazione del passato egli la voleva piuttosto nelle idee e
compiuta; domandava che la Santa Alleanza annichilasse i fatti della
Rivoluzione; non riconoscesse la compra de’ beni nazionali
«latroneccio il più odioso che abbia deturpato la storia», ma fossero
ritolti a quelli che gli avevan ottenuti a bassissimo prezzo, e già se
n’erano rifatti a josa; non dovendo la compassione riservarsi soltanto
a’ ribaldi, nè sol per questi invocare le sante leggi della proprietà.
Altre volte scriveva al suo re: — Io propendo alla libertà di
commercio per una ragione di teoria ed una di pratica; la prima è
ch’io non credo possibile ad una nazione di comperare più che non
vende; la seconda, ch’io non ho mai veduto un Governo mischiarsi
direttamente del commercio dei grani e proibirne la tratta, senza
produrre caro e fame. Lo stesso è di tutte le altre mercatanzie:

News Media Innovation Reconsidered Ethics And Values In A Creative Reconstruction Of Journalism Maria Luengo And Susana Herrera Damas full chapter pdf docx

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

News Media Innovation Reconsidered Ethics And Values In A Creative Reconstruction Of Journalism Maria Luengo And Susana Herrera Damas full chapter pdf docx

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

News Media Innovation Reconsidered:

Ethics and Values in a Creative

Journalism and Truth in an Age of Social Media James E.

Innovation in the Cultural and Creative Industries

News from Moscow: Soviet Journalism and the Limits of

Authoritarian Journalism: Controlling the News in Post-

News Values from an Audience Perspective Martina

Asylum Seekers in Australian News Media: Mediated

The Independence of the News Media: Francophone

Cognitive Film and Media Ethics Moss-Wellington

Ethics and Values in a Creative Reconstruction of Journalism

Edited by María Luengo

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Cover image: © Busakorn Pongparnit/iStock/Getty Images

Journalism, Ethics, and Innovation in Times of Digital Turbulence 1

1 An Inquiry into the Ethics of Innovation in Digital Journalism 3

2 Democratically Engaged Journalists: Ethical Invention amid

3 Journalism Innovation in a Time of Survival 40

News Ethics and Emerging Journalistic Narratives 53

4 Ethics in 360-Degree Immersive Journalism 55

5 Quo Vadis, Newsgames? Ethical Boundaries Between

8 Semi-automated Journalism: Reinforcing Ethics to Make the Most of Artificial

9 Ethical Challenges in Incorporating Artificial Intelligence into Newsrooms 138

Journalistic Innovation at the Service of the Public 155

10 Journalism, Algorithms, and the People’s Right to Know 157

11 Ethical Dilemmas in the Personalization of News from Voice Interfaces 174

12 Transparency, Innovation, and Journalism 187

13 Innovative Tools for Citizen Empowerment in the Fight Against

News media are suffering a Schumpeterian “creative destruction” (Schumpeter, 1975

ing journalistic practices and products such as 360-degree immersive journalism,

The Ups and Downs of Techno-economic Explanations

Seeing Creative Destruction as Creative Reconstruction

The selected innovations are characterized by an online-only or online-first approach,

Mapping News Innovation Culturally

Print / legacy Independence

themselves from the technologies and related practices, dismissing them as

past negative characterizations that have positioned them as a threat to journalism.

New Journalistic Performances on Stage: Ethics Vis-à-Vis

In Chapter 2, Ward offers the challenging notion of “democratically engaged journal-

tives but also help to ensure journalism’s long-term survival.

machines. Barceló-Ugarte et al.’s Chapter 9 explores the specific incorporation of arti-

Journalism Reconsidered: Democratic Culture, Professional Codes, Digital Future.

Carlson, M. (2016). Telling the crisis story of journalism: narratives of normative

Journalism, Ethics, and Innovation in Times of Digital

An Inquiry into the Ethics of Innovation in Digital

An Ethical Perspective on Journalism Innovation

become obsolete (Küng, 2017).

their relationship with audiences is weakened by a more interactive, horizontal,

(a) Technological determinism: When focusing on the role of technology, we can

(c) Relativism: There are no universal or absolute ethical principles, so that

Seeking the truth; loyalty with citizens; a verification discipline; independence

Defining Journalism Innovation

This definition, provided by a group of researchers from the Miguel Hernández

Innovations and Journalism Ethics: 2000–2020

In 2000, I began to explore the consequences of the digitalization of television news-

The Emergence of Journalism in the Internet

Convergence and Multimedia Content

Blogs and Bloggers

istics defined a digital journalist (Hayes, Singer, and Ceppos, 2007).

Journalistic Production for the Internet

Production stages Ethical issues

Access-observation ●● Verification of what is published on social media.

Processing-editing ●● Rejection of excessive multiskilling.

2 Democratically Engaged Journalists: Ethical Invention amid

5 Quo Vadis, Newsgames? Ethical Boundaries Between

8 Semi-automated Journalism: Reinforcing Ethics to Make the Most of Artificial

13 Innovative Tools for Citizen Empowerment in the Fight Against