Customer Reviews

Good News, Bad News: Journalism Ethics And The Public Interest (Critical Studies in Communication & in Cultural Industries)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Iggers begins his discussion about journalism ethics from a simple premise: "Journalism is in trouble." Citing a persistent urging of the public for journalists to become more ethical in their practices, Iggers explains that "the most fundamental problem is not the performance of the journalists but the standards themselves."

Iggers argues that the ethical discourse commonly inferred in the practice of journalism tends to ignore issues concerning the public interest and the social responsibility on which the press is founded. Environmental changes and the rise of market-driven journalism have caused a decline in the professional status of practicing journalists.

Ultimately, Iggers declares that the continued existance of journalism depends on a engaging the public in an open dialogue in which the public interest is central and practical goals are identified to help journalism "take as its foundation a commitment to enable citizens to participate in democratic life."

According to Iggers, part of the problem journalists have is an inability to discuss ethics in conceptual terms. Rather, most tend to discuss ethics in terms of cases, the most notable being the Janet Cooke case.

However, even in such cases, Iggers suggests that journalists do not often articulate the principles behind the cases, but tend to evaluate such examples on the merits of their effect in the relationship between the press and the public. Because of this, Iggers explains that the institutional values of journalism are not rooted in rules, but in evolving practices. And these practices appear to focus on making sure the journalist's ethical behavior cannot be questioned, invoking Gaye Tuchman's "defensive ritual."

After providing a historical context for the foundation of industry ethical codes, Iggers tracks ethical thought through the century in order to provide a context for the Janet Cooke incident. Iggers cites this controversy as a defining moment in journalism ethics which brought the discourse to national attention. Iggers then discusses the industry following the Cooke incident to provide a context for his discussion of the present issues.

Iggers cites several reasons for journalists' inability to conceptualize ethics. One major reason is that journalism encompasses several competing philosophies, which has led to "fundamental incoherencies and contradictions built into the core principles of the profession."

In addition, the practice of objectivity biased journalists against making moral judgements. According to Iggers, this philosophy carries over to ethical thought.

Also, changes in the concept of newsworthiness have resulted in a fundamental shift in focus from informing citizens to serving customers. "There is very little talk nowadays about readers as citizens," Iggers writes. "Rather, readers are spoken of as customers and the newspaper as a product. Increasingly, journalistic decisions are being made not on the basis of journalists' professional expertise about what it is important for the public to know, but on the basis of market research about what kinds of things customers, or potential customers, want to know."

Another problem in journalism ethical discourse is the scope of ethical codes in the workplace. Ethical codes are often aimed at individual reporters, not the institutions themselves. Also, Iggers points out that the owners of media are excluded from the discussion. Finally, many of the principles that are practiced tend to apply only to the story level, allowing inherent conflicts to arrive at the layout and publication level.

Iggers claims the solution for the survival of journalism is rooted in a pragmatic ethical base of theory. This approach would focus the creation and sustaining of a public sphere as the primary goal of journalism. In practice, Iggers advocates turning to a form of public journalism that centers around building an alliance between journalists and the public.

Iggers portrays the difference in philosophy as moving from a position of journalism without the public (the traditional model) to a practice of journalism about the public (a model addressing the concerns of the common reader) to a goal of journalism with the public (as a tool that enhances the abilities of citizens to function in society). According to Iggers, this process requires journalists approach the public as an ally, abandon professional arrogance and admit that "journalists need the public even more than the public needs them."

Iggers' portrayals of marketing influences and of the anti-democratic potential of journalistic objectivity are compelling. By building on traditional trends and discourse, he is able to show how the changing landscape of journalism practices demands critical attention.

However, Iggers acceptance of the consolidation of advertising and editorial content as a logical step in the service of the public should raise a few skeptical eyebrows. The open discussion and service he promotes with the public sphere appears to assume such a sphere would be media savvy enough to articulate what it expects from journalism. It also seems to suggest that the public sphere would desire journalism over entertainment, which is a difficult premise in light of his stated view that broadcast news has evolved into non-journalistic entertainment under public influence.

Good News, Bad News would make an interesting text for a journalism ethics course, if only for the background perspective and intelligent discussion of current issues.