The Ethical Evolution of Journalism

In a contemporary society like the modern United States, people tend to be confronted with issues and debates that divide constituencies among a plethora of opinions. Journalism and its various methods of distributing information has proven to be one of the more prominent battle grounds for various ethical debates in recent decades. Corrupt morals and deceptive motives are what drive the controversies that surround the public’s “right to know” information as well as “want to know” and “need to know”. The evolution of these three forms of information has been even more striking over the course of recent decades in terms of immorality. This progression has contributed to the overall increase of conflicting ethical reporting techniques in addition to a lack of specificity in guidelines that journalists can refer to. Dr. Christopher Hanson has seen this evolution first hand. He worked for 20 years as a reporter and is now a professor at the University of Maryland’s Philip Merrill College of Journalism. Hanson argues that coming up with solutions to ethical dilemmas in journalism is far from a simple task.

Ethical guidelines in journalism comprise the largest grey area in the field.

The constant evolution of reporting makes it nearly impossible to impose a specific list of rules for journalists to abide by. Hanson points out that governing principles have been used to replace specific rules that journalists may refer to. While it may seem sensible to offer a less precise approach, especially considering how vast the field of journalism truly is, this can lead to a great deal of controversy. Putting the art of interpretation in the hands of journalists in order to decide how to go about delivering the news is a method that has and will undoubtedly always lead to debate. This is due to the ambiguity that is associated with personal interpretation. There is always a possibility that a journalist will make a wrong decision in analyzing certain information, which can lead to a dispute among the topic.

The varying levels of rights and accessibility associated with the three forms of information may be surprising to many.

In the land of the free, one can only assume that such a level of freedom will correspond positively with information distribution, especially when considering “right to know” information. Everyone has his or her own perceptions of how the right to gain knowledge of certain information should be enforced. Adam Weiner, Sophomore Computer Science major at the University of Maryland, has a pretty common opinion on the topic. However, these rights are far different in reality. “Right to know” information only assures the ability to obtain government documents such as court transcripts and open records. The ways in which this information may be ethically violated have become increasingly prevalent. One of these violations may occur by falsely labeling a person’s image for personal advantage. “Want to know” information is cited by Hanson as the least important form of information distribution. On the other hand, it is the most common. As the form that is least ethically defensible, it comes as no surprise that “want to know” is of the least importance to society, as it can lead to abuse in desire of financial gain. In this particular form, it is the audience who decides what is important and what is not. This only ensures that a great variety of personal interests are taken into account without knowledge of what is genuinely significant to the general population. Lastly, “need to know” is what is widely accepted as the most meaningful form of information. It is the foundation for the most vital news that must be conveyed for the wellbeing of the general public. Hanson agrees that “need to know” belongs at the top of the list regarding purpose and importance.

In order to understand the current trends in the world of journalism, one must analyze the historic trends of the three forms of information distribution.

Hanson claims that historically growing pressure on news outlets in addition to a seemingly unquenchable thirst from the public for information tailored to individual interests have led to a growing prominence of “want to know” information. This trend is seen as disturbing to many, as it shows a pattern that portrays the news drifting away from what really matters. The overwhelming presence of this form of information has not only negatively impacted the amount of “need to know” information that is circulated, but also it has correlated negatively with “right to know” information. The pressures that have led to this spike in less important news are the same pressures that have limited the amount of federal information that is released, therefore toying with the public’s rights that are emphasized through the “right to know”.

Clearly, this is a focal point in the ethical debate of journalism as society continues to absorb information that is only becoming less meaningful as time passes. Perhaps Professor Hanson believes that rules are the only real chance there is to save the journalism world. Until then, one must not expect these ongoing trends to slow down any time soon.