Ethics

I did a course on ethics and so I have a pretty decent knowledge of all the ethical theories. I thought the lecture would spend about thirty minutes going into the definition of ethics with examples, and the other half hour examining examples of ethics being tested in Journalism.

Instead, we got a brief definition of ethics - what is right, and what is wrong, and that it is black and white. Then we went through examples of advertising and had to mark on a sheet what we thought was ethical/unethical and what was in good/bad taste. While I understood the purpose, I found this activity to be repetitive and would have much rather been shoved full with information, or at least been given an example of ethics and how ethics has been tested in Journalism.

First, just to briefly outline the theories mentioned in the lecture.

1) Deontology, a rules and principles based approach to ethics which implies you do the right thing by following the rules. Rules include laws, and basic principals. All ethical codes are deontological.

2) Consequentialism - acquiring the right outcome, even if the ends have to justify the means. The greatest good for the greatest number.

3) Virtue Ethics are values that inform the way we live, based on Aristotle's teachings and underline that an ethical person is one with a good character.

How do you know what is good or bad?
I know what is good or bad based on the principles I grew up with. I learnt it is good to treat others the way you would treat yourself. I also learnt that it is bad to punch your little brother and lie about it. In all seriousness though, while my upbringing helped, it was also my experience that changes my view about what is good or bad.

What makes something wrong? In my opinion, if it feels wrong, it probably is.

Okay, onto my little case study. Now you know I'm procrastinating when I start doing this and getting excited about it. Either that or I'm just a little nerd.

As a political science student, I've come across controversial images and articles, and have plenty of examples. One of the examples I am going to use is the production of several cartoon images of the Islam prophet Mohammed in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005.

NB: If I offend anyone, I offer my sincerest apologies. I do not intend to harm anyone's beliefs, I am merely expressing my opinions.

The cartoons can be seen here:http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/img/IslamicMilitancy10.jpeg
I put a link to them and didn't publish them on my blog as I understand that they may very well offend someone.

I obviously was much younger and so cannot report what happened at the time. When I got older, and learnt of it, it annoyed me slightly. What annoyed me was that in the wake of post-9/11 anti-Islam sentiment and racist stereotypes forming all around the world likening Muslims to terrorists, something like this was published. That those stereotypes could then be consolidated, based on that it was published in a newspaper.

What annoyed me even more, was the response letter from the Culture Editor at Jyllands-Posten, Flemming Rose. Rose states in an article published in the Washington Post, that "I agree that the freedom to publish things doesn't mean you publish everything. Jyllands-Posten would not publish pornographic images or graphic details of dead bodies..."

As a culture editor, you need to be aware of culture. You need to be aware of customs and controversy and whose toes you are stepping on when you do it. When the New York Times decided they wanted to publish the diplomatic cables from Wikileaks, they were aware of the consequences. Was Jyllands-Posten? Were they aware it would bring about a) controversy and b) violence? Clearly not. I would like to say this is irresponsible journalism, because I honestly do not believe they considered that there would be consequences. Rose also states that their "goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter." I understand, that they wanted to make a point on exercising freedom of expression and doing that with a highly controversial issue would only emphasize their point more. However, they did this at the risk of offending, upsetting and angering those in the Muslim community.

Why? Why would it cause so much controversy, compared to seeing burnt Bibles? Maybe it is just obvious to me, but depictions of Mohammed as a) a God, and b) a terrorist, are just a big no-NO. Why? There is still a lot of discourse on depicting Mohammed in images, and thereby drawing an Idol of Mohammed. That is an issue that remains hot on debate in Islamic culture. I think the issue were the cartoons that showed Mohammed with a bomb or with a weapon, thereby perpetuating the violence in Islam culture stereotype. Rose also mentions that publishing the cartoons meant that they "were integrating you [Muslims] into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers".

Using what we did in the lecture, were the cartoons ethical or just in bad taste?

I think they were in awfully bad taste. I think they were published recklessly, and were insensitive considering the political climate. But were they unethical? It honestly depends. There are ethical codes, and according to Rose, these cartoons did. Their intentions were to create rhetoric about freedom of expression and religion. They achieved that, mentions Rose, but at a cost of offending not only a group of people but also an entire religion. In this sense, I believe they were an unethical publication. There was already-growing controversy regarding Islamists and the Muslim religion, and I think this just added fuel to the flame.